Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
flyer
ParticipantIf enough people feel the same as we do, that’s very possible AN, but, in our opinion, in this election cycle, nothing would be worse than handing our vote to one of the current options, and that’s really all I’d care to say on that topic.
ParticipantBG, although I don’t want to go into detail, and as sad as I am to say this, for the first time in our lives, we will not be voting for president this time around.
We find both candidates deplorable in different ways, and, although we know many will say there is no excuse, we just cannot endorse either, and that’s as far as I want to go on this topic, other than mentioning that we also have many friends and family who are doing the same.
Participant[quote=flu][quote=flyer]If Americans are really concerned about their future and the future of their children, they should be very concerned that only 10% of Americans are millionaires, and around 80% of all workers (which would encompass those from both parties) earn around $50K a year.
It’s clear that the wealth gap, among all economic strata is continuing to widen in this country, and it will be interesting to see if either candidate, if elected, can change this trend going forward. If not, there should be a lot of very disappointed voters.[/quote]
No, they should quit whining and start doing. This county was about doing, not about whining. Everyone wants to feel like a victim now, and wants government to take care of them. Home prices too high? Regulate it? Too many people doing well? Regulate that.. Too many people occupying a certain profession? regulate that. Even if you regulate everything, those people that whine still most likely can’t obtain, because they never bothered to try.
This is not a zero sum game. Your multi-millions don’t impact my well being. My net worth does not impact someone else’s net worth.
People just dont’ want to admit that they took things for granted and now that there are people willing to work harder and faster then them.. Funny that those that talk about fiscal responsibility all the sudden wants government to take care of them. Ironic actually.[/quote]
Actually, my point, flu, was that, imo, if the 80%+ of the population, which encompasses all parties, who are not in the top net worth categories in this country (another pesky little fact) are expecting any candidate to change their lives in any meaningful, bottom line way, they are SOL.
That said, if the voting masses are happy with the meaningless bones the candidates are throwing them–in exchange for their votes–they will, most likely, get what they deserve.
ParticipantIf Americans are really concerned about their future and the future of their children, they should be very concerned that only 10% of Americans are millionaires, and around 80% of all workers (which would encompass those from both parties) earn around $50K a year.
It’s clear that the wealth gap, among all economic strata is continuing to widen in this country, and it will be interesting to see if either candidate, if elected, can change this trend going forward. If not, there should be a lot of very disappointed voters.
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]How do you guys expect the average American to develop multiple streams of income by age 50? Not realistic. People normally spend what they make and anticipate the continue to make the same and more forever.
I have meet rich people who don’t save and end up having to downscale.[/quote]
Agree, developing multiple streams of income by age 50, or earlier, with sustainable savings does not describe the average American, but I can assure you, there are many of us who have taken this path, and some started with very little.
ParticipantAs far as the jobs topic goes, I agree that bringing back or creating sustainable new jobs is going to be a challenge for any new president, with many pros and cons, as everyone has mentioned. Only time will tell if any of the campaign promises will be fulfilled by either candidate, but I hope no one is banking on any of them.
I only got into the sustainable income issue on this thread as it relates to the topic of jobs in this county, and how it seems more and more people are becoming more and more dispensable earlier in their careers than ever before, which makes proactive financial planning even more essential.
On that topic, I probably didn’t communicate my thoughts correctly before, but I agree that establishing multiple streams of income to support your desired lifestyle as early as possible for the balance of your lifetime (and, hopefully for future generations of your family) is definitely the way to go, and is what we’ve done.
That doesn’t mean you have nothing meaningful to do, it just means you are free to pursue what you consider to be important in your life without financial concerns.
Participant[quote=ltsdd][quote=flyer]From what we’ve heard from friends in tech, you’d better have your F. U. funds and/or passive income rolling in at least by the time you’re 50, and that also seems to apply to lots of other fields today, as more and more people become more and more dispensable in the workplace as they grow older. I’ve always believed that was the smart way to go, even if you continue working past 50.[/quote]
Regardless of the situation, everyone should start working on their go-to-hell fund as soon as they start working. Your goal shouldn’t be to be gainfully employed past 50, but to be able to say Fvck it at an age where you still have your health and can still enjoy life.[/quote]
Totally agree. Since we were able to create the gth fund very early in our lives, we’ve pretty much been in a financial position to choose the things we enjoy doing most of our lives–and was actually commenting on the comment below wrt tech employment in my previous post. . .
“And hopefully if you’re one of the old farts that decided to stop learning, you’ve saved enough F.U. money from when you were milking it when your skills were in demand, that you don’t care anymore in your old age. Or you have passive income coming from elsewhere.”
Participant.
ParticipantFrom what we’ve heard from friends in tech, you’d better have your F. U. funds and/or passive income rolling in at least by the time you’re 50, and that also seems to apply to lots of other fields today, as more and more people become more and more dispensable in the workplace as they grow older. I’ve always believed that was the smart way to go, even if you continue working past 50.
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=flyer][quote=FlyerInHi]People are putting their retirement into their houses.
When they need to access the money, they will need to sell. Not a bad deal if buyers continue to come.
That’s also why there’re not too many San Diego natives except for families who lived within their means. Over the years, I have seen many families move away. Kids grow up and move first.[/quote]Don’t know any financial pro who would suggest that, unless you plan to leave CA, and no one we know (including us) is depending on the equity in our home(s) to fund our retirement.
True, if kids relocate, some may wish to join them elsewhere, but, other than that, imo, it’s not a good plan if you have to give up your dream home or sell to survive. If so, that may indicate you spent your life living beyond your means.[/quote]
You know, in Vegas, there are countless california “refugees”. They have nicer homes in Vegas but they would rather live in lesser homes in Cali if they could. The demographic changes speak for themselves as far as people selling and moving away.[/quote]
Am well aware of the demographic changes, but my point is that, it’s unfortunate if people are having to sell and move out of CA to survive financially, for whatever reason, and not by choice.
ParticipantWe’ve been holding our rentals in CV and elsewhere for years. Still, it’s always tempting to sell, but doubt if we ever will. It will be interesting to see how this one goes.
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]People are putting their retirement into their houses.
When they need to access the money, they will need to sell. Not a bad deal if buyers continue to come.
That’s also why there’re not too many San Diego natives except for families who lived within their means. Over the years, I have seen many families move away. Kids grow up and move first.[/quote]Don’t know any financial pro who would suggest that, unless you plan to leave CA, and no one we know (including us) is depending on the equity in our home(s) to fund our retirement.
True, if kids relocate, some may wish to join them elsewhere, but, other than that, imo, it’s not a good plan if you have to give up your dream home or sell to survive. If so, that may indicate you spent your life living beyond your means.
ParticipantLooking at the debt-to-savings ratio in this country, as well as the retirement savings stats I posted earlier in this thread, it’s clear that most people are not leaning toward making frugal choices in life.
These stats seem to infer that many prefer living beyond their means, and they may be able to float their preferred lifestyle during their working years, but they may find their overspending strategy does not work out well later in life.
That’s why I have to agree that low interest rates, lack of building, and high employment rates are still the most decisive factors fueling the continuing housing boom, vs. other reasons for the rise in prices.
It will be interesting to see what happens if/when any of these elements noticeably fluctuate.
ParticipantExcellent points, nj. My wife, who attended a music conservatory in Paris, has friends who attended Juilliard, Eastman, Yale and Oberlin, as well as the relatively newly named (2005) Jacobs School in Bloomington, which boasts Joshua Bell as one of its most famous attendees, and now faculty members.
-
AuthorPosts
