5 Easy Steps to Becoming a Millionaire

[MasterBlaster]

For the clueless, here is the five step process in a nutshell ...


Yahoo! Finance - Financially Fit

Becoming a millionaire is easier than ever. While this is a dream that will take work and discipline to achieve, it isn't as far out of reach as you might think. Be smart with your money and before you know it, you'll be able to count yourself among the world's wealthier citizens

 

[ls99]

Nah, just marry one with a good prenup in your favor.

 

[traineeinvestor]

A selection of points from the Millionaire Next Door. As you say, very much for the clueless (or those who are "new" to the world of personal finance).

 

[chinaco]

Step 1: Get $200k. Repeat step 1 four more times.

eazy peazy

 

[traineeinvestor]

Step 1: Get $200k. Repeat step 1 four more times.

eazy peazy

With respect, you are making this more complicated than it needs to be - the single step "get $1000k" programme is they way to go.

 

[Andre1969]

I only married once. And I think that only set me back around $30-40K!

 

[robbridg]

I only married once. And I think that only set me back around $30-40K!

You did MUCH better than I.

 

[nun]

The article is a little simplistic

They also left out "Don't have any children".

But seriously a lot in society is conspiring against saving and investing. Most people live from pay check to pay check and yesterday Bernanke was encouraging us all to spend more to rev up the economy.

 

[MasterBlaster]

Many Paths to FIRE

Step 1: Get $200k. Repeat step 1 four more times.

eazy peazy

The Hunt Brothers had a somewhat different approach. They started with a $ multi-billion inherited portfolio and lost most of it trying to corner the silver market.

But they are now millionaires !

 

[brewer12345]

The article is a little simplistic

They also left out "Don't have any children".

There is a very strong economic disincentive to have children. I think this is unfortunate and will ultimately impact demographics quite strongly.

 

[rescueme]

Assuming you are (hopefully happily) married, dosen't that suggest a gross estate net worth of at least $2M ($1M for each of you)?

Just wondering, since most (divorced) folks on this forum speak of a "financial split" after they have moved on...

$1M today? Chump change, IMHO...

Heck, for those of us that are/will be collecting SS and using the old 4% withdrawl (or inverse 25% times annual benefit) will put us well on our way to that perceived $1M goal.

 

[Nords]

... and will ultimately impact demographics quite strongly.

I'm still looking for the downside of slower population growth.

 

[GaryInCO]

You need X productive workers per non-productive worker to keep society working smoothly. What X is, is a matter of debate, but it's clear that as population growth slows, that means you have a bunch of older retired folks and not enough prime-working-age contributors to keep things running. It also obviously has major problems for any kind of old-age assistance programs like Social Security or Medicare, since those are funded by the taxes of the still-working younger generations. That's one big contributor to the financial problems with SS &etc -- declining numbers of workers paying $$ in, and increasing numbers of retirees pulling $$ out.

 

[MasterBlaster]

You need X productive workers per non-productive worker to keep society working smoothly. What X is, is a matter of debate, but it's clear that as population growth slows, that means you have a bunch of older retired folks and not enough prime-working-age contributors to keep things running. It also obviously has major problems for any kind of old-age assistance programs like Social Security or Medicare, since those are funded by the taxes of the still-working younger generations. That's one big contributor to the financial problems with SS &etc -- declining numbers of workers paying $$ in, and increasing numbers of retirees pulling $$ out.

Ponzi scheme defined.

 

[ChadR]

Haha no kidding. Maybe if entitlements weren't set up as ponzi schemes to begin with it'd be ok...

 

[Gumby]

I heard of a much simpler two-step method to become a millionaire:

1. Start as a multimillionaire.

2. Buy a winery.

 

[Nords]

You need X productive workers per non-productive worker to keep society working smoothly. What X is, is a matter of debate, but it's clear that as population growth slows, that means you have a bunch of older retired folks and not enough prime-working-age contributors to keep things running. It also obviously has major problems for any kind of old-age assistance programs like Social Security or Medicare, since those are funded by the taxes of the still-working younger generations. That's one big contributor to the financial problems with SS &etc -- declining numbers of workers paying $$ in, and increasing numbers of retirees pulling $$ out.

The way the discussion is framed, sure. But the only "fact" in that paragraph is that as population growth slows, the remaining population is older.

It's not as simple as it seems. Your framing of the other issues glosses over some "problems"-- a lack of wage growth compared to inflation over the last 25 years, lower taxes, higher chronic unemployment, the older working for longer years, and expanding social programs that are part of Social Security and Medicare. So while "X" may be 2:1 in one generation under one set of rules, it may be 5:1 in another generation with another set of rules. Hard to tell.

There's nothing "obvious" about funding SS & Medicare, either. ("Obviously" I'm not a big fan of that word.) One tax has a salary cap on its tax receipts, the other does not. One has widespread fraud, the other not so much. Both have been repetitively tinkered with over the years, and their projected futures have the same "tinkering" assumptions that produce dramatically different outcomes.

This word problem also leaves out the issues of automation, rising worker productivity, immigration (including illegals), and the gray economy (unreported cash transactions).

 

[Independent]

It all starts with #3. The median US income is slightly above $40k, that's $1.6 million gross for a 40 year working career. Accumulating $1 million on that income seems extremely challenging.

I don't think "be self employed" is a great plan. I'd guess that self employment raises the volatility of results. Sure, you're more likely to end up a millionaire, you're also more likely to end up broke.

 

[Independent]

I'm still looking for the downside of slower population growth.

The way the discussion is framed, sure. But the only "fact" in that paragraph is that as population growth slows, the remaining population is older.

It's not as simple as it seems. Your framing of the other issues glosses over some "problems"-- a lack of wage growth compared to inflation over the last 25 years, lower taxes, higher chronic unemployment, the older working for longer years, and expanding social programs that are part of Social Security and Medicare. So while "X" may be 2:1 in one generation under one set of rules, it may be 5:1 in another generation with another set of rules. Hard to tell.

There's nothing "obvious" about funding SS & Medicare, either. ("Obviously" I'm not a big fan of that word.) One tax has a salary cap on its tax receipts, the other does not. One has widespread fraud, the other not so much. Both have been repetitively tinkered with over the years, and their projected futures have the same "tinkering" assumptions that produce dramatically different outcomes.

This word problem also leaves out the issues of automation, rising worker productivity, immigration (including illegals), and the gray economy (unreported cash transactions).

The issue isn't just SS and Medicare. IF slower population growth means slower economic growth, then private investment returns shrink. (I'd be skeptical of buying stock in a company with declining sales.) In the end, somebody has to produce all the stuff that retirees consume.

It's true that demographics aren't destiny. We could have slow population growth with high productivity growth. But, unless you believe that slow population growth causes higher productivity growth, that would be just a happy coincidence.

 

[haha]

There is a very strong economic disincentive to have children. I think this is unfortunate and will ultimately impact demographics quite strongly.

Already is doing so. Look at the composition of births, or elementary school enrollments.

The two Eurpean nations with native populations replacing themselves are Sweden and France- and France is historically a low birth country.

But both of these countries now make it easy for a woman to have children and keep a full time job, or at least easier.

I am reading a very interesting book called "Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth?", by Eric Kaufmann. He shows what groups are growing rapidly by endogenous increase. Muslims of course, but also Mormons, Hutterites, Pentcostals, etc., because these groups provide moral and human support for families. Very interesting is that Israel is becoming a religious nation. Zionism was a secular and nationalistic movement, and Israel a secular state. However, in 2008 46% of primary school pupils studied either in Arab schools, or in ultra-othodox Jewish schools.

These giant population waves will change our world.

I have two sons, they both want children, as do their wives. One of them has enough money for a full time nanny, so they have kids. The other couple have good professional jobs, one as software developer and one as a commercial lender-but it would be a financial and day to day lifestyle struggle for them to raise children. They are still young, so who knows, but I can see how much easier it is both now and in the future to avoid the effort and expense of rearing children.

I wish I had the money to provide some meaningful help.

Ha

 

[Gatordoc50]

You need X productive workers per non-productive worker to keep society working smoothly. What X is, is a matter of debate, but it's clear that as population growth slows, that means you have a bunch of older retired folks and not enough prime-working-age contributors to keep things running. It also obviously has major problems for any kind of old-age assistance programs like Social Security or Medicare, since those are funded by the taxes of the still-working younger generations. That's one big contributor to the financial problems with SS &etc -- declining numbers of workers paying $$ in, and increasing numbers of retirees pulling $$ out.

Without government intervention you would have a large group of the population competing for the services of the smaller younger group which would drive up wages. Unfortunately, the government gives the services to the older generation for x pennies on the dollar. ( feel free to plug in your own value) And then forces the younger generation to pay for it. Lame.

 

[Independent]

Without government intervention you would have a large group of the population competing for the services of the smaller younger group which would drive up wages. Unfortunately, the government gives the services to the older generation for x pennies on the dollar. ( feel free to plug in your own value) And then forces the younger generation to pay for it. Lame.

I think you're saying that without the government transfer systems, the loss from declining production resulting from a declining population would fall entirely on the old people. Correct?

 

[Gatordoc50]

I think you're saying that without the government transfer systems, the loss from declining production resulting from a declining population would fall entirely on the old people. Correct?

Pretty much. We might even find ourselves in a situation where we must seek educated and talented immigrants. Leading to increased growth. Or we can print money.

 

[HawkeyeNFO]

Ha is correct. One book that goes into depth on the topic is "Death of the West." But it is happening in the East as well. Korea and Japan have shrinking populations, and I believe Taiwan does too.

In my opinion the simple fact is that people are greedy. For more and more people, having a career has become more important than a family. Big house and 0 or 1 kid is now preferred to small or medium house and bigger family. $.02

 

[jdw_fire]

there is another reason that people are having fewer children. it used to be that having lots of children was the retirement plan for the parents. parents needed alot of kids so there would be enough people to support them when they could no longer work. (they also needed alot of kids to have "free" labor to work the family farm which would then support them in their old age.) having lots of children was looked upon as having "true wealth" and for good reason. however, as work became more industrialized (and then intellectual) and safety nets (SS & medicare) & pensions became available there was less need, from a free labor, retirement and safety net perspective, for larger families. also, kids are expensive and require alot of work, added incentives to cut back once they werent needed for their labor and safety net purposes. they became more of a wealth drain than "true wealth".