$1,000,000 and the clothes on your back

[dex]

Is the only purpose for our existence to increase the rate at which the human race over populates the planet?

The answer is most likely yes to your question. It is amazing to think that up to 1700 the world population was apx 400million then by 1900 it was 1.5 billion. We are approaching 7billion and expected to peak at 9.5billion in 2050.

We think we are so highly evolved that there must be something else after this life. Maybe hell is that as when you are dying you know for a fact that this life is all there is - no heaven, no hell - an you realize that you should have laughed and loved as much as possible while you could.

 

[Hyperborea]

The answer is most likely yes to your question.

I think that's far too narrow an answer. As intelligent beings (at least some of us) the purpose of our lives is whatever we make it. That lack of a definitive answer is what drives many into the arms of fundamentalist cults (including but not limited to - Islamists, right wing Christian groups, consumerism, Objectivism, nationalism).

It is amazing to think that up to 1700 the world population was apx 400million then by 1900 it was 1.5 billion.  We are approaching 7billion and expected to peak at 9.5billion in 2050.

The power of exponential growth. The problem is that 10 billion or so will put enormous strain on the earth's resources. I think that many planning ER will need to worry about failure of their SWR plans for political stability reasons far more than they seem to.

an you realize that you should have laughed and loved as much as possible while you could.

An excellent goal though it does sound somewhat "hedonistic".

 

[dex]

I think that's far too narrow an answer.  As intelligent beings (at least some of us) the purpose of our lives is whatever we make it.  That lack of a definitive answer is what drives many into the arms of fundamentalist cults (including but not limited to - Islamists, right wing Christian groups, consumerism, Objectivism, nationalism).

Not a narrow answer if you take the next step in the thought process. The cults you mention are an obsitcle to the next step - not an answer. The next step is to identify and deal with those fundimental factors that mold our lives so that you can grow, learn and contribute.

The power of exponential growth.  The problem is that 10 billion or so will put enormous strain on the earth's resources.  I think that many planning ER will need to worry about failure of their SWR plans for political stability reasons far more than they seem to.

It was the power of the mind - antibiotics, new farming techniques, improvements in transportation and communications that caused the growth. If it was only the power of exponential growth why didn't this growth happen earlier.

An excellent goal though it does sound somewhat "hedonistic".  

Again this is not a hedonistic thought. To a mature adult; laughing is about shared joy, loving is about giving.

 

[dex]

I don't know how to do those individual quotes and a reponse so, read between the lines
thanks

 

[ESRBob]

]

OK, ESRBob. I didn't mean the investing advice in the book. I was referring to Terhorst's discussion of how he came to realize that, by selling high-maintenance assets (his house, his cars, etc.), he could afford to live the rest of his life without benefit of a paycheck.

True, that part of the book was useful. I remember in particular the point about the 'high cost of working for a living' with the costs of the car, dry cleaners etc. That was something I hadn't realized, but is core to most people's ability to downsize in ER.

The investing part was the one that seemed naive to me at the time, and was in retrospect. But I suppose high treasuries seemed like they'd last forever, especially when they locked them in for 10 years. 10 years isn't so long after all! I do think average investors now know a lot more about indexing and diversification, Modern Portfolio Theory and SWRs.

Btw, off-topic, but for the global and really low-maintenance (brilliantly lazy?) indexer we may have a new product to think about: DFA has just this year started DFSIX, a 60-40 global equity, global bond fund-of-funds that may take Vanguard's all-in-one portfolios one step further. A bit heavy in big US equities for my taste, but it's hard to beat for simplicity: one fund buys you the world at about .5% a year.

http://www.dfaus.com/strategies/global/

Pie chart mid-page tells you the breakout of the funds they invest in. (60% stocks, 40% bonds, non-rigidly). They'll do the rebalancing for you, too.

Don't be put off by the 2 million dollar minimum: a DFA advisor (available fee only) will set up a Schwab account for you and you'll avoid these minimums.

ESRBob

 

[retire@40]

The answer is most likely yes to your question.  It is amazing to think that up to 1700 the world population was apx 400million then by 1900 it was 1.5 billion.  We are approaching 7billion and expected to peak at 9.5billion in 2050.

I wonder what the S&P will be then? Never mind, I'll be in my early 80s and at the tail end of my ER.

 

[Familyretired]

Regarding the DFS account - aren't you paying a 0.5% fee on top of the other fund fees on top of the DFS advisors fee

Seems a bit extreme for index funds?

 

[ESRBob]

Regarding the DFS account - aren't you paying a 0.5% fee on top of the other fund fees on top of the DFS advisors fee

Seems a bit extreme for index funds?

My read on their prospectus is that the .5% is all inclusive -- they show where they are paying some of those fees to the other funds in a transfer, so I think it is properly covered that way.

As for the DFA advisor, that can be worked out on a fee-only basis or as a %; I have chosen the former which should be better for almost any case, and once in the funds, you may or may not need to continue receiving the services of the planner, so it could be just a one-or-two year expense, too.

Since the DFA funds are different from traditional index funds, the few extra tenths of a % seem worth it to me.  I would not try to get their S&P500 equivalent, but like the more exotic stuff like international small cap, developing markets value, international 2yr bonds, US Microcap index, international value etc.  They are index-like, but they are trying to capture an asset class (typically with a small or value tilt) as opposed to one of the indexes.  They will also curtail trading to cut trading costs, as opposed to slavishly tracking (someone else's) index which can make a big cost savings with smaller stock funds.

The effort to track and invest in asset classes as opposed to indexes is what we as investors really need, imho.  The indexes are proxies, the asset classes are the real deal.

ESRBob

 

[bongo2]

It may be useful for someone who wants more examples to review the thread "How much is needed to retire (a twist)". Of people who reported their numbers; 1) Unclemick and anon3 were the only ones who retired with less than $1M; 2) most people had $1-2M; 3) most withdrawal rates were 2-3%; 4) Unclemick has said that he was excessively frugal, supplemented his income with some work, and got lucky; 5) anon3 was only 4 years from social security; 6) several other people had supplementary income, pensions, part-time work, working spouses, free health care, or some other benefit.

I would have a rough time raising my four kids and putting them all through college and then funding what is likely to be over 60 years of retirement for me and my spouse (joint survivorship on a pair of 35yr olds is a long time) on only $1m. That's the breaks. If I were 55, kids were moved away, and put a house and free health care on top of that, then no problem.

I'm reminded of the movie "Office Space" when Peter says that if he had a million dollars he'd just sit around and do nothing. His friend says "Well you don't need a million dollars to do nothing, man. Just take a look at my cousin, he's broke, don't do s***."

 

[GTM]

Well I guess a million dollars ain't what it used to be

BUT I think most of us would agree it is still alot of bucks.

 

[John Galt]

This is in response to Mikey's post way back on Oct. 29
(my ex's birthday. Forgot to send a card)

Anyway, Mikey says forget the "motivation" and give him the million bucks. I post a lot of jokes and nonsense
but was deadly serious about this. Motivation and
the right attitude is about all you need (all right, you need
some financial resources, but certainly not a million dollars). Furthermore, not all "poor" people are unhappy
(attitude again) and some do not even realize they are poor. Why, our family income is so low that we qualify for various forms of "aid" and we pay almost no income taxes for the same reason. Does it take some guts
and brains to ER with so little? You bet! Is it worth it?
Read my posts.

John Galt

 

[Billy]

yackers said:

But to learn that someone can develop the means to live independently and be a perpetual traveler is has been a valuable lesson.

Exactly. One size never fits all. Independence and freedom could be the number one driving force, or it could be security and familiarity. I think having the choice is the point.   
ESRBob said:  

  their financial advice would not have stood the test of time.

I agree. However that is why everyone must digest advice of any kind, and find out what works the best for their particular circumstances. Life is not static. What worked for us in Life 20 years ago does not necessarily work today...
ESRBob said:

As far as their ability to provide elder care, I have no knowledge of their situations, but I suspect given all their travelling and flexibility, they have as much time to be with elderly parents as any of us (who don't live in the same vicinity as our parents).

That's right. They each have siblings who live closer by to the Folks. They visit Family on a regular basis, sometimes traveling alone to do this, and meeting up later. It's how they have worked it out... don't wanna be too judgmental here...

I did 24/7 care with my Folks when they were dying, and some people thought I was nuts. Just hire it out, send them to a place that wiped their butt. I couldn't do it. Everyone is different. 
Ha-Ha said:

Personally, I couldn't exist that way, I need more background steadiness. I would need a home base, probably one that I owned.

But you see... now they are building a home that they will own. And if they invested so unwisely, how is it that they have more money now than when they retired, were able to circle the globe a dozen times or more, live in many countries, and then at the end of the day, buy land and build a house of their own? 
It's the ability to choose, choose again, be flexible, know what's important to you at any one time.  Just a thought... 
There's a song that goes... "Don't fence me in..." there are many ways to live a life, right?

Akaisha
Author, The Adventurer's Guide to Early Retirement
www.RetireEarlyLifestyle.com

 

[haha]

I did 24/7 care with my Folks when they were dying, and some people thought I was nuts. Just hire it out, send them to a place that wiped their butt. I couldn't do it. Everyone is different. 

My hat is off to you for this.

But you see... now they are building a home that they will own. And if they invested so unwisely, how is it that they have more money now than when they retired, were able to circle the globe a dozen times or more, live in many countries, and then at the end of the day, buy land and build a house of their own? 
It's the ability to choose, choose again, be flexible, know what's important to you at any one time.  Just a thought... 
Akaisha
Author, The Adventurer's Guide to Early Retirement
www.RetireEarlyLifestyle.com

Akaisha, you have quoted from a number of people.

I want to make it clear that I never said nor felt that the Terhorsts made poor investment choices. I read their book when it first became available. They wanted to hit the road, play saxophone and go to Argentina. They didn't want to study up on stocks. Later, they modified their approach.

To me the Terhorsts made out fine, assuming that the life they got was pretty close to the life that they both wanted. To all indications, this is true. It is not a life that would appeal to me, but then, I am not doing it. 

Ha

 

[LEX]

For me its about taking my income in time well lived by my values and agenda, not some merchant/mercenary who got to run the Corporation and now influences others in their serfdom.

 

[Billy]

HA-HA said:

My hat is off to you for this.

Thanks, Ha. Didn't mean to manipulate you into giving me a compliment.... Everyone is different. For me, I simply had to be there. It was satisfying in a profound way, and I was fortunate that, being retired, I had the freedom and time to do this.
HA said:

Akaisha, you have quoted from a number of people. I want to make it clear that I never said nor felt that the Terhorsts made poor investment choices. ..Later, they modified their approach.

I didn't mean to pour cold water on the discussion here... my apologies if I did.   
There were a couple of points that I was attempting to make -
1) Life is change. To maintain a successful lifestyle, we have to be willing to adjust. What worked years ago for us as people, doesn't work now... 
2) The Terhorsts are the "Grandparents" of the Early Retirement Movement.  20-some years ago when they retired, there were no Safe Withdrawal Rates, or online calculators and forums like these were a totally new idea, if they existed at all.
For that matter, when we retired 15 years ago, we didn't have any of this either.... We were "out there" virtually alone in these ideas. No one we knew thought we were sane.  :
It took Kahunas to do it then... 

It is not a life that would appeal to me, but then, I am not doing it. 

Right. Perfectly normal. The point is about having choice. Not everyone wants to "chuck it all" leaving it behind them. ESR Bob's idea of semi-retirement fits very well for many many people. One has the benefits of working (healthcare perhaps, social connections with those in one's profession, cash flow coming in) plus the ability to not work killer hours each week. Semi-retirement also offers you free time to spend on other activities, offering you a better quality of life. But not total freedom to perhaps leave for months or years at a time. It's a perfect "Middle Way" approach, and I can see how it would be amazingly attractive to the largest amount of people.

LEX said:

For me its about taking my income in time well lived by my values and agenda, not some merchant/mercenary who got to run the Corporation and now influences others in their serfdom.   

Yup. Very well said. To us, we were moved by freedom. To someone else it is another motivation.
Again, apologies if I came on too strongly...
Akaisha
Author, The Adventurer's Guide to Early Retirement