3 ms·
> Why not? You are relatively well paid. Most people in the US received total less than $500k cumulative post-tax income by 35. Median incomes don't reach th
by jlokier 3y ago
> Why not?
You are relatively well paid. Most people in the US received total less than $500k cumulative post-tax income by 35. Median incomes don't reach that level. Here are median personal income figures over the last 17 years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States#/media/File:Median_personal_income_after_taxes.webp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_...
Those are aggregated across age, and younger people tend to earn less, so the median total income working 18 to 35 will be lower than if you add up the age-independent figures. But even if that weren't true, and if people could miraculously save 100% of everything for 17 years, live on nothing but air and get totally free housing, most people still wouldn't have seen 500k by 35.
As well, necessary expenses (housing, food, transport etc) take up a higher proportion of their income than yours, because of lower income while necessary expenses don't decrease proportionately. So the proportion they can realistically save is lower than yours. For many it's a struggle to save anything, but even for those who can and are willing to sacrifice a lot, $500k by 35 is dream money.
Active fund management are not enough to make up the difference. Most people if they want $500k in a 401k by 35, have to earn significantly more than they actually do. Of course if everyone did that, prices would rise to compensate and $500k in the 401k wouldn't be worth as much.
- SirMaster 3y agoI'm not sure I am necessarily paid all that well honestly. I started at 50K out of college and am still not quite to 100K a year yet. All I have done is maxed out my 401K every year since 2010, and put the money into low-cost index funds. ~60% of the balance is from principal alone and the ther 40% is from the stock growth.