4 ms·
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 winnin
by r00fus 2y 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 2y agoThat isn't valid either as if he is retired he needs some of that money to buy things like food.
- jedberg 2y agoWell, 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 2y 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.