OT: Goodbye to the American Dream

[amdx]

On 8/22/2015 8:48 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

amdx wrote:

On 8/22/2015 10:39 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

amdx wrote:


I think there is more to it than that.
It's all the things we think we need because they are available.
We didn't have them in 1950. Just starting, Please to add to my list
any items we didn't have in 1950, that seem like a must have now.

House needs- air conditioning,

Not till I got sick and ended up 100% disabled.

ceiling fans,

This is Florida. They came with the house.

garbage disposal,

A 32 gallon can that I haul to the landfill when it's full.

mammoth refrigerator,

Standard sized, and was given to me.

TV, no 3 tv's,

More than three, but I've only bought three in 45 years. I spent less
than $200 for all three combined.

cable,

No OTA available.

2 baths,

Came with the $37,000 house

2 car garage,

Four car, needs a new roof.

and a carport,

None

electric can opener,

None

microwave,

Several. all but one were free. I paid $2.00 for the oldest one and
repaired it with a used HV capacitor.

exercise equipment,

None.

automation home,

Only motion sensors on some lights, because I need it. I fall too
often, even with them.

concrete driveways,

50 year old asphalt.

dimmers on our lights,

Hell no!

outdoors lights that turn themselves on,

Needed, when you have trouble seeing and walking.

Car needs-- NEW, 3 years old not 8 years old,

18 year old pickup that hasn't run in almost three months.

power windows and locks,

None

automatic transmission,

No choice on a used vehicle

air conditioning,

Hasn't worked for over seven years.



Electronic needs-- cellphones,

Cheap used one from Ebay.

internet, Being homebound, I need something.

mp3 player,

$8.00, with earphones.

computer,

$40.00, three years ago

printers,

$10.00 for a used Laser printer, over 100 used, free inkjets

Xbox,

No, thanks.

play station,

No, thanks.

bluray player,

$80, three years ago. Bought to stream free TV shows and movies.

stereo and speakers,

An early '70s Harman Kardon I bought for $3.00, over 20 years ago.
The speakers were given to me.

digital cameras,

I use a HTC EVO 4G Cellphone I bought for $6.00 on ebay and that
included shipping.


Personal needs-- expensive clothes,

Most of my clothes are what are left from when I worked full time.

expensive razors,

Dollar store disposable.

all nature of creams and salves and skin conditioners,

Get real.

expensive tennis shoes,

I haven't worn those since I left high school. I have to wear special
Diabetic shoes that cost $400+ a pair.


I'm not sure, but I think you made my point, you either don't have
these things or acquired them at very low cost.
In 1950, you didn't have the option to buy them so could live on a
single lower income, If you bought them today at normal prices, you need
two incomes, for most workers.


I didn't exist in 1950, but a lot of these items were available at
higher costs than now.

My point is, most homes in the 1950's did not have all those items.
They weren't a normal household expense like they are now.
Mikek


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

amdx wrote:

My point is, most homes in the 1950's did not have all those items.
They weren't a normal household expense like they are now.

Certainly not things that didn't exist, but I have been in older
homes that had some of them. Some were built in the 1920s, and had
things you wouldn't expect.

This place was built in 1964, but has been updated several times. I
added the motion sensors when I bought it, because my dad was to stay
with me for a while and he has a bad hip. I didn't want him falling, in
the dark while he fumbled with a light switch. The hallway lights are
also on motion sensors, rather than a switch by every doorway. That is
very handy when you wake in the middle of the night and have to stumble
to the bathroom. It was well worth the $15. That one has been in use
for 16 years, now. Just because you want a few non essentials isn't
bad, as long as you are wasting a lot of money on them.

 

[amdx]

On 8/23/2015 9:35 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

amdx wrote:

My point is, most homes in the 1950's did not have all those items.
They weren't a normal household expense like they are now.


Certainly not things that didn't exist, but I have been in older
homes that had some of them. Some were built in the 1920s, and had
things you wouldn't expect.

This place was built in 1964, but has been updated several times. I
added the motion sensors when I bought it, because my dad was to stay
with me for a while and he has a bad hip. I didn't want him falling, in
the dark while he fumbled with a light switch. The hallway lights are
also on motion sensors, rather than a switch by every doorway. That is
very handy when you wake in the middle of the night and have to stumble
to the bathroom. It was well worth the $15. That one has been in use
for 16 years, now. Just because you want a few non essentials isn't
bad, as long as you are wasting a lot of money on them.

Just ran across this.

"Statistics show the average American home size has nearly tripled since
the 1950s. Back then, a single family home averaged just 983 square
feet. Today, it's 2,624. At the same time, the average size household
has shrunk from around 3.5 people to around 2.5. Granted, people are
bigger these days, but I'm guessing we don't need an extra 1,641 square
feet for our girth alone."

Mikek

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

 

[DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUn]

On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 10:35:42 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> Gave us:

amdx wrote:

My point is, most homes in the 1950's did not have all those items.
They weren't a normal household expense like they are now.


Certainly not things that didn't exist, but I have been in older
homes that had some of them. Some were built in the 1920s, and had
things you wouldn't expect.

This place was built in 1964, but has been updated several times. I
added the motion sensors when I bought it, because my dad was to stay
with me for a while and he has a bad hip. I didn't want him falling, in
the dark while he fumbled with a light switch. The hallway lights are
also on motion sensors, rather than a switch by every doorway. That is
very handy when you wake in the middle of the night and have to stumble
to the bathroom. It was well worth the $15. That one has been in use
for 16 years, now. Just because you want a few non essentials isn't
bad, as long as you are wasting a lot of money on them.

Hopefully you were smart enough to upgrade all the bulbs to LED by
now. The electrical usage savings alone would have amortized the cost
of much of it within a couple years and they last forever and provide a
better 'color' light for far lower consumption.

Probably not though, since 'consumption' is what got your brain.

You probably would not have gotten such a payback, had you not pulled
the shit you pulled with me over the years.

 

[rickman]

On 8/22/2015 9:59 PM, amdx wrote:

On 8/19/2015 4:22 PM, amdx wrote:
On 8/19/2015 12:05 PM, rickman wrote:

Just a note my electric costs have went from $0.119 kWh to $0.15 kWh
during Obama.

The nerve of him raising your rates like that! It will be nice to get
someone else in office so those rates will go back down. Funny though,
my electric rates haven't gone up much at all. I guess he only raised
the rates of those he doesn't like.


"How much is "not all that much"> Where are you and what fuel produces
your electricity?

Are you unaware of what's going on in the coal industry?
And thus the price of electricity, at least until they change over to
Nat. Gas.
Do some research it is amazing all jobs lost mostly because of EPA regs,
that Obama pushed to, as he said, To necessarily bankrupt coal.

“Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would
necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal
is good or bad,” Obama said in 2008.

From the NY Times,

"Peabody Energy and Arch Coal, the nation’s two largest producers — may
just be a matter of time, based on their recent stock performance.
Peabody shares, which traded at more than $16 less than a year ago, hit
99 cents this week, and Arch shares have fallen to $1 from more than
$33, making them among the biggest losers this year in the Standard &
Poor’s 500-stock index."

Mikek

Hey rickman, did you have any response after learning what Obama did
and is doing to coal?

"So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It’s just
that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge
sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted."
— President Barack Obama, January 2008

“If you didn’t auction the [CO2] permits, it would represent the largest
corporate welfare program that has ever been enacted in the history of
the United States. All of the evidence is that what would occur is that
corporate profits would increase by approximately the value of the permits.”
— Peter R. Orszag, White House OMB Director, March 2009

“Until the consumer is involved, we are not going to make progress”
in reducing the amount of oil the U.S. consumes.”
— Alan Mulally, Ford Motor Co. Chief Executive

“This won’t be the last time we will visit this between now and
2020, 2030, 2050,”
— Rep. Edward Markey, speaking at Harvard University, quoted in Inside
Energy, August 10, 2009

“It’s important that those who consume the products being made all
around the world to the benefit of America — and it’s our own
consumption activity that’s causing the emission of greenhouse gases,
then quite frankly Americans need to pay for [Chinese greenhouse gas
emissions].”
— Commerce Secretary Gary Locke, July 2009, at the American Chamber of
Commerce in Shanghai

--

Rick

 

[amdx]

On 8/23/2015 10:40 AM, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:

On Thursday, August 20, 2015 at 9:56:26 AM UTC-4, amdx wrote:
On 8/19/2015 9:08 PM, dagmargoo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Wednesday, August 19, 2015 at 12:34:18 PM UTC-4, amdx wrote:
On 8/17/2015 9:32 PM, Jim Thompson wrote:
Goodbye to the American Dream... Thanks to Obama...

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/new-677511-millennials-economic.html

...Jim Thompson


Even if all that is true, it doesn't effect any individual that
wants to work hard save money, invest and retire at 40.

If you earn $50,000*, save 20% of your income for 20 years invest at
10%** you will have have $797,800. Not a lot to retire on, but more net
worth than 90% of the population between 18 and 65 years old.
$797,810 with a 4% withdrawal rate is $32,000. aah, keep the wife
working ;-) Note that $32K should be mostly tax free, and no FICA either.

* includes inflation adjustment.
** 60 year average stock market return

For those interested,
http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/01/13/the-shockingly-simple-math-behind-early-retirement/

And the full dose.
http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/all-the-posts-since-the-beginning-of-time/
Start at the bottom.

Or, meet Mr. Money Mustache.
http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/04/06/meet-mr-money-mustache/

Don't miss the Mr. Money Mustache Forum.
http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/index.php

Hilarious. Thanks!


Ok, but not enough context for me to know if you think the concept is
neat or BS.

Oh, sorry. I meant that MMM's pragmatic stoicism and wit make a
delightful combo.

Oh good, ya, he's a character. I've posted links several times,
you're the first to respond positive or negative.

It's completely possible. I moved out at seventeen, from Europe to the
west coast. Got two full-time minimum-wage jobs (*), lived on a quarter,
and saved the rest (for university, etc.).
*one paid $.25 over

Once upon an America we lauded economical living and lampooned waste or living
beyond one's means.

One thread I enjoyed was people bragging about their cars. Who had the
oldest or the most miles.

I'm late in life for the RE part, but it turns out we did a fair job
of living the MMM life, before we learned about it.
On the other hand I have no interest in living on MMM's income.
If you read between the lines MMM's networth has probably grown
to 3 x what it was when he retired.

MMM's success is fine, but forget not that money is just something you trade
for stuff. Once you have enough stuff (a choice), you're set.

Since he started writing (2011) the nestegg he says he lives off of
has had a major increase, but I've not seen him mention that. It might
ruin his rep! Say's he still lives on ~$25K.

btw, here is a program that calculates your odds of running out of money
before you die. You put in data like total portfolio, yearly withdrawal,
inflation rate, expected SS, expected retirement time, etc.
It uses historical stock market returns, Makes a run , say 30 yrs, from
1880 to 1910, then 1881 to 1911, all the way to 1985 to 2015. Then finds
out how many times out of the 115 stock market runs you would have run
out of money. As they say historical return do not predict future
returns, but...
The program has lots of possible adjustments or you can just use it's
assumptions. Just read so you know what they are. I think the assumed
inflation rate (at 3%) is low, I bumped it up.

http://www.firecalc.com/

See the tabs just below the top that read as follows, to make adjustments.
Start Here---Other Income/Spending---Not Retired?---Spending Models Your
Portfolio---Portfolio Changes

Always an interesting exercise, yet the precision is kinda overkill given
that a dime's worth of silver bought over a half a gallon of gasoline in the
mid 1960's--and that silver dime still will--but a dime itself will only
buy you 5% of that today.

Inflation is calculated in, If that's your point. The default is 3% a
year. I think that might be to for low over the next 30 years.
If your point is silver has been good over the last 40 years, I don't
know, but you make me think about the coin collection my mom started
me on 50 years ago, lots of silver in that. I just looked at melt
value, about 11 times face value, but a quick look shows even a coin in
good condition has more value than the silver. Which logic would say
that will always be, because you always have the silver value plus
collector value.

IOW, the 'fair share' people show a high success of using the government to take
a big chunk whatever you might have or save, whether through inflation, tax,
or debt, to replace whatever they failed to set aside for themselves.

Already tax up to 80% of SS if you have a certain income, I see means
testing coming soon.

(Speaking of, it's amusing to see socialist candidate Bernie Sanders,
after 24 years in Congress earning a congressman's pay (currently $174K +
expenses & bennies), reporting a net worth of ~$500K. Imagine what a
Mustachian would have been able to save in that time.)

Many are doing better than Bernie on $50k a year!

So money's fine and all that, but the greater security lies in living
smart.

Cheers,
James Arthur

"Economy is the art of making the most of life." --G.B. Shaw (a socialist)

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

 

On Sunday, August 23, 2015 at 12:30:42 PM UTC-4, amdx wrote:

On 8/23/2015 10:40 AM, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
On Thursday, August 20, 2015 at 9:56:26 AM UTC-4, amdx wrote:
On 8/19/2015 9:08 PM, dagmargoo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Wednesday, August 19, 2015 at 12:34:18 PM UTC-4, amdx wrote:
On 8/17/2015 9:32 PM, Jim Thompson wrote:
Goodbye to the American Dream... Thanks to Obama...

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/new-677511-millennials-economic.html

...Jim Thompson


Even if all that is true, it doesn't effect any individual that
wants to work hard save money, invest and retire at 40.

If you earn $50,000*, save 20% of your income for 20 years invest at
10%** you will have have $797,800. Not a lot to retire on, but more net
worth than 90% of the population between 18 and 65 years old.
$797,810 with a 4% withdrawal rate is $32,000. aah, keep the wife
working ;-) Note that $32K should be mostly tax free, and no FICA either.

* includes inflation adjustment.
** 60 year average stock market return

For those interested,
http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/01/13/the-shockingly-simple-math-behind-early-retirement/

And the full dose.
http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/all-the-posts-since-the-beginning-of-time/
Start at the bottom.

Or, meet Mr. Money Mustache.
http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/04/06/meet-mr-money-mustache/

Don't miss the Mr. Money Mustache Forum.
http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/index.php

Hilarious. Thanks!


Ok, but not enough context for me to know if you think the concept is
neat or BS.

Oh, sorry. I meant that MMM's pragmatic stoicism and wit make a
delightful combo.


Oh good, ya, he's a character. I've posted links several times,
you're the first to respond positive or negative.

It's completely possible. I moved out at seventeen, from Europe to the
west coast. Got two full-time minimum-wage jobs (*), lived on a quarter,
and saved the rest (for university, etc.).
*one paid $.25 over

Once upon an America we lauded economical living and lampooned waste or living
beyond one's means.


One thread I enjoyed was people bragging about their cars. Who had the
oldest or the most miles.

I'm late in life for the RE part, but it turns out we did a fair job
of living the MMM life, before we learned about it.
On the other hand I have no interest in living on MMM's income.
If you read between the lines MMM's networth has probably grown
to 3 x what it was when he retired.

MMM's success is fine, but forget not that money is just something you trade
for stuff. Once you have enough stuff (a choice), you're set.


Since he started writing (2011) the nestegg he says he lives off of
has had a major increase, but I've not seen him mention that. It might
ruin his rep! Say's he still lives on ~$25K.

Luxury! ;-)

btw, here is a program that calculates your odds of running out of money
before you die. You put in data like total portfolio, yearly withdrawal,
inflation rate, expected SS, expected retirement time, etc.
It uses historical stock market returns, Makes a run , say 30 yrs, from
1880 to 1910, then 1881 to 1911, all the way to 1985 to 2015. Then finds
out how many times out of the 115 stock market runs you would have run
out of money. As they say historical return do not predict future
returns, but...
The program has lots of possible adjustments or you can just use it's
assumptions. Just read so you know what they are. I think the assumed
inflation rate (at 3%) is low, I bumped it up.

http://www.firecalc.com/

See the tabs just below the top that read as follows, to make adjustments.
Start Here---Other Income/Spending---Not Retired?---Spending Models Your
Portfolio---Portfolio Changes

Always an interesting exercise, yet the precision is kinda overkill given
that a dime's worth of silver bought over a half a gallon of gasoline in the
mid 1960's--and that silver dime still will--but a dime itself will only
buy you 5% of that today.


Inflation is calculated in, If that's your point. The default is 3% a
year. I think that might be to for low over the next 30 years.

Since the Federal Reserve pumped in ~6% of GDP for five years running, ISTM
unwinding their pile of Monopoly money will suck out about that many
year * percentage points over time. Inflation mostly, I'd expect--that's
always easiest.

If your point is silver has been good over the last 40 years, I don't
know, but you make me think about the coin collection my mom started
me on 50 years ago, lots of silver in that. I just looked at melt
value, about 11 times face value, but a quick look shows even a coin in
good condition has more value than the silver. Which logic would say
that will always be, because you always have the silver value plus
collector value.

I wasn't touting silver, just pointing out that they can take a lot by hook
and by crook, i.e., currency isn't a safe store of value.

IOW, the 'fair share' people show a high success of using the government to take
a big chunk whatever you might have or save, whether through inflation, tax,
or debt, to replace whatever they failed to set aside for themselves.


Already tax up to 80% of SS if you have a certain income, I see means
testing coming soon.

(Speaking of, it's amusing to see socialist candidate Bernie Sanders,
after 24 years in Congress earning a congressman's pay (currently $174K +
expenses & bennies), reporting a net worth of ~$500K. Imagine what a
Mustachian would have been able to save in that time.)


Many are doing better than Bernie on $50k a year!

Yep.

And, after a lifetime of dissipating public monies publicly (& personally),
he needs more--his campaign's calling for a 90% tax rate.

IOW Bernie's the personification, literally--the shining exemplar--of Margaret
Thatcher's maxim, "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run
out of other people's money."

MT's dictum is Bernie's lament (public and private).

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, 24 August 2015 07:01:07 UTC+10, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Sunday, August 23, 2015 at 12:30:42 PM UTC-4, amdx wrote:
On 8/23/2015 10:40 AM, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
On Thursday, August 20, 2015 at 9:56:26 AM UTC-4, amdx wrote:
On 8/19/2015 9:08 PM, dagmargoo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Wednesday, August 19, 2015 at 12:34:18 PM UTC-4, amdx wrote:
On 8/17/2015 9:32 PM, Jim Thompson wrote:

<snip>

Inflation is calculated in, If that's your point. The default is 3% a
year. I think that might be to for low over the next 30 years.

Since the Federal Reserve pumped in ~6% of GDP for five years running, ISTM
unwinding their pile of Monopoly money will suck out about that many
year * percentage points over time. Inflation mostly, I'd expect--that's
always easiest.

James Arthur has a problem with post-Keynsian economics.

He doesn't understand that the Global Financial Crisis sucked an enormous amount of liquidity out of the economy, and the Federal Reserve and similar institutions in other countries have been compensating for that ever since.

Once people finally get into the habit of spending money again, this kind of support will cease to be necessary. Without it, during the Great Depression, the economy experienced the joys of deflation - ever so healthy - and 25% unemployment.

I wasn't touting silver, just pointing out that they can take a lot by hook
and by crook, i.e., currency isn't a safe store of value.

Whereas it was during the Great Depression, where those who had money that they could hang onto saw it increase in value by 30%.

IOW, the 'fair share' people show a high success of using the government
to take a big chunk whatever you might have or save, whether through
inflation, tax, or debt, to replace whatever they failed to set aside for
themselves.

Already tax up to 80% of SS if you have a certain income, I see means
testing coming soon.

(Speaking of, it's amusing to see socialist candidate Bernie Sanders,
after 24 years in Congress earning a congressman's pay (currently $174K +
expenses & bennies), reporting a net worth of ~$500K. Imagine what a
Mustachian would have been able to save in that time.)


Many are doing better than Bernie on $50k a year!

Yep.

They'd have done it by ignoring the duties that Bernie took on when he became a Congressman - getting rich isn't part of the process of representing all your constituents, though many US congressmen have done very well by vigorously representing the more well-off of their constituents.

And, after a lifetime of dissipating public monies publicly (& personally),
he needs more--his campaign's calling for a 90% tax rate.

IOW Bernie's the personification, literally--the shining exemplar--of Margaret
Thatcher's maxim, "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run
out of other people's money."

MT's dictum is Bernie's lament (public and private).

Margaret Thatcher's grasp of economics left the UK with a remarkably low rate of economic growth during her reign.

Modern socialism, as practiced in the Scandinavian countries and Germany, is showing no sign of running out of other people's money, whereas the UK economy under Thatcher went downhill in part because of inadequate spending on public services, and some fairly enthusiastic transferring of public assets into private pockets.

James Arthur's fond conviction that the rich should be allowed to get even richer at everybody else's expense is roughly what you'd expect from somebody who managed to get rich enough to retire at 34, but it doesn't seem to be a good way to generate persistent economic growth.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, 24 August 2015 11:13:44 UTC+10, krw wrote:

On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 08:40:24 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Thursday, August 20, 2015 at 9:56:26 AM UTC-4, amdx wrote:
On 8/19/2015 9:08 PM, dagmargoo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Wednesday, August 19, 2015 at 12:34:18 PM UTC-4, amdx wrote:
On 8/17/2015 9:32 PM, Jim Thompson wrote:
Goodbye to the American Dream... Thanks to Obama...

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/new-677511-millennials-economic.html

...Jim Thompson


Even if all that is true, it doesn't effect any individual that
wants to work hard save money, invest and retire at 40.

If you earn $50,000*, save 20% of your income for 20 years invest at
10%** you will have have $797,800. Not a lot to retire on, but more net
worth than 90% of the population between 18 and 65 years old.
$797,810 with a 4% withdrawal rate is $32,000. aah, keep the wife
working ;-) Note that $32K should be mostly tax free, and no FICA either.

* includes inflation adjustment.
** 60 year average stock market return

For those interested,
http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/01/13/the-shockingly-simple-math-behind-early-retirement/

And the full dose.
http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/all-the-posts-since-the-beginning-of-time/
Start at the bottom.

Or, meet Mr. Money Mustache.
http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/04/06/meet-mr-money-mustache/

Don't miss the Mr. Money Mustache Forum.
http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/index.php

Hilarious. Thanks!


Ok, but not enough context for me to know if you think the concept is
neat or BS.

Oh, sorry. I meant that MMM's pragmatic stoicism and wit make a
delightful combo.

It's completely possible. I moved out at seventeen, from Europe to the
west coast. Got two full-time minimum-wage jobs (*), lived on a quarter,
and saved the rest (for university, etc.).
*one paid $.25 over

Once upon an America we lauded economical living and lampooned waste or living
beyond one's means.

I'm late in life for the RE part, but it turns out we did a fair job
of living the MMM life, before we learned about it.
On the other hand I have no interest in living on MMM's income.
If you read between the lines MMM's networth has probably grown
to 3 x what it was when he retired.

MMM's success is fine, but forget not that money is just something you trade
for stuff. Once you have enough stuff (a choice), you're set.


btw, here is a program that calculates your odds of running out of money
before you die. You put in data like total portfolio, yearly withdrawal,
inflation rate, expected SS, expected retirement time, etc.
It uses historical stock market returns, Makes a run , say 30 yrs, from
1880 to 1910, then 1881 to 1911, all the way to 1985 to 2015. Then finds
out how many times out of the 115 stock market runs you would have run
out of money. As they say historical return do not predict future
returns, but...
The program has lots of possible adjustments or you can just use it's
assumptions. Just read so you know what they are. I think the assumed
inflation rate (at 3%) is low, I bumped it up.

http://www.firecalc.com/

See the tabs just below the top that read as follows, to make adjustments.
Start Here---Other Income/Spending---Not Retired?---Spending Models Your
Portfolio---Portfolio Changes

Always an interesting exercise, yet the precision is kinda overkill given
that a dime's worth of silver bought over a half a gallon of gasoline in the
mid 1960's--and that silver dime still will--but a dime itself will only
buy you 5% of that today.

IOW, the 'fair share' people show a high success of using the government to take
a big chunk whatever you might have or save, whether through inflation, tax,
or debt, to replace whatever they failed to set aside for themselves.

(Speaking of, it's amusing to see socialist candidate Bernie Sanders,
after 24 years in Congress earning a congressman's pay (currently $174K +
expenses & bennies), reporting a net worth of ~$500K. Imagine what a
Mustachian would have been able to save in that time.)

That's not all that bad. Before he was in Congress, he was mayor of
Burlington. Before that, he was on welfare. He did pretty well for a
socialist who has never worked a day in his life.

Curious idea of what might constitute work. Being a mayor is reputed to be a time-consuming job - particularly if you do it well enough to go from there to be elected as a congressman - and being a congressman isn't exactly effort-free if you plan to be there for more than one term.

Krw won't have done either, but will still have fixed and inflexible ideas about the level of effort required, and claim that anybody who doesn't share them is lying.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Sunday, August 23, 2015 at 8:12:54 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Monday, 24 August 2015 07:01:07 UTC+10, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Sunday, August 23, 2015 at 12:30:42 PM UTC-4, amdx wrote:
On 8/23/2015 10:40 AM, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
On Thursday, August 20, 2015 at 9:56:26 AM UTC-4, amdx wrote:
On 8/19/2015 9:08 PM, dagmargoo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Wednesday, August 19, 2015 at 12:34:18 PM UTC-4, amdx wrote:
On 8/17/2015 9:32 PM, Jim Thompson wrote:

snip

Inflation is calculated in, If that's your point. The default is 3% a
year. I think that might be to for low over the next 30 years.

Since the Federal Reserve pumped in ~6% of GDP for five years running, ISTM
unwinding their pile of Monopoly money will suck out about that many
year * percentage points over time. Inflation mostly, I'd expect--that's
always easiest.

James Arthur has a problem with post-Keynsian economics.

He doesn't understand that the Global Financial Crisis sucked an enormous amount of liquidity out of the economy, and the Federal Reserve and similar institutions in other countries have been compensating for that ever since.

Once people finally get into the habit of spending money again, this kind of support will cease to be necessary.

Yep, that's what pulled Japan right back from their crash a few decades ago..
And it's bound to start working any day now.

Without it, during the Great Depression, the economy experienced the joys of deflation - ever so healthy - and 25% unemployment.

I wasn't touting silver, just pointing out that they can take a lot by hook
and by crook, i.e., currency isn't a safe store of value.

Whereas it was during the Great Depression, where those who had money that they could hang onto saw it increase in value by 30%.

IOW, the 'fair share' people show a high success of using the government
to take a big chunk whatever you might have or save, whether through
inflation, tax, or debt, to replace whatever they failed to set aside for
themselves.

Already tax up to 80% of SS if you have a certain income, I see means
testing coming soon.

(Speaking of, it's amusing to see socialist candidate Bernie Sanders,
after 24 years in Congress earning a congressman's pay (currently $174K +
expenses & bennies), reporting a net worth of ~$500K. Imagine what a
Mustachian would have been able to save in that time.)


Many are doing better than Bernie on $50k a year!

Yep.

They'd have done it by ignoring the duties that Bernie took on when he became a Congressman - getting rich isn't part of the process of representing all your constituents, though many US congressmen have done very well by vigorously representing the more well-off of their constituents.

A rather poor defense of a populist defender of the poor being unable to save
on $250+k a year equivalent income.

And, after a lifetime of dissipating public monies publicly (& personally),
he needs more--his campaign's calling for a 90% tax rate.

IOW Bernie's the personification, literally--the shining exemplar--of Margaret
Thatcher's maxim, "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run
out of other people's money."

MT's dictum is Bernie's lament (public and private).

Margaret Thatcher's grasp of economics left the UK with a remarkably low rate of economic growth during her reign.

Modern socialism, as practiced in the Scandinavian countries and Germany, is showing no sign of running out of other people's money, whereas the UK economy under Thatcher went downhill in part because of inadequate spending on public services, and some fairly enthusiastic transferring of public assets into private pockets.

James Arthur's fond conviction that the rich should be allowed to get even richer at everybody else's expense is roughly what you'd expect from somebody who managed to get rich enough to retire at 34, but it doesn't seem to be a good way to generate persistent economic growth.

No, that's the Socialist's blunder. People get rich by 1. earning and then
2. not spending it. Socialists are genetically incapable of doing either,
hence Sanders.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

On Sunday, August 23, 2015 at 9:13:44 PM UTC-4, krw wrote:

On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 08:40:24 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Thursday, August 20, 2015 at 9:56:26 AM UTC-4, amdx wrote:
On 8/19/2015 9:08 PM, dagmargoo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Wednesday, August 19, 2015 at 12:34:18 PM UTC-4, amdx wrote:
On 8/17/2015 9:32 PM, Jim Thompson wrote:
Goodbye to the American Dream... Thanks to Obama...

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/new-677511-millennials-economic.html

...Jim Thompson


Even if all that is true, it doesn't effect any individual that
wants to work hard save money, invest and retire at 40.

If you earn $50,000*, save 20% of your income for 20 years invest at
10%** you will have have $797,800. Not a lot to retire on, but more net
worth than 90% of the population between 18 and 65 years old.
$797,810 with a 4% withdrawal rate is $32,000. aah, keep the wife
working ;-) Note that $32K should be mostly tax free, and no FICA either.

* includes inflation adjustment.
** 60 year average stock market return

For those interested,
http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/01/13/the-shockingly-simple-math-behind-early-retirement/

And the full dose.
http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/all-the-posts-since-the-beginning-of-time/
Start at the bottom.

Or, meet Mr. Money Mustache.
http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/04/06/meet-mr-money-mustache/

Don't miss the Mr. Money Mustache Forum.
http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/index.php

Hilarious. Thanks!


Ok, but not enough context for me to know if you think the concept is
neat or BS.

Oh, sorry. I meant that MMM's pragmatic stoicism and wit make a
delightful combo.

It's completely possible. I moved out at seventeen, from Europe to the
west coast. Got two full-time minimum-wage jobs (*), lived on a quarter,
and saved the rest (for university, etc.).
*one paid $.25 over

Once upon an America we lauded economical living and lampooned waste or living
beyond one's means.

I'm late in life for the RE part, but it turns out we did a fair job
of living the MMM life, before we learned about it.
On the other hand I have no interest in living on MMM's income.
If you read between the lines MMM's networth has probably grown
to 3 x what it was when he retired.

MMM's success is fine, but forget not that money is just something you trade
for stuff. Once you have enough stuff (a choice), you're set.


btw, here is a program that calculates your odds of running out of money
before you die. You put in data like total portfolio, yearly withdrawal,
inflation rate, expected SS, expected retirement time, etc.
It uses historical stock market returns, Makes a run , say 30 yrs, from
1880 to 1910, then 1881 to 1911, all the way to 1985 to 2015. Then finds
out how many times out of the 115 stock market runs you would have run
out of money. As they say historical return do not predict future
returns, but...
The program has lots of possible adjustments or you can just use it's
assumptions. Just read so you know what they are. I think the assumed
inflation rate (at 3%) is low, I bumped it up.

http://www.firecalc.com/

See the tabs just below the top that read as follows, to make adjustments.
Start Here---Other Income/Spending---Not Retired?---Spending Models Your
Portfolio---Portfolio Changes

Always an interesting exercise, yet the precision is kinda overkill given
that a dime's worth of silver bought over a half a gallon of gasoline in the
mid 1960's--and that silver dime still will--but a dime itself will only
buy you 5% of that today.

IOW, the 'fair share' people show a high success of using the government to take
a big chunk whatever you might have or save, whether through inflation, tax,
or debt, to replace whatever they failed to set aside for themselves.

(Speaking of, it's amusing to see socialist candidate Bernie Sanders,
after 24 years in Congress earning a congressman's pay (currently $174K +
expenses & bennies), reporting a net worth of ~$500K. Imagine what a
Mustachian would have been able to save in that time.)

That's not all that bad. Before he was in Congress, he was mayor of
Burlington. Before that, he was on welfare. He did pretty well for a
socialist who has never worked a day in his life.

I'd think a socialist man-of-the-people should be able to squeeze by on
$100k--twice the median household income--and save the other $75K/year.
That for 24 years = $1.8M saved, without even investing. So, he's an
extravagant #$%@ with his People's Salary.

Apparently the big, mean rich people wouldn't let him. They didn't pay
enough tax. Extra. For him to spend. Or <whatever>.

A Moustachian would manage on $35K and save $135k, plus have 24 years of
investment returns.

One manages resources wisely, the other doesn't (and complains).

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

amdx wrote:

On 8/23/2015 9:35 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

amdx wrote:

My point is, most homes in the 1950's did not have all those items.
They weren't a normal household expense like they are now.


Certainly not things that didn't exist, but I have been in older
homes that had some of them. Some were built in the 1920s, and had
things you wouldn't expect.

This place was built in 1964, but has been updated several times. I
added the motion sensors when I bought it, because my dad was to stay
with me for a while and he has a bad hip. I didn't want him falling, in
the dark while he fumbled with a light switch. The hallway lights are
also on motion sensors, rather than a switch by every doorway. That is
very handy when you wake in the middle of the night and have to stumble
to the bathroom. It was well worth the $15. That one has been in use
for 16 years, now. Just because you want a few non essentials isn't
bad, as long as you are wasting a lot of money on them.


Just ran across this.

"Statistics show the average American home size has nearly tripled since
the 1950s. Back then, a single family home averaged just 983 square
feet. Today, it's 2,624. At the same time, the average size household
has shrunk from around 3.5 people to around 2.5. Granted, people are
bigger these days, but I'm guessing we don't need an extra 1,641 square
feet for our girth alone."

I don't need more space, it would just cost more to Cool it.

The house is 1,537 square feet.

My garage is a stand alone structure of 1,200 square feet.

My storage building is 504 square feet.

The laundry building and tool shed are each 144 square feet.

A one bedroom cottage behind the house is 288 square feet.

That is a total of 3817 square feet, and I live by myself.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, 24 August 2015 11:31:19 UTC+10, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Sunday, August 23, 2015 at 8:12:54 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Monday, 24 August 2015 07:01:07 UTC+10, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Sunday, August 23, 2015 at 12:30:42 PM UTC-4, amdx wrote:
On 8/23/2015 10:40 AM, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
On Thursday, August 20, 2015 at 9:56:26 AM UTC-4, amdx wrote:
On 8/19/2015 9:08 PM, dagmargoo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Wednesday, August 19, 2015 at 12:34:18 PM UTC-4, amdx wrote:
On 8/17/2015 9:32 PM, Jim Thompson wrote:

snip

Inflation is calculated in, If that's your point. The default is 3% a
year. I think that might be to for low over the next 30 years.

Since the Federal Reserve pumped in ~6% of GDP for five years running,
ISTM unwinding their pile of Monopoly money will suck out about that many
year * percentage points over time. Inflation mostly, I'd expect--that's
always easiest.

James Arthur has a problem with post-Keynsian economics.

He doesn't understand that the Global Financial Crisis sucked an enormous amount of liquidity out of the economy, and the Federal Reserve and similar institutions in other countries have been compensating for that ever since.

Once people finally get into the habit of spending money again, this kind of support will cease to be necessary.

Yep, that's what pulled Japan right back from their crash a few decades ago.
And it's bound to start working any day now.

The Japanese had a different kind of problem - predicated on the proposition that property in down-town Tokyo was worth as much as the rest of the universe put together - which they never got around to confronting. Granting James Arthur's deep commitment to flat-earth economics, it's unsurprising that he conflates their problem with that of the US banks, despite the fact that the US banks were perfectly happy to admit that the property that they had lent money on was worthless, since they had sold off the debts to the rest of the world.

Without it, during the Great Depression, the economy experienced the joys of deflation - ever so healthy - and 25% unemployment.

I wasn't touting silver, just pointing out that they can take a lot by
hook and by crook, i.e., currency isn't a safe store of value.

Whereas it was during the Great Depression, where those who had money that they could hang onto saw it increase in value by 30%.

IOW, the 'fair share' people show a high success of using the
government to take a big chunk whatever you might have or save,
whether through inflation, tax, or debt, to replace whatever they
failed to set aside for themselves.

Already tax up to 80% of SS if you have a certain income, I see means
testing coming soon.

(Speaking of, it's amusing to see socialist candidate Bernie Sanders,
after 24 years in Congress earning a congressman's pay (currently
$174K + expenses & bennies), reporting a net worth of ~$500K.
Imagine what a Mustachian would have been able to save in that time.)

Many are doing better than Bernie on $50k a year!

Yep.

They'd have done it by ignoring the duties that Bernie took on when he became a Congressman - getting rich isn't part of the process of representing all your constituents, though many US congressmen have done very well by vigorously representing the more well-off of their constituents.

A rather poor defense of a populist defender of the poor being unable to save
on $250+k a year equivalent income.

He chose not to save. That's a choice, not a vice.

And, after a lifetime of dissipating public monies publicly (&
personally), he needs more--his campaign's calling for a 90% tax rate..

IOW Bernie's the personification, literally--the shining exemplar--of
Margaret Thatcher's maxim, "The problem with socialism is that eventually
you run out of other people's money."

MT's dictum is Bernie's lament (public and private).

Margaret Thatcher's grasp of economics left the UK with a remarkably low rate of economic growth during her reign.

Modern socialism, as practiced in the Scandinavian countries and Germany, is showing no sign of running out of other people's money, whereas the UK economy under Thatcher went downhill in part because of inadequate spending on public services, and some fairly enthusiastic transferring of public assets into private pockets.

James Arthur's fond conviction that the rich should be allowed to get even richer at everybody else's expense is roughly what you'd expect from somebody who managed to get rich enough to retire at 34, but it doesn't seem to be a good way to generate persistent economic growth.

No, that's the Socialist's blunder. People get rich by 1. earning and then
2. not spending it. Socialists are genetically incapable of doing either,
hence Sanders.

Socialism may have a genetic basis - we were mutually supportive hunter-gatherers a lot longer than we've been relying on agriculture, and hogging our own private stores of grain - but James Arthur seems to have social Darwinism in mind here, which wasn't one of Herbert Spencer's better ideas.

Getting rich is a little more complicated than James Arthur likes to think, but James Arthur is happy to rely on people - like Bastiac and Margaret Thatcher - who were content with a simpler and more rapacious outlook than is profitable for the economy as a whole.

Socialism notes that an economy gets rich when individual producers produce more. This depends on factors - like a skilled and healthy work force, and efficient infra-structure - that cost the community money, generally raised by highish taxes. Once you've got that basis, brilliant entrepreneurs in advanced industrial countries can produce innovative and attractive products more efficiently than they could (if at all) in third world countries.

The USA, having become an advanced industrial country by a process of trial and error, seems to be emphasising the error part of the process as it reverts back to being a third world country. It's certainly got the kind of political system that's designed to get it back where it came from, and James Arthur is dedicated to keeping the political system as backward as possible. After all a backward (positively reactionary) system seems to be the only kind of system that he can understand.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, 24 August 2015 11:48:49 UTC+10, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Sunday, August 23, 2015 at 9:13:44 PM UTC-4, krw wrote:
On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 08:40:24 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:
On Thursday, August 20, 2015 at 9:56:26 AM UTC-4, amdx wrote:
On 8/19/2015 9:08 PM, dagmargoo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Wednesday, August 19, 2015 at 12:34:18 PM UTC-4, amdx wrote:
On 8/17/2015 9:32 PM, Jim Thompson wrote:

(Speaking of, it's amusing to see socialist candidate Bernie Sanders,
after 24 years in Congress earning a congressman's pay (currently $174K +
expenses & bennies), reporting a net worth of ~$500K. Imagine what a
Mustachian would have been able to save in that time.)

That's not all that bad. Before he was in Congress, he was mayor of
Burlington. Before that, he was on welfare. He did pretty well for a
socialist who has never worked a day in his life.

I'd think a socialist man-of-the-people should be able to squeeze by on
$100k--twice the median household income--and save the other $75K/year.
That for 24 years = $1.8M saved, without even investing. So, he's an
extravagant #$%@ with his People's Salary.

James Arthur isn't a socialist man of the people, and he doesn't seem to spend any time with people who might look like that, so his idea of how they might be able to budget their income is ill-informed. His own ideas about spending - nothing on heating the house - are strange, and probably explain why he lives on his own.

Apparently the big, mean rich people wouldn't let him. They didn't pay
enough tax. Extra. For him to spend. Or <whatever>.

A Moustachian would manage on $35K and save $135k, plus have 24 years of
investment returns.

One manages resources wisely, the other doesn't (and complains).

Another scrimps on his duties and gets rich, and pontificates about the inadequacies of people who don't behave the same way. At the moment all the complaints are coming from the goof who doesn't seem to have been spending enough.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUn]

On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 20:17:44 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> Gave us:

>and I live by myself.

No surprise there.

 

[krw]

On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 10:02:42 -0500, amdx <nojunk@knology.net> wrote:

On 8/23/2015 9:35 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

amdx wrote:

My point is, most homes in the 1950's did not have all those items.
They weren't a normal household expense like they are now.


Certainly not things that didn't exist, but I have been in older
homes that had some of them. Some were built in the 1920s, and had
things you wouldn't expect.

This place was built in 1964, but has been updated several times. I
added the motion sensors when I bought it, because my dad was to stay
with me for a while and he has a bad hip. I didn't want him falling, in
the dark while he fumbled with a light switch. The hallway lights are
also on motion sensors, rather than a switch by every doorway. That is
very handy when you wake in the middle of the night and have to stumble
to the bathroom. It was well worth the $15. That one has been in use
for 16 years, now. Just because you want a few non essentials isn't
bad, as long as you are wasting a lot of money on them.


Just ran across this.

"Statistics show the average American home size has nearly tripled since
the 1950s. Back then, a single family home averaged just 983 square
feet. Today, it's 2,624. At the same time, the average size household
has shrunk from around 3.5 people to around 2.5. Granted, people are
bigger these days, but I'm guessing we don't need an extra 1,641 square
feet for our girth alone."

Hmm, we have over 3,600 (plus over 2,000 unfinished) for two people.
Thirty years ago we had 1,200 for the three of us. I guess that is
some inflation (though we paid about the same per square foot with
very different dollars).

 

[krw]

On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 08:40:24 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Thursday, August 20, 2015 at 9:56:26 AM UTC-4, amdx wrote:
On 8/19/2015 9:08 PM, dagmargoo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Wednesday, August 19, 2015 at 12:34:18 PM UTC-4, amdx wrote:
On 8/17/2015 9:32 PM, Jim Thompson wrote:
Goodbye to the American Dream... Thanks to Obama...

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/new-677511-millennials-economic.html

...Jim Thompson


Even if all that is true, it doesn't effect any individual that
wants to work hard save money, invest and retire at 40.

If you earn $50,000*, save 20% of your income for 20 years invest at
10%** you will have have $797,800. Not a lot to retire on, but more net
worth than 90% of the population between 18 and 65 years old.
$797,810 with a 4% withdrawal rate is $32,000. aah, keep the wife
working ;-) Note that $32K should be mostly tax free, and no FICA either.

* includes inflation adjustment.
** 60 year average stock market return

For those interested,
http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/01/13/the-shockingly-simple-math-behind-early-retirement/

And the full dose.
http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/all-the-posts-since-the-beginning-of-time/
Start at the bottom.

Or, meet Mr. Money Mustache.
http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/04/06/meet-mr-money-mustache/

Don't miss the Mr. Money Mustache Forum.
http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/index.php

Hilarious. Thanks!


Ok, but not enough context for me to know if you think the concept is
neat or BS.

Oh, sorry. I meant that MMM's pragmatic stoicism and wit make a
delightful combo.

It's completely possible. I moved out at seventeen, from Europe to the
west coast. Got two full-time minimum-wage jobs (*), lived on a quarter,
and saved the rest (for university, etc.).
*one paid $.25 over

Once upon an America we lauded economical living and lampooned waste or living
beyond one's means.

I'm late in life for the RE part, but it turns out we did a fair job
of living the MMM life, before we learned about it.
On the other hand I have no interest in living on MMM's income.
If you read between the lines MMM's networth has probably grown
to 3 x what it was when he retired.

MMM's success is fine, but forget not that money is just something you trade
for stuff. Once you have enough stuff (a choice), you're set.


btw, here is a program that calculates your odds of running out of money
before you die. You put in data like total portfolio, yearly withdrawal,
inflation rate, expected SS, expected retirement time, etc.
It uses historical stock market returns, Makes a run , say 30 yrs, from
1880 to 1910, then 1881 to 1911, all the way to 1985 to 2015. Then finds
out how many times out of the 115 stock market runs you would have run
out of money. As they say historical return do not predict future
returns, but...
The program has lots of possible adjustments or you can just use it's
assumptions. Just read so you know what they are. I think the assumed
inflation rate (at 3%) is low, I bumped it up.

http://www.firecalc.com/

See the tabs just below the top that read as follows, to make adjustments.
Start Here---Other Income/Spending---Not Retired?---Spending Models Your
Portfolio---Portfolio Changes

Always an interesting exercise, yet the precision is kinda overkill given
that a dime's worth of silver bought over a half a gallon of gasoline in the
mid 1960's--and that silver dime still will--but a dime itself will only
buy you 5% of that today.

IOW, the 'fair share' people show a high success of using the government to take
a big chunk whatever you might have or save, whether through inflation, tax,
or debt, to replace whatever they failed to set aside for themselves.

(Speaking of, it's amusing to see socialist candidate Bernie Sanders,
after 24 years in Congress earning a congressman's pay (currently $174K +
expenses & bennies), reporting a net worth of ~$500K. Imagine what a
Mustachian would have been able to save in that time.)

That's not all that bad. Before he was in Congress, he was mayor of
Burlington. Before that, he was on welfare. He did pretty well for a
socialist who has never worked a day in his life.

 

[krw]

On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 18:48:40 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Sunday, August 23, 2015 at 9:13:44 PM UTC-4, krw wrote:
On Sun, 23 Aug 2015 08:40:24 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Thursday, August 20, 2015 at 9:56:26 AM UTC-4, amdx wrote:
On 8/19/2015 9:08 PM, dagmargoo...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Wednesday, August 19, 2015 at 12:34:18 PM UTC-4, amdx wrote:
On 8/17/2015 9:32 PM, Jim Thompson wrote:
Goodbye to the American Dream... Thanks to Obama...

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/new-677511-millennials-economic.html

...Jim Thompson


Even if all that is true, it doesn't effect any individual that
wants to work hard save money, invest and retire at 40.

If you earn $50,000*, save 20% of your income for 20 years invest at
10%** you will have have $797,800. Not a lot to retire on, but more net
worth than 90% of the population between 18 and 65 years old.
$797,810 with a 4% withdrawal rate is $32,000. aah, keep the wife
working ;-) Note that $32K should be mostly tax free, and no FICA either.

* includes inflation adjustment.
** 60 year average stock market return

For those interested,
http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/01/13/the-shockingly-simple-math-behind-early-retirement/

And the full dose.
http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/all-the-posts-since-the-beginning-of-time/
Start at the bottom.

Or, meet Mr. Money Mustache.
http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/04/06/meet-mr-money-mustache/

Don't miss the Mr. Money Mustache Forum.
http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/index.php

Hilarious. Thanks!


Ok, but not enough context for me to know if you think the concept is
neat or BS.

Oh, sorry. I meant that MMM's pragmatic stoicism and wit make a
delightful combo.

It's completely possible. I moved out at seventeen, from Europe to the
west coast. Got two full-time minimum-wage jobs (*), lived on a quarter,
and saved the rest (for university, etc.).
*one paid $.25 over

Once upon an America we lauded economical living and lampooned waste or living
beyond one's means.

I'm late in life for the RE part, but it turns out we did a fair job
of living the MMM life, before we learned about it.
On the other hand I have no interest in living on MMM's income.
If you read between the lines MMM's networth has probably grown
to 3 x what it was when he retired.

MMM's success is fine, but forget not that money is just something you trade
for stuff. Once you have enough stuff (a choice), you're set.


btw, here is a program that calculates your odds of running out of money
before you die. You put in data like total portfolio, yearly withdrawal,
inflation rate, expected SS, expected retirement time, etc.
It uses historical stock market returns, Makes a run , say 30 yrs, from
1880 to 1910, then 1881 to 1911, all the way to 1985 to 2015. Then finds
out how many times out of the 115 stock market runs you would have run
out of money. As they say historical return do not predict future
returns, but...
The program has lots of possible adjustments or you can just use it's
assumptions. Just read so you know what they are. I think the assumed
inflation rate (at 3%) is low, I bumped it up.

http://www.firecalc.com/

See the tabs just below the top that read as follows, to make adjustments.
Start Here---Other Income/Spending---Not Retired?---Spending Models Your
Portfolio---Portfolio Changes

Always an interesting exercise, yet the precision is kinda overkill given
that a dime's worth of silver bought over a half a gallon of gasoline in the
mid 1960's--and that silver dime still will--but a dime itself will only
buy you 5% of that today.

IOW, the 'fair share' people show a high success of using the government to take
a big chunk whatever you might have or save, whether through inflation, tax,
or debt, to replace whatever they failed to set aside for themselves.

(Speaking of, it's amusing to see socialist candidate Bernie Sanders,
after 24 years in Congress earning a congressman's pay (currently $174K +
expenses & bennies), reporting a net worth of ~$500K. Imagine what a
Mustachian would have been able to save in that time.)

That's not all that bad. Before he was in Congress, he was mayor of
Burlington. Before that, he was on welfare. He did pretty well for a
socialist who has never worked a day in his life.

I'd think a socialist man-of-the-people should be able to squeeze by on
$100k--twice the median household income--and save the other $75K/year.
That for 24 years = $1.8M saved, without even investing. So, he's an
extravagant #$%@ with his People's Salary.

Apparently the big, mean rich people wouldn't let him. They didn't pay
enough tax. Extra. For him to spend. Or <whatever>.

A Moustachian would manage on $35K and save $135k, plus have 24 years of
investment returns.

One manages resources wisely, the other doesn't (and complains).

DC is an expensive place to live! There's a lot of money competing
for real estate. ;-)

 

[dcaster@krl.org]

On Monday, August 24, 2015 at 12:29:29 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

He chose not to save. That's a choice, not a vice.

It really is a vice. It is depending on others to provide for you.

Dan

James Arthur's fond conviction that the rich should be allowed to get even richer at everybody else's expense is roughly what you'd expect from somebody who managed to get rich enough to retire at 34, but it doesn't seem to be a good way to generate persistent economic growth.

Best I can tell , James's conviction is that anyone should be allowed to save money and invest it . Which is not at any ones expense.

Getting rich is a little more complicated than James Arthur likes to think,

Getting rich is pretty simple. You work and earn money , and save and invest part of it. Worked for me.

Socialism notes that an economy gets rich when individual producers produce more. This depends on factors - like a skilled and healthy work force, and efficient infra-structure - that cost the community money, generally raised by highish taxes. Once you've got that basis, brilliant entrepreneurs in advanced industrial countries can produce innovative and attractive products more efficiently than they could (if at all) in third world countries.

The USA, having become an advanced industrial country by a process of trial and error, seems to be emphasising the error part of the process as it reverts back to being a third world country. It's certainly got the kind of political system that's designed to get it back where it came from, and James Arthur is dedicated to keeping the political system as backward as possible. After all a backward (positively reactionary) system seems to be the only kind of system that he can understand.

Compared to Europe , the U.S. is foung, yet it has managed to be much more economically successful than Europe. Not every thing has worked , but enough things did work.

Dan

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, 24 August 2015 23:01:50 UTC+10, dca...@krl.org wrote:

On Monday, August 24, 2015 at 12:29:29 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

He chose not to save. That's a choice, not a vice.

It really is a vice. It is depending on others to provide for you.

500k in assets isn't destitute. He's certainly not depending on others to provide for himself.

James Arthur's fond conviction that the rich should be allowed to get even richer at everybody else's expense is roughly what you'd expect from somebody who managed to get rich enough to retire at 34, but it doesn't seem to be a good way to generate persistent economic growth.

Best I can tell , James's conviction is that anyone should be allowed to save money and invest it . Which is not at any one's expense.

His problem is that he doesn't see community investment - in universal education and health care etc - as a legitimate investment, and he seriously resents the taxes that are collected to pay for it.

The modern socialists countries - basically Scandinavia and Germany - seem to do well under this regime, and the short-tailed income distribution that goes with their approach does seem to work well.

Japan does as well - in many respects - by getting the same short-tailed income distribution by not paying expensive professionals and senior executives extravagantly high salaries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spirit_Level:_Why_More_Equal_Societies_Almost_Always_Do_Better

but this is more a matter of sociological hygiene than simple economics.

Getting rich is a little more complicated than James Arthur likes to think,

Getting rich is pretty simple. You work and earn money , and save and invest part of it. Worked for me.

It's a whole lot easier in an advanced industrial country, where you can hire skilled and trained people to work for you as employees or sub-contractors,and exploit an existing distribution system to assemble any components you may want to put tegether, and to ship the assembled product to your customers.

Having to breed your own camel fleet puts a crimp in the business plan.

Socialism notes that an economy gets rich when individual producers produce more. This depends on factors - like a skilled and healthy work force, and efficient infra-structure - that cost the community money, generally raised by highish taxes. Once you've got that basis, brilliant entrepreneurs in advanced industrial countries can produce innovative and attractive products more efficiently than they could (if at all) in third world countries..

The USA, having become an advanced industrial country by a process of trial and error, seems to be emphasising the error part of the process as it reverts back to being a third world country. It's certainly got the kind of political system that's designed to get it back where it came from, and James Arthur is dedicated to keeping the political system as backward as possible. After all a backward (positively reactionary) system seems to be the only kind of system that he can understand.

Compared to Europe , the U.S. is young, yet it has managed to be much more economically successful than Europe. Not every thing has worked , but enough things did work.

Sure. America copied Europe's industrial revolution, and improved on it enough - and exploited it's huge internal market - to great effect.

Now Europe has created an even larger internal market, and built on the political innovations that got trialed - in a rather primitive beta version - in the US and it's now economically rather more successful that the US. The Germans aren't exporting quite as much as the US is at the moment, but they do have a positive balance of trade, and they are merely part of the European Union.

The US has an interesting history, but past success is no guarantee of future dividends. Organisations that get complacent on the basis of past glories are particularly prone to go into embarrassing decline, and the Tea Party is just that kind of embarrassment.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney