TIME Saving & Spending

Here’s Exactly How You Waste $1,700 Every Year

Money in jeans pocket
Image Source—Getty Images

If you do this, you might as well be lighting a pile of money on fire

Traffic congestion isn’t just a frustrating part of commuter life; it’s expensive. A new report finds that every household with a car-commuting member loses $1,700 a year in time and gas burned thanks to bumper-to-bumper traffic.

If you think that’s bad, it’s going to get worse: Researchers predict that annual cost will soar to $2,300 by 2030. Between now and then, the total tab adds up to $2.8 trillion.

The Centre for Economics and Business Research found that last year alone, wasted time and gas from sitting in traffic cost us $78 billion, and it warns that we’ll face greater congestion in the future because our population is growing and we’ll buy more cars, adding to the rush-hour standstill. (The study was commissioned by INRIX, a company that makes traffic-navigation software.)

Researchers say traffic jams also generate indirect costs. The group estimates that $45 billion worth of costs incurred by freight stuck in traffic gets passed along to consumers, and the carbon from the gas we burn has an annual cost of $300 million.

An expanding population and economy are the main culprits, says INRIX CEO and cofounder Bryan Mistele. More people and a higher GDP make car ownership more ubiquitous and more affordable.

And while you might think recent decreases in the price of gas might help, researchers say this actually hurts our traffic prospects in the long run: Cheaper gas means people are more willing to plunk down the money for a car and more likely to get behind the wheel, rather than considering alternatives like consolidating trips or carpooling. This, of course, means more vehicles clogging our roads at any given time.

According to the American Automobile Association, idling burns about a gallon of gas an hour even if you don’t go anywhere. So, what can the average commuter do?

Unfortunately, the answer for many right now is “not much.” Mistele suggests that in-car software or smartphone apps can help by giving drivers real-time congestion information and suggesting alternate routes. (That’s true, but sometimes even an alternate route will leave you staring at brake lights as the clock ticks.) Workarounds like alternative work hours are telecommuting can help, if you’re one of the lucky few who has that kind of job flexibility, but many of us don’t. Alternatives like public transportation, walking or biking will work for some, but will be inconvenient for anybody trying to haul a little league team or a warehouse club-sized package of paper towels across town.

Along with trying to consolidate trips and carpooling, the AAA recommends resisting the temptation to speed up as soon as there’s a bit of a break, then jamming on your brakes again a minute later. “It takes much more fuel to get a vehicle moving than it does to keep it moving,” the group advises, so try to keep a slow and steady pace if you can. Get the junk out of your trunk and remove unused third-row seating to lighten your load and improve your mileage.

TIME Careers & Workplace

10 Phrases SEAL Teams Simply Do Not Accept (Nor Should You)

179678302
MILpictures by Tom Weber—Getty Images

“Sorry I’m late”

This article originally appeared on Entrepreneur.com.

While the parallels between special operations and business closely mirror each other in some regards, there are also glaring differences. The most significant difference I’ve found in the year plus that I’ve been out of the military is what is considered acceptable and unacceptable in the workplace.

In a SEAL Team room, for instance, there are (legal) mementos collected from high-level missions, pictures from past training trips, and photos to memorialize fallen teammates. On the other hand, a corporate culture is not likely to hang the suit and tie of the CEO whose company you just acquired, nor will there be pictures memorializing past employees who worked at the company for six months.

Related: The 6 Words That Are Holding You Back

Of the social norms that differ between the two professions, nothing is more apparent than the definition of what “acceptablemeans. What is normal in the SEAL Teams, for instance, is typically considered abnormal elsewhere (go figure). Here’s a quick rundown of 10 sayings I did not hear in the Teams and the reasons why:

1. “I can’t do that.”

If somebody had said this in the team room then he would’ve found himself cold, wet and duct taped. Unless a physical handicap is present, replace your “can” or “can’t,” with “will” or “won’t.” There’s always a way. Find it.

2. “Sorry I’m late.”

You don’t hear this in a culture of accountability because expectations are set, and if they’re not met then there are repercussions. Not to say that expectations don’t change, but it’s not for a lack of effort in fulfilling them.

3. “I don’t know.”

While admitting uncertainty is perfectly fine, the statement alone leaves much to be desired. Instead, try saying “I don’t know yet, but I’ll find out and get back to you.” This latter part is what demonstrates a proactive mindset and a willingness to work, rather than leaving your ambition open to interpretation.

4. “I’m going to HR.”

Nobody cares. Unless the issue is illegal, immoral or unethical, solve the problem yourself. HR is there to facilitate company strategy, not arbitrate turf wars between employees.

5. “Schedule it with my EA.”

While not all SEAL Teams are created equally, there is an equal dispersion of accountability that team members are expected to uphold. Namely, if you take care of your personal business then your personal business will take care of you when it counts. Having unpacked (emotional) baggage only gets heavier the longer you carry it around.

Related: The 2 Words Entrepreneurs Should Avoid

6. “I’m sorry I hurt your feelings.”

Feelings? What’s that?

7. “Let’s talk this out.”

There is nothing like the camaraderie between SEALs. Nothing else even comes close to paralleling the tight bond, unity and cohesion found amongst men who live, eat, train and fight together. Having said that, some people just need a good whoopin’ once in a while to keep egos in check, and teammates are no different. Confronting difficult issues and learning from them is what turns mediocrity into greatness.

8. “Hold my calls.”

The train doesn’t stop for you. Get on or get off, but you are no more important than the guy (or gal) next to you. Once you’re done with your share of the task, see who else needs help.

9. “Let’s hold off on this issue until the next meeting.”

I’m all for collecting the facts, but nothing decides itself. There comes a point where too much data leads to analysis paralysis, and decision-making gets delayed until the elegant solution arrives — and it never does. Pushing off decision-making authority or accountability only leaves a larger snowball of complexity to have to deal with later.

10. “I just found this awesome PowerPoint template!”

Everybody’s “primary weapon” is different — carpenters use hammers, chefs use ingredients, announcers use their voice. Whatever your weapon of choice, make sure it’s always ready to go because second chances don’t come by too often.

What are you favorite office sayings?

TIME technology

FBI Director Implies Action Against Apple and Google Over Encryption

FBI Director James Comey testifies at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on "Oversight of the Federal Bureau of Investigation" on Capitol Hill in Washington
FBI Director James Comey testifies at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on "Oversight of the Federal Bureau of Investigation" on Capitol Hill in Washington May 21, 2014. Kevin Lamarque—Reuters

The law enforcement chief made it clear, however, that he was speaking only for his own agency and not others

FBI Director James B. Comey has expressed exasperation at the advanced data encryption technologies that companies like Apple and Google say they will offer their customers, and implied that the government might attempt regulations to ensure a way around them.

“Perhaps it’s time to suggest that the post-Snowden pendulum has swung too far in one direction — in a direction of fear and mistrust,” Comey told the Brookings Institution in a speech Thursday. Comey also spoke of the need for a “regulatory or legislative fix” to hold all communications companies to the same standard, “so that those of us in law enforcement, national security and public safety can continue to do the job you have entrusted us to do, in the way you would want us to.”

But in response to questions from reporters and Brookings experts, the FBI director made it clear that he was only talking on behalf of his own organization and thus could not speak for the NSA or other intelligence agencies, reports the New York Times.

This is not the first time that Comey has spoken out against Apple and Google’s move to give users complete control over data encryption, but the implications of legislative action against these companies is a step forward in government efforts to thwart it.

While Apple and Google have not commented on Comey’s latest remarks, technology companies have previously said that the move toward personal data encryption will not slow down, and will in fact probably be stepped up.

“I’d be fundamentally surprised if anybody takes the foot of the pedal of building encryption into their products,” Facebook’s general counsel Colin Stretch told the Times. He added that encryption was a “key business objective” for technology companies.

TIME Gadgets

See Apple’s Latest iPad Enhancements

The iPad Air 2 is the thinnest tablet around

Apple hosted another gadget unveiling Thursday, to much fanfare. The company’s new iPad is thinner and faster, and for the first time Apple is opening up its operating system to third party developers.

The iPad Air 2 and the iPad Mini will now be available in gold. iPad products will have improved screens, camera functions, and more storage space, and are thinner than ever before (the iPad Air 2 will be 18% thinner than the old iPad, making it the thinnest tablet around).

OS X Yosemite is also available to start downloading for free today. Here are all the highlights from Apple’s latest reveal.

TIME Companies

Here’s Why Netflix Can Shrug Off its Stock Plunge

US Online Streaming Giant Netflix : Illustration
In this photo illustration the Netflix logo is seen on September 19, 2014 in Paris, France. Netflix September 15 launched service in France, the first of six European countries planned in the coming months. Pascal Le Segretain—Getty Images

Netflix is hanging on tight to its core mission

It’s not every day that a brand-name stock loses a quarter of its value in a matter of minutes, as Netflix did after reporting its financial earnings Wednesday. It’s even rarer when executives respond as if it’s no big thing.

After Wednesday’s stock market close, Netflix reported a net profit that exceeded Wall Street’s expectations. So far so good. But Netflix’s success hinges on whether it can keep signing up new subscribers, and it’s here where the company came up short: The company added 3 million net subscribers around the world after publicly predicting it would add 3.7 million.

Investors read those numbers and started running for the hills. It took about 30 minutes for Netflix’s stock price to fall by more than $120 a share. After the plunge, the company was more philosophical than apologetic. “Our internal forecast . . . will be high some of the time and low other times,” CEO Reed Hastings shrugged in a letter to shareholders. Later, on a Google Hangout with select analysts, he was just as Zen-like, saying he expected to miss subscriber estimates “frequently.”

There are a few reasons why Hastings can get away with this attitude without investors calling for his head. Wednesday’s stock market was a tumultuous one in general, seeing the Dow close down 173 points after a 458-point drop at its worst. And amid lingering concerns that tech valuations in general were too high, many investors were ready to sell any stock on bad news.

On top of that, Netflix has long been a favorite of speculators, who have made it one of the most consistently volatile issues in the tech sector for the past decade. This has long been a headache for Hastings, who’s complained before about “momentum investor-fueled euphoria.” Such euphoria usually ends in nasty hangovers, like the 80% plunge in Netflix’s stock price after it raised prices in 2011. What Netflix is seeing today is another bender coming to an end, one Hastings predicted a year ago.

The main reason Netflix is shrugging off the current decline is that the company has always hewed, come what may, to a single strategy of finding a more efficient way to distribute video content. That tactic, which has always worked out in the long run, is the classic distrupt-the-incumbent model. And in the world of video content, no one has done this better, and more consistently, than Netflix.

The creation myth of Netflix says that Hastings founded the company after racking up $40 in video rental late fees. As DVDs emerged, Hastings started delivering them by mail, precipitating the slow but sure extinction of video-store giants like Blockbuster. As bandwidth improved, Netflix switched to an even more efficient way to deliver movies: by streaming them online. Today, 87% of Netflix revenue comes from streaming movies and TV shows. Netflix has effectively disrupted its own founding business model. Netflix wasted no time disrupting its founding business model, splitting off its DVD-by-mail business into an ill-fated venture called Qwikster. Today, Quikster is an unsightly footnote in the company’s history, and 87% of Netflix revenue comes from streaming movies and TV shows.

More recently, Netflix has begun to bump up against the cable companies that are so loathed by consumers by pushing more into TV programming, notably several of its own series. In a victory for cord-cutters, Time Warner said Wednesday it would offer HBO as a standalone online service starting next year. That will provide Netflix a strong competitor, but it’s likely to do more damage to the cable providers in the long run. In effect, HBO is hedging its future by adapting to the model Netflix pioneered. CBS followed suit Thursday with its own launch of an on-demand subscription service for its programs.

Now Netflix is moving into a new area by producing its own original films, reasoning that it’s often cheaper than entering into bidding wars for titles every several years. This is likely to work with “branded” films, like a sequel to Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon and a series of Adam Sandler vehicles (Netflix says data shows Sandler’s comedy translates well in global markets like Brazil and Germany — who knew?).
This latest move is angering movie theater chain owners, mostly because their own aged business model has turned into another unpleasant experience for consumers. Moviegoing often involves paying upward of $15 a ticket to endure a gauntlet of pre-film commercials and obscenely overpriced popcorn. Another recent technological development, the rise of affordable, high-def home entertainment systems, is making it easier to bypass that experience. And Netflix is now working to speed up the time it takes for new movies to reach home theaters.

All this is costing Netflix a lot of money. Streaming content obligations rose to $8.9 billion from $7.7 billion in the last three months alone. Netflix is warning that these obligations will weigh down cash flows for years. This is risky, because the new content costs may not translate into enough new subscribers. And that’s why investors freaked out about the low subscriber figures this quarter. Netflix keeps building more content, but what if subscribers don’t come?

Right now, Netflix is shrugging in the face of all this fretting. Investors also worried two years ago, when the company’s overseas operations were losing $400 million a year. This year, Netflix’ international subscriptions are close to breaking even. Most of all, the company has learned to ignore speculators and naysayers as it pursues its core strategy of finding better ways to bring quality video content to consumers. Producing movies may sound like a new and risky area to move into, but as Netflix sees it, it’s the same old business model that’s worked so well in the past.

TIME Media

The Cable-TV Bundle Is Finally Starting to Unravel

The logo of Home Box Office Inc. (HBO) is seen on the exhibit floor during the National Cable and Telecommunications Association (NCTA) Cable Show in Washington on June 11, 2013.
The logo of Home Box Office Inc. (HBO) is seen on the exhibit floor during the National Cable and Telecommunications Association (NCTA) Cable Show in Washington on June 11, 2013. Bloomberg/Getty Images

It's not a matter of if more channels will be sold a la carte, but when

It’s been a long time coming. For years, television viewers have griped about having to pay for a massive bundle of channels that they barely watch. In 2013, the average American TV household received 189 channels, but tuned into just 17 of them. A careful, decades-long dance between pay-TV providers and networks has ensured that, for the most part, you need a cable or satellite subscription to watch live TV.

Two back-to-back announcements this week could threaten this extremely lucrative business model. HBO, which has TV shows so valuable that people have actually been begging to pay for them, announced Wednesday it’s launching an online streaming service in 2015 that doesn’t require a cable subscription. If it’s like HBO Go, that means users will be able to stream all the network’s hit shows as they air on TV. CBS made a similar move Thursday by announcing CBS All Access, a new platform that will allow customers to access much of the channel’s past and present content online for $5.99 per month, including live broadcasts in 14 markets.

By making these channels available for purchase individually, CBS and HBO are embracing the “a la carte” TV model, in which viewers would be able to select the individual channels they want to pay for and ignore the rest. It’s a concept that makes intuitive sense in a world where songs, movies, books and news can be consumed individually, on the go and at little cost.

But the model poses a huge threat to cable operators, network owners and even subscribers. If every network did what CBS and HBO are doing, cable and satellite operators would have the core part of their businesses wiped out. Network owners, meanwhile, would have to convince millions of individual customers to buy their channels instead of negotiating with just a few large pay-TV companies. Greater price transparency would hurt most channels—just ask Netflix, which said a $1 price increase caused it to miss its subscriber growth projections in the most recent quarter. While a prestige channel like HBO could command a high price on its own, more niche channels would probably find it tough to turn a profit individually. Many of them would likely fold, according to one study, and the quality and quantity of content of available on TV might actually diminish.

For these reasons, we’re still not close to a world where consumers can buy any channels they want in any combination. The owners of basic cable channels in particular, which are widely distributed and generate revenue even from subscribers who never watch them, aren’t keen to disrupt the current model. And anything involving high-profile sports is likely to remain under tight lock and key—CBS’s streaming service, for instance, won’t play NFL games.

“It would be absolutely detrimental to their current business model,” Erik Brannon, an analyst at IHS Screen Digest, says of the full unbundling of cable channels. “I just don’t see them being willing to jeopardize future affiliate fee growth for a few bucks here and there on the Internet.”

Still, operators and networks are finally being forced to reckon with shifting consumer habits. The number of U.S. pay-TV subscribers declined for the first time ever in 2013. Meanwhile, the number of households that watch TV content solely through a broadband connection has doubled in recent years, according to Nielsen. These are mostly young adult viewers who will define the way TV content is consumed in the future.

“There’s a shift that’s going on in consumer behavior in viewing video,” says Brian Blau, an analyst at Gartner. “Consumers are slowly but surely moving away from watching linear television on cable. They’re starting to watch these TV shows and movies more on their mobile devices.”

In the near term, analysts say the networks most likely to mimic the HBO or CBS model are their most direct competitors. It’s easy to imagine Showtime offering an HBO Go-like service, Brannon says, or ABC live-streaming its programming for a monthly fee. And while the cable bundle isn’t going anywhere, it may go on a much-needed diet. A growing number of consumers are picking smaller cable packages, indicating they’re tired of paying for hundreds of channels they don’t watch. And new entrants in the pay-TV space like Dish Network are building their business models around offering smaller, cheaper bundles of channels.

What HBO and CBS are doing suggests the future of TV will be messier and more confusing and perhaps less entertaining than the so-called “golden era” we live in now. But consumers will have more choice of what they watch and how much they pay for it. “It’s not a matter of if” more channels will be sold individually, says Brannon, “but when, and for how much.”

TIME legal

Why U.S. Sanctions Mean Some Countries Don’t Get Any iPhones

Apple iPhone Technology Embargo Sanctions
An attendee displays the new Apple Inc. iPhone 6, left, and iPhone 6 Plus for a photograph after a product announcement at Flint Center in Cupertino, California, U.S., on Tuesday, Sept. 9, 2014. Bloomberg via Getty Images

A sanction a day keeps Apple away

Some 36 additional countries will receive shipments of Apple’s iPhone 6 this month, with over 115 countries on track to get the big-screen smartphones by the end of the year. But a handful of countries won’t be receiving any Apple products at all.

Among the Apple-less countries are Syria, North Korea, Sudan and Cuba, which face trade sanctions from the United States. That means the “exportation, reexportation, sale or supply” of any Apple goods from the U.S. or an American anywhere is prohibited in those countries, according to Apple’s global trade compliance. Add to those Apple-less countries several African and Middle Eastern nations, among other countries, which Apple’s sales locator indicates have neither Apple Stores nor authorized Apple product resellers.

Apple did not respond for comment on whether authorized distribution channels exist in countries that aren’t sanctioned by the U.S. but still present a difficult business climate, like Ethiopia, Afghanistan and Yemen. Technology and trade experts were reluctant to speculate why Apple may not penetrate these markets, but some pointed to a lack of demand or infrastructure.

In the map below, Apple-less countries appear unshaded:

The world recently bore witness to what happened when China, not subject to U.S. sanctions, was deprived of the iPhone 6’s initial release: a gray market exploded while rumors swirled that the “Chinese mafia” was storming Apple Stores around the world to collect iPhones for resell to high-income buyers.

That same grey market boom is happening in countries that do face U.S. sanctions, though for different reasons. While Chinese buyers were simply unwilling to wait for the iPhone 6’s official release in their home country, high-income buyers in sanctioned states are creating demand for a product that will likely never be sold in their country. That demand is being met by unofficial providers like the “Apple Syria Store” and “Tehran Apple Store,” two unofficial Apple distribution channels in the Middle East, for example.

A lack of iPhones in some countries, however, is only a problem for those countries’ wealthiest residents. Indeed, the iPhone craze overshadows a higher-stake battle: Access to less-hyped but important American technology in countries where such technology continues to be restricted.

The U.S. has put in place sanctions against Syria, North Korea, Sudan, Cuba and Iran to discourage those countries from abusing human rights, sponsoring terrorism or launching nuclear programs. While the sanctions were largely intended as economic embargoes, they also disrupted the free flow of information by severely limiting residents’ access to communication technology, advocates say. That technology includes not only electronics like Apple’s iPhone, but also American software and websites like Apple’s App Store, Adobe Flash, Yahoo e-mail and educational platforms like Khan Academy and Coursera. In many sanctioned countries, attempts to access those sites result in a “blocked” page. In certain countries it’s also prohibited to update whatever American software is available, leaving in place security vulnerabilities in countries where surveillance and censorship are commonplace.

“It’s still a fairly new issue, because it wasn’t really until the Arab Spring that people started to realize communication technology as a tools of free expression,” said Danielle Kehl, a tech policy analyst at the New America Foundation’s Open Technology Institute.

Observers first began to note the impact of U.S. sanctions on communication technology during Iran’s Green Movement in 2009, when protesters demanding the president’s removal used the Internet as an activist tool, according to independent tech policy researcher Collin Anderson. Within years, activists won over U.S. officials, who exempted certain technologies from American sanctions on Iran to empower protestors. That hasn’t yet been replicated in other sanctioned countries.

Anderson also said that pressure from the Iranian diaspora contributed to a decision by U.S. officials to issue a sanction exemption that allowed the export or re-export of “certain services, software, and hardware incident to personal communications” to Iranians. Apple then “quietly updated its compliance policy” to match the change, Anderson said.

“Apple is in an under-appreciated way one of the most responsive adopters of U.S. policies [that lift sanctions on technology],” said Anderson.

Apple had some market incentive to comply quickly with the change. Most of these sanctioned countries have significant amounts of mobile phone subscribers buying devices purchased from non-U.S. countries or companies, according to Anderson and data from the International Telecommunications Union.

Despite all those potential customers for Apple and other tech firms, tech policy analysts agreed the onus is on U.S. officials to invoke change. But that Apple and several other companies chose to engage with complex, high-risk sanctions in Iran shows that when the policies change, companies tend follow suit.

Still, Kehl said the other, risk-averse option for companies is to “over-comply” with Iranian sanctions, or to treat the laws as if they were complete embargoes in order to reduce their liability. That’s what happened in 2009 when LinkedIn blocked Syrian accounts and when Google blocked its code.google.com developer’s tool in Sudan.

Even Apple appeared to over-comply in 2012 when a Apple Store employee in Alpharetta, Georgia refused to sell an iPad to Iranian-American woman after he heard the woman speaking Persian, according to Jamal Abdi, policy director at the National Iranian American Council. “If [Apple] had reason to believe you were going to take an Apple product to Iran, or if you were going to resell it, [Apple] had to take action to stop people,” explained Abdi, who slammed the practice as discriminatory in a New York Times op-ed. The woman later received an apology from an Apple customer service employee, as NPR noted at the time.

The greatest pressure for change, however, is coming from within the sanctioned countries. Iranian bloggers have discussed banned technologies at risking of criminal charges, Sudanese computer science students have demanded more educational tools, and Syrians have called for U.S. imports of basic technological needs. Several non-profits have reported that sanctioning U.S. technology is highly detrimental to affected countries’ growth, while Abdi added that sanctions have prevented the electronic delivery of humanitarian aid or day-to-day monetary transactions because many banks are affected.

Still, tech companies have in recent years shown more willingness to engage government officials on matter of policy, particularly after former NSA contractor Edward Snowden’s surveillance leaks. Twitter sued the U.S. Justice Department earlier this month to disclose government requests for user data, while popular websites like Netflix, Mozilla and Reddit joined an online protest against the Federal Communications Commission’s proposed rules they said could divide the Internet into “fast lanes” and “slow lanes.” In the most visible tech-backed activism to date, Wikipedia and Reddit “blacked out” their webpages and Google censored its logo to protest the Stop Online Piracy Act, which was later shelved by its author.

Analysts are not expecting Apple to be at the forefront of the battle to lift U.S. sanctions. But as several organizations and advocates pressed for changes to American trade policy towards Iran, it would be hard to believe they would turn away Apple’s support.

“[Apple] is very quiet about these things—like either Apple is the best, or maybe the worst. But it seems like it’s the best,” Anderson said. “[Apple's] recognition of [the policy changes regarding Iran] was the first moral victory for everyone who had worked so hard on this.”

MONEY Millennials

The Conventional Money Wisdom That Millennials Should Ignore

millennials looking at map on road
John Burcham—Getty Images/National Geographic

Maybe a 401(k) loaded with stocks isn't the best savings tool for some young people.

If you are in your 20s or early 30s, and you ask around for retirement advice, you will hear two things:

1. Put as much as you possibly can, as soon as you can, into a 401(k) or Individual Retirement Account.

2. Put nearly all of it into equities.

There’s a lot of common sense to this. Saving early means you can take maximum advantage of the compounding of interest. And your youth makes it easier for you to bear the added risk of equities.

But life is more complicated than these simple intuitions suggest. Here’s a troubling data point: According to a Fidelity survey of 401(k) plan participants, 44% of job changers in their 20s cashed out all or part of their money, despite being hit with taxes and penalties. Switchers in their 30s were only a bit more conservative, with 38% cashing out.

You really don’t want to do this. But let’s get beyond the usual scolding. The reality that so many people are cashing out is also telling us something. Maybe a 401(k) loaded with stocks isn’t the best savings tool for some young people.

The conventional 401(k) advice—which is enshrined in the popular “target-date” mutual funds that put 90% of young savers’ portfolios in stocks—imagines twentysomethings as the ideal buy-and-hold investors, as close as individuals can get to something like the famous, swashbuckling Yale University endowment fund. Young people have very long time horizons and no need to sell holdings for current income, the thinking goes, so why not accept the possibility of some (violently) bad years in order to stretch for higher return? But on a moment’s reflection on what life is actually like in your 20s, you see that many young people are already navigating a fair amount of economic risk.

Take career risk. On the plus side, when you’re young you have more years of earnings ahead of you than behind you, and that’s a valuable asset to have. Then again, you also face a lot of uncertainty about how big those earnings will be. If you are just gaining a foothold in your career, getting laid off or fired from your current job might be a short-term paycheck interruption—or it could be the reversal that sets you on a permanently lower-earning track. You may also be financially vulnerable if you still have high-interest debts to settle, a new mortgage that hasn’t had time to build up equity, or low cash reserves to get your through a bad spell.

This is why Micheal Kitces, a financial planner at Pinnacle Advisory Group in Columbia, Md., tells me he doesn’t encourage people in their 20s to focus on building their investment portfolio. You almost never hear that kind of thing from a planner, so let me clarify that he’s not saying you should spend to your heart’s content. (Kitces is in fact a bit stern on one point: He thinks many young professionals spend too much on housing.) He’s talking about priorities. For one thing, you need to build up that boring cash cushion. Without it, you are more likely to be one of those people who has to cash out the 401(k) after a job change.

Even before that’s done, you’ll still want to aim to put enough in a 401(k) to max out the matching contributions from your employer, if that’s on the table. (Typically, that’s 6% of salary.) So maybe all or most of that goes in stocks? An attention-getting new brief from the investment strategists Research Affiliates argues “no”—that instead of putting new savers into a 90%-equities target date fund, 401(k) plans should get people going with lower-risk “starter portfolios.”

I’m not sold on all of RA’s argument, which drives toward a proposal that 401(k)s should include unusual funds like the ones RA happens to help manage. But CEO Rob Arnott and his coauthor Lilian Wu offer a lot to chew on. They make two big points about young people and risk. One’s just intuitive: If you have little experience as an investor and quickly get your hat handed to you in a bear market, you could be so scarred from the experience that you get out of stocks and never come back. At least until the next bull market makes it irresistible.

The other is that 401(k) plan designers should accept the fact—all the advice and penalties notwithstanding—that many young people do cash them out like rainy-day funds when they lose their jobs. And so the starter funds should have a bigger cushion of lower-risk assets. That’s especially important given that recessions and layoffs often come after big market drops, so the people cashing out may well be selling stocks at exactly the wrong moment, and from severely depleted portfolios.

RA thinks a portfolio for new savers should be made up of just one third “mainstream” stocks, with another third in traditional bonds and the last third in what it calls “diversifying inflation hedges.” That last bit could include inflation protected Treasuries (or TIPS), but also junk bonds, emerging markets investments, real estate, and low-volatility stocks. Whatever the virtues of those investments, it seems to me that a starter portfolio should be easy to explain to a starting investor. “Diversifying inflation hedges” doesn’t sound like that.

But the insight that new investors might not be immediately prepared for full-tilt equity-market risk is valuable. Many 401(k) plans automatically default young savers into stock-heavy target date funds, but they could just as easily start with a more-traditional balanced fund, which holds a steady 60% in stocks and 40% in bonds. Perhaps higher risk strategies should be left as a conscious choice, for people who not only have a lot of time, but also a bit more market knowledge and a stable financial picture outside of their 401(k).

The trouble is, most 401(k) plans don’t know much about an individual saver besides their age. The 401(k) is a blunt, flawed tool, and just putting different kinds of mutual funds inside of it isn’t going to solve all of the difficulties people run into when trying to save for the future. Arnott and Wu’s proposal doesn’t do anything about the fact that using a 401(k) for rainy days means paying steep penalties. And it doesn’t help people build up the cash reserves outside their retirement plans that they’d need to avoid that.

As boomers head into retirement, we’ve all become very aware of the importance of getting people to prepare for life after 65. But millennials also need better ideas to help get them safely (financially speaking) to 35.

TIME Food & Drink

Pizza Hut Korea’s Star-Shaped, Surf-and-Turf-Topped, Dessert-Stuffed-Crust Pizza Is Simply Too Much

Answering the age-old question: How much is too much?

There is such a thing as too much. And Pizza Hut Korea’s $32 “Star Edge Pizza” doesn’t just toe the line of excess, it slip-and-slides across it on the flavored cream cheese filling stuffed inside its crust.

The surf-and-turf pie is topped with shrimp, calamari, bacon, steak and sausage, but its turnover crust is comes jam-packed with either cranberry or cinnamon apple nut and cream cheese filling.

Why would they do such a thing? This actor in the Star Edge Pizza’s bizarre ad seems to have a pretty solid answer:

Pizza Hut Korea
TIME Markets

European Stocks Tumble as Market Rollercoaster Ride Continues

Dow Jones Industrial Average Drops Over 200 Points
An information board on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange shows stocks dropping on Oct. 1, 2014 in New York City. Andrew Burton—Getty Images

‘Dead-cat bounce’ fails to hold, despite better-than-expected data from China

European stock markets turned lower again after a bright opening, as the prospect of deflation in the Eurozone returned to center stage.

Consumer prices rose only 0.3% in the year to September, Eurostat said, reinforcing fears that neither the European Central Bank nor Eurozone governments are doing enough to stop the 18-country currency union from falling into a deflationary spiral.

The figures instantly wiped out the gains of a “dead-cat bounce” at the market opening, which followed the general rout on Wall Street Wednesday.

U.S. stocks were down sharply again Thursday morning, but were lately working off their early losses.

In what was a roller-coaster ride for the U.S. markets on Wednesday, the Dow Jones index fell over 300 points at the open, and then recovered, only to dip about 460 points at one point in afternoon trading, finally closing down more than 173 points, or 1.1%.

By mid-morning in Europe, the U.K.’s FTSE 100 and Germany’s DAX were both down 2.0%, while yields on ‘safe haven’ government bonds such as Germany plummeted to new all-time lows. Oil prices also stayed close to three-year lows at just over $80 a barrel.

Data out of China earlier had given a modest degree of encouragement, suggesting that the world’s second-largest economy isn’t about to fall off a cliff. But it didn’t take long for fear to reassert itself at the expense of greed.

Analysts at Bank 0f America Merrill Lynch said in a note to clients that the markets have started to price in another recession and/or “a financial event” such as the collapse of a major market player. They said that markets were only likely to stop panicking “when policymakers start panicking.”

The day had started with the modest hope that there could be some progress in de-escalating the Ukraine crisis when Russian President Vladimir Putin meets his Ukrainian counterpart Petro Poroshenko at a summit meeting in Milan, Italy later in the day. Putin is also due to meet German Chancellor Angela Merkel and other European leaders there.

In a sign that investors may be starting again to bet on the Eurozone breaking up, bond yields have risen far more sharply in those countries where the combination of high debt and low growth is most acute–particularly Greece (and, to a lesser extent, Portugal and Italy).

Greece’s 10-year borrowing costs have risen by a shocking 2.43 percentage points since the end of last week, as markets signal they’ll refuse to finance a government that wants to dispense with the safety net of Eurozone and International Monetary Fund funding.

The tone in Asian markets earlier Thursday had been equally rough, with the Japanese Nikkei falling over 2% to a six-month low in the pull of Wall Street. Tokyo’s mood was still clouded by data on Wednesday showing that industrial output had fallen nearly 2% in August, adding to fears that a big rise in the country’s sales tax in May had after all been too much for the economy to withstand.

However, figures from China later underlined that the economy is only slowing moderately, rather than facing a “hard landing”.

Figures released by the People’s Bank of China showed that new loans by the official banking sector rose to 857 billion yuan ($140 billion) from 702 billion yuan in August, comfortably beating consensus forecasts of 750 billion.

However, there was no euphoria, as other elements of the PBoC’s figures were less reassuring. Foreign reserves fell, suggesting that capital has been leaving the country amid falling investment by foreign companies.

Moreover, aggregate financing–a measure of lending that takes in the vast ‘shadow banking’ system which has more exposure the country’s shaky real estate sector–stayed at historically low levels. Analysts at ANZ said that, overall, the figures suggest “shadow banking activities have been diminishing amid property weakness, and the genuine demand for credits still remains soft.”

This article originally appeared on Fortune.com

Your browser, Internet Explorer 8 or below, is out of date. It has known security flaws and may not display all features of this and other websites.

Learn how to update your browser