Yes, it's just supposed to keep us even-steven. But I can choose NOT to spend that 6.2% and INVEST it! Yaba daba doo.

Which means that the value of the remaining portion of your SS check, i.e. what you're spending, is 6.2% less than last year.
(Technically 1 - 1/(1.062) = 5.8% less, but that's a distraction.)
If inflation were 0%, you could do the same thing: spend 6.2% less and invest that 6.2%.
If inflation were 10%, you could do the same thing: spend 6.2% less and invest that 6.2%.
The nominal increase is objectively meaningless, with some exceptions such as its interplay with the SS hold harmless provision.
https://blog.ssa.gov/how-the-hold-harmless-provision-protects-your-benefits/

Here's the relevant data presented in the opinion column:
"consumer prices rose a lot less in July than they did in June."
At least that's two data points (July and June inflation figures) as opposed to the single data point that the Senior Citizens League seems to have used. Though hard numbers, even just those two, would have been informative.
In addition, since COLA is calculated using the consumer price "shadows", it really doesn't matter for the purpose of projecting COLA what the shadows represent. All that matters is how the shadows are flickering along the wall.
For a 3% COLA, the consumer price shadows (CPI-W) observed in August and September will have to average 3.8% lower than in July. That is, the CPI-W figure for July is 267.789, and the August and September values will have to average 257.628 (3.8% lower).
It's a simple calculation:
Avg CPI-W = (Aug 2021 + Sept 2021)/2 = [(July 2020 + Aug 2020 + Sept 2020) x 1.03 - July 2021]/2
https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/cpiw.html

Not to be too much of a wet blanket here, but the point of the COLA adjustment is for SS payments to keep pace with inflation, not to put recipients in a better position. Large adjustment, small adjustment, doesn't matter; the adjustment in real dollars is supposed to be virtually zero.
Higher COLA comes from higher inflation. That makes the real yield on fixed income securities even more negative. IMHO this is not a good thing.
[The Fed seems to be looking more at the economy (including delta strain) than inflation in determining when to begin reducing (tapering) the $120B/mo in bonds it is buying (QE).]
Regarding the 6.2% COLA estimate, consider the source. The Senior Citizens League. Last month, its estimate was at the high end of projections.

Estimates for the 2022 COLA range[d] from 4.5 percent from Moody's Analytics to 6.1 percent from The Senior Citizens League. Economist Bill McBride, who writes the finance and economics blog Calculated Risk, estimate[d] the 2022 COLA at 5.5 percent.

https://states.aarp.org/west-virginia/2022-social-security-cost-of-living-adjustment-could-be-5-percent
It looks like the SCL made the most naive estimate possible: it seems to have assumed that the M/M percentage increase in CPI-W for July to Aug, and from Aug to Sept, would be the same as the M/M percentage increase from June to July. It extrapolated from this single data point, not caring at all about trends in the data let alone trends in the economy.
[I came up with 6.22%, which is rounded to 6.2%, when calculating COLA this way.]
Consider CNN's recent headline: "Inflation moderated in July but prices are still rising in America". This is enough to suggest that SCL overestimated what COLA will be.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/11/economy/july-consumer-price-inflation/index.html

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/912036/000119312521245986/d214700d497k.htm
497K 1 d214700d497k.htm AMG FUNDS IV
Filed pursuant to 497(k)
File Nos. 033-68666 and 811-08004
AMG FUNDS IV
AMG River Road Long-Short Fund
Supplement dated August 13, 2021 to the Summary Prospectus, dated February 1, 2021
The following information supplements and supersedes any information to the contrary relating to AMG River Road Long-Short Fund (the “Fund”), a series of AMG Funds IV (the “Trust”), contained in the Fund’s Summary Prospectus (the “Summary Prospectus”), dated as noted above.
At a special meeting held on August 12, 2021, shareholders of the Fund approved: (i) a change to the Fund’s fundamental investment objective; (ii) the redesignation of the Fund’s fundamental investment objective as non-fundamental; (iii) the amendment of the Fund’s fundamental investment restriction with respect to borrowing; and (iv) a modified “manager-of-managers” structure for the Fund.
Effective as of August 16, 2021 (the “Implementation Date”): (i) the Fund will change its name from AMG River Road Long-Short Fund to AMG River Road International Value Equity Fund; (ii) the Fund will change its principal investment strategies, resulting in changes to its principal risks; and (iii) the Fund will replace its primary benchmark index with the MSCI EAFE Index and replace its secondary benchmark index with the MSCI EAFE Value Index.
Also effective as of the Implementation Date, the following fee changes for the Fund will take effect and will result in the overall reduction of the Fund’s net expenses ratios as compared with the Fund’s current fee structure: (i) the management fee for the Fund will be reduced from 0.85% to 0.53%; (ii) the Fund’s existing contractual expense limitation agreement with AMG Funds LLC (“AMGF”) will be replaced with a new contractual expense limitation agreement with AMGF pursuant to which AMGF will agree, through at least March 1, 2023, to limit total annual operating expenses (exclusive of taxes, interest (including interest incurred in connection with bank and custody overdrafts and in connection with securities sold short), shareholder servicing fees, distribution and service (12b-1) fees, brokerage commissions and other transaction costs, dividends payable with respect to securities sold short, acquired fund fees and expenses, and extraordinary expenses) of the Fund to the annual rate of 0.73% of the Fund’s average daily net assets, subject to later reimbursement by the Fund in certain circumstances; and (iii) the shareholder servicing fee waivers in place for Class N and Class I shares will be eliminated and the amount of shareholder servicing fees each of Class I and Class N shares of the Fund are authorized to pay to financial intermediaries will be decreased from 0.15% to 0.05%. AMGF pays a portion of the management fee to the Fund’s subadviser for its services.
The disposition of Fund securities in connection with the transition of the Fund’s investment objective and strategies is expected to cause the Fund to realize taxable income for U.S. federal income tax purposes. The Fund intends to make a special distribution to shareholders of all or a portion of such income and any other undistributed income for the current taxable year. This distribution will be taxable to shareholders who hold their shares in a taxable account. See “Certain Federal Income Tax Information” in the Fund’s Prospectus for further information...

One manager's idea for what currently makes sense. (I have been overweight reits since at least early last year but DEA is the only significant addition to that sector I recall making this year.)

The chief investment officer of First American Trust has been piling on exposure to real estate investment trusts and technology and offloading financials, which should theoretically be weighed down by a flattening yield curve.

Another manager's idea:

Such a stagflationary environment should benefit sectors with the highest degree of pricing power -- “energy, materials, even some consumer durables, if they can pass on higher costs to consumers, which they’re trying to,” Boockvar said.

Stagflation Portfolio

M* warns of a couple funds that might have biggies...
https://www.morningstar.com/articles/1052941/4-funds-to-watch-at-tax-time?utm_source=eloqua&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_fundspy&utm_content=31014
Disclaimer: With 96% of our nest egg in tax-deferred a/c's, CGs are NOT an issue for us.

Unfortunately, Grantham has been wrong for over 10 years. But he is not alone, Arnott (PAUIX) and Hussman were too.
See one source(link)
He was so off on US LC(SP500) and EM stocks.

yeah I still like listening to him. He is a great story teller. But yeah, he hasn't been correct for awhile.

Miscellaneous Securities ‡ 1,642,719,101
Total Investments in Securities 19,036,241,115
- or about 8.63 %

Mackenzie Scott's "384 Ways to Help," posted December 2020 on her Twitter account:
https://mackenzie-scott.medium.com/384-ways-to-help-45d0b9ac6ad8

Knowing how to make money is different than knowing how to spend money.

Small changes true but electric generation will swing slightly towards coal this year:
“ We expect coal consumption for electricity generation to grow by 75 MMst (17%) in 2021 as a result of relatively high natural gas prices that make coal more competitive for dispatch in the electric power sector. Forecast electric power sector demand for coal then falls by 47 MMst (9%) in 2022. We expect demand for coal for other uses to rise by 5 MMst (13%) in 2021 and by 3 MMst (7%) in 2022. This increase is mostly for coking coal, which is used in steelmaking.”
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/

Per TRP (link below), it doesn't look like the PM wants the public to know about these "Misc Securities". Perhaps some kind of derivatives?
Miscellaneous Securities ‡ 1,642,719,101
Total Investments in Securities 19,036,241,115
‡ At the discretion of the advisor, the identity of certain securities has been
concealed to protect the fund's interests.
https://individual.troweprice.com/staticFiles/gcFiles/pdf/phhsfq2.pdf

Unfortunately, Grantham has been wrong for over 10 years. But he is not alone, Arnott (PAUIX) and Hussman were too.
See one source(link)
He was so off on US LC(SP500) and EM stocks.

I have read Jeremy Grantham's stuff for years and have also read all of the analysis of his so far, far from perfect track record. He does have good data and arguments, and I thought I couldn't learn anything new from him.
However, this analysis of his of the macro and political issues in the markets today is fascinating and worth hearing. He also has a very perceptive comparison between 1929 1972 2008 and now.
https://open.spotify.com/episode/2xH5m4fGf4G2bsnrqXSShd

Having just spent 1.5 hrs on the phone with Vanguard (a hefty percentage of that on hold), I really do appreciate and share people's frustrations with its customer service. That is still a matter distinct from the website or the ease of fund investing there.
The matter I was trying to resolve originated with limitations of a worse financial institution (really!) and I was exploring workarounds that Vanguard could provide. That turned out to be unfortunately little.

I am interested also in the nonmonetary 'multiplier effects', retrospective reimagining of other outcomes and projected paths for current policy decisions:
https://messaging-custom-newsletters.nytimes.com/template/oakv2?campaign_id=116&emc=edit_pk_20210810&instance_id=37566&nl=paul-krugman&productCode=PK&regi_id=22268089&segment_id=65854&te=1&uri=nyt://newsletter/2ec0aedf-343d-5cee-8f35-687fb996a3fa&user_id=83d45440ead1d14c2a89a1e7221337d1

Not part of the infrastructure vote:

Democrats did not include an increase in the federal debt limit, which will have to be passed soon after Congress returns to work next month, along with a stop-gap spending bill to keep the government open after the fiscal year ends Sept. 30. That means an increase in the debt limit would not be eligible for the lower simple-majority threshold for budget-related legislation and be vulnerable to a filibuster unless at least 10 Republicans and all 50 senators who caucus with Democrats vote to limit debate.

biden-s-expansive-economic-agenda-teed-up-for-senate-endorsement

Here I was all set to go with CBO scoring, PAYGO, ten year deficit neutral budgets, how waivers circumvent that (e.g. allowing the 2017 tax cuts despite their soaring deficits). And how there's a fundamental disconnect between the debt ceiling and budgeting, since the former is retrospective (must pay for money already spent or committed) while the latter is prospective.
https://budget.house.gov/publications/report/faqs-paygo
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/14/16651184/gop-tax-bill-medicare-cut-paygo
Then you give a good, terse, two word response: "multiplier effect".

Academic does not per se equal investment prowess.
But I’ll bite……maybe
25% SCHD (Dividend aristocrats)
25% QQQ (tech/growth…same stocks tend to dominate SPY also, especially recently)
15% VNQ/FREL (Real Estate)
10% QQQJ (next big tech giants)
15% FSMEX (medical tech/devices)
10% BIV for cash/ballast (and better returns than Treasury’s….rebalance when down)
More complicated than the 90/10, and holes can be shot in the above from diff sides. But it’s my stab at it!

yeah, NFHA has lots of informative / disturbing deep dives more recently, e.g.:
https://nationalfairhousing.org/using-spcps-blog/
covering race-based denial rates and more
( interesting link within:
https://www.consumerfinance.gov/rules-policy/regulations/1002/8/ )
plus guidelines for the new admin:
https://nationalfairhousing.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/NFHA-Priorities-for-Biden-Administration-and-117th-Congress-2021.01.05.pdf
A great repository, including most recently covering SCotUS ruling on presidential removal of the FHFA head. Changes ahead maybe, incremental.