stanolshefski

stanolshefski t1_jaefu2d wrote

Reply to comment by HereForTheNerves in My Roth IRA is 100% invested into VTSAX. Is it an issue to keep investing in VTSAX each year? by dennisj9

It's not important per se in these types of highly diversifed funds.

When the funds overlap, you're not changing diversification -- you're changing asset allocations.

I use Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund (VTSAX) along with Vanguard Small-Cap Index Fund (VSMAX) to get more mid-cap and small-cap exposure. My investment plan calls for taking more risk (and hopefully returns) by increasing my exposure to mid-cap and small-cap stocks.

However, all of the stocks in VSMAX (1,486 stocks) are in VTSAX (3,969 stocks).

4

stanolshefski t1_jac6lb4 wrote

Reply to comment by Craft_feisty in My Roth IRA is 100% invested into VTSAX. Is it an issue to keep investing in VTSAX each year? by dennisj9

A representative sample of the investable U.S. stock market. It doesn’t contain all small-caps or micro-caps, and some stocks can be determined to not be investable (for example, Berkshire Hathaway was considered to be not investable by most funds before the B share class was created).

To be precise, the fund owns stock in 3,969 companies.

5

stanolshefski t1_ja2k5l2 wrote

Reply to comment by tornpentacle in For marginal occupations licensed by U.S. states, the welfare costs of licensing exceeds the benefits, as workers have to expend resources to obtain the license and consumers pay higher prices. [The study looks at professions that require license in some states but not others]. by smurfyjenkins

That may be true for some (maybe even most) professions. For others, licensing was created by existing members of the profession to protect their jobs/wages. Maintaining a high barrier to entry, or a system where others work an extended period of time a no wages or significantly-reduced wages, keeps incomes up for the licensed group of people.

1

stanolshefski t1_ja2jp35 wrote

Reply to comment by chudney31 in For marginal occupations licensed by U.S. states, the welfare costs of licensing exceeds the benefits, as workers have to expend resources to obtain the license and consumers pay higher prices. [The study looks at professions that require license in some states but not others]. by smurfyjenkins

Should we license florists? They’re licensed in some states.

Who benefits from licensed florists?

0

stanolshefski t1_j9yep1o wrote

Reply to comment by dcheesi in For marginal occupations licensed by U.S. states, the welfare costs of licensing exceeds the benefits, as workers have to expend resources to obtain the license and consumers pay higher prices. [The study looks at professions that require license in some states but not others]. by smurfyjenkins

That’s a fair argument for streamlining the required training.

It’s been a while since I read the studies, but in every state that licenses barbers and cosmetologists, the safety aspects of training typically took up between 5-15% of the required training.

Instead of 1000-2000 hours of training at a typical cost of $15k-20k, you could probably do it in a few weeks for a couple hundred dollars.

Many states required you to spend more time being trained on how to market your trade than they required for safety.

9