Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-23-2017, 01:19 PM   #61
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
ER Eddie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,778
Quote:
Originally Posted by NW-Bound View Post
I knew a couple of engineers at megacorp who lived paycheck-to-paycheck. One had the same pay grade I did. He even tried declaring bankruptcy to get out of credit card debts, spent money on a lawyer just to hear him say that it would not work because the judge would garnish a big chunk of his pay, leaving him with less to live on.

I left megacorp to be on my own at the age of 40, so no more 401k after that. I eventually retired at 55, while he still toiled away last I heard, probably till 70 if they let him.

PS. The banks love this guy. He volunteered that his credit card debts were more than $50K, way back then. At 21% APR, that's $875 per month in interest. And that was some time more than 20 years ago.

PPS. What is peculiar about this guy is that he has nothing to show for his spending. No big house, no fancy car, no vacation. Where does his money go? He eats and drinks out a lot, buys a lot of electronic toys, but those should not use up all his money. Maybe his wife's a big spender. Maybe somebody's on drugs. His spending habit would make an interesting study.
Ouch, $875/mo. on credit card interest. If he hasn't mended his ways, that's probably where a lot of that missing money went.

I feel grateful that I learned about avoiding debt (Dave Ramsey, etc.) about 25 years ago. I wish I'd learned earlier, but once I really started to focus, the turnaround was immediate. Being free of debt is such a financial boon. I'm also grateful I came across voluntary simplicity literature, too, around the same time. Made a big difference.
ER Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 02-23-2017, 01:20 PM   #62
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 10,252
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTFan View Post
You can also contribute far more to a 401k than you can to a Roth, you can borrow against it with no penalty, you are protected from claims etc.

So I don't agree with the comment about why should anyone contribute to a 401k. There are tons of reasons to do so even for those with limited income.

But the issue really isn't 401k vs. IRA or savings account or whatever. It's simply that many people want to live beyond their means. The vehicle isn't going to be used no matter what it is.
Yes, for some people all the things you wrote are true, but not for everyone.

1. Some people don't have enough money to contribute more than $5,500 (single) or $11,000 (married) to a 401(k), so the higher contribution limits of a 401(k) is of no benefit to them.

2. Many 401(k) plans do not have a loan provision (my spouse's plan for instance).

What are some other "tons of reasons" if there is no company match? I can think of other reasons not to: High fees, high expense ratio mutual funds, lack of index funds in all the desired asset classes.

But yes, if one has plenty of money that they want to invest for retirement, then contributing to a 401(k) or 403(b) AND/or IRAs is something one can do. No argument with that.
LOL! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2017, 01:46 PM   #63
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Alberta/Ontario/ Arizona
Posts: 3,393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big_Hitter View Post
you guys had several conflicts on your land didn't you?

learned this when I went to QC 25 years ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plains_of_Abraham
Right. Forgot about that one. All the fortifications mentioned by Northwest were the result of the war of 1812.
Danmar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2017, 01:50 PM   #64
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Alberta/Ontario/ Arizona
Posts: 3,393
Quote:
Originally Posted by NW-Bound View Post
Sorry for a bit of diversion here.

I miswrote in the above post. Yes, war was waged on Canada soil, but wasn't it the only one?

The Americans were blaming Canada for "the practice of removing sailors from American merchant ships and forcing them to serve in the British navy", among other harassment, and declared war in 1812. This was shortly after the Declaration of Independence, so the British were still sore, and enlisted the help of the Canadians. Canada did not achieve independence from England until 1866, so this could be considered a continuation of the Revolution War.

Jefferson, then a former president, said that it would be a piece of cake and just a matter of "marching" into Quebec. I guess it's that complacency that caused the invasion force to fail initially. In later attempts, the Americans did get far enough to burn some buildings in Toronto and blow up some forts. When the British sent reinforcements, it got too tough, so the Americans retreated.

Had the Americans succeeded, I would now be able to travel freely up north without stopping at the border. When I go to Alaska, I will have to cross the border twice each way, and do not like it (the US checks my RV fridge for contrabands and confiscates my lemons ). And the Canadians would be able to bring back as much booze and merchandise as they wish without worrying about customs. They would also learn what ACA is all about.
Yes there were several causes ( pretexts) but the goal was very clear and simple, grab Canada. Total failure. Although the other "causes" went away in short order.
Danmar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2017, 02:21 PM   #65
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
NW-Bound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 35,712
Sorry for the diversion again, but this side discussion is too much fun.

Yes, it might be that there were many causes and motives, and this is true in any war. When I visited Canadian museums, there were nothing said about the causes cited by either side.

The main reason cited by the US is about "impressment", the conscription of American civilian sailors into service for the British Navy in its Napoleonic War. According to one Web site,
Between 1793 and 1812, the British impressed more than 15,000 U.S. sailors to supplement their fleet during their Napoleonic Wars with France. By 1812 the United States Government had had enough. On 18 June, the United States declared war on Great Britain, citing, in part, impressment.
Maybe Canada which was then just a colony of England got attacked as a surrogate. Or maybe the Americans wanted to annex it and get all of their tasty Canadian bacon and whisky. But it was truly another war with the British, who did invade the US back and burned down the White House in 1814. Maybe the Canadians were just peace-loving colonists who got caught in the middle. I should remember to research this some more.
__________________
"Old age is the most unexpected of all things that happen to a man" -- Leon Trotsky (1879-1940)

"Those Who Can Make You Believe Absurdities Can Make You Commit Atrocities" - Voltaire (1694-1778)
NW-Bound is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2017, 03:00 PM   #66
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
2017ish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Nashville
Posts: 2,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by NW-Bound View Post
....But it was truly another war with the British, who did invade the US back and burned down the White House in 1814. ...
That burning, however, was in direct response to the US burning of the Port of Dover and, less directly, of the government buildings in York. So we can blame it on the Canadians, maybe?
__________________
OMY * 3 2ish Done 7.28.17
2017ish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2017, 03:09 PM   #67
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Alberta/Ontario/ Arizona
Posts: 3,393
Quote:
Originally Posted by NW-Bound View Post
Sorry for the diversion again, but this side discussion is too much fun.

Yes, it might be that there were many causes and motives, and this is true in any war. When I visited Canadian museums, there were nothing said about the causes cited by either side.

The main reason cited by the US is about "impressment", the conscription of American civilian sailors into service for the British Navy in its Napoleonic War. According to one Web site,
Between 1793 and 1812, the British impressed more than 15,000 U.S. sailors to supplement their fleet during their Napoleonic Wars with France. By 1812 the United States Government had had enough. On 18 June, the United States declared war on Great Britain, citing, in part, impressment.
Maybe Canada which was then just a colony of England got attacked as a surrogate. Or maybe the Americans wanted to annex it and get all of their tasty Canadian bacon and whisky. But it was truly another war with the British, who did invade the US back and burned down the White House in 1814. Maybe the Canadians were just peace-loving colonists who got caught in the middle. I should remember to research this some more.
Yes. No doubt. The causes are pretty obscure at this point but the end result is very clear-an independent yet relatively friendly Canada. Pretty good result I'd say.
Danmar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2017, 03:30 PM   #68
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
NW-Bound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 35,712
Back on the retirement crisis, why is the demographic of Minnesota different than that of other states? I don't think it is the same throughout the US, or is it?

Even if the outnumbering geezers are financially self-supporting, the lack of local workers will drive up the living costs. And if I were a Minnesotan youngster, I would escape to another state instead of staying behind, and getting surrounded by a bunch of old people. That is going to make it worse and worse.

PS. I see that only 1 in 5 will be retirees. Perhaps that is not any worse than in Florida.

PPS. 20% in nothing compared to Florida. From a Web site,
Florida, unsurprisingly, also has the highest percentage of retirees in the nation. Those 65 and older make up 27.9 percent of households in the state. Pennsylvania was second with 25 percent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ownyourfuture View Post
From my hometown newspaper in south central Minnesota

Minnesota's Retiree Population About to Explode
Posted: Jan 03, 2016 5:46 PM CST

Starting in 2020 and lasting through 2030, for every one person of “working age'' added to the population, there will be 21 people added over the age of 65. That's according to Metropolitan Council data.

The demographic shift will nearly double the area's elderly population by 2040, when more than 1 in 5 people will be retired.

The*Minnesota Department of Human Services says the impact on the state budget will be substantial as more people will have to rely on public programs for services they can't afford themselves.
__________________
"Old age is the most unexpected of all things that happen to a man" -- Leon Trotsky (1879-1940)

"Those Who Can Make You Believe Absurdities Can Make You Commit Atrocities" - Voltaire (1694-1778)
NW-Bound is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2017, 05:51 PM   #69
gone traveling
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 733
My personal experience with "company retirement accounts" 401K, sep IRA etc. The issue for me was in the first 5 to 10 years my investment choices sucked. After roughly 10 years and 1 market correction, I had exactly what I and my employer had contributed. Buying on book value, cash flow analysis, PE ratios etc; none of it seemed to matter! After all was said and done, my "retirement savings" was valued pretty much the same as what I and my employer had contributed.

I had management buyouts leaving me with nothing and them with the productive assets I thought I had purchased.

My point is until it is a simple invest X and get Y most are going to fall victim to the "corporate shenanigans".

Finally I said show me the money, and would only invest in dividend paying individual stocks. Then and only then did I see returns on my money.

This is the primary reason I'm big on rental real estate.
Luck_Club is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2017, 05:56 PM   #70
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
REWahoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Texas: No Country for Old Men
Posts: 50,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucky-Sperm-Club View Post
My personal experience with "company retirement accounts" 401K, sep IRA etc. The issue for me was in the first 5 to 10 years my investment choices sucked. After roughly 10 years and 1 market correction, I had exactly what I and my employer had contributed. Buying on book value, cash flow analysis, PE ratios etc; none of it seemed to matter! After all was said and done, my "retirement savings" was valued pretty much the same as what I and my employer had contributed.

I had management buyouts leaving me with nothing and them with the productive assets I thought I had purchased.
Were you being sarcastic when you chose your forum name?
__________________
Numbers is hard
REWahoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2017, 05:58 PM   #71
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
ownyourfuture's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 1,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunset View Post
Yes, and when they don't recognize the expenses it gets really bad.
I know someone who makes better than avg wage, but has a hard time saving as the $$ just seems to evaporate.
Yet this person didn't like it when I pointed out buying the college age child a cell phone was over a $2,000 purchase.
They said no, the i-phone was free, they did not think about the 3 yr contract at $70/mo = $2,520
Well done!
__________________
"No beast so fierce but knows some touch of pity, but I know none, therefore am no beast"
Shown @ The End Of The Movie 'Runaway Train'
ownyourfuture is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2017, 06:01 PM   #72
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
ownyourfuture's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 1,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by garyt View Post
But will it become means tested as a way of controlling rising costs associated with so many non savers? That would be my fear.
I'm pretty sure it's already means tested.
__________________
"No beast so fierce but knows some touch of pity, but I know none, therefore am no beast"
Shown @ The End Of The Movie 'Runaway Train'
ownyourfuture is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2017, 06:14 PM   #73
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
ownyourfuture's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 1,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by NW-Bound View Post
Back on the retirement crisis, why is the demographic of Minnesota different than that of other states? I don't think it is the same throughout the US, or is it?

Even if the outnumbering geezers are financially self-supporting, the lack of local workers will drive up the living costs. And if I were a Minnesotan youngster, I would escape to another state instead of staying behind, and getting surrounded by a bunch of old people. That is going to make it worse and worse.

PS. I see that only 1 in 5 will be retirees. Perhaps that is not any worse than in Florida.

PPS. 20% in nothing compared to Florida. From a Web site,
Florida, unsurprisingly, also has the highest percentage of retirees in the nation. Those 65 and older make up 27.9 percent of households in the state. Pennsylvania was second with 25 percent.
The main reason I posted that news article was to point out what I highlighted at the end.

'more' people will have to rely on public programs for services they can't afford themselves

To avoid getting political, all I can say is that something Minnesota is extremely high in already, is going to get a lot higher in the future
__________________
"No beast so fierce but knows some touch of pity, but I know none, therefore am no beast"
Shown @ The End Of The Movie 'Runaway Train'
ownyourfuture is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2017, 06:20 PM   #74
gone traveling
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 733
Quote:
Originally Posted by REWahoo View Post
Were you being sarcastic when you chose your forum name?
LOL. My wife is after me to change it, but I can't find a way. It was meant as a joke.

Perhaps and Admin could change it?
Luck_Club is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2017, 06:34 PM   #75
Recycles dryer sheets
JohnnyBGoode's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 187
Yes, the (negative) savings rate is well documented and quite sad. I seem to recall in an article I read recently that it was actually positive about 10 years ago during the last housing crisis. People were scared (and perhaps got out of a lousy upside down mortgage by just walking away) and actually saved more than they spent!!!

But the bad times ended, good times came back, and we are back to negative savings. Clearly we don't want another 2007-style financial crisis, but it was very illustrative. I assume there probably is an analogy if we think back to the "high" savings rates of the 1950's - everyone still had the Great Depression seared into their collective consciousness. And that is when there were real pension plans as well - a double dose!

It sure would be nice to have a high savings rate without a dire economic crisis. I don't see the behavior changing any time soon. And the sky-high stock market indices aren't helping adjust behavior I expect.
JohnnyBGoode is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2017, 06:35 PM   #76
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
REWahoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Texas: No Country for Old Men
Posts: 50,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucky-Sperm-Club View Post

Perhaps and Admin could change it?
Yep. Send a PM to one of the mods requesting a new name.
__________________
Numbers is hard
REWahoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2017, 06:44 PM   #77
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: the prairies
Posts: 5,027
Quote:
Originally Posted by REWahoo View Post
Yep. Send a PM to one of the mods requesting a new name.
Suggestion:

"The poster formally known as lucky sperm club"??
Music Lover is offline   Reply With Quote
Presuming Growth Environment
Old 02-23-2017, 06:44 PM   #78
Moderator
sengsational's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 10,656
Presuming Growth Environment

It seems as though all posts (that aren't about our brethren to the north) presumes that "investing is good". Over long periods, it has, of course, been good. But what if you were taught or otherwise have come to think that you might put that money somewhere and when it comes out, through all of those crazy rules, and all of those years of compounded inflation, it won't even buy as much as if you'd simply enjoy the utility of the money straight from your paycheck.
sengsational is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2017, 06:46 PM   #79
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
REWahoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Texas: No Country for Old Men
Posts: 50,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Music Lover View Post
Suggestion:

"The poster formally known as lucky sperm club"??
Or maybe "LSC."
__________________
Numbers is hard
REWahoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2017, 06:49 PM   #80
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
NW-Bound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 35,712
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyBGoode View Post
Yes, the (negative) savings rate is well documented and quite sad. I seem to recall in an article I read recently that it was actually positive about 10 years ago during the last housing crisis. People were scared (and perhaps got out of a lousy upside down mortgage by just walking away) and actually saved more than they spent!!!

But the bad times ended, good times came back, and we are back to negative savings...
I read either the same article or a similar one. The public has extremely short memory. They are back to bigger homes and gas guzzlers already.

The flip side is that the Jones' spending will drive up corporate earnings, then the stock price for investors to benefit. I shall not complain.
__________________
"Old age is the most unexpected of all things that happen to a man" -- Leon Trotsky (1879-1940)

"Those Who Can Make You Believe Absurdities Can Make You Commit Atrocities" - Voltaire (1694-1778)
NW-Bound is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Passive Investing "Worse Than Marxism" jdmorton FIRE and Money 28 08-30-2016 10:44 AM
Unemployment rates - Worse than I thought Orchidflower Other topics 4 02-23-2010 04:59 PM
Retirement crisis: From bad to worse serie1926 FIRE and Money 37 03-09-2008 09:00 AM
"Retirement Crisis"? What retirement crisis? Nords FIRE and Money 8 01-16-2007 12:41 PM

» Quick Links

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:26 AM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.