Is this right?
Comments
-
Yes, we are indeed quite similar. I have two half-siblings who grew up with a silver spoon in their mouths. My sister had a fucking leased BMW in high school, which she trashed. Both went to elite prep schools in Miami. They're both good kids/people, I don't want to bag on them too much, they both went to college and are fine, my brother a little more than my sister. But there's no question I've done more, and it's unclear 3,000 miles away how well that sits with the entire family. My father was incredibly bitter about the divorce and my mother and I were left to fend for ourselves pretty much the whole way, including post-high school education (and I never got w/in 5 miles of private school growing up). Like you, I want to do more for my kids, but on the back end of life to make sure they're ok when I'm gone. I saw how that BMW in high school-life warped my sister's sense of reality. She would come up here and sneere at the house we were renting and our furniture, etc. while we were semi-starving during the law school years. Those kids made 5 or 6 trips to Europe before I made my first with my family on my own nickel. I bought my first nice car in my 40s. Shit like that. But not having lived like I lived, she/they never learned how to hustle and deal with shit to build her own life. It's good to struggle so that you know you can do it. Now, if my father doesn't leave her set, she's going to have a very different life than the one she grew up with.RoadTrip said:
Our paths and goals couldn't be more aligned. I should be anywhere from 5.8 to 6.8 including the equity in my home by 56. The rudimentary plan is to have 2-3mm in conservative investments, hopefully generate about 100k annually and also pull 100k annually from the univested 3-4mm and by the time I'm dead leave 1mm to each of 3 children. I actually have competing advisors work out that plan. Maybe it turns out that I can't spend $200k a year in rerirement which won't crush me. Neither my wife or I inherited anything so I feel a great need to do that for my children. My dad was a fortune 500 executive who wasn't in the market and didn't have any life insurance. He spent his rerirement on my sister's dream which failed. I'm proud that I built and accomplished most everything on my own and my children were lucky to have a stay at home mom their entire upbringing.creepycoug said:
Well, I'm not there yet. But unless something goes wrong, I should be at or close to 6. I have always assumed the rule of 20 before calling it a day ... of course as my base salary has increased, that target has moved further out. And despite the shit talk, I should inherit some money from the old man. Not quite sure how that's going to work out ... taking a trip at the end of the month to help him with his private equity "liquidity event". It should come up organically at that time. Otherwise I'll present him with a nice bill for services rendered.godawgst said:Two most important words we should be teaching our kids in school when it comes to finance is compound interest. Earlier it starts better it does for you.
I was born/raised/still live in Lewis County, but for some very fortunate reason loved finances and the stock market so started investing in my early 20's.
Both wife and I have contributed to our 401k's last 25 years and today, what we put in along with the match is minute compared to what the market does for our total. Even if it only goes up 5% in a year, that's double what we will contribute and make during that same time frame.
Congrats Creepy your 5-6 million portfolio puts you in the top 1/2 of 1% of household wealth in America (680,000 out of 116,000,000)
Joking. Not joking.
Part of what I've been driving towards is to leave the kids something. A fully funded undergraduate education (check), some money for a house down payment (1 out of 3, check), a wedding (1 out of 3, check, and it was a really nice one), and we (hopefully) live off of the earnings from the assets. I didn't have a Seattle tech. liquidity event. In the tortoise and hare story, I've been the slow guy, which is fine, except when you live in Seattle, a lot of hares actually win the race a lot earlier.
Stay at home mom was a premium for us too. We sacrificed heavily to make that happen. -
At some level there's always a middle, that's true. But historically (at least the history for which we have good data), the upper 10% of owners of capital owned 90% of all wealth. Having a middle class that owned some significant share of wealth is a more modern thing, and it has been reverting back in the direction of the concentration at the top over the past few decades. In the long run, it's wealth (more than income) that matters because r>g in the long run.creepycoug said:
I guess it's how you define middle class. Thought of as a broad intellectual concept, I'd argue it's still there, but we're at a time when we're pushing a lot of people who might have been thought of as middle class down into the lower class. My in-laws are a good example of that. He was a union carpenter and foreman on big projects, and she was an admin. at Rayonier. Both had pensions, etc. Bought a house and retired owning it, raised their daughters, moved to a place on the Sound, and lived a good life. Those same two people would struggle today with those jobs and that level of education.HHusky said:Re: middle class
The middle class is very much a 20th Century phenomenon, long in decline. Probably wouldn’t have happened at all without massive disruptions, e.g., two world wars. If you want a middle class you actually have to enact policies to support it. It doesn’t just spring organically from capitalism.
But for every one of them, there is a kid learning to code, or working in mid-tier finance, or mid-tier law, or a 1,000 other professional or semi-professional jobs, who will make a good living but are not going to be super wealthy by any stretch. Those people will live economically maybe just slightly better than my in-laws, and most of the "better" part will be because a lot of things are relatively cheaper and more accessible than they were during their heyday. Vacations, for example. When I was a kid in the 70s and 80s, only very well-to-do people jumped on a plane to take a vacation with any regularity. It wasn't an every year thing. It is now because it's fucking cheap relative to income.
I think in a lot of ways there is still a middle class. The way the two classes live is different, but I feel like there is a decent chunk of people in the middle. My old neighborhood in Bothell was full of them. The Boeing engineer ... has a nice 3,300 or so sq. foot house in a nicer Lozier neighborhood built around 2000. I remember one summer they had to choose between having the house painted or getting a $4,000 surgery for their dog. I was fortunate in that I could have said, "why not bofe?"
My in-laws would have faced the same dilemma, except my FIL would never have hired someone to paint his house ... he did it.
I know there are people and communities left behind. But I also think in real-life there are a shit-ton of people in the middle. Their lives just look different than the old middle class. In some ways better; in some ways worse.
-
Agreed.HHusky said:
At some level there's always a middle, that's true. But historically (at least the history for which we have good data), the upper 10% of owners of capital owned 90% of all wealth. Having a middle class that owned some significant share of wealth is a more modern thing, and it has been reverting back in the direction of the concentration at the top over the past few decades. In the long run, it's wealth (more than income) that matters because r>g in the long run.creepycoug said:
I guess it's how you define middle class. Thought of as a broad intellectual concept, I'd argue it's still there, but we're at a time when we're pushing a lot of people who might have been thought of as middle class down into the lower class. My in-laws are a good example of that. He was a union carpenter and foreman on big projects, and she was an admin. at Rayonier. Both had pensions, etc. Bought a house and retired owning it, raised their daughters, moved to a place on the Sound, and lived a good life. Those same two people would struggle today with those jobs and that level of education.HHusky said:Re: middle class
The middle class is very much a 20th Century phenomenon, long in decline. Probably wouldn’t have happened at all without massive disruptions, e.g., two world wars. If you want a middle class you actually have to enact policies to support it. It doesn’t just spring organically from capitalism.
But for every one of them, there is a kid learning to code, or working in mid-tier finance, or mid-tier law, or a 1,000 other professional or semi-professional jobs, who will make a good living but are not going to be super wealthy by any stretch. Those people will live economically maybe just slightly better than my in-laws, and most of the "better" part will be because a lot of things are relatively cheaper and more accessible than they were during their heyday. Vacations, for example. When I was a kid in the 70s and 80s, only very well-to-do people jumped on a plane to take a vacation with any regularity. It wasn't an every year thing. It is now because it's fucking cheap relative to income.
I think in a lot of ways there is still a middle class. The way the two classes live is different, but I feel like there is a decent chunk of people in the middle. My old neighborhood in Bothell was full of them. The Boeing engineer ... has a nice 3,300 or so sq. foot house in a nicer Lozier neighborhood built around 2000. I remember one summer they had to choose between having the house painted or getting a $4,000 surgery for their dog. I was fortunate in that I could have said, "why not bofe?"
My in-laws would have faced the same dilemma, except my FIL would never have hired someone to paint his house ... he did it.
I know there are people and communities left behind. But I also think in real-life there are a shit-ton of people in the middle. Their lives just look different than the old middle class. In some ways better; in some ways worse. -
Our kids are still too young but we were looking at Roth IRAs for both of them. You can contribute to your kids Roth IRA as soon as they have earned income so if Johnny gets an after school/summer gig at 16 making 5k a year you can start contributing to a Roth IRA in their name. Throw $400 a month in there from age 16 to 25 and consider it an early inheritance of 48k total. If they manage to earn a measly 8% a year and don't bother contributing another dollar after the age of 25 they have 1.8 million when they turn 65 tax free. Of course in 50 years maybe 1.8 mill only buys you a soyburger at McDonalds but that's another story...godawgst said:Two most important words we should be teaching our kids in school when it comes to finance is compound interest. Earlier it starts better it does for you.
I was born/raised/still live in Lewis County, but for some very fortunate reason loved finances and the stock market so started investing in my early 20's.
Both wife and I have contributed to our 401k's last 25 years and today, what we put in along with the match is minute compared to what the market does for our total. Even if it only goes up 5% in a year, that's double what we will contribute and make during that same time frame.
Congrats Creepy your 5-6 million portfolio puts you in the top 1/2 of 1% of household wealth in America (680,000 out of 116,000,000) -
I have nothing to add, but what a fine thread this has been. Hats off to you @creepycoug for putting together a diverse community of people who are otherwise shitheads to each other, but are nonetheless here behaving in the house you built.
-
It's my inherently peaceful and spiritual nature to which people are drawn. Stalin recognized this in me. It's a gift.GreenRiverGatorz said:I have nothing to add, but what a fine thread this has been. Hats off to you @creepycoug for putting together a diverse community of people who are otherwise shitheads to each other, but are nonetheless here behaving in the house you built.
And we must pay some homage to @Baseman , even though, like @Gladstone , he hates me. -
8%/ year? Measly? In a zero interest highly speculative market?GDS said:
Our kids are still too young but we were looking at Roth IRAs for both of them. You can contribute to your kids Roth IRA as soon as they have earned income so if Johnny gets an after school/summer gig at 16 making 5k a year you can start contributing to a Roth IRA in their name. Throw $400 a month in there from age 16 to 25 and consider it an early inheritance of 48k total. If they manage to earn a measly 8% a year and don't bother contributing another dollar after the age of 25 they have 1.8 million when they turn 65 tax free. Of course in 50 years maybe 1.8 mill only buys you a soyburger at McDonalds but that's another story...godawgst said:Two most important words we should be teaching our kids in school when it comes to finance is compound interest. Earlier it starts better it does for you.
I was born/raised/still live in Lewis County, but for some very fortunate reason loved finances and the stock market so started investing in my early 20's.
Both wife and I have contributed to our 401k's last 25 years and today, what we put in along with the match is minute compared to what the market does for our total. Even if it only goes up 5% in a year, that's double what we will contribute and make during that same time frame.
Congrats Creepy your 5-6 million portfolio puts you in the top 1/2 of 1% of household wealth in America (680,000 out of 116,000,000)
Do you work @CalPers? -
Tug belongsdoogie said:
8%/ year? Measly? In a zero interest highly speculative market?GDS said:
Our kids are still too young but we were looking at Roth IRAs for both of them. You can contribute to your kids Roth IRA as soon as they have earned income so if Johnny gets an after school/summer gig at 16 making 5k a year you can start contributing to a Roth IRA in their name. Throw $400 a month in there from age 16 to 25 and consider it an early inheritance of 48k total. If they manage to earn a measly 8% a year and don't bother contributing another dollar after the age of 25 they have 1.8 million when they turn 65 tax free. Of course in 50 years maybe 1.8 mill only buys you a soyburger at McDonalds but that's another story...godawgst said:Two most important words we should be teaching our kids in school when it comes to finance is compound interest. Earlier it starts better it does for you.
I was born/raised/still live in Lewis County, but for some very fortunate reason loved finances and the stock market so started investing in my early 20's.
Both wife and I have contributed to our 401k's last 25 years and today, what we put in along with the match is minute compared to what the market does for our total. Even if it only goes up 5% in a year, that's double what we will contribute and make during that same time frame.
Congrats Creepy your 5-6 million portfolio puts you in the top 1/2 of 1% of household wealth in America (680,000 out of 116,000,000)
Do you work @CalPers? -
Obviously risk tolerance is personal, but if you're making 100k on 3-4MM annually, you need to change strategies. If you blindly throw that at any decent money manager, you'll get at least 2-3x that, and should be looking at closer to 4x, without lifting a finger.RoadTrip said:
Our paths and goals couldn't be more aligned. I should be anywhere from 5.8 to 6.8 including the equity in my home by 56. The rudimentary plan is to have 2-3mm in conservative investments, hopefully generate about 100k annually and also pull 100k annually from the univested 3-4mm and by the time I'm dead leave 1mm to each of 3 children. I actually have competing advisors work out that plan. Maybe it turns out that I can't spend $200k a year in rerirement which won't crush me. Neither my wife or I inherited anything so I feel a great need to do that for my children. My dad was a fortune 500 executive who wasn't in the market and didn't have any life insurance. He spent his rerirement on my sister's dream which failed. I'm proud that I built and accomplished most everything on my own and my children were lucky to have a stay at home mom their entire upbringing.creepycoug said:
Well, I'm not there yet. But unless something goes wrong, I should be at or close to 6. I have always assumed the rule of 20 before calling it a day ... of course as my base salary has increased, that target has moved further out. And despite the shit talk, I should inherit some money from the old man. Not quite sure how that's going to work out ... taking a trip at the end of the month to help him with his private equity "liquidity event". It should come up organically at that time. Otherwise I'll present him with a nice bill for services rendered.godawgst said:Two most important words we should be teaching our kids in school when it comes to finance is compound interest. Earlier it starts better it does for you.
I was born/raised/still live in Lewis County, but for some very fortunate reason loved finances and the stock market so started investing in my early 20's.
Both wife and I have contributed to our 401k's last 25 years and today, what we put in along with the match is minute compared to what the market does for our total. Even if it only goes up 5% in a year, that's double what we will contribute and make during that same time frame.
Congrats Creepy your 5-6 million portfolio puts you in the top 1/2 of 1% of household wealth in America (680,000 out of 116,000,000) Joking. Not joking.
Part of what I've been driving towards is to leave the kids something. A fully funded undergraduate education (check), some money for a house down payment (1 out of 3, check), a wedding (1 out of 3, check, and it was a really nice one), and we (hopefully) live off of the earnings from the assets. I didn't have a Seattle tech. liquidity event. In the tortoise and hare story, I've been the slow guy, which is fine, except when you live in Seattle, a lot of hares actually win the race a lot earlier. -
RaceBannon said:
Tug belongsdoogie said:
8%/ year? Measly? In a zero interest highly speculative market?GDS said:
Our kids are still too young but we were looking at Roth IRAs for both of them. You can contribute to your kids Roth IRA as soon as they have earned income so if Johnny gets an after school/summer gig at 16 making 5k a year you can start contributing to a Roth IRA in their name. Throw $400 a month in there from age 16 to 25 and consider it an early inheritance of 48k total. If they manage to earn a measly 8% a year and don't bother contributing another dollar after the age of 25 they have 1.8 million when they turn 65 tax free. Of course in 50 years maybe 1.8 mill only buys you a soyburger at McDonalds but that's another story...godawgst said:Two most important words we should be teaching our kids in school when it comes to finance is compound interest. Earlier it starts better it does for you.
I was born/raised/still live in Lewis County, but for some very fortunate reason loved finances and the stock market so started investing in my early 20's.
Both wife and I have contributed to our 401k's last 25 years and today, what we put in along with the match is minute compared to what the market does for our total. Even if it only goes up 5% in a year, that's double what we will contribute and make during that same time frame.
Congrats Creepy your 5-6 million portfolio puts you in the top 1/2 of 1% of household wealth in America (680,000 out of 116,000,000)
Do you work @CalPers?
