6 ms·

You take it out of the context and then accuse me of pushing ageism, well done! The context is that we compare a life where i) you save one third of your inco

You take it out of the context and then accuse me of pushing ageism, well done! The context is that we compare a life where i) you save one third of your income and then start to flash money when you are 55, and ii) you spend one third (or less) of your income on things that matter like finding significant other, having a family, making trips with your friends and family. You cannot avoid spending 1/3 of your income without it affecting your life style. In extreme case, one can end up becoming a millionaire no one gives a fuck about.

pathseeker 7y ago
>You cannot avoid spending 1/3 of your income without it affecting your life style. Yet people live super-fulfilling lives with families making $50k annually. Find a job clearing $75k and you'll be golden.
greedo 7y ago
You don't provide any context in your attempt at a wry comment, and then you compound it by not only reinforcing the ageism, but adding in classism as well. You're defining the cashier by their job/role, as well as how they spend their money on saving for retirement. Textbook classism. My anecdotal reply would be that I've made it to this golden age, I've earned far less than the average, saved more than the average, and still have a wonderful, interesting life ahead of me. I've married, raised a family, and had memorable trips with them. Your last sentence is really indicative of how you view wealth and money; for many, becoming a millionaire is about stability and being able to provide for your loved ones, not to become someone that people "give a fuck about."
- account73466 7y ago
  >> You're defining the cashier by their job/role, as well as how they spend their money on saving for retirement. Textbook classism. I didn't talk about cashier nor I defined any role. What are you talking about? It looks like you was struggling the whole life and counted every dollar (see "I've earned far less than the average, saved more than the average"), do you manage to "to provide for your loved ones"? People rarely change, greedo.
- Izkata 7y ago
  > I've married, raised a family, and had memorable trips with them. I think this part is their point. Even you are looking backwards at what you have done, instead of future plans, implying the younger years are the more interesting ones.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - leetcrew 7y ago
    I think they're just rebutting the claim that they must not have done anything interesting/meaningful if they were able to save so much.
    - account73466 7y ago
      No, that would be a stupid argument. The argument is that by saving almost all your after-basic-expenses income you postpone too many things which would be just much less interesting or cool when you are over 55. For example, traveling when you are in your 60ies and 20ies are two different things. In the latter case the cool things that you find/learn can positively impact your entire life. If you are in you 60ies it is much harder to be impacted by external things and change your habits/preferences even if you want it.
      - leetcrew 7y ago
        sorry, I did not mean to make your argument into a caricature. I'm still not sure I agree though. I know this sounds lame, but I think creating a stable life with people you really care about is worth a lot more than the memories of traveling all over the world in your youth. my parents lived well below their means for most of my childhood, and they now have a stable retirement with plenty of money to go on whatever trips they want. sometimes they take me with them. as far as I can tell, they are very happy to be able to do this now with their family rather than having the memories of doing it in their twenties. something else kind of shitty to think about: the real return on a diversified portfolio over forty years is somewhere between 15x and 20x (unless something major changes in the world). $5k spent traveling at 25 could be $100k less when you're 65. depending how much you made later, this could be a meaningful amount you won't have to leave to your children or help them with their goals.

pathseeker 7y ago

>You cannot avoid spending 1/3 of your income without it affecting your life style. Yet people live super-fulfilling lives with families making $50k annually. Find a job clearing $75k and you'll be golden.

greedo 7y ago

You don't provide any context in your attempt at a wry comment, and then you compound it by not only reinforcing the ageism, but adding in classism as well. You're defining the cashier by their job/role, as well as how they spend their money on saving for retirement. Textbook classism. My anecdotal reply would be that I've made it to this golden age, I've earned far less than the average, saved more than the average, and still have a wonderful, interesting life ahead of me. I've married, raised a family, and had memorable trips with them. Your last sentence is really indicative of how you view wealth and money; for many, becoming a millionaire is about stability and being able to provide for your loved ones, not to become someone that people "give a fuck about."

account73466 7y ago
>> You're defining the cashier by their job/role, as well as how they spend their money on saving for retirement. Textbook classism. I didn't talk about cashier nor I defined any role. What are you talking about? It looks like you was struggling the whole life and counted every dollar (see "I've earned far less than the average, saved more than the average"), do you manage to "to provide for your loved ones"? People rarely change, greedo.
Izkata 7y ago
> I've married, raised a family, and had memorable trips with them. I think this part is their point. Even you are looking backwards at what you have done, instead of future plans, implying the younger years are the more interesting ones.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- leetcrew 7y ago
  I think they're just rebutting the claim that they must not have done anything interesting/meaningful if they were able to save so much.
  - account73466 7y ago
    No, that would be a stupid argument. The argument is that by saving almost all your after-basic-expenses income you postpone too many things which would be just much less interesting or cool when you are over 55. For example, traveling when you are in your 60ies and 20ies are two different things. In the latter case the cool things that you find/learn can positively impact your entire life. If you are in you 60ies it is much harder to be impacted by external things and change your habits/preferences even if you want it.
    - leetcrew 7y ago
      sorry, I did not mean to make your argument into a caricature. I'm still not sure I agree though. I know this sounds lame, but I think creating a stable life with people you really care about is worth a lot more than the memories of traveling all over the world in your youth. my parents lived well below their means for most of my childhood, and they now have a stable retirement with plenty of money to go on whatever trips they want. sometimes they take me with them. as far as I can tell, they are very happy to be able to do this now with their family rather than having the memories of doing it in their twenties. something else kind of shitty to think about: the real return on a diversified portfolio over forty years is somewhere between 15x and 20x (unless something major changes in the world). $5k spent traveling at 25 could be $100k less when you're 65. depending how much you made later, this could be a meaningful amount you won't have to leave to your children or help them with their goals.