Its funny what we consider "employment" and what we consider important "statistics".
I stopped my "full time career employment" at age 51. I spent the next 7 years caring for my elderly mom. I went from a well paying 8 hour job to a non-paying 24 hour job. Since this new job paid nothing and provided no resources it required many long nights of research to identify resources and funds for my mom's care. Over these eight years, I managed both my mom's diminishing health and her dwindling net worth.
Most of my other seven siblings were too busy with their employed lives to help much when it came to this non-paying family care position. As alone as I was, I am not the only one who has taken on this type of non-paying work.
From young Moms and Dads who stay at home to care for their children to middle aged adults taking care of their elderly parents, many working age Americans choose to work outside of the workforce, often for their entire working life.
My mom raised 8 Kids; never took a day off in her life, but also never had an "employment record". When my dad passed, at age 54, she received nothing more than a survivor's benefit. At age 88, adjusted for inflation, her survivor benefit was a meager $800/month.
For me, working until 65 would have made a huge difference in my retirement savings, but I am not sure I could have lived with that decision. I chose to care for my mom because she chose to care for the eight of us.
These articles focus on workplace employment statistics, yet ignore the very important non-paying and non-workplace work many of us chose to do for our loved ones and how these hard choices impact the workplace.

Kyrie Irving has been a Vegan since 2017 and playing pro Basketball at All Star level.
I knew some vegetarian families that for 1000s of years only ever had milk and yogurt for animal products.
I was a vegetarian for more than 40% of the years of my life. After that I ate everything available, including snakes. Now I am down to fish and egg whites. Though no eggs for the last one month because of shortage and I do not miss them. There are other vegetarians in this forum.
I can not imagine there is a standard diet that is a fit for every individual.

I've maintained exposure to international equities for many years.
MIEIX (CIT clone) is my core foreign fund which I've owned for years
while ARDBX is an auxiliary fund owned for under a year.
International equity funds have underperformed domestic equity funds for an unusually long period.
Perhaps reversion to the mean will occur between these two asset classes sometime in the near future?

my old roommate invests in 2 country based international funds. Israel and Poland. he's sworn to me for over 15 years I need to do so as well. Its basiclly matched a international index.
I personally use AVDE and AVEM from Avantis since 2021. That replaced DFIVX which I owned for 5-6 years previously in my 401k.

Lest my passing comment about eggs be misconstrued: I abandoned the standard American Diet (SAD) quite a number of years ago. I consume no animal products, processed foods, no chemical additives and try to limit sugar and oil consumption to strict minima. Eggs, therefore, do not have a place in my diet. Nor does bacon, the other hot-button grocery product mentioned frequently during the last presidential election campaign. It appears to be one of the worst foods one can consume. The most influential sources that pushed my wife and me towards this diet are The China Study by Campbell and Campbell, and two books by Michael Gregor: How Not to Die and How Not to Age. According to a workshop presentor I heard just recently, Dr. Gregor’s next book will consider how not to get cancer. In a nutshell, we follow a Whole Foods Plant Based (WFPB) diet. I try to respect others’ choices, fully aware as I am that challlenging others’ perceptions of what constitutes a healthy diet may instigate a food fight. The science behind the Campbells’ and Gregor’s work appears sound to me; however my academic training and professional work are not in science. My cholesterol level has dropped to 103 from about 135 20 years ago, but there are practitioners in the dietary field who say that 100 and below is the right target.

I can accept buying as an idea but would keep somewhat tight stops so one does not get called on their bluff or bluff on bluffs. Part of my friction is that I can wager on risks but I can not wager on uncertainties. We are in a perfect environment for nimble traders, which is a very small percentage of market place participants.
(As to timing sales, that is a difficult art even for the pros like Stan Druckenmiller. Over the years, I have sought and not received good sell strategies. There was an academic paper on this and it concluded that monkeys fared better than professional investors in timing when to sell. (This is not an issue for nimble traders.))

Each to their own, of course .... as for me, I don't do stops unless it's for a specific situation/concern. Too easy to get whipsawed out of positions due to volatility in today's 'modern' markets ... I learned that a long time ago when actively trading futures.

I too no longer do resting stops. I totally agree about whipsaws from stops. Too many times it just felt like someone had access to my stop limit information and grabbed my resting stop order. But I have mental stops and do not let my greed and fear override it and I exit whenever I see the price is below my mental stop. Obviously, when I am adding to my long term holdings, stops or violating stops is not a big concern.

In the Off-Topic section @Mark has posted "Voters Were Right About the Economy. The Data Was Wrong", a non-political economic report which I believe to be absolutely accurate, and of major significance. It describes how the government information on the major facets of American economic life fails miserably to accurately reflect reality.
I strongly recommend that anyone interested check out Mark's posting.

I can accept buying as an idea but would keep somewhat tight stops so one does not get called on their bluff or bluff on bluffs. Part of my friction is that I can wager on risks but I can not wager on uncertainties. We are in a perfect environment for nimble traders, which is a very small percentage of market place participants.
(As to timing sales, that is a difficult art even for the pros like Stan Druckenmiller. Over the years, I have sought and not received good sell strategies. There was an academic paper on this and it concluded that monkeys fared better than professional investors in timing when to sell. (This is not an issue for nimble traders.))

Each to their own, of course .... as for me, I don't do stops unless it's for a specific situation/concern. Too easy to get whipsawed out of positions due to volatility in today's 'modern' markets ... I learned that a long time ago when actively trading futures.

@Junkster,
Appreciate you visiting and posting in this forum.
@rforno,
I have given much thought to your question. US default (even a tactical default) does not rank in the top 10 problems that would precede why our investments (other than US treasuries) might take a hit. I think Junkster gave a good lead. He always does.

Oh I would not be selling stocks in such a scenario -- if they swoon in sympathy, I would be buying.

I can accept buying as an idea but would keep somewhat tight stops so one does not get called on their bluff or bluff on bluffs. Part of my friction is that I can wager on risks but I can not wager on uncertainties. We are in a perfect environment for nimble traders, which is a very small percentage of market place participants.
(As to timing sales, that is a difficult art even for the pros like Stan Druckenmiller. Over the years, I have sought and not received good sell strategies. There was an academic paper on this and it concluded that monkeys fared better than professional investors in timing when to sell. (This is not an issue for nimble traders.))

”We've heard over and over, do not let the political environment sway your investing decisions.”
@Crash - That’s probably great advice for 80-90% of investors - mostly younger and employed - who research shows are usually better off letting it ride. I’d still give that advice to a 25 year old just starting out with maybe 40 years to retirement.
But take a look at the “Buy Sell” thread. ”Set-it- and-forget-it” ? Huh? ISTM most who frequent financial forums like this one do alter their investments quite a bit year-to-year. So, of course, political climate affects their decision making and is worth discussing.

Right. Dare I assert that most of us here are NOT spring chickens anymore? I'm having repeat surgery coming up in March.... As Leonard Cohen said: "I ache in the places where I used to play." (Tower Of Song.)
**********
Skip right to 0:20. (LOUD start!)
Crescent Street mural, Montreal:

”We've heard over and over, do not let the political environment sway your investing decisions.”
@Crash - That’s probably great advice for 80-90% of investors - mostly younger and employed - who research shows are usually better off letting it ride. I’d still give that advice to a 25 year old just starting out with maybe 40 years to retirement.
But take a look at the “Buy Sell” thread. ”Set-it- and-forget-it” ? Huh? Not to pick on the thread … but ISTM most who frequent financial forums like this one do alter their investments quite a bit year-to-year. So, of course, political climate affects their decision making along with a myriad of other considerations / assessments and may be worth discussion.

I agree with @msf (different thread) that ”Many people find government pronouncements and actions relevant to investing.”
- There’s a thread along that line offered up by @Soupkitchen January 28 in the OT section - mostly buried now by the avalanche of anti-Trump posts & comments. Worth a second look. Where America is Heading and your Investments.
Like everyone else I’m looking for clues. From the two financial blogs / newsletters I subscribe to, here’s what I’ve gleaned …
- On February 3 Bill Fleckenstein wrote: ”Lastly, on the subject of Trump tape bombs, while we should expect them to be a feature of his term, they may become less frequent, and we may get a better handle on what they individually mean. Even so, I think they mandate carrying a little bit more cash or being slightly less aggressive than one might ordinarily be because they can literally come out of nowhere and gaming whether Trump is serious or not will be hard to do in real time.” https://www.fleckensteincapital.com/dailyrap.aspx?rapdate=02-03-2025
- James Stack (InvestTech) actually raised his recommended “Net-Long” market exposure a few percentage points from around 55% to 58% about the time Trump took office (but didn’t connect the two). Stack has been extremely cautious for a couple years. The remainder, he advises, should be in T-Bills or money market funds. https://www.investech.com/
- And Barron’s this week features several Trump related articles - not all complementary. One, titled ”11 Tariff-Proof Dividend Stocks”, mentions consumer staples, financials and energy as among the better plays on that theme. Another article, ”The Markets Trust Trump. How to Trade It”, focuses on options plays. A third article notes that there has been a sharp uptick in very wealthy investors moving wealth abroad, some out of fear of a weaker dollar, but in some cases from fear of retribution by the party they opposed.
It should go without saying that other investment ideas / suggestions are appreciated. Nobody really knows at this point. But risk is inherent in most investing. If it were safe or easy the rewards would be small.

Vanguard (at least for a couple of years) self-clear through their subsidiaries.
2009 actually. I know - it seems like only yesterday :-)
FWIW, here are a couple of lists of brokerages and their clearing houses. Large brokerages generally self-clear.
https://www.brokerage-review.com/discount-broker/brokerage-houses-clearing-firms.aspx
https://moneywise.com/investing/broker-clearing-firms
They [Vanguard] have to be among the most customer unfriendly fund families out there.
I try to distinguish between customer unfriendly brokerages (for which Vanguard seems to qualify) and customer unfriendly fund families.
Some people consider Vanguard funds to be unfriendly because they close funds with no advance warning, they have stringent frequent trading rules, they enforce min balance requirements on share classes. They don't pay for shelf space. All of those are designed to improve fund performance.
Those are friendly policies for this investor (he says, referring to himself in the third person). YMMV.

TIAA doesn't self-clear, but does that through Pershing/BK, so that causes some delays in order processing and fund transfers. You have to deal with the rules of both TIAA and Pershing.
Fido, Schwab and Vanguard (at least for a couple of years) self-clear through their subsidiaries.

You are getting great advices here. Please consider moving you accounts to other reputable brokerages, and Wells Fargo is not a good firm to work with.
My parents were in your position many years ago. I helped them to move to Fidelity brokerage. Basically we walked into a Fidelity office and had the asset transferred in-kind to minimize capital gain (as @yogibb stated above). It was quite a straightforward process and you need to have the latest statement ready. We (and several siblings) then managed their account ourselves and saved them from the hefty fees previously paid. Looking back, Fidelity did all the heavy lifting in asset

I agree with all of the comments that have been made here. Thanks.
As it happens the accounts (all 4 of them) moved to self-directed within the last few hours.
fyi, it is Wells Fargo Advisors. they have always been very friendly and helpful for years -- until this. The ironic thing is that the #1 reason I still had accounts there was out of a sense of loyalty.
Anyway, I guess I'm feeling liberated. End of an era.

So you moved to WellsTrade?

I agree with all of the comments that have been made here. Thanks.
As it happens the accounts (all 4 of them) moved to self-directed within the last few hours.
fyi, it is Wells Fargo Advisors. they have always been very friendly and helpful for years -- until this. The ironic thing is that the #1 reason I still had accounts there was out of a sense of loyalty.
Anyway, I guess I'm feeling liberated. End of an era.

Oh dear, did someone trigger FD1000 today?

Just addressing Trigger. All things that cause one to lose their mind can make them to act similarly. For example, fans of a team that wins a championship riot (burning cars, breaking windows, etc.). A group that feels aggrieved by society also riot. Very different reasons (triggers) but to our eye the result is the same.
Something that Trump did or said recently may have made them giddy. It is like a steroid (or fentanyl, depending on one’s disposition) shot to them. So, his fans can behave the same way they behaved the day after election intermittently throughout the next four years. Reasons can be varied when you have a “Coalition of Single Issue” voters.
One can ignore entirely or go through the trash can trying to figure out what is what.

Maybe it's time to move to another brokerage? Some Brokerages will do most of the work for you & possible give you a bonus $$$

+1 if my only remaining full service broker pulled that on me or gave me that attitude (and like you, I don't trade it very often) my account would be moved that week. As it is, I only have a few more years to stay with that firm, but after that (or my guy retires) I have no qualms transferring out ... paying ~$200 per occasional trade nauseates me no end but for family reasons, I keep the account there.
The only way to make a point with a fullservice broker (or any broker) is to move your account and hit the broker by reducing his AUM 'book' --- I'm sure they'll contact you to ask why you're leaving and perhaps try to sweeten an offer to get you to stay. lol

Can someone explain the dynamics of this to me?
My family has had the same brokerage accounts since at least the early 1960s.The company names have changed and changed again, but the offices have stayed the same. The first one I remember was Thompson-Mckinnon.
We have never traded a lot, and therefore didn't generate a whole bunch of commissions, but I was willing to pay a couple hundred dollars every now and then, both for the personal assistance and out of a sense of loyalty. Our longtime broker passed away a few years ago, but things still continued apace.
Recently, an order got put through a little bit wrong, and when I asked them to correct it, they did so, but were sure to let me know that it was costing them money, and I sensed some frustration on their part.
In the same conversation the broker told me they were advisors and people paid them for advice, but since I made my own decisions, I should move all of the accounts to the self-directed system. So that's what I'm doing (although it is taking forever to happen).
In a recent conversation, the broker said that I was holding full service accounts, but that I was "unwilling to pay them".
That kind of hurts my feelings. We have been good clients for over half of a century. They've made at least some money consistently over that time, and they would continue, but as I said, we're not big traders, and the commissions would continue to be few and far between. btw, by middle class standards, the accounts are fairly large.
Essentially, they don't want me anymore. This makes no sense to me, but That's what we're going with.
Does this make any sense to you? Does this fit a recent pattern in the industry? I guess things change, but this seems weird to me.