5 ms·

The data doesn't support your conclusion. Almost nobody keeps all their assets in a savings account. What you should be looking at is net worth. https://dqy

The data doesn't support your conclusion. Almost nobody keeps all their assets in a savings account. What you should be looking at is net worth. https://dqydj.com/net-worth-by-age-calculator-united-states/ https://dqydj.com/net-worth-by-age-calculator-united-states/

izacus 8y ago
What exactly are they keeping their assets in? A house that they can't sell and make that worth liquid? A retirement account they cannot withdraw without huge costs and compromising old age? Where else?
- icedchai 8y ago
  Uh, you ever hear of taxable investment accounts? Online brokerages, mutual funds, etc?
  - maxander 8y ago
    The average HNer probably has, yes. The average American, quite possibly not.
  - metalliqaz 8y ago
    The number of Americans who have any significant investments that aren't part of a retirement account is small.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - izacus 8y ago
    People with < 6000$ on their savings account? Most of the population? Very very unlikely.
    - icedchai 8y ago
      I'm pretty sure "most of the population" has at least seen advertisements for ETrade. Probably too complicated for them though. That's why they'll be working until 85 or eating cat food in retirement...
      - hndude 8y ago
        The amount of condescension/lack of empathy in your comment is astounding. Haven't logged in in 2 years, had to log in to say that. And before you worry that I downvoted you, I still don't have enough karma to do so.
        icedchai 8y ago
        Thanks, I appreciate it!
        deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - betterunix2 8y ago
        In case you are wondering why you're comment is being downvoted, the issue is not that investing is too complicated for most of the population, it's that most of the population lacks the money to invest in the first place. When you add up the cost of keeping yourself fed, clothed, and sheltered, along with the cost of kids, and maybe also a stay-at-home-spouse as a dependent, and deducting contributions to retirement accounts, health insurance, and other good ideas, there is not much left over for most working Americans. That is assuming you even get all the way down that list, which many cannot -- a scary number of people have far less in their retirement accounts than they would need to live on in their final years. The fact is that it has never been easier or cheaper for individuals to invest in a reasonably diverse portfolio and grow their wealth. The problem is that the average American has no wealth to grow: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/24/most-americans-live-paycheck-to-paycheck.html https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/24/most-americans-live-paycheck...
        8y ago
- travisoneill1 8y ago
  1) Credit card availability 2) Home equity line 3) Retirement account It's not painless. Losing money never is. But you said "wipe out" not "will pay fees and lose 10% of net worth."
y-c-o-m-b 8y ago
I disagree. Net worth is an unstable data point and I always view it as a status symbol more than a realistic means of acquiring cash. For example in a market where nobody is willing (or able) to buy your home, your net worth can be ... well, worthless. In a financial crisis it's even worse. Your "on-demand" cash is what's in your checking or savings account. There's no guarantee you'll be able to tap into your home, car, 401K, etc. and even if you could, in the long term it may be more damaging to you. For instance in a city like Seattle if you sell your home, you could be looking at paying double or triple your previous mortgage in rent, so you're ultimately putting yourself in a worse position.
- icedchai 8y ago
  This is why you invest outside of retirement accounts. Your on-demand cash isn't getting much, if any, return. Your home equity and retirement funds are expensive to access.
  - madengr 8y ago
    Though retirement funds are usually exempted from lawsuits. If you are sued for medical debt, they can’t touch your retirement funds.
- chimeracoder 8y ago
  > For example in a market where nobody is willing (or able) to buy your home, your net worth can be ... well, worthless No, because if it's true that nobody is willing to buy your home, your home isn't worth the $300,000 you're claiming it is. There's no single metric that works for all situations, but net worth is the best way to compare financial health between people and across a population in a meaningful way.
  - johnmaguire2013 8y ago
    It may be worth $300,000 today, but after the next mortgage crisis, it may be worth a fraction of that. Similarly, for your investments, if the stock market takes a huge hit, your net worth will instantly become a fraction of what it currently is. Cash will still be cash. (But also maybe worth less!)

izacus 8y ago

What exactly are they keeping their assets in? A house that they can't sell and make that worth liquid? A retirement account they cannot withdraw without huge costs and compromising old age? Where else?

icedchai 8y ago
Uh, you ever hear of taxable investment accounts? Online brokerages, mutual funds, etc?
- maxander 8y ago
  The average HNer probably has, yes. The average American, quite possibly not.
- metalliqaz 8y ago
  The number of Americans who have any significant investments that aren't part of a retirement account is small.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- izacus 8y ago
  People with < 6000$ on their savings account? Most of the population? Very very unlikely.
  - icedchai 8y ago
    I'm pretty sure "most of the population" has at least seen advertisements for ETrade. Probably too complicated for them though. That's why they'll be working until 85 or eating cat food in retirement...
    - hndude 8y ago
      The amount of condescension/lack of empathy in your comment is astounding. Haven't logged in in 2 years, had to log in to say that. And before you worry that I downvoted you, I still don't have enough karma to do so.
      - icedchai 8y ago
        Thanks, I appreciate it!
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
    - betterunix2 8y ago
      In case you are wondering why you're comment is being downvoted, the issue is not that investing is too complicated for most of the population, it's that most of the population lacks the money to invest in the first place. When you add up the cost of keeping yourself fed, clothed, and sheltered, along with the cost of kids, and maybe also a stay-at-home-spouse as a dependent, and deducting contributions to retirement accounts, health insurance, and other good ideas, there is not much left over for most working Americans. That is assuming you even get all the way down that list, which many cannot -- a scary number of people have far less in their retirement accounts than they would need to live on in their final years. The fact is that it has never been easier or cheaper for individuals to invest in a reasonably diverse portfolio and grow their wealth. The problem is that the average American has no wealth to grow: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/24/most-americans-live-paycheck-to-paycheck.html https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/24/most-americans-live-paycheck...
      - 8y ago
travisoneill1 8y ago
1) Credit card availability 2) Home equity line 3) Retirement account It's not painless. Losing money never is. But you said "wipe out" not "will pay fees and lose 10% of net worth."

y-c-o-m-b 8y ago

I disagree. Net worth is an unstable data point and I always view it as a status symbol more than a realistic means of acquiring cash. For example in a market where nobody is willing (or able) to buy your home, your net worth can be ... well, worthless. In a financial crisis it's even worse. Your "on-demand" cash is what's in your checking or savings account. There's no guarantee you'll be able to tap into your home, car, 401K, etc. and even if you could, in the long term it may be more damaging to you. For instance in a city like Seattle if you sell your home, you could be looking at paying double or triple your previous mortgage in rent, so you're ultimately putting yourself in a worse position.

icedchai 8y ago
This is why you invest outside of retirement accounts. Your on-demand cash isn't getting much, if any, return. Your home equity and retirement funds are expensive to access.
- madengr 8y ago
  Though retirement funds are usually exempted from lawsuits. If you are sued for medical debt, they can’t touch your retirement funds.
chimeracoder 8y ago
> For example in a market where nobody is willing (or able) to buy your home, your net worth can be ... well, worthless No, because if it's true that nobody is willing to buy your home, your home isn't worth the $300,000 you're claiming it is. There's no single metric that works for all situations, but net worth is the best way to compare financial health between people and across a population in a meaningful way.
- johnmaguire2013 8y ago
  It may be worth $300,000 today, but after the next mortgage crisis, it may be worth a fraction of that. Similarly, for your investments, if the stock market takes a huge hit, your net worth will instantly become a fraction of what it currently is. Cash will still be cash. (But also maybe worth less!)