Post: #26

(02-20-2013 11:21 AM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  

(02-20-2013 06:59 AM)nmmoooreland20 Wrote:  And now, 4 years later, his stocks should be right back where they left off, assuming he wasn't a dumbass and sold off at the bottom...

What exactly should the retirees do during that 4 years waiting for their stocks to rebound? Work at Walmart?

They have an excellent benefits package.

Post: #27

(02-20-2013 11:21 AM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  

(02-20-2013 06:59 AM)nmmoooreland20 Wrote:  And now, 4 years later, his stocks should be right back where they left off, assuming he wasn't a dumbass and sold off at the bottom...

What exactly should the retirees do during that 4 years waiting for their stocks to rebound? Work at Walmart?

If it's enough to pay the bills, why not?

You need to get in touch with what you rally need, and it's probably the number one benefit of backpacking.

Whilst you're blue-pill schlubbing in the burbs, REALLY examine, and be honest, how much of your pay goes into ensuring you're able to be a blue-pill cubicle jockeying next week.

Money on house and car repayments which keep up with the Joneses. Lounge room AND family theatre? How many family theatres are a deposit of having to occupy the space with a huge ass TV that no one watches, but are an extra room to clean and vacuum?

Same, meals room and formal dining room?

Etc, etc.

Be the guy who has a cars nice enough to show off, buy the most up to date electronic goods as to validate everyone else's decision to waste their pay cheque on the same electronic items, all whilst the greater sign of dysfunction, obese wife and already overweight kids

Then add taxes disappearing so the next generation of cubicle workers come on line, the entitlemt single mother doesn't starve yet isn't incentivised to alter what are an laundry list of poor choices, money spent on rent seeking industries.

After all that, what have you got left for yourself, and what makes you happy?

So if a guy makes a stack up to 2008, like you've described, it gets cut in 50%, and his suffering is to say 'I need to work for my food money so I don't touch my capital for the next 5 years'.

You infer that being a cubicle jockey keeping up witht he Joneses isn't a bad compromise. I'm not sure you see the wood from the trees.

Every business in the world attempts to convince you to depart with your money, as to make it theirs.

A hell of a lot of people have been easily convinced to depart with their money for useless shit week after week, and they don't lead lives I want to.

Post: #28

(03-26-2013 08:57 PM)T and A Man Wrote:  If it's enough to pay the bills, why not?

You need to get in touch with what you rally need, and it's probably the number one benefit of backpacking.

Nice rant but it has nothing to do with retirees (beginning at the age of 63/65) with incredibly limited options for employment waiting for stocks to return within 4 years.

These retirees are competing with a lot of younger people for jobs. I hope you aren't saying the old people should start backpacking and wait for their stocks to come back up in value.

I have my own business and don't work in cubicles.

Post: #29

(03-26-2013 09:07 PM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  Nice rant but it has nothing to do with retirees (beginning at the age of 63/65) with incredibly limited options for employment waiting for stocks to return within 4 years.

It is still applicable. if they've retired, they should have had their accomodation paid off, most likely medical expenses covered by medicare and some accrued savings that provide at least a partial income stream.

Working in a job that alleivates any demand on existing capital, food doesn't cost that much, should suffice.

I'm saying the situation isn't a chicken little one where shares temporary decline 50%.. ZOMG, end of the world. No one is as useless that if plan A doesn't work out, life is fucked.

Quote:These retirees are competing with a lot of younger people for jobs.

Young people are also competing with young people for jobs. Everyone competes.

Quote:I hope you aren't saying the old people should start backpacking

no, I'm saying young people should backpack to learn value

Quote:and wait for their stocks to come back up in value.

I have my own business and don't work in cubicles.

So that would make you a minority then, asserting your circumstances in a converation with an inferrence to a majority?

Why?

Post: #30

(03-26-2013 11:36 PM)T and A Man Wrote:  Why?

Mate, I really have no idea what you're talking about anymore. When you get to the retirement stage, it is all about cashflow.

If people take a 50% hit, it will hurt just about everyone.

Most retirees are not bringing in a lot of cashflow every month. If you are talking about 3k a month, a 50% hit will hurt and hurt bad. A 4 to 5 year decline isn't what I would consider temporary.

Just because you have your house paid off doesn't mean you don't have to continue paying insurance, taxes and upkeep.

Car paid off, great now take care of insurance, yearly tags and mechanical issues on it and don't forget the increase in gas prices.

There will be medical expenses even if you got insurance. Plenty of co-pays for doctor visits as well as prescriptions.

Most employers won't hire old people. It isn't just competing with other younger people. Their options are limited because of their age.

Younger people can come back from stuff like that but for most retirees, it can be the end of the world.

How old are you? I am starting to think you are a younger guy.

Post: #31

Energy may not be a problem when we're old with the reserves we're discovering and housing shouldn't be much of an issue either...the problem will be healthcare.

Obama already stopped allowing older people to get preventative and "check up" blood and urine analysis. There now has to be a recognized problem to run these tests in which case it could already be too late. This just changed among who knows how many other things.

Expect to pay out the ass for healthcare when you're older especially if you want to catch something early, despite what our leaders tell you.

Post: #32

(03-27-2013 12:07 AM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  

(03-26-2013 11:36 PM)T and A Man Wrote:  Why?

Mate, I really have no idea what you're talking about anymore.

Well you did obfuscate with a tangent. This thread wasn't about retirees, it was about young guys and their preparatin for retirement savings schemes.

Quote:When you get to the retirement stage, it is all about cashflow.

Yes, and employment contributes to cash flow, as does accrued savings.

Quote:If people take a 50% hit, it will hurt just about everyone.

if an index of 100 was the bare minimum it would, thus making 50 half and very painful. And my previous inference was contribute to bare savings, no one is compelling anyone to keep up with the joneses.

Quote:Most retirees are not bringing in a lot of cashflow every month.

The OP was about the need to contribute to retirement savings, not drawing down on it, however....

Quote:If you are talking about 3k a month, a 50% hit will hurt and hurt bad.

Then don't be mediocre, spending a shitload on your credit card to keep up witht he joneses so in retirement, you'll only manage to draw down $3k per month.

Stack it away so you can draw down $10k per month, then as advice her says, go live in SE Asia, or somewhere else cheap where it won't matter.. even with a 50% drop to $5k per month.

Additionally, where you do suffere a 50% drop, work to supplement your income so your capital reduces at a slower rate.

You're saying 'bad things happen woe is me, woe is me.. there's nothing that can be done" and is invariably a cat call for government intervention.

I'm saying stop being a cripple and prepare yourself properly.

Quote:A 4 to 5 year decline isn't what I would consider temporary.

What's the opposite of temporary? Permanent? Hmm...

Quote:Just because you have your house paid off doesn't mean you don't have to continue paying insurance, taxes and upkeep.

Just as people with a mortgage do. The relation is it is oneless expense, and that expense is a major one, now forgone.

Quote:Car paid off, great now take care of insurance, yearly tags and mechanical issues on it and don't forget the increase in gas prices.

I haven't forgotten. Every adult has these responsibilities.

Quote:There will be medical expenses even if you got insurance. Plenty of co-pays for doctor visits as well as prescriptions.

Most employers won't hire old people. It isn't just competing with other younger people. Their options are limited because of their age.

OK, less options.

You're still paternalising as if they are cripples.

Quote:Younger people can come back from stuff like that but for most retirees, it can be the end of the world.

Not if they have prepared themselves properly.

Quote:How old are you? I am starting to think you are a younger guy.

I'm 38 and work in retirement planning.

Post: #33

(03-27-2013 12:46 AM)T and A Man Wrote:  Well you did obfuscate with a tangent. This thread wasn't about retirees, it was about young guys and their preparatin for retirement savings schemes.

Man, I must have been good having a tangent that was one line in response to what someone else wrote. I love being efficient and all that shit.

Quote:Yes, and employment contributes to cash flow, as does accrued savings.

If you can get a job, yes, it contributes. Let me know how easy it is to get a job when your 65 and we will discuss that in more detail.

Quote:if an index of 100 was the bare minimum it would, thus making 50 half and very painful. And my previous inference was contribute to bare savings, no one is compelling anyone to keep up with the joneses.

I haven't met a retiree trying to keep up with the joneses. I have a few in my family that got their healthcare taken away from them or their retirement package drastically changed because of a company bankruptcy. That was back in the day companies took care of their employees.

Quote:The OP was about the need to contribute to retirement savings, not drawing down on it, however....

I responded to a post about retirees waiting the decline out for 4 to 5 years. Maybe you missed that.

Quote:Then don't be mediocre, spending a shitload on your credit card to keep up witht he joneses so in retirement, you'll only manage to draw down $3k per month.

Again, I was responding to the post about people already retired and waiting the stock decline out. I already have my own plan.

Quote:Stack it away so you can draw down $10k per month, then as advice her says, go live in SE Asia, or somewhere else cheap where it won't matter.. even with a 50% drop to $5k per month.

How many people do you know that will be able to make 10k a month in retirement. Hell, you got a lot of people saying to travel first and not worry about money until they hit 30's. How much cash do you need stacked in order to make 10k a month?

Quote:Additionally, where you do suffere a 50% drop, work to supplement your income so your capital reduces at a slower rate.\

What companies are hiring 65+ year olds?

Quote:You're saying 'bad things happen woe is me, woe is me.. there's nothing that can be done" and is invariably a cat call for government intervention.

What I am saying is you are not talking reality. You won't know if your "plan" works until it is too late. When you are at that age, you don't have the same amount of options that we do at our age. I am not sure why that is hard to understand.

Quote:I'm saying stop being a cripple and prepare yourself properly.

You don't know if your plan will work until you actually retire.

Quote:What's the opposite of temporary? Permanent? Hmm...

You mean if the stocks went back up and they are able to survive the 4 to 5 years it took to go up?

Quote:Just as people with a mortgage do. The relation is it is oneless expense, and that expense is a major one, now forgone.

It is called cashflow which I already talked about.

Quote:Car paid off, great now take care of insurance, yearly tags and mechanical issues on it and don't forget the increase in gas prices.

Quote:I haven't forgotten. Every adult has these responsibilities.

Good, so a 50% decline in cashflow would effect those responsibilities. I am glad we could agree.

Quote:OK, less options.

You're still paternalising as if they are cripples.

[quote]

Not if they have prepared themselves properly.

No, I am saying they have very limited options to ride out a 4 to 5 year stock decline. Little options if they are even healthy to begin with.

Quote:I'm 38 and work in retirement planning.

I would have thought you would have a more open mind. I tend to find the younger guys as knowing it all's without ever being there.

Post: #34

OK, you're still obfuscating my having .. us.. talk about todays retirees.

The OP was about a contemporary today weighing up the options of should he contribute to 401k, or another type of income support for retirees, and you're the one who keeps inferring about todays retirees. Today's retirees, particularly the ones you keep referring to in examples of hardship, have done what everyone else was doing. I will quickly assert doing what everyone else was doing back then is as equally as lame as doing what everyone is doing now.

As we all discus here in regards to women, travel, nutrition, physical fitness, etc... we have to find a better way.

Future financial goals are an important part of doing something different, and performing this different task is what is being sought here, by generally younger people, not regaling us with stories of today's retirees and fear mogering about stories of hardship. Fear, or namely risk aversion is what keeps people back, especially when there are large numbers of elderly people still being able to work and gain income... as not.

As far as me having an open mind, I can't address the concerns of those already retired, but those along way from there I can.

And in terms of advice, the lowest hanging fruit is, don't keep up with the joneses, which is pretty much been reiterated by others here. One of those forms of iterations was a guy who squrilled his stock away, and suffered a 4 year bump which lead into your tirade.

Post: #35

(03-27-2013 01:53 AM)T and A Man Wrote:  OK, you're still obfuscating my having .. us.. talk about todays retirees.

The OP was about a contemporary today weighing up the options of should he contribute to 401k, or another type of income support for retirees, and you're the one who keeps inferring about todays retirees. Today's retirees, particularly the ones you keep referring to in examples of hardship, have done what everyone else was doing. I will quickly assert doing what everyone else was doing back then is as equally as lame as doing what everyone is doing now.

As we all discus here in regards to women, travel, nutrition, physical fitness, etc... we have to find a better way.

Future financial goals are an important part of doing something different, and performing this different task is what is being sought here, by generally younger people, not regaling us with stories of today's retirees and fear mogering about stories of hardship. Fear, or namely risk aversion is what keeps people back, especially when there are large numbers of elderly people still being able to work and gain income... as not.

As far as me having an open mind, I can't address the concerns of those already retired, but those along way from there I can.

And in terms of advice, the lowest hanging fruit is, don't keep up with the joneses, which is pretty much been reiterated by others here. One of those forms of iterations was a guy who squrilled his stock away, and suffered a 4 year bump which lead into your tirade.

You responded to my post brother. I was always talking about current retirees. If you read what I posted you will see that.

You can plan all you want, it doesn't mean it will work out like you had hoped. It probably won't work out like you planned.

If I was to give advice, it would be to gain skills that allow you to make money without relying on employment. So if the shit hits the fan, you can make additional income to offset those losses without worrying about getting a job.

Post: #36

yes your post was about toady's retirees, as a tangent, saying those without a previous solid plan, would they work at Walmart.

I said yes, they would and should work at Walmart, they seem to hire, and the wage from Walmart can aid their cash flow.

Post: #37

(03-27-2013 02:00 AM)T and A Man Wrote:  yes your post was about toady's retirees, as a tangent, saying those without a previous solid plan, would they work at Walmart.

I said yes, they would and should work at Walmart, they seem to hire, and the wage from Walmart can aid their cash flow.

I hope they build enough Walmarts to hire everyone.

I remember a time when people worked for a company and retired with a package which was their plan.

My grandfather had a pretty nice retirement because of that.

My father had his changed drastically but still has a pretty good retirement package unless they change it again.

My uncle lost all his health coverage under his plan.

Should people put money in their 401k? What if the government decides that retirement age should be longer and people can't touch their 401k until they hit 70 unless they take a huge tax hit (like 30%)?

So, what is a solid plan again? Not purchasing stuff and then doing what with your money? Purchase stocks and hope they don't dive when they are ready to retire?

Post: #38

(02-18-2013 04:20 AM)Rutting Elephant Wrote:  Which is more miserable, a less-than-extravagant youth or a destitute old age?

It depends on your tastes, do you like ecstasy ( I don't mean the drug) or the absence of pain?

For me ( ecstasy is a priority) a less than extravagant youth is worse, because the highs of when you are young can't be had later. If life sucks when you get old, just off yourself, it's not going to get much better unless you have some illness from which you can recover.

I lived in my car and rolled around on the floor of sleazy clubs feeding back my guitar for about zero money. Who cares, THAT'S living.

Give THE MAN the shitty years. I'd rather be working FT from 65-70 than from 25-30. How much fun can you have when you're that old anyway.

Also, YOU DON'T KNOW you're ever going to get old. You might die when you're 45, especially if you smoke it's 1/6 get lung cancer.

So you might save, save, save, and then croak without that great period of irresponsibility. I did get a lot of education (doctorate) to avoid humiliation later in life, but the time spent in education was more interesting than any job I could have gotten at the time anyway so it wasn't really a sacrifice. I don't say live for today and be a cokehead, but I don't see living for 30 years away as optimal either.

I remember reading this article by a nurse who did end-of-life care, and she said EVERY GUY who was dying said he wished he had not worked so much. My father said a similar thing, he worked 42 years before retiring. He added when he told me that "It was foolish."

I guess they get to the end and realize, "I've just been used up by the Machine."

When the Giant Hand comes, it's really, really over; it's not some experience you look back on, it's the end of all experience-- you've seen road kill on the highway, that's you, you cease to exist, forever, in half a billion years the sun expands, the earth heats beyond the capacity to carry life, then it all cools down, dissolves to dust and expands infinitely to the edges of the universe.

But you won't be here to see a thing, you will sleep in a few short years. And all the people who told you what to do, well, they'll be dead too.

Post: #39

(03-27-2013 02:12 AM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

(02-18-2013 04:20 AM)Rutting Elephant Wrote:  Which is more miserable, a less-than-extravagant youth or a destitute old age?

a less than extravagant youth is worse, because the highs of when you are young can't be had later. If life sucks when you get old, just off yourself, it's not going to get much better unless you have some illness which yiu can recover from.

I lived in my car and rolled around on the floor of sleazy clubs feeding back my guitar for about zero money. Who cares, THAT'S living.

Give THE MAN the shitty years. I'd rather be working FT from 65-70 than from 25-30. How much fun can you have when you're that old anyway.

Also, YOU DON'T KNOW you're ever going to get old. You might die when you're 45, especially if you smoke it's 1/6 get lung cancer.

So you might save, save, save, and then croak without that great period of irresponsibility. I don't say live for today and be a cokehead, but I don't see living for 30 years away as optimal either.

It shouldn't be an either or situation. It should be a compromise of living today and also planning for tomorrow. Knowing the income problems keeping you from living life in Europe, would you not have wanted to plan better?

Post: #40

Quote:Should people put money in their 401k?

I am not qualified to comment on 401k, I work with the Australian taxation system.

Quote:What if the government decides that retirement age should be longer and people can't touch their 401k until they hit 70 unless they take a huge tax hit (like 30%)?

Then they er... retire at 70???

Quote:So, what is a solid plan again?

Read what the likes of West Coast have said. I don't disagree when you said that investing in yourself is the most important thing. But building surplus for a lot of people is quite easy when you aren't pissig it away on material items. Pissing it away makes you likely to be materially affected when you're 43k per month income stream drops to $1.5k.. because you've only squirrelled away, via whatever vehicle that delivers the income stream, an amount that offers $3k.

As I said, a vehicle that delivers much greater than $3k makes a temporary 50% decline of lesser significance.

If you need $3k minimum, build your nest egg up to deliver $6k so a 50% fall won't hurt. You are greatly aided by not pissing it away on a theater room you don't use, and waste time vacuuming.

Quote:Not purchasing stuff and then doing what with your money? Purchase stocks and hope they don't dive when they are ready to retire?

Not, you don't hope they 'don't dive', they have always dived and always will. Anyone who says otherwise is lying... bu what drove the tanegtal line of thought was that despite diving 50% ni 2008, they are back to where they were back then. Instead, you strucure yourself to be able to withstand the dive, and if that involves working some shifts at Walmart for a few years, then so be it.

I see no downside in suggesting anyone, if need be, work in Walmart if such a nee arises. I don't thnk you're adding any positives to anyone's mindset by offering negative what if's

Post: #41

(03-27-2013 02:13 AM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  It shouldn't be an either or situation. It should be a compromise of living today and also planning for tomorrow. Knowing the income problems keeping you from living life in Europe, would you not have wanted to plan better?

Haha, "have I stopped beating my wife?"

You question presumes my plan was bad because it did not have a certain financial outcome. For many, probably most people, that makes sense. I'm quite eccentric. But I did compromise, I was not a hobo who refused to work and rode the rails, I just placed my priorities a little reversed from the middle class.

My plan was to feel as much joy as possible without really screwing up; e.g. jail, cancer from smoking etc.

I haven't had a day job in 1.5 years--not one day obeying someone else-- I am still not broke, and still have my professional license, my health, and a magical 1960's original Fender guitar.

I consider myself very lucky. To people that think I'm crazy, you are 100% right-- they should concentrate on that solid income, that solid savings, and have as much fun as they can fit in.

I focused on that ecstatic experience, the feeling of being near freedom, and tried to fit in making money around that. It's not the normal approach, it's wrong for most people I guess. If you are like me, you know it.

Post: #42

(03-27-2013 02:23 AM)T and A Man Wrote:  I am not qualified to comment on 401k, I work with the Australian taxation system.

I consulted with the CSA a long time ago. I was tempted to hardcode my name in case I got any locals pregnant. hah

Quote:Then they er... retire at 70???

Sounds like a terrible plan to have someone else tell you when to retire.

Quote:I see no downside in suggesting anyone, if need be, work in Walmart if such a nee arises. I don't thnk you're adding any positives to anyone's mindset by offering negative what if's

Reality is negative now. I am saying planning will only get you so far. Developing skills that don't rely on others to make money will put you where you need to be.

Time will tell you if the plan is good or not. Hell, this whole thread is about what ifs.

Post: #43

(03-27-2013 02:31 AM)iknowexactly Wrote:  Haha, "have I stopped beating my wife?"

You question implies my plan was bad because it did not have a certain financial outcome. For many, probably most people, that makes sense. I'm quite eccentric.

Not at all, I think it is terribly hard to plan for a certain financial outcome. Unless you have quite a bit of cash stacked. More than most would see.

Too many variables in place that can screw things up especially when you add a lot of time into the mix. I would say if you are living the life you want then your plan turned out great.

Post: #44

You do not by stock for the price you hope to sell it at. You by stock for the dividend it pays out. If you by a stock hoping it will rise you are gambling not investing.

Post: #45

(03-27-2013 02:31 AM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  

(03-27-2013 02:23 AM)T and A Man Wrote:  Then they er... retire at 70???

Sounds like a terrible plan to have someone else tell you when to retire.

If you make a bundle of your own money, you're quite free to retire on your own choosing. However if your retirement income stream is dependent on government gratuity via tax concesional vehicles, or outright pension payments, then you aren't in a position to argue.

If retirement is perhaps never, it makes that second, unused theater appear as misplaced.

Quote:

Quote:I see no downside in suggesting anyone, if need be, work in Walmart if such a nee arises. I don't thnk you're adding any positives to anyone's mindset by offering negative what if's

Reality is negative now. I am saying planning will only get you so far. Developing skills that don't rely on others to make money will put you where you need to be.

Some of my clients make $600k a year, are aged 62 and have nothing saved up for retirement. One example is, they are pissing money up the wall on the wife's loss making antique shop just so she can have a social outlet and status symbol.

Of client's I know, many of whom earn $250k p.a. or more, their current levels of spending actually prevent them from retiring, because next weeks/month/years pay cheque is required for them to maintain their debt servicing.

Budget discipline is vital along with earning power.

Quote:Time will tell you if the plan is good or not. Hell, this whole thread is about what ifs.

Well I can assure you, budget discipline, and packing up surplus in your 20's, with it compunding afterwards, is a method tested over time and many varying tax regimes.

Post: #46

When we're talking budget discipline - how much should one aim to have saved by their 30th bday?

Post: #47

it's hard to set a benchmark as I would be dealing with many different job types, economies and tax regimes.

But at the very minimum I would say something along the lines of 1.5-2 times the national average gross wage in net assets.

Post: #48

(02-19-2013 09:07 AM)WestCoast Wrote:  Conventional retirement is retarded.

Basically anyone who has been in the game for a decent amount of time knows their looks are 40x more powerful than their money.

I completely disagree. Money trumps looks all day. Even though, i believe that looks is very important when comes to pulling women, there is no way that looks trumps money. Some of the older dudes on the forum with money will also disagree with you (Hooligan Harry for example). When you go to a third world country where women judge you according to how much money you have, this becomes even more true. For real G, money trumps looks, i have seen it enough times.

Note: Mark cuban said on his book (just read it two days ago), when you have money, you become extremely handsome.

Post: #49

^^ depends on scale.

"Affluent" = doesn't matter

Multi-millionaire yeah money wins. We're on the same page we're just talking on different levels.

Basically this thread has a lot of hippie bullshit in it about "living in the present" mixed with some more conventional RVF wisdom.

End of the day though the goal is to be "retired" by my 30's if you play your cards extremely well. Ie: "don't have to work" but you'll choose to work. That's pretty much the motto I live by.

Just get a few girls on rotation and continue starting up small businesses while working the highest paying job you can find. At 20-29, you can easily work 80 hours and have an awesome life, assuming you have a good overall attitude/personality.

Post: #50

(02-19-2013 12:11 PM)bacon Wrote:  i enjoyed reading earlyretirementextreme but also like

http://jlcollinsnh.wordpress.com/
http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/
http://retireby40.org/
http://renewablewealth.com/

Excellent, we need more redpill guys over at Mr Money Mustache. It's a fantastic blog and a HUGE forum, with the best information I've found on retirement and extreme saving by far...

Unfortunately it's insanely blue pill, and well over half the participants are basing all their financial "independence" goals on doing it with their wife/husband, living in a small, cheap, shitty city, and becoming a putter around town handyman/urban farmer. I don't have the heart to tell them that half of them are going to get royally fucked over when the wife divorces at age 35 and gets alimony based on the guy's "potential" income that he could have been making while still employed...

That site needs more good discussion on financial indepence for SINGLE MEN.

MMM and Roosh are about my two most visited sites on the net.