That was 532 words. According to a Forbes article, executives read about 575 words per minute. So, it would take about a minute of effort for a skilled reader. But, third-grade readers are at 150 wpm, so for a less skilled reader, it would be three or four minutes of work, and so maybe a bit much to ask. Not all posts are for all people.
My advice: Be rich.
- Thread starter Mina
- Start date
That was 532 words. According to a Forbes article, executives read about 575 words per minute. So, it would take about a minute of effort for a skilled reader. But, third-grade readers are at 150 wpm, so for a less skilled reader, it would be three or four minutes of work, and so maybe a bit much to ask. Not all posts are for all people.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Mina,
I would disagree with that advice, and for all the same reasons you mentioned.
Personal happiness is only dependent on wealth up to the point of comfort. An individual who has no wealth cannot be comfortable without a home, ample food and security. This makes happiness impossible. But once a level of wealth has been achieved which allow the basics of a comfortable life, and basic happiness is achieved, the increase of happiness with more wealth beyond that point drops off significantly.
Happiness rises proportionally to wealth only up to that point. After that point more wealth does not produce a corresponding reflection of happiness. It may even reduce happiness if life becomes too cluttered with material possessions, and priorities become displaced from caring about others to caring about wealth and possessions. (Just look at how unhappy Donald Trump is)
True happiness beyond that point lies not in the accumulation of additional wealth, but in accomplishments and the recognition of others.
And with age comes the realization that giving to others produces great satisfaction.
It is what created our nation. Not people seeking wealth, but people seeking the satisfaction of knowing they contributed to something greater than the individual.
The work of building this nation is incomplete, and there is much to be done.
I would advise our youngest and brightest adult citizens to take up the challenge wherever they feel the calling.
By doing good for others, one does good for oneself.
Get your basics covered and the rest will take care of itself.
Ask not what you country can do for you. Ask indeed, what you can do for your country. (With respect to JFK)
I would disagree with that advice, and for all the same reasons you mentioned.
Personal happiness is only dependent on wealth up to the point of comfort. An individual who has no wealth cannot be comfortable without a home, ample food and security. This makes happiness impossible. But once a level of wealth has been achieved which allow the basics of a comfortable life, and basic happiness is achieved, the increase of happiness with more wealth beyond that point drops off significantly.
Happiness rises proportionally to wealth only up to that point. After that point more wealth does not produce a corresponding reflection of happiness. It may even reduce happiness if life becomes too cluttered with material possessions, and priorities become displaced from caring about others to caring about wealth and possessions. (Just look at how unhappy Donald Trump is)
True happiness beyond that point lies not in the accumulation of additional wealth, but in accomplishments and the recognition of others.
And with age comes the realization that giving to others produces great satisfaction.
It is what created our nation. Not people seeking wealth, but people seeking the satisfaction of knowing they contributed to something greater than the individual.
The work of building this nation is incomplete, and there is much to be done.
I would advise our youngest and brightest adult citizens to take up the challenge wherever they feel the calling.
By doing good for others, one does good for oneself.
Get your basics covered and the rest will take care of itself.
Ask not what you country can do for you. Ask indeed, what you can do for your country. (With respect to JFK)
I have noticed with the conventional law partnerships in NYC, the older lawyers are not moving on. You can work your ass off for 30 years, and still have very little advancement. Even marrying a rich lawyer's daughter will only get you so far.
I do not have an answer to your question, because it is highly subjective. I will say having a million in good investments is not as rich as you would think. Using the 4% rule, you would be retiring on $40k a year with a million dollars. That does not feel rich to me.
If you earn all your money up front, and then retire at age 30, you are looking at living for another 50 years in fear of losing that money. I would advise someone to get the skills to earn a lot of money over a lifetime, and to store it away(in investments, not under a mattress). But most importantly, keep those skills, so you can make the money back if you lose it.
And never retire. You can slow down, but never completely remove yourself from work.
I'd have agreed with you in 1965, for sure. But the economy is becoming a bit more like the economic structure of Hollywood actors.
In Hollywood, the vast majority of actors make pretty much no money. They work as waiters and such, and get out-earned even by real waiters, because they're constantly losing jobs because they ducked out to audition for a part, or to work for a week in some scale-pay bit part. Even a lot of "working actors" who can regularly book small roles don't live much better than a poverty level, because they're living in a hyper-expensive area as economic free agents, meaning no benefits and no security. But then, there's this tiny sliver on top of that which can make hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars for a few weeks' work.
I think the overall economy is moving that way -- or at least greatly at risk of moving that way.... that there will end up being few of those "middle class" jobs where your basic needs are met well enough that you can be happy. It could wind up a lot more like a lottery, where either you win big, or you get nothing but misery.
See that is a good steady prosperous field to be in. My only suggestion is to get a masters degree, it could be part time and later. A masters degree makes your credentials transferable internationally.
My hope is to retire, at least in the sense of no longer doing work where compensation is a significant consideration. Like I'd love to get to the point by age 55 or so where I've got enough put away, and no debts, that I can live comfortably on 4% of it a year (which is generally viewed as a safe withdrawal rate), and then maybe take other jobs based on my passions... like travel to some country I want to live in and take a job teaching English, or learn to paint and run a little studio selling my work and that of other local artists, etc..
Last edited:
Both his parents have engineering degrees (electrical and industrial) as well as masters degrees, so I expect that he will be working towards one too.
Sweet dreams. I hope you accomplish them!
My advice to my kids is to find something they love, if you love something, there is always a way to calculate it toward making money. Steve Jobs turned his love of Calligraphy into a huge computer business.
LOL. Advice I got from a clinical instructor 4th year of dental school - enjoy this year ( very little studying) it’s the best you’ll have for the next ten. Was that spot on!
That is very reasonable. My advice is to mostly retire, but keep your foot in the working world, just so if you lose everything, you can go back to work. And actually, labors of love can often be more profitable. If you are willing to do something, even if not being paid to do it, you will often love it enough to work very hard at it.
I wish you the best of luck on your journey to retirement.
Past experience says that is a safe withdrawal rate. But past experience said, before 2008, that housing prices never go down nationwide. I am not trying to scare you, because 4% is the best number anyone has come up with, but some are starting to question it.
Anyway, if 4% should be 3.5%, you cut back on 12.5% of your expenses, and continue to enjoy life(just 12.5% less
). The important thing is to have a good amount of money for retirement.He sounds well grounded. It is not for me to give advice, but I am Jewish, so I keep doing it.
The other important thing I just thought of is it is important to try to be rich, not to try to live rich. In other words, he should live well within his means, and save up a bunch of money to actually be rich. If his neighbors think he is far less rich than he is, he has won.
My friend had a salary of $200k, but yearly bonuses of $1 million or so, back during the Dot Com Bubble. When the bubble burst, he kept his salary, but lost his bonuses. He was declaring bankruptcy with $200k income, because he was spending like he had $1.2 million income. If he had spent at $200k, and saved the $600k or so he had after taxes on the bonuses, he would not have even noticed the bubble bursting.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
the protections afforded by, and to, the wealthy are a DIRECT RESULT of you insufferable partisans who defended the criminality and corruption of your favored party officials for decades.......
the blame is on most of you
the blame is on most of you
That is very reasonable. My advice is to mostly retire, but keep your foot in the working world, just so if you lose everything, you can go back to work. And actually, labors of love can often be more profitable. If you are willing to do something, even if not being paid to do it, you will often love it enough to work very hard at it.
I wish you the best of luck on your journey to retirement.
Past experience says that is a safe withdrawal rate. But past experience said, before 2008, that housing prices never go down nationwide. I am not trying to scare you, because 4% is the best number anyone has come up with, but some are starting to question it.
Anyway, if 4% should be 3.5%, you cut back on 12.5% of your expenses, and continue to enjoy life(just 12.5% less
In theory, past experience says that far more than 4% should be safe.
Take the last 50 years as an example. Total S&P 500 return was 10.65% (including dividend reinvestments). Inflation averaged 4.182%. You could have drawn down 6.468% the first year, then that same amount, escalated by inflation, every year after that, forever. If you'd been willing to draw down to zero over 30 years (e.g., retiring at 55 and expecting to be dead around 85),you could draw down about 7.7% in year one, then that same amount inflated for 29 more years. So, 4% is pretty conservative by historical terms, and assumes you'll get a significantly worse return than a diversified stock portfolio historically did.
I get a little skeptical about financial advice because it generally comes from those with a vested interest in steering you a certain way. If you're trying to convince someone to invest with you-- or to invest more with you-- you want them to think they need a gigantic portfolio to be able to afford to retire. You want them to put as big a chunk of their income into that portfolio as they can, and then to work as long as possible, because the more they put away, the more money you make -- and then the slower they take it out, the more money you make, as well. So I'm not surprised people in that line of business are publicly fretting 4% may be too much, but I question their motives.
The 4% is after taxes. So let's say you draw down 6%, and pay 33% in taxes, you have drawn down 4% after taxes. So you have written out the reason for thinking 4%.
I am going to list some reasons that might be wrong. I think that 4% is probably an excellent rule, but it is not perfectly safe, which is why it is a good idea to stay active. Also staying active is just plain healthier for your mind.
Let's say you bought an S&P 500 indexed fund in May of 1969 (I know they did not exist then, but this is a hypothetical). The S&P500 was at 817. 13 years later, by May of 1982, it would be at 336. Adjusted for inflation 336 would be 104 in 1969. So adjusted for inflation, you would have lost 87% of your assets. I picked the worst possible dates, but there is always the possibility you will retire on the worst possible date.
https://www.macrotrends.net/2324/sp-500-historical-chart-data
https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/
There used to be millions of small businesses throughout America. The grocery store you would go to was not part of a chain, and the soda you bought there may well only be sold within a single state. Over the last 100 years, there was a huge coming together of companies with stock ownership. The mom and pop cola companies were driven out of business by Coca Cola and Pepsi, which are owned by stocks. Coca Cola went from 5% of the market to 50% of the market. It is impossible for it to go to 500%, so you can expect lower stock growth in the future.
An aging population means less growth. More saving means more competition for income generating assets (and less growth).
In the end, there is the catch all that past performance does not guarantee future performance. Just because there was 10% growth in the past, does not mean we cannot have 5% growth, or 20% growth in the future.
Good idea. I know you are not talking about me, but I will just say: I was a financial advisor to poor people for a charity. I did not generate any money from that. I was an unpaid volunteer. I paid for classes and certification tests, so I actually paid to work there two nights a week.
I am currently paid by the financial industry, but not to give financial advice. And I really want to get out of the financial industry... It actually looks like I will be out soon.
Good advice. Unfortunately, because he's so young, my g-son thinks that being rich equates to large fancy house, expensive new car(s), designer wardrobe, etc. His mom is very much that way which doesn't help. I think your advice to live within your means and save any extra is very wise.
Well, if we're saying you pull out enough that the after-tax proceeds are 4%, then that's different, to be sure. But it's not a big difference. If you're paying at the 15% long-term cap gains rate, taking out 4.7% pre-tax, will give you about 4% after tax. If you're taking it out of a 401k, where it's regular income, it will be different, and will depend on total income level.
I'll grant that, but no amount is. I mean, if we get a total civilization collapse, for example, all that money could be wiped out totally, no matter what rate you drew out at, and all you'd really have to support you are whatever primitive skills you have acquired and whatever social connections you can draw on. Like, do you know first aid? Can you grow a crop of beans? Purify water?
Fair enough. But, even then, you're not consider dividends. If you bought in May 1969, 13 years later, in May 1982, even after inflation, it would be worth only 2.41% less, after accounting for dividend reinvestment:
https://dqydj.com/sp-500-return-calculator/
So, you wouldn't be losing 87% of your value. You'd be holding almost steady across those 13 years. And that's about as bad an historical example as you can find.