3 ms·

Wow...some of those are...really bad. Lets go through them. 1. No real arguments against the general idea. Divorce is expensive. Duh. Of course, no one ge

Wow...some of those are...really bad. Lets go through them. 1. No real arguments against the general idea. Divorce is expensive. Duh. Of course, no one gets married thinking they'll get divorce, so its pretty pointless advice. And once in a marriage, the real question is then the opportunity cost of staying in the marriage vs getting out. Sanity is worth a lot of money. 2. Children before 35? This never really got explained. Why? Its true that there's a biological clock, especially for women, but its also true that those who have children later in life generally have better life outcomes. Obviously save money if you can...(and i'm not even starting on the "why do you need to have children at all" question?) 3. Stick with 1 job/career. If you were from 1950, i'd probably give the same advice too. Now in 20XX, i'd say be skilled, be flexible, be mobile, don't give up, beware of cementing yourself into a career/job that might not exist in 5-10 years. 4. Defined benefit pensions. For us later generations, they are a thing of the past. If you do manage to land one, don't assume it will actually be there for you when you retire. A financial/political/demographic crisis is a bitch. Defined pensions can't pay money that isn't there. 5. Find a financial adviser you can trust. This is just populist nonsense. Not because financial activities are not important, but because its not possible. If you have the knowledge to judge financial advisers, you don't need one. If you don't have that ability, you won't be able to tell whether they're any good until XX years down the track, upon which point you'll probably judge them on your returns. And even then, there's a good chance you'll just make a judgement based on random chance/survivorship bias. 6. Buy the best house you afford, in a neighborhood you adore. Stay there. --See translation: I'm a baby boomer living in a country that hasn't had a housing crash.(...yet). 7. Develop long-standing interests that are not outrageously costly. Can't argue with that.

prawn 13y ago
1. Isn't covered in the article, but not rushing to get married may help with #1. Don't build on something reckless unless there's a solid underlying base to the relationship. Many people get married because it feels like a logical next step in a partnership that isn't so rubbish that you live apart. That said, building up a relationship early can be financially helpful, spending on one house, both working to tackle one initial mortgage, etc. 3. I think the point about social capital is good. A good combination would be a job with a side-venture (say, photography) that you can build a profile with regardless of what else you do. 6. I don't think that point of theirs should translate to spending excessively on a live-for-the-moment property. Rather than buying a $1m property, there can be significant advantages in buying a $600k property and two $200k apartments to rent out, given that you leverage your tenants while the properties appreciate.
- xarball 13y ago
  1. Prenup or common-law (in some countries/states) can be a FAR safer contract and generally far more fair and ethical to both parties. Any person, be it man or woman, should seriously screw off if they can't respect you enough that they expect you to be half as capable as you once were every time you marry. Put simply, your finances should not define your marriage.
dnautics 13y ago
2. because the financial planning for children will run into needing to save for retirement more dramatically if you have children later (think: kids going to college when you're 50) I'm not sure he's right about the whole more degrees and more expensive thing. Agreed that 3 4 6 come from a position of entitlement - being born in an era where those things existed (possibly at the expense of future generations prosperity). If you have the knowledge to judge financial advisers, you don't need one. If you don't have that ability, you won't be able to tell whether they're any good until XX years down the track, upon which point you'll probably judge them on your returns. And even then, there's a good chance you'll just make a judgement based on random chance/survivorship bias. Love this.
- fixedd 13y ago
  College, in North America, is something that you "have to have" (according to popular thought) and is for-profit, so there's incentive to increase the cost. The costs have catastrophically ballooned just since I went and I'm in my 30s. While I don't think those costs can continue to increase indefinitely, they're certainly bound to rise further.
  - dnautics 13y ago
    keep in mind though that if the advice is being doled out to, say a 20-something, then the period in question is +10 (to get to a 30-something +20 or so to get the kid to college) or a net +30 years from now. I think it's certainly possible higher education bubble will pop before 30 years are up.
- sentenza 13y ago
  Add to that, that the physical and mental strain which having children will put on you is better absorbed at a young, but not too young age (if you actually take care of the children, as opposed to offloading the work on your SO). I (on purpose) started having children at under 30, which is quite uncommon among the university-educated here in Germany. And indeed, I'm glad I did it. It is certain that I left money and career opportunities on the table. Nonetheless, I retained some "free time" due to the fact that I could sustain the strain of sleeping less and working more. I am quite sceptical that I'd be able to pull it off once I'm going on 40. Also, having children earlier leaves you more time to "bounce back". Want to go on that six week trip overseas? Better wait until the children are in their late teens. But will you then be 50 or 60?

prawn 13y ago

1. Isn't covered in the article, but not rushing to get married may help with #1. Don't build on something reckless unless there's a solid underlying base to the relationship. Many people get married because it feels like a logical next step in a partnership that isn't so rubbish that you live apart. That said, building up a relationship early can be financially helpful, spending on one house, both working to tackle one initial mortgage, etc. 3. I think the point about social capital is good. A good combination would be a job with a side-venture (say, photography) that you can build a profile with regardless of what else you do. 6. I don't think that point of theirs should translate to spending excessively on a live-for-the-moment property. Rather than buying a $1m property, there can be significant advantages in buying a $600k property and two $200k apartments to rent out, given that you leverage your tenants while the properties appreciate.

xarball 13y ago
1. Prenup or common-law (in some countries/states) can be a FAR safer contract and generally far more fair and ethical to both parties. Any person, be it man or woman, should seriously screw off if they can't respect you enough that they expect you to be half as capable as you once were every time you marry. Put simply, your finances should not define your marriage.

dnautics 13y ago

2. because the financial planning for children will run into needing to save for retirement more dramatically if you have children later (think: kids going to college when you're 50) I'm not sure he's right about the whole more degrees and more expensive thing. Agreed that 3 4 6 come from a position of entitlement - being born in an era where those things existed (possibly at the expense of future generations prosperity). If you have the knowledge to judge financial advisers, you don't need one. If you don't have that ability, you won't be able to tell whether they're any good until XX years down the track, upon which point you'll probably judge them on your returns. And even then, there's a good chance you'll just make a judgement based on random chance/survivorship bias. Love this.

fixedd 13y ago
College, in North America, is something that you "have to have" (according to popular thought) and is for-profit, so there's incentive to increase the cost. The costs have catastrophically ballooned just since I went and I'm in my 30s. While I don't think those costs can continue to increase indefinitely, they're certainly bound to rise further.
- dnautics 13y ago
  keep in mind though that if the advice is being doled out to, say a 20-something, then the period in question is +10 (to get to a 30-something +20 or so to get the kid to college) or a net +30 years from now. I think it's certainly possible higher education bubble will pop before 30 years are up.
sentenza 13y ago
Add to that, that the physical and mental strain which having children will put on you is better absorbed at a young, but not too young age (if you actually take care of the children, as opposed to offloading the work on your SO). I (on purpose) started having children at under 30, which is quite uncommon among the university-educated here in Germany. And indeed, I'm glad I did it. It is certain that I left money and career opportunities on the table. Nonetheless, I retained some "free time" due to the fact that I could sustain the strain of sleeping less and working more. I am quite sceptical that I'd be able to pull it off once I'm going on 40. Also, having children earlier leaves you more time to "bounce back". Want to go on that six week trip overseas? Better wait until the children are in their late teens. But will you then be 50 or 60?