4 ms·

Not really. Adjusted for inflation, that's only $300,000 today. Even in the lowest cost of living areas, $300K isn't doing much for you. If you used it to bu

Not really. Adjusted for inflation, that's only $300,000 today. Even in the lowest cost of living areas, $300K isn't doing much for you. If you used it to buy a rental in a great area with a high return, you'd still only get about $15,000 a year in rental profits.

r00fus 3y ago
I am becoming more and more uncomfortable with a simple "adjusted for inflation" as a meaningful comparison of money. Let's say Larson simply parked the winnings in real-estate. How much would that be worth today? Imagine he used the capital to continue reinvesting the money generated by said real-estate investment to expand his holdings?
- bluGill 3y ago
  That isn't valid either as if he is retired he needs some of that money to buy things like food.
- jedberg 3y ago
  Well, at the time he could have bought 1.5 median houses. Today that would cost you about $500K. So if you want to use real estate, that bumps it up a bit, but still doesn't get you into retirement territory. Even back then it wasn't retirement money. It was life changing, and invested well could have set him for a very comfortable life, but it wasn't retirement money even back then.
- listenallyall 3y ago
  > Let's say Larson simply parked the winnings in real-estate. How much would that be worth today? Considering he lived in the booming metropolis known as Lebanon, Ohio, probably not all that much. It's easy today, in retrospect, to look at all the "winners" of real estate ownership, while forgetting about the Detroits, the Buffalos, the Baltimores. Plus high interest rates, high crime in many cities, lack of conveniences, businesses and services, etc. Places like San Francisco, Miami and most of New York City were NOT particularly desirable places to live 40 years ago.
bongodongobob 3y ago
Lol the HN bubble is strong. $300k would be life changing for 90% of people.
- jedberg 3y ago
  Life changing but not retirement. There's nowhere in the USA you could retire on a $300k windfall.
  - bluGill 3y ago
    You can retire on that - if you move to a small town in someplace like New Mexico - someplace where you can buy a house within walking distance of the local grocery store, do not need much heat or AC. (this implies the town is large enough to have a grocery store!). You won't get a car to drive though so select your town to live in well as you won't leave it often - once in a while someone might offer you a free ride elsewhere but you can't ask that often enough that they feel abused. You won't be eating out, just cooking your own meals. There are lots of cheap things you can do in those towns - and you will do only those things for entertainment. You will probably be known as the guy who makes desert art because that is all you can do. I wouldn't want to live that life, and I don't think most others reading this would either. However you could do it. Most of us would enjoy that life for a week or two every year but then want to get back to modern life. To each their own - if you want it go for it.
    - jedberg 3y ago
      I don't think you could. Let's say you found a house for $50K that meets your requirements. Heck let's say you bought a trailer for $20K and found some land for $10K. You'd still have $200K left (don't forget you had to pay $70K in taxes on it). $200K could net you about $10,000 a year if you put it in super high rate tax free muni bonds. Even with the hermit lifestyle and no taxes, you'd still have to pay for maintenance, property tax, food, and clothing once in a while. Remember, we're talking retirement, so you don't have any other income. I don't think you could pull that off. Substance farming is work, not retirement. And like you said, without internet, you'd pretty much be relegated to desert paining.

r00fus 3y ago

I am becoming more and more uncomfortable with a simple "adjusted for inflation" as a meaningful comparison of money. Let's say Larson simply parked the winnings in real-estate. How much would that be worth today? Imagine he used the capital to continue reinvesting the money generated by said real-estate investment to expand his holdings?

bluGill 3y ago
That isn't valid either as if he is retired he needs some of that money to buy things like food.
jedberg 3y ago
Well, at the time he could have bought 1.5 median houses. Today that would cost you about $500K. So if you want to use real estate, that bumps it up a bit, but still doesn't get you into retirement territory. Even back then it wasn't retirement money. It was life changing, and invested well could have set him for a very comfortable life, but it wasn't retirement money even back then.
listenallyall 3y ago
> Let's say Larson simply parked the winnings in real-estate. How much would that be worth today? Considering he lived in the booming metropolis known as Lebanon, Ohio, probably not all that much. It's easy today, in retrospect, to look at all the "winners" of real estate ownership, while forgetting about the Detroits, the Buffalos, the Baltimores. Plus high interest rates, high crime in many cities, lack of conveniences, businesses and services, etc. Places like San Francisco, Miami and most of New York City were NOT particularly desirable places to live 40 years ago.

bongodongobob 3y ago

Lol the HN bubble is strong. $300k would be life changing for 90% of people.

jedberg 3y ago
Life changing but not retirement. There's nowhere in the USA you could retire on a $300k windfall.
- bluGill 3y ago
  You can retire on that - if you move to a small town in someplace like New Mexico - someplace where you can buy a house within walking distance of the local grocery store, do not need much heat or AC. (this implies the town is large enough to have a grocery store!). You won't get a car to drive though so select your town to live in well as you won't leave it often - once in a while someone might offer you a free ride elsewhere but you can't ask that often enough that they feel abused. You won't be eating out, just cooking your own meals. There are lots of cheap things you can do in those towns - and you will do only those things for entertainment. You will probably be known as the guy who makes desert art because that is all you can do. I wouldn't want to live that life, and I don't think most others reading this would either. However you could do it. Most of us would enjoy that life for a week or two every year but then want to get back to modern life. To each their own - if you want it go for it.
  - jedberg 3y ago
    I don't think you could. Let's say you found a house for $50K that meets your requirements. Heck let's say you bought a trailer for $20K and found some land for $10K. You'd still have $200K left (don't forget you had to pay $70K in taxes on it). $200K could net you about $10,000 a year if you put it in super high rate tax free muni bonds. Even with the hermit lifestyle and no taxes, you'd still have to pay for maintenance, property tax, food, and clothing once in a while. Remember, we're talking retirement, so you don't have any other income. I don't think you could pull that off. Substance farming is work, not retirement. And like you said, without internet, you'd pretty much be relegated to desert paining.