Gee, spot the billionaire π /s
this post was submitted on 08 Sep 2023
100 points (75.5% liked)
Showerthoughts
29619 readers
849 users here now
A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. The best ones are thoughts that many people can relate to and they find something funny or interesting in regular stuff.
Rules
- All posts must be showerthoughts
- The entire showerthought must be in the title
- Avoid politics (NEW RULE as of 5 Nov 2024, trying it out)
- Posts must be original/unique
- Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
A million bucks isn't what it used to be, but it would still solve basically all of my problems and that would make me feel pretty great
Still sounds catchier than, βI feel like a monthβs rentβ.
I feel like a starter home in a high cost of living area.
I mean, it's not as great as it used to be, but if you have any extra million bucks, feel free to give them to me if you feel like it's meh.
Maybe to you Captain Richiepants
I feel like I could almost buy a detached house in a major metropolitan area!
It's meh, but put it in saving account with 3%p.a. mean you're getting 2.5k per month from doing nothing. It's meh money as well, i know, but you won't goes hungry in a stable economy at least.
Till prices rises and you need 5k for the rent, and need to go back to work, even if millionaire.
and need to go back to work
Well, that's the issue. The dividend of 2.5k from investment obviously won't allow a comfortable living and should be treated as something extra. It's pretty ridiculous to live in a big city with rent higher than the dividend and without job lol.
You think a millionaire doesn't own their estate?
You people can't fucking math. 1M is more than enough to retire on if you want to live stingy.
Think about it.
Even twenty years ago, $1 million meant you could buy a great place for yourself and a business that would let you live large.
In 1960, $1 million meant a Beverly Hills mansion, a dozen cars, and a place by the beach.
Kind of a giant leap from that to 'living stingy.'
I mean we're splitting hairs at the point. It's still a perfectly good middle class income, especially if you own your house already.
If you think the difference between a Beverly Hills mansion and a three bedroom in the Valley, is 'splitting hairs,' then I won't try to change your mind.
This isn't how retirement works.
If you try to retire on $1M you're going to end up in a medicaid facility. Interest rates are high right now, so $1M in the bank may get you as much as $5,000/mo if you're lucky. This is $60,000/yr and can be supplemented with social security to allow a person to live well enough at today's cost of living.
However, inflation is a constant and is ideally restricted to 2-3% per year. This means that every year you live after you retire, your spending power is reduced by at least 2%. So even if interest rates stay high (they won't) then by the time you hit 85 your $60,000/yr will feel more like $24,000. This will still be supplemented by social security, but you will also find that your needs are increasing by this age and you will likely need to start using your savings to pay a lovely nurse or two to help with, well, everything. In-home care and even nursing facilities are quite costly and will eat away at your savings, so if you only have $1M you better start dying soon after needing them.
This all assumes best-case-scenario. It doesn't account for runaway inflation rates, pandemics, recessions, catastrophic events (it's not uncommon for the elderly to accidentally set things on fire), or other possibilities that can take a bite out of your retirement savings.
When your money runs out you won't be kicked out on the streets, thankfully. But a medicaid facility in the US can be nearly as dangerous for the elderly.
You're ignoring that your balance will increase over time through interest and stock gains. I believe this is historically around 8%, exceeding inflation.
No, you're spending that increase to live. You leave the 1 million to generate gains and take off the top. In ten years that 1 million will have less purchasing power than before.
No, you always take less than the increase. This is why most FIRE plans revolve around living on 3-4%. The gain percentage minus withdrawal percentage should ideally leave you with a number greater than the losses due to inflation.
To add to this, you are also expected to withdraw more year after year along with inflation. If your safe withdrawal rate allows you to withdraw $40,000 on year one, you can withdraw $40,800 the second year (assuming 2% inflation). Dispite this increase, your portfolio should still grow. If you are withdrawing all of your gains, you are setting yourself up for failure.
My scenario focuses solely on interest income for simplicity's sake. There are other investments one can make to increase your gain, but such investments are more volatile. You could end up doing quite well and increasing your nut, or you could invest in the wrong stock and lose a large chunk of it.
I also left out other considerations for simplicity's sake like the fact that most retirees are couples and past the age of 65 the odds that one of you will require significant medical treatment increases every year. Some elderly couples are getting divorced so as to only bankrupt one of them when this happens.
Life is messy and $1M will only work in the best case scenario. It's just not realistic. By allowing people to think that $1M is enough, you're actually leading them into ruin. We need to be aware that retirement is becoming a dicey proposition and we should be taking steps to ensure that the elderly will be provided for in the coming decades, especially since a large number of millennials won't have children to make sure they are properly cared for.
Source: I worked in the elder care industry in Florida for a decade. I saw what happens when people run out of money.
That's a long way of saying your "best-case scenario" is actually a worst-case scenario.
Getting older means losing mobility, dexterity, and mental acuity. It's not a question of if you will need assistance, it's a question of when you will need it. Most retirees go on living independently for as long as possible until an event. Sometimes they set the kitchen on fire, sometimes they get in the car and get lost, and most often they fall and break a hip. Once they hit this event it changes their life dramatically.
The best case scenario is that you will have enough money to afford 24/7 care after your event. Idk what the current rates are, but 10 years ago it was $25/hr for CNAs and $50/hr for RNs. This means that the cost to have a CNA care for you around the clock was over $200,000/yr. This doesn't include the additional costs of food, shelter, utilities, insurance. I'm sure that things haven't gotten any cheaper.
The best case scenario is that your $1M nut grows enough to cover all your expenses before you die. Every other scenario means you will run out of money. So it's really a question of how long you intend to live.
For what it's worth, I'm not the one downvoting you. I appreciate your perspective. However, if nobody can retire without the ability to pay $200k/year, very few people will ever be retiring. I believe working with patients in these terrible situations, has created a form of selection bias were you don't see the successful retirements. Not everyone needs a Fat FIRE, and I would prefer to live frugally and retire early vs working away my life until a regular retirement age.
βI feel like a million bucksβ = βIβm OKβ βI feel like a thousand bucksβ = βIβm one misfortune away from total collapseβ
It's wild when you watch a show like 'The Rockford Files' because Jim et al were always using specific sums when they talked. Someone boasting about owning a $1 million house in Beverly Hills or spilling their guts for $20 is pretty mindboggling.
I feel like a hundred bucks!
A million Zimbabwe bucks from 2009?
I feel like a million-gazillion-bajillion bucks today.