Live data from Hacker News

Climbing the Wealth Ladder

ofdollarsanddata.com

301–310 of 323 posts

Re: Climbing the Wealth Ladder

#301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think they're just rebutting the claim that they must not have done anything interesting/meaningful if they were able to save so much.

No, that would be a stupid argument. The argument is that by saving almost all your after-basic-expenses income you postpone too many things which would be just much less interesting or cool when you are over 55. For example, traveling when you are in your 60ies and 20ies are two different things. In the latter case the cool things that you find/learn can positively impact your entire life. If you are in you 60ies it…

sorry, I did not mean to make your argument into a caricature.

I'm still not sure I agree though. I know this sounds lame, but I think creating a stable life with people you really care about is worth a lot more than the memories of traveling all over the world in your youth. my parents lived well below their means for most of my childhood, and they now have a stable retirement with plenty of money to go on whatever trips they want. sometimes they take me with them. as far as I can tell, they are very happy to be able to do this now with their family rather than having the memories of doing it in their twenties.

something else kind of shitty to think about: the real return on a diversified portfolio over forty years is somewhere between 15x and 20x (unless something major changes in the world). $5k spent traveling at 25 could be $100k less when you're 65. depending how much you made later, this could be a meaningful amount you won't have to leave to your children or help them with their goals.

Re: Climbing the Wealth Ladder

#302
post #29

I understand this isn't the point of the article, but it seems like a roundabout way of saying "don't overspend". This part in particular bothers me : > More importantly though, the best way to climb the wealth ladder is to spend money according to your level. As far as I (a non-economist) can personally tell, any notion of climbing up some abstract wealth ladder is synonym with a salary increase for the vast majorit…

Yup. I see this kind of logic in personal finance discussions all the time but it's bullshit. There simply aren't any spending decisions you can make that will change you from not wealthy to really wealthy. Those things can just move you from poor to middle class at best, or to a better level of middle class. Outside of real outlier status where you're paid really, really large amounts of money for your services (lik…

No, but you can change your spending habits such that you can save up an emergency fund. That will give you some breathing room in case something happens. This alone would be a game changer for most people.

Re: Climbing the Wealth Ladder

#303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

well.. I was getting at, it still can be mentally difficult to pry yourself away from it, even if you financially can 'afford' it.

Tell me about it. I have over 25 years worth of living expenses and still haven't gotten the nerve to just get out.

that's sort of what I'm getting at. what's holding you back? I'd like to think if I had 25 years... yeah, I'd just stop and do .. well, I'd probably do what I do now, but less of it, and be more picky, and travel more.

as it stands, I've got perhaps... ~5 years of living expenses saved up. Certainly enough to not worry about a few days of non-income, but it's.. certainly not FU money. 25 years of expenses lined up seems like it might give you more breathing room, but, I suspect your comfort level and goal posts move.

when I was in big debt, I thought "man, just having $1k in the bank will make all the difference, and I'll be fine". and when I got there, I was 'fine' for about 10 minutes. Then the goal was $2k. Then 5. Then 10. Then 30. And so on. For me, there's a realization that it's moderately hard to earn and keep that money, and that it can be reduced rather quickly, so.... keeping earning income is still top of mind, at least for another few years.

Re: Climbing the Wealth Ladder

#304
post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where is the incentive then? The difference in skill, responsibility, stress, workplace demands, etc between a cashier and a CEO are nuts. How do people do that for a few grand every month?

Well I can't speak for everyone but as a small business owner in a highly specialised business with global public companies as customers, I could financially take out more than twice that as pre-tax salary from my company but my takehome would only increase with about $3k so I hardly see any point in taking out more salary. The salary I actually take out is much closer to that of the cashier and I skipped even taking…

Thanks for doing this. I think that what is practiced in the US a lot is the fast food of capitalism. Utterly unhealthy and aimed at short term satisfaction. As the differences between rich and poor grown they will find themselves in society that's not fun to live in anymore. Capitalism is a thing of beauty but it is sick when money buys political power, risky shuffling with money make you more than producing something of value and young people enter the job market with a debt that will take decades to repay.

Re: Climbing the Wealth Ladder

#305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, that would be a stupid argument. The argument is that by saving almost all your after-basic-expenses income you postpone too many things which would be just much less interesting or cool when you are over 55. For example, traveling when you are in your 60ies and 20ies are two different things. In the latter case the cool things that you find/learn can positively impact your entire life. If you are in you 60ies it…

sorry, I did not mean to make your argument into a caricature. I'm still not sure I agree though. I know this sounds lame, but I think creating a stable life with people you really care about is worth a lot more than the memories of traveling all over the world in your youth. my parents lived well below their means for most of my childhood, and they now have a stable retirement with plenty of money to go on whatever…

>> a stable life with people you really care about is worth a lot more than the memories of traveling all over the world in your youth

A straw man argument. A) I said "for example". B) I didn't mean "fuck all, I am traveling", my primary message that when you saving all your after-ramen income you are missing things you will not be able to make in your 55+.

>> rather than having the memories of doing it in their twenties

Don't take it personal but how one can compare to something they didn't have? Quite possible that after investing in themselves instead of stocks they would have an even better time right now.

>> something else kind of shitty to think about: the real return on a diversified portfolio over forty years is somewhere between 15x and 20x

something else kind of shitty to think about: stocks grow with the same rate as the total amount of US dollars so in some sense your investments don't grow at all if we talk about the total pie.

Re: Climbing the Wealth Ladder

#306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No which country do you live in thease are not US employee stock options but real stocks. There strict laws about that sort of things even more so in places like Germany and the UK

In the US: 1. You are not entitled to any of the profits of the company by owning stock. Not even if you own preferred stock. 2. You have virtually no control over decisions the company makes. And your vote may not count as much as someone else who has the same number of shares as you . Furthermore, you can have no voting privileges at all as well while owning stocks. 3. A company can devalue the shares you own by si…

1 not sure what you mean I am entitled to the dividend on the Shares I own (RDSB)

2 Well multiple share classes are dodgy that's why the LSE doesn't like them and you get kicked out on the index for that

3 Are you sure US companies can do this without passing a motion at an AGM to disallow premption rights ?

Re: Climbing the Wealth Ladder

#307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tell me about it. I have over 25 years worth of living expenses and still haven't gotten the nerve to just get out.

that's sort of what I'm getting at. what's holding you back? I'd like to think if I had 25 years... yeah, I'd just stop and do .. well, I'd probably do what I do now, but less of it, and be more picky, and travel more. as it stands, I've got perhaps... ~5 years of living expenses saved up. Certainly enough to not worry about a few days of non-income, but it's.. certainly not FU money. 25 years of expenses lined up se…

5 years is certainly FU money to me.

You really think you couldn't walk out of a job and find another one in a few months? Will you even notice that drop in savings aside from as a theoretical number on a spreadsheet?

It sounds to me like you have a complex about this rather than it being in any sense rational. (I don't mean that as an insult at all.)

5 years is less than the amount of time it took for me to go from a skint teenager in a dead end town, to a graduate with a full time job.

Re: Climbing the Wealth Ladder

#308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just after you saved your first 3k, your alternator goes out or you get in a wreck. Some people seem to have these sort of problems more often than others. I guess poverty is about a lot more than lack of money.

Poor people with shitty, cheap, old cars have these problems more than others. Because they're poor.

See the Sam Vimes "Boots" Theory of Economic Injustice

Re: Climbing the Wealth Ladder

#309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that's sort of what I'm getting at. what's holding you back? I'd like to think if I had 25 years... yeah, I'd just stop and do .. well, I'd probably do what I do now, but less of it, and be more picky, and travel more. as it stands, I've got perhaps... ~5 years of living expenses saved up. Certainly enough to not worry about a few days of non-income, but it's.. certainly not FU money. 25 years of expenses lined up se…

5 years is certainly FU money to me. You really think you couldn't walk out of a job and find another one in a few months? Will you even notice that drop in savings aside from as a theoretical number on a spreadsheet? It sounds to me like you have a complex about this rather than it being in any sense rational. (I don't mean that as an insult at all.) 5 years is less than the amount of time it took for me to go from…

in my case, much of it is tied to equities (retirement account is a portion, taxable account is other). straight cash - probably ~12-14 months. Having lived through a couple of crashes, the idea that 30% of that could be gone (for a long time) still looms.

And yes, it's sort of a complex. I have to remind myself that yes, I can pay the extra 50c and get cheese on the burger if I feel like it. I'd lived 30+ years without being able to do that (meaning that adding cheese a few times would be noticeable at the end of a week), it's a hard mental state to break from. Not 'working' means ... a day where savings isn't going up, etc.

Replenishing the spent money is simultaneously both easier (larger savings tends to grow in larger chunks) and harder (takes longer to earn new money vs the compounding of earlier money, and takes more of the remaining time I have left, which is always depleting).

I'm not claiming it's entirely rational, by any means, and that's why I was saying earlier that it's hard to break out of.

EDIT: I've always taken FU money to mean... you never have to engage in any sort of 'work' ever again, not just for a short time. In some ways, I've been able to use this cushion to say "no" to some situations/jobs/projects that I would have agreed to before, but it's not the same as saying FU to people. :)

Re: Climbing the Wealth Ladder

#310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

5 years is certainly FU money to me. You really think you couldn't walk out of a job and find another one in a few months? Will you even notice that drop in savings aside from as a theoretical number on a spreadsheet? It sounds to me like you have a complex about this rather than it being in any sense rational. (I don't mean that as an insult at all.) 5 years is less than the amount of time it took for me to go from…

in my case, much of it is tied to equities (retirement account is a portion, taxable account is other). straight cash - probably ~12-14 months. Having lived through a couple of crashes, the idea that 30% of that could be gone (for a long time) still looms. And yes, it's sort of a complex. I have to remind myself that yes, I can pay the extra 50c and get cheese on the burger if I feel like it. I'd lived 30+ years with…

Fair enough. This is definitely a personal thing though.

I was like that for a while and went all in on FIRE type stuff.

The thing is that eventually, after I did take off that N months, I realised that it's unrealistic to assume I'd have no/almost no income for multiple decades.

I would go insane without having productive work, even if that were working for a non profit for a significant pay cut.

> Not 'working' means ... a day where savings isn't going up, etc.

This is true regardless of how much money you have. You're always going to be able to add some more income by performing labour, even if your investments outperform your labour after a point.

It's worth loosening the straps at some point, even if you just give someone else the money to spend (e.g. charity).

Post reply on HN