If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Time)   How much money you should have saved by ages 15, 25, 35, and 50. In this economy, though?   (moneyland.time.com) divider line 72
    More: PSA, Oregon Trail  
•       •       •

26349 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 Oct 2012 at 3:01 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-10-01 12:06:42 AM
8 votes:

itsdan: "Saving 100% of your lifestyle sounds impossible, but it is not. If you earn $100,000 after taxes, you must limit your lifestyle to $50,000 and save the remainder. This strategy will allow you to retire at age 65 with a lifestyle of $50,000."

And if you make $50,000 or less to begin with, as most people do?


This demonstrates everything that is wrong with rhetorical economists (especially Randians). less than 10% of the population makes "$100,000 after taxes". And far far more than half do not make enough that they can afford to sock away half for retirement.

It grossly oversimplifies a process that has no basis in reality. It's all pie in the sky bullshiat that doesn't help anyone.
2012-10-01 12:01:38 AM
7 votes:
These charts got completely destroyed in the 2008 meltdown. I know people who lost over 100K off their 401(k) in 3 months. Not to mention equity off property bought years before.

In short, steady state investment sounds nice til we let the criminals run the investment firms.
2012-09-30 11:53:36 PM
5 votes:
"Saving 100% of your lifestyle sounds impossible, but it is not. If you earn $100,000 after taxes, you must limit your lifestyle to $50,000 and save the remainder. This strategy will allow you to retire at age 65 with a lifestyle of $50,000."

And if you make $50,000 or less to begin with, as most people do?
2012-10-01 02:06:26 AM
4 votes:
TFA: Saving 100% of your lifestyle sounds impossible, but it is not. If you earn $100,000

and we're done here.
2012-10-01 12:51:47 AM
4 votes:
Don't have kids. Don't go on vacation. Don't eat out. Don't buy nice things. Don't spend on entertainment. Don't have a nice car. No cable. No toys. No birthdays. No tithing.

Can you imagine our economy if everyone actually lived by the advice in the article? I'm pretty sure I won't need my exact salary when I retire and additionally I'd like to enjoy at least a bit of my life.

/YOLO?
2012-10-01 08:16:46 AM
3 votes:

xl5150: itsdan: And if you make $50,000 or less to begin with, as most people do?

Then you should be working at making yourself more marketable so that you can develop a skillset in which you can charge more for your services.


Yep, because there are just so many $100,000 a year jobs floating around out there, right? I mean, if everyone just wasn't so lazy, we could all be millionaires!

You're a farking tool.
2012-10-01 04:14:51 AM
3 votes:
Write a book about how writing a book can make you millions and sell it to people who believe they can learn to become millionaires by reading a book by somebody who claims to have become a millionaire by writing a simple book about how to become a millionaire.

Works every time.

\bonus. It doesn't matter what you write because the type of people who buy such books don't actually read them.
2012-10-01 04:06:15 AM
3 votes:

ExperianScaresCthulhu: xl5150: itsdan: And if you make $50,000 or less to begin with, as most people do?

Then you should be working at making yourself more marketable so that you can develop a skillset in which you can charge more for your services.

That's all well and good. Like advising people to make sure they're born to parents who already have money and can give them a leg up and a head start. Or advising people to make sure they're in the will of a rich relative.

But in the meanwhile, what can people do to save in their current situation?


There's actually a really easy step to take - cohabitate. During my first job, I made about 30,000 after taxes. I found a large townhouse, and went on Craigslist to find roommates. When you split your rent 2 or 3 ways, it's amazing how much extra money you end up having lying around at the end of each month. I managed to pay off my car in 1 year, and still save a few thousand dollars out of an already small income. If you have a family, you'll have to go with something bigger, probably a 4-5 bedroom single family home, and you'll have to look for roommates that are OK with that (might look at other families in similar circumstances), but it's worth the trouble.

Cohabitating isn't glamorous, but it saves you SO MUCH MONEY. My roommate and I now both are looking at 6 figures a year, and we have no intention to get our own places. We also have no intention of changing our lifestyles simply because we can afford it. Just because you have money, doesn't mean you have to spend it. If I live the same lifestyle at 6 figures as I did at 5 figures, I can save huge amounts per year. Suck up your pride, restrain your urge to be a typical American and spend on things you don't need, and save oodles of money.

If it helps motivate you, imaging retiring early. That's my goal...early retirement. Keeps my willpower strong.
2012-10-01 03:39:06 AM
3 votes:
1) Pay yourself first, be it only 10% of your take home pay.
2) Invest your money in the "Dogs of the Dow" that's the blue chips that pay good dividends.
3) Take the dividends and plow them back into more stocks
4) Consider this money already spent and gone, DON'T TOUCH OR BORROW FROM!
5) The stocks will feed on themselves and grow (slowly at first) but accelerates as time goes by.
6) Stay the course !
2012-10-01 03:36:35 AM
3 votes:
It should go without saying that if your company offers matching funds to your 401(k) contributions, you should always max that out first before looking for some place else to put your money. My last company matched 50% of my contributions, up to 6% of my salary. Well, you can't beat a guaranteed 50% return on your investment before you even factor in the return you get from the investments themselves.
2012-10-01 03:24:48 AM
3 votes:
P.S. From the article:

"If a wagon train averages 10 miles a day for the first half of the Oregon Trail, how fast does it have to travel the second half to average 20 miles a day for the entire journey?"

The knee-jerk response is, naturally, 30 miles a day. But, as you might imagine, that wouldn't be worth writing about and isn't even close to correct. The blog continues:

"If the trail is 2,000 miles long, to average 20 miles a day you would have to travel the entire trail in 100 days. But if you averaged 10 miles a day traveling the first 1,000 miles, you would have already used up 100 days. You would then have to travel the second thousand miles instantly to overcome your slow start."

That might be apparent to a mathematician.


My knee-jerk response was that the problem presented had none of the information necessary to answer it. Something I'd imagine would be as apparent to a mathematician as some random blogger.
2012-10-01 10:39:41 AM
2 votes:
In other words, we're all powerf*cked.

The right wing war on the middle class did its job.

401k plans were intended to be supplementary to pensions, not a replacement. And sure, people can save on their own...but where's the corresponding compensation bump that should have come with the pension phase out?

The middle class got raped.
2012-10-01 08:43:32 AM
2 votes:
From the Dilbert guy:

Everything you need to know about financial planning*

Make a will.
Pay off your credit cards.
Get term life insurance if you have a family to support.
Fund your 401(k) to the maximum.
Fund your IRA to the maximum.
Buy a house if you want to live in a house and you can afford it.
Put six months' expenses in a money market fund.
Take whatever money is left over and invest 70% in a stock index fund and 30% in a bond fund through any discount broker and never touch it until retirement.

If any of this confuses you, or you have something special going on (retirement, college planning, tax issues) hire a fee-based financial planner, not one who charges a percentage of your portfolio.
2012-10-01 06:46:45 AM
2 votes:
i had a nice 401k till my divorce. it got lost.
then i rebuilt it, and then had to go back to court. lost it again.

3 years ago i moved to switzerland and got on board my company's fantastic pension scheme, and dribble into the US IRA a bit at a time. Saves about 2k a month. Socked away as much as the other two pt together.

here i get 80% of my salary if i get laid off for up to a year, i dont worry as much about what happens if i get laid off. this means i dont keep as much cash on hand because getting 7k unemployment a month were it to occur here in zurich vs 450 a week in California is a slight difference.

isnt it awesome how the american system has put all the burden of everything onto the workers?

You get fired? too bad. no liveable unemployment for you, you lazy socialist.
You wanna retire didnt save with discipline on your own in a crazy unstable american stock market? Too bad, you lazy socialist.
2012-10-01 04:44:17 AM
2 votes:
Unless you have some kind of wonderful sexy job, nobody saves sh*t.

That's part of the problem with our society. We are by and large living day by day, paycheck to paycheck.
2012-10-01 04:42:31 AM
2 votes:

doglover: Emposter: Cohabitating isn't glamorous, but it saves you SO MUCH MONEY.

I know you've never had a bad roommate.


But when you have a good one, you need to take advantage of it.


To xl5150 and itdan, related to the above: Saw an article where a woman was badly in debt. She was able
to get out of that debt by devoting all of her income towards the debt without
accruing any additional debts. She was happy and feeling pretty proud of
herself that she didn't have to declare bankruptcy.

She was able to devote all that income because her husband paid for
- the mortgage
- the utilities
- her car

Saw another article where a woman was able to save all of her income
and pay cash for her dream home after several years of saving. Lot of back patting.
She was able to devote all that income to saving because

- she lived with her mother and had no mortgage or utility payments.

Saw a third article, a couple was in debt, and got out of it after several years by devoting the majority of their income to savings. They were able to do it because

- they found government jobs
- the article specifically mentioned native american programs they were able to take advantage of

None of these people got out of their situation because they followed xl5150s advice about developing new skillsets. They *did* get out of a hellhole because someone else provided a safety net for them, to allow them to pick themselves up on their own time. With discipline they were able to do it... but they were only allowed to develop that discipline because someone else picked up the slack temporarily.

People do get out of bad situations and can learn to save. They just have to be in a position to be able to save. That doesn't take a new skillset. It takes a safety net. Once you no longer need the safety net, you have (hopefully) learned saving skills which will last the rest of your life as you continue your discipline.
2012-10-01 04:31:26 AM
2 votes:
My advice, marry rich. Not that I did. She does have a nice chunk of family money. It works out though because I'm currently working my ass off so she can get a Master's with a locked in employment path.

But I love her and I don't want to spend too much of her money, so I'm eating lots of Hot Pockets.
2012-10-01 03:37:39 AM
2 votes:

Krieghund: This is from the Forbes article linked to in TFA:

Here are the guideposts:

At age 35, you should have saved an amount equal to your annual salary.
At age 45, you should have saved three times your annual salary.
At 55, you should have five times your salary.
When you retire at age 67, you should have eight times your annual pay.

That's actually a lot more informative, and happily, I'm on track.


So if your annual salary is the poverty line.........
2012-10-01 03:23:06 AM
2 votes:
I'm just barely able to send 7% of each paycheck to my company 401K. And I just started receiving rumblings about some kind of breakup of the company, which will mean no income and no contributions for a long time.

Investing for retirement sounded easier when I was under 25.
2012-10-01 03:21:40 AM
2 votes:

xl5150: Came to see a bunch of sniveling, whining, and excuses about why all of your financial instability is everyone else's fault but your own.

Leaving satisfied.

/I could have sworn I read an article recently about a schoolteacher who made herself a millionaire on her own
//oh yeah, that was here
///but wait, that's IMPOSSIBLE!
////exactly why people like you will always, always work for people like me


Came here to see some douche assert themselves in an inappropriate context.

You sure did shiat on those people who left comments that sort of fit your criteria for your ego boost.

Best of luck in all your endeavors!
2012-10-01 01:59:57 AM
2 votes:

Generation_D: In short, steady state investment sounds nice til we let the criminals run the investment firms.


Criminals who have contempt for their own investors, too.
2012-10-01 01:57:27 AM
2 votes:

Ambivalence: This demonstrates everything that is wrong with rhetorical economists (especially Randians). less than 10% of the population makes "$100,000 after taxes". And far far more than half do not make enough that they can afford to sock away half for retirement.

It grossly oversimplifies a process that has no basis in reality. It's all pie in the sky bullshiat that doesn't help anyone.


Well, it helps people making over $100,000 after taxes. I mean, if I had 100k after taxes, I'd be able to put half of it in the bank, burn half the remainder on entertainment, and STILL be able to float my current lifestyle with more than a quarter left over to buy diamonds and shiat.
2012-10-01 01:26:40 AM
2 votes:
Tell this to the companies that kept sending my jobs out of the country.
2012-10-01 08:39:36 PM
1 votes:

doglover: Well, it helps people making over $100,000 after taxes. I mean, if I had 100k after taxes, I'd be able to put half of it in the bank, burn half the remainder on entertainment, and STILL be able to float my current lifestyle with more than a quarter left over to buy diamonds and shiat


ya know how I can tell you are American educated ?
2012-10-01 10:32:40 AM
1 votes:
But saving is hard, waaaaaah! I can't afford it, so I won't bother trying! Whatever.

Everyone should be saving for retirement, even if you can't save much. I have had my Roth and 401k set up to be direct deposited every payday since my first day on the job. I don't miss the money because it is like it was never there. I did this even when I was poor. IMO, investments are a necessary monthly expense. It is just like your rent or car payment which must be taken care of before spending on any of the fun stuff, always.
2012-10-01 10:27:28 AM
1 votes:

tenpoundsofcheese: Generation_D: These charts got completely destroyed in the 2008 meltdown. I know people who lost over 100K off their 401(k) in 3 months. Not to mention equity off property bought years before.

In short, steady state investment sounds nice til we let the criminals run the investment firms.

Do you know how I know that you don't know where the Dow and Nasdaq are today.


Exactly. Look at the performance of the S&P 500 over the past century. Even with periodic downturns, there hasn't been a 40-year period where you wouldn't average at least 9-10% annual growth by just throwing your money into a fund indexed off of the S&P 500 and forgetting about it. That's even if your 40-year investment period ended in late 2008 when the market was in the toilet.

Sure, you can do a lot better than 9-10%, but "buy and hold" is still a perfectly-legitimate investment strategy if you're talking about long-term investing.
2012-10-01 10:25:36 AM
1 votes:
The people biatching about their salary that have a totalfark tag next to their name are funny.
2012-10-01 09:30:54 AM
1 votes:
Well, if you have less money than you'd like at retirement you could always move to a country with lower costs of living instead of trying to continue your same lifestyle in America...
2012-10-01 09:28:17 AM
1 votes:
The linked article says at35, I should my annual salary saved.

I'm on track! Never would have guessed that, but since I've been putting money in 401ks for 14 years now, it kinda makes sense. That plus home equity, my investment account and stock options, I'm actually ahead. Which is good because everyone lives to be 102+ in my family.
2012-10-01 09:22:34 AM
1 votes:
I have been dropping 10% of my income into an IRA for a long time now. It's my on hand savings that really suffers over the past couple of years. Every time I start to get ahead, my wife needs 2k worth of dental work, or I have to drop 8k on a new roof for the house. I guess I should feel blessed that I can at least do that though.
2012-10-01 09:09:55 AM
1 votes:
What's this "save" word you speak of?

Kids, don't buy a house just because you can afford it. Rent as long as you are saving.

In fact, I'd even say you don't need to own a house. Owning a home can be overrated. Just rent; you're paying for shelter anyway.

And a mortgage is a ripoff.

/can't listen to my own advice in retrospect
2012-10-01 09:00:50 AM
1 votes:

1nsanilicious: The vast vast vast majority of people have no clue about how to judge a companies worth or where it is going


You're correct, but given the way you phrased that, I don't think you understand why.

A number of investors predicted the real estate bubble when it was first forming. I'll admit I didn't at the time, but it wasn't difficult for anyone who does basic financial research as part of their day-to-day operations. Despite that, many of them couldn't profit off its fall because they couldn't time its collapse. It lasted a full decade longer than it ever should've, and that's assessing it as a bona fide derp-bubble. The market can stay irrational far longer than anyone can stay solvent. The "vast vast vast majority" include most paid investors who are trusted with hundreds of billions of assets and dump them into markets they don't understand. They are the market. When everyone chases the same investments, the price far exceeds the value due to simple supply/demand mechanics -- the system is rational; the people in it aren't. For most people, even "professional" investors, the real estate bubble was just the "serious" version of Beanie Babies. They're not going to invest in stuffed animals because they wear suits and ties, but their line of thinking was JUST as stupid.

The moral of the story is, your wage-earner is a sucker. Amateurs succeed or fail by their luck. "Pros" don't have any better idea of what's going on. The guys who make money year after year, the gurus of the market, the Warren Buffets. . . they don't just understand economics. They understand human nature to be an irrational pack of idiots and bet accordingly.

To put it another way, trying to master the markets by studying finance is like trying to coach a football team by just reading the rulebook.
2012-10-01 09:00:29 AM
1 votes:
I think so much of it comes down to a few big years. I had one in 2000. I may have another this year (a few things have to fall into place).

If that is the case, then even though I've been putting >10% into a 401k for 16 years, I will not be where I want to be.

And we are frugal... 7 year old cars, coupons like crazy. We don't go out much, etc.
2012-10-01 08:57:52 AM
1 votes:

unlikely: TFA: Saving 100% of your lifestyle sounds impossible, but it is not. If you earn $100,000

and we're done here.


You cut it off a few words too early.

"If you earn $100,000 after taxes"

That presumes a gross income of probably $150,000+. Is this a Time article, or something clipped from Barron's? Because I don't think Time mag knows its audience here. 

/I can do $100k gross annually. Still ain't got shiat.
2012-10-01 08:41:39 AM
1 votes:
Todays MSNBC Money page note. "as gloom pervades economic outlook"


Face it. If you are fairly young in the workforce


....you're gonna retire poor
2012-10-01 08:32:00 AM
1 votes:
"Saving 100% of your lifestyle sounds impossible, but it is not if you earn shiat-loads. If you don't earn shiat-loads, then yes, it's impossible."

/FTFY
2012-10-01 08:17:32 AM
1 votes:

FishyFred: itsdan: "Saving 100% of your lifestyle sounds impossible, but it is not. If you earn $100,000 after taxes, you must limit your lifestyle to $50,000 and save the remainder. This strategy will allow you to retire at age 65 with a lifestyle of $50,000."

And if you make $50,000 or less to begin with, as most people do?

Yeah, I clicked on the article forgetting that people have disparate incomes and retirement goals. But 10 percent starting in your 20s is pretty reasonable.

Unpopular opinion: More people should screw around in the stock market. Don't just buy mutual funds. Set aside a little to play around with.


.

It's unpopular because its stupid. The vast vast vast majority of people have no clue about how to judge a companies worth or where it is going, and they certainly have almost no control of emotional impulses.
2012-10-01 08:10:14 AM
1 votes:
I like how Mitt Romney has a $100 million IRA fund.

That's a hell of a retirement cushion. He may even be able to squeak by on that in his old age.
2012-10-01 07:54:32 AM
1 votes:

Generation_D: These charts got completely destroyed in the 2008 meltdown. I know people who lost over 100K off their 401(k) in 3 months. Not to mention equity off property bought years before.

In short, steady state investment sounds nice til we let the criminals run the investment firms.


This happened to me. ( well, slightly under $100K). I also got laid off that year, after 15 years of solid, full-time employment.

/ still haven't forgiven the Bush administration for f**king things up domestically...
2012-10-01 07:25:36 AM
1 votes:
I'm not on track. But I'm not enthused about retiring at 65 or 67. Most of my family dies at 70. Why save save save just for 3 years of golden years.
2012-10-01 06:26:10 AM
1 votes:
I can't save any money because my greedy, selfish coont of a mother is too good to work for a living and instead expects to mooch off of me for the rest of her life, and I am far too polite to slit her throat in her sleep.
2012-10-01 06:24:27 AM
1 votes:
I don't understand how people claim they "can't" save money if they make 30k plus. I will grant leeway for those who are genuinely hovering around the poverty line because that's a tough situation.

I am really curious as to how everyone manages to not have any money what so ever to put into a savings/retirement account? I have a mid 40s/year job with 80k in student loans, live by myself and own things that I would consider luxuries (tablet pc, gaming pc, ps3, internet service, etc.) as well as a 401k that is currently at about 90% of my yearly salary at the age of 31 (modest mid 40k range).

I also am capable of putting away 100 bucks a month into a rainy day/bill payoff type fund that also serves as overdraft for my checking account which I am currently using due to bills incurred from being hospitalized for 2 weeks in August.

I've still got a lot of student debt and am far from comfortable but I really don't understand how people are in such a terrible place financially that they have absolutely zero money to put away for themselves. I really would just like to hear people's stories as most people I know who claim "no money" also are wearing a new pair of shoes every time I see them or spend 300 bucks a month on eating out or buy every new blu ray released or whatever their pleasure is. Just curious I guess.
2012-10-01 06:04:17 AM
1 votes:
Remember the good times in the 80's and 90's making 70% interest. Today with zero % interest by the Feds. Forget it, just plan on going to prison for your retirement.
2012-10-01 05:54:20 AM
1 votes:

Emposter: ExperianScaresCthulhu: xl5150: itsdan: And if you make $50,000 or less to begin with, as most people do?

Then you should be working at making yourself more marketable so that you can develop a skillset in which you can charge more for your services.

That's all well and good. Like advising people to make sure they're born to parents who already have money and can give them a leg up and a head start. Or advising people to make sure they're in the will of a rich relative.

But in the meanwhile, what can people do to save in their current situation?

There's actually a really easy step to take - cohabitate. During my first job, I made about 30,000 after taxes. I found a large townhouse, and went on Craigslist to find roommates. When you split your rent 2 or 3 ways, it's amazing how much extra money you end up having lying around at the end of each month. I managed to pay off my car in 1 year, and still save a few thousand dollars out of an already small income. If you have a family, you'll have to go with something bigger, probably a 4-5 bedroom single family home, and you'll have to look for roommates that are OK with that (might look at other families in similar circumstances), but it's worth the trouble.

Cohabitating isn't glamorous, but it saves you SO MUCH MONEY. My roommate and I now both are looking at 6 figures a year, and we have no intention to get our own places. We also have no intention of changing our lifestyles simply because we can afford it. Just because you have money, doesn't mean you have to spend it. If I live the same lifestyle at 6 figures as I did at 5 figures, I can save huge amounts per year. Suck up your pride, restrain your urge to be a typical American and spend on things you don't need, and save oodles of money.

If it helps motivate you, imaging retiring early. That's my goal...early retirement. Keeps my willpower strong.


You are absolutely correct. The issue is that most people live at or above their means. Buying too expensive of clothes, cars, and houses. Either putting themselves in debt and paying interest which goes to the 'evil 1%' or never saving anything. Look back in the 1950s the average house was 1000 sq ft compared with 2,200 in 2000, and that is before all the luxuries people fill there homes with. I'd say at least half of the 99% literally hand money to the 1% in the form of interest and most of that is on stuff they don't need.

I don't have a roommate but I do OWN (no mortgage) a 1,200 sq ft home, I have an 18 month old phone, eat most of my meals at home ($1.50 breakfast, $1.50 lunch, $5.00 dinner). Don't buy many luxuries with the exception of items of better quality and longer life, for example $200 dress shoes vs $50 bargain ones. In a normal month I'll net at least a 1/3 of my take home salary, not including the 5% of my pay that is direct to my 401K. If anything I live on less now than I did when I made half as much (eating out less and generally smarter in purchases).

I can basically only roll my eyes when someone who works for me making about 1/2 my income will buy a pair of iPhone 5s for his wife and him and then a Coach purse for her, meanwhile my boss who makes twice what I do will wait until he can get an iPhone on Craigslist for $100 and wouldn't conceive of ever buying his wife anything in the realm of a Coach purse. Not everyone can afford luxuries and trying to live like someone on TV when you aren't making that kind of money puts you in debt which in reality allows you to buy less down the road.
2012-10-01 05:35:05 AM
1 votes:
I don't have a lot of adice on saving, but one thing I did learn (at a loss of $30K) is do NOT just put your money in a 401k or IRA and expect some nucklehead to earn you money with it. Once they have your money, they don't give a good goddam. Harass the shiat out of them and keep an eye on what you have.

/scum
//all financial planners
2012-10-01 04:55:05 AM
1 votes:
The big problem with all this type of advice is that the assumption is that at age 65 you're going to stop making a dime and start spending everything you had put away. It doesn't have to be this way. I plan on working and earning money indefinitely. You can run a small house-based business, write a book or teach English while on that 6-month vacation to Africa. Just do something productive. There's no rule that says you have to move to FLA, wear geezer clothes and hang around for the early bird special til the day you keel over.
2012-10-01 04:30:38 AM
1 votes:

ExperianScaresCthulhu: xl5150's advice, to me, was not only negative but counterproductive. xl5150's advice, at its heart, said that those who make under $50,000 should not be expected to be able to save. xl5150's advice said that there is no hope, and that the only way to save is to make more money before you can be in a position to save.

Is that truly the right advice, though? To tell someone that they have to be in a position where they have disposable income, and things are not so tight, before they can hope to save or be expected to save? That's what I mean by advising someone to have a rich uncle or a dead relative. That is not advice for the hear and now.


You can either make more money or spend less. For people in the (let's say) $30,000+ income range, there are probably a few things you can do to cut your spending and put the money into savings instead. That'll differ for each individual's situation.

If you're making less than that, you're probably barely getting by as is. Your budget is down to the bone already, there's not going to be anything you can cut in favor of savings. You might be getting by day-to-day, but you can't easily build a future off that. In that situation, you've gotta find some way to expand your skillset or get into a position to make more money. Or rely on welfare.
2012-10-01 04:22:45 AM
1 votes:
So what you're saying is that the average person is farked and the future consists of the majority of the population being incapable of retiring?

200 million homeless people in their late 60's wandering around because they didn't save a years worth of their current salary by the time they were 35?

I want to make a lot of money so I can write a column about how no one else did it right because they didn't invest in some other company. That will motivate people. That will really drive people into understanding what they value or even the concept of it.
2012-10-01 04:21:21 AM
1 votes:
All money is good for in an emergency is something to help start a fire, and that's assuming you aren't just carrying your debit card.

I think there is a real definable problem with creating a currency that is so devoid of actual real world value it can be used to define the value of anything. It has become the single most obvious goal in the quest for success for almost all of humanity and yet at it's core it is nothing. Money also allows for negative values, debts, burdens that anyone with a student loan or large credit card bill can understand are financially life crushing.

Trading real world materials and skills for money reminds me of trading money for tokens at the arcade, if you've bought a ton of tokens you better hope the arcade stays in business long enough for you to spend them.
2012-10-01 04:21:20 AM
1 votes:

J Noble Daggett: Write a book about how writing a book can make you millions and sell it to people who believe they can learn to become millionaires by reading a book by somebody who claims to have become a millionaire by writing a simple book about how to become a millionaire.

Works every time.

\bonus. It doesn't matter what you write because the type of people who buy such books don't actually read them.


And apparently they buy a shiatload of them. I think the average repurchase for self-help books on any given topic is like 18 per buyer.
2012-10-01 04:11:25 AM
1 votes:
browntimmy: Let the people working for you know how little you think of them and let's see what happens to you.

Oooooh, what are they going to do? Quit and look elsewhere for a $7-an-hour job? When your job can also be done by a monkey, you don't get the luxury of dignity. You have to take what you can get because you're unskilled.

I mentioned on a thread recently that I'd fired my personal assistant. It happened on Labor Day, so the irony makes it stick out in my mind. He asked me for a raise so I fired him. Within a few days I had a new personal assistant who is just as good as the old guy and I'm paying him $50 less a week. That's just how it works when there are a lot of other people out there who can do your job as well as you can and they're willing to do it for less money. I think I did a good job of letting the people working for me know how I feel there, and you can see how it worked out for me--I have an additional $50 in my pocket each week. Not too shabby.

I know you unskilled workers always look toward that scene in Fight Club where the unskilled workers give the big speech to the upper-class guy about how they do all the dirty work and how he shouldn't mess with them. Well, guess what--that's a movie. We live in the real world, and in real life, when there are many more people able and willing to do the exact unskilled job that you're performing, then you don't get to biatch about it because it's easy to replace you.
2012-10-01 04:05:15 AM
1 votes:

JackalRabbit: doglover: Ambivalence: This demonstrates everything that is wrong with rhetorical economists (especially Randians). less than 10% of the population makes "$100,000 after taxes". And far far more than half do not make enough that they can afford to sock away half for retirement.

It grossly oversimplifies a process that has no basis in reality. It's all pie in the sky bullshiat that doesn't help anyone.

Well, it helps people making over $100,000 after taxes. I mean, if I had 100k after taxes, I'd be able to put half of it in the bank, burn half the remainder on entertainment, and STILL be able to float my current lifestyle with more than a quarter left over to buy diamonds and shiat.

and create jobs. don't forget to create jobs.


d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net
2012-10-01 03:55:51 AM
1 votes:

xl5150: Came to see a bunch of sniveling, whining, and excuses about why all of your financial instability is everyone else's fault but your own.

Leaving satisfied.

/I could have sworn I read an article recently about a schoolteacher who made herself a millionaire on her own
//oh yeah, that was here
///but wait, that's IMPOSSIBLE!
////exactly why people like you will always, always work for people like me


Let the people working for you know how little you think of them and let's see what happens to you.
2012-10-01 03:53:00 AM
1 votes:

ExperianScaresCthulhu: xl5150: itsdan: And if you make $50,000 or less to begin with, as most people do?

Then you should be working at making yourself more marketable so that you can develop a skillset in which you can charge more for your services.

That's all well and good. Like advising people to make sure they're born to parents who already have money and can give them a leg up and a head start. Or advising people to make sure they're in the will of a rich relative.

But in the meanwhile, what can people do to save in their current situation?


Being born rich or having a wealthy relative that'll set you up are things outside of your control. Developing a skillset with higher earning potential is, for the most part, within your control.
2012-10-01 03:50:24 AM
1 votes:

sidcart42: P.S. From the article:

"If a wagon train averages 10 miles a day for the first half of the Oregon Trail, how fast does it have to travel the second half to average 20 miles a day for the entire journey?"

The knee-jerk response is, naturally, 30 miles a day. But, as you might imagine, that wouldn't be worth writing about and isn't even close to correct. The blog continues:

"If the trail is 2,000 miles long, to average 20 miles a day you would have to travel the entire trail in 100 days. But if you averaged 10 miles a day traveling the first 1,000 miles, you would have already used up 100 days. You would then have to travel the second thousand miles instantly to overcome your slow start."

That might be apparent to a mathematician.


My knee-jerk response was that the problem presented had none of the information necessary to answer it. Something I'd imagine would be as apparent to a mathematician as some random blogger.


It had everything you needed to answer it.

If you spend If you want to average some velocity, but you travel at half that speed for half the trail, you will have consumed your total time. Velocity is Distance over Time If your target velocity is X/Y but you travel at 0.5 of X/ Y for 0.5 Y you take X time. A modestly intelligent 7th grader should be able to answer that.
2012-10-01 03:48:25 AM
1 votes:
The "1 in 3" Americans relying on the lottery as their best bet at retirement stat never ceases to amaze me, even though your odds of winning a big lottery jackpot are statistically ZERO.
2012-10-01 03:42:10 AM
1 votes:
ive saved nothing. figure i'll be dead or in jail by retirement.
2012-10-01 03:41:14 AM
1 votes:

fusillade762: Well, I'm boned.


Yup, me too. That's why I'm investing heavily in alcohol. 'Cause fark it, that's why.
2012-10-01 03:38:21 AM
1 votes:
My plan is to keep spending that extra 50K a year on really good wine, whisky and foie gras so that I'll die happy about 65.
2012-10-01 03:31:48 AM
1 votes:

noneyourbase: OK, wise Farkers -

I'm a grad student. I'd like to open a mutual fund, because the $0.25 interest rate just isn't cutting it, frankly. What should I read? How do I start?


I'm a grad student, too (though I'm married, in my early 30s, have a kid, and live in a high cost-of-living area).

Does your school have a 403(b)/pension thing available to grad students? Don't laugh if yours doesn't; some universities do. That is to say, some schools where grad students are unionized offer retirement "benefits" for their grad students and post docs.

Up above, I recommended Sharebuilder, which is how I got started saving ($4 trades...I invested a lot in index funds when I was a n00b). If you dig around on the internet, you might be able to find various promotion codes (like, invest $50, get $25 on us for free!).

Also, you can open up an Orange account (with ING, if I recall correctly); they also have promotions that will entice you to invest with them. Whatever you choose, go with something that has minimal fees and lots of investment options.

As an aside, when the other Junkee and I were first married, we were both students living in Arizona. Despite making under $40,000/year between the two of us, we managed to save $14,000 our first year together. Our savings has since steadily (though slowly) climbed past the 6-figure mark, even though we lived on a single mediocre income for three years, had a kid, etc. It can be done, but it's not always easy if you don't make a lot of money.
2012-10-01 03:22:31 AM
1 votes:

noneyourbase: noneyourbase: OK, wise Farkers -

I'm a grad student. I'd like to open a mutual fund, because the $0.25per year interest rate just isn't cutting it, frankly. What should I read? How do I start?

FTFM


I think you should start with a book that describes the difference between $ and %.

Secondly, don't save. That's for suckers. Spend yoru money as soon as you get it. Then, later in life, all the chumps will keep you afloat. Freeload, baby! It's the american way. That's what social safety nets are all about, transferring wealth from the responsible to the profligate.
2012-10-01 03:15:22 AM
1 votes:
Came to see a bunch of sniveling, whining, and excuses about why all of your financial instability is everyone else's fault but your own.

Leaving satisfied.

/I could have sworn I read an article recently about a schoolteacher who made herself a millionaire on her own
//oh yeah, that was here
///but wait, that's IMPOSSIBLE!
////exactly why people like you will always, always work for people like me
2012-10-01 03:14:16 AM
1 votes:
This is from the Forbes article linked to in TFA:

Here are the guideposts:

At age 35, you should have saved an amount equal to your annual salary.
At age 45, you should have saved three times your annual salary.
At 55, you should have five times your salary.
When you retire at age 67, you should have eight times your annual pay.


That's actually a lot more informative, and happily, I'm on track.
2012-10-01 03:13:40 AM
1 votes:
OK, wise Farkers -

I'm a grad student. I'd like to open a mutual fund, because the $0.25 interest rate just isn't cutting it, frankly. What should I read? How do I start?
2012-10-01 03:06:15 AM
1 votes:

IronTom: And hope they don't wreck Capitalism. Or


things might work.
2012-10-01 03:04:46 AM
1 votes:
If I already live off of McDonalds, I don't think I have to save to live off of McDonalds when I retire.
2012-10-01 02:45:43 AM
1 votes:

Generation_D: These charts got completely destroyed in the 2008 meltdown. I know people who lost over 100K off their 401(k) in 3 months. Not to mention equity off property bought years before.

In short, steady state investment sounds nice til we let the criminals run the investment firms.


heh. Try giving everyone a house, even if they can't afford if, and having them bankrupt the system. But surprise surprise, we clawed our way out of that. It didn't make economic sense, and trade in the derivative securities also made no sense.

Add to that the onset of President Redistribution. People still haven't financially recovered after four years, like you said. They were four lost years.
2012-10-01 02:13:52 AM
1 votes:

azmoviez: Don't have kids. Don't go on vacation. Don't eat out. Don't buy nice things. Don't spend on entertainment. Don't have a nice car. No cable. No toys. No birthdays. No tithing.

Can you imagine our economy if everyone actually lived by the advice in the article? I'm pretty sure I won't need my exact salary when I retire and additionally I'd like to enjoy at least a bit of my life.

/YOLO?


I do all that and I still barely get by (although admittedly with a cheap vodka and expensive weed habit). Then again, I have a wonderful stress-free job and there's still a million PS2 games on ebay for 2 bucks I haven't played, so it's not like I suffer. I see people making $100,000 a year with kids, watching them age and get up every morning and I don't envy their money, at least not now. In 20 years, I bet I will envy it very much.
2012-10-01 12:56:10 AM
1 votes:
I'm 27 and this is the first time that I earn enough to invest substantially. I'm ridiculously thrifty but every time I manage to save a few thousand dollars, I was laid off for several months. I simply could not get ahead.

Now - I have the option to: start a family, plan for retirement, or invest in my home. I don't have the option to do more than one of those things.

Fark you article.
2012-10-01 12:45:47 AM
1 votes:

itsdan: "Saving 100% of your lifestyle sounds impossible, but it is not. If you earn $100,000 after taxes, you must limit your lifestyle to $50,000 and save the remainder. This strategy will allow you to retire at age 65 with a lifestyle of $50,000."

And if you make $50,000 or less to begin with, as most people do?


Yeah, I clicked on the article forgetting that people have disparate incomes and retirement goals. But 10 percent starting in your 20s is pretty reasonable.

Unpopular opinion: More people should screw around in the stock market. Don't just buy mutual funds. Set aside a little to play around with.
2012-10-01 12:23:48 AM
1 votes:
I don't "save" money. I get paid, bike to Amscot to pay off whatever I owe in a payday loan, and come back the next day to get a payday loan to get to the next one.

I consider this a relatively wealthy period in my life.
2012-10-01 12:20:48 AM
1 votes:
Well, I'm boned.
 
Displayed 72 of 72 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report