I'm not sure you have a good grasp on how long money will stretch in this economy...
I’m still not sure I will be able to retire at all, never mind “and then some”, off of even twice a median income.
(This is reinforcing your point, not arguing against it). — Pfhorrest
I would estimate that no more than 40% of Americans retire with "and then some". What do you think the percentage is?
There are very few extremely financially responsible people out there like @Pfhorrest. (someone who can retire and then some off of a median income). If most people are NOT financially responsible it seems unfair (and wrong?) to suggest that everyone should be.
If someone retires with 0 in savings that's not the fault of capitalism or the evil system — BitconnectCarlos
It's not someone's fault for being [born] into poverty, but it is their fault if they die poor. — BitconnectCarlos
I took that as complimentary. — Pfhorrest
And the power to determine the pay and rent and interest that affects that situation is far more in the hands of the wealth people who own the businesses and housing and money than the poor people who need to work at and live in and borrow them. — Pfhorrest
And the fact that the greatest predictor of a child’s future wealth is the wealth of their parents doesn’t contradict that at all?
Everyone should absolutely be financially responsible just like everyone shouldn't drink and drive... this holds true even if some people have a really hard time with it. Fiscal responsibility is a basic requirement of adulthood and it's a shame they don't really teach it in school. They only exception would be if you're extremely wealthy. — BitconnectCarlos
I am saying is that financial responsibility is your responsibility first and foremost. — BitconnectCarlos
I've already had a talk like this with Pfhorrest and I refuse to hold him up as a perfect example of personal fiscal responsibility. — BitconnectCarlos
Fiscal responsibility is a basic requirement of adulthood and it's a shame they don't really teach it in school. — BitconnectCarlos
Fiscal responsibility is a basic requirement of adulthood and it's a shame they don't really teach it in school.
— BitconnectCarlos
Uh, they would never teach that in school because it would slow the economy as people buy less stuff...right? — ZhouBoTong
One cannot learn about X unless X is a part of one's life. I think that you grossly underestimate the sheer differences in everyday thought of those who've been born into struggle, and those who've not.
I would bet the farm that wealthy people spend far far more money on frivolous items than poor people do. Fiscal responsibility you say???
And THE FACT that MOST people are NOT financially responsible doesn't affect that opinion at all?
You seem to support Social Security, which exists exactly because the government realized that people would NOT be financially responsible unless they are forced.
It is not about him being a perfect example. It is about the fact that he is FAR more responsible than most.
Uh, they would never teach that in school because it would slow the economy as people buy less stuff...right?
Individual people and families are no different in that respect. Poverty costs you money on an ongoing basis. Wealth gains you money on an ongoing basis.
It's an enormous, nigh-impossible uphill battle to get from the poverty most people are born into up to a truly middle class position (where returns on investment cancel out servicing debts, so your changes in wealth are truly down to your own actions)
I'm much more comfortable talking about investment here because it's something I do regularly and read up about. I guarantee you that wealth invested does not automatically mean more wealth. The more risk you're willing to take on the higher the prospective returns. — BitconnectCarlos
The more wealth you have, the more risk you can afford to take.
If there is some gamble you can take where for 49% of the time you lose everything and 51% of the time you win a million times what you put in, and you've got enough cash to take that bet over and over again thousands of times, losing as much as you need to to get that big win, then you're virtually guaranteed to come out ahead. But if you can only afford to lose once and then you don't have anything to gamble with at all anymore, that's an awful bet.
A huge chunk of my net worth is in stocks. I lost thousands of dollars overnight, several days in a row, this week. And I don't care, because I don't need that money immediately, I can afford to wait for the market to recover, and the drop wasn't even enough to undo the unearned gains I've made from having that money invested for just a few years now.
While someone who really needed that money soon... probably shouldn't have had it somewhere risky like stocks, and so wouldn't have been making those kinds of returns on it if they were doing the smart thing and not risking it, and would have just lost something they can't afford to lose if they had been desperate and reckless enough to risk it anyway.
Thank you, now you're speaking my language. I agree! — BitconnectCarlos
You do know that you are here praising the virtues of the government as an employer, the role of the public sector.Prediction isn't fate, and you're ultimately responsible for yourself. I hate to say this, but if all else fails just join the military (preferably Air Force). I work with a ton of people from poor backgrounds who thanks to their job will be middle class. — BitconnectCarlos
One cannot learn about X unless X is a part of one's life. I think that you grossly underestimate the sheer differences in everyday thought of those who've been born into struggle, and those who've not.
Do poor people have access to the internet? — BitconnectCarlos
Can they watch Dave Ramsey? Is there a library near them? — BitconnectCarlos
I don't know, but given economics is invariably thread into life and always a factor you'd think people would be a bit more interested in it.
I just don't buy the argument that poor people can't possibly educate themselves on fiscal responsibility. I've seen plenty of them do it. I work with plenty of them. — BitconnectCarlos
You do know that you are here praising the virtues of the government as an employer, the role of the public sector.
Okay great. And you said earlier that more risk comes with greater rewards. Combine those two things then: the more wealth you have, the more risk you can afford to take, and so the greater rewards you can reap. Mentioning that risk is a factor in the middle there doesn't change the basic connection of more wealth to greater rewards... and less wealth to greater costs, conversely. Which was my original point. The involvement of risk doesn't negate any of that.
I'm entirely aware. I'm just a single guy with no kids in a medium cost of living area. I'm entirely familiar with my monthly expenses. Obviously if you're a single mom with 3-4 kids it's a completely different ball game. Children can absolutely drive someone into poverty; they're massively expensive. — BitconnectCarlos
The real issue is if the ways to get out of povetry diminish or grow.Someone's first responsibility to themselves. I'll 100% stand by someone joining the military to get out of poverty. — BitconnectCarlos
And this is a very American thing: that the armed forces gives these kinds of opportunities, gives the ability to study etc. isn't hardly mentioned as an example of that evil socialism/statism/welfare state. Anarcho-libertarians often ridicule government employees, but very seldom do they ridicule the men and women in uniform. The reason is obvious.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.