How is it possible that so few families have built any form of capital?

[mittacc]

So you invest 180 a year for 39 years and you only get 3600 back from it? Yeah, you fucked up.


Oh.. and inflation, 180$ in 1980 is worth a less now in 2020.

No, you'll have more if you invest 180/year continously. That's just for that one time deposit. If you start from 0 and deposit 15/month with an average return of 8% you'll net $48,316.19 (you only put in 15% of that yourself). You can play with the numbers yourself here https://www.calculator.net/investmen...it=0&x=72&y=12

And yes, inflation is ofc a thing but that also works on your money you stockpile. So you either spend it and lose all buying power, invest it and get more buying power over time or save it and lose buying power over time.

- - - Updated - - -

$3600 isn't much at all. When I lived in Singapore I had monthly expenses of S$3500-4000.

And? You convert less money to more and greatly outpace inflation. What's so difficult to understand? This kinda answers my original question...

- - - Updated - - -

Its also about 50% of what you'd have if you just kept the 180/year to yourself for 39 years.

You've misunderstood the premise. The example was if you invested 180 dollars once, not annually. Should've pretty obvious that something was off when you compared the numbers?

[JohnBrown1917]

No, you'll have more if you invest 180/year continously. That's just for that one time deposit. If you start from 0 and deposit 15/month with an average return of 8% you'll net $48,316.19 (you only put in 15% of that yourself). You can play with the numbers yourself here https://www.calculator.net/investmen...it=0&x=72&y=12

And yes, inflation is ofc a thing but that also works on your money you stockpile. So you either spend it and lose all buying power, invest it and get more buying power over time or save it and lose buying power over time.

- - - Updated - - -



And? You convert less money to more and greatly outpace inflation. What's so difficult to understand? This kinda answers my original question...

- - - Updated - - -



You've misunderstood the premise. The example was if you invested 180 dollars once, not annually. Should've pretty obvious that something was off when you compared the numbers?

lol 180$ wont turn into 3600$ on a safe investment.


Its almost sad how much libs misunderstand the problems of the working class across the world.

[mittacc]

lol 180$ wont turn into 3600$ on a safe investment.


Its almost sad how much libs misunderstand the problems of the working class across the world.

Define a safe and un-safe investment.

[freezion]

Define a safe and un-safe investment.

High risk/unsafe investments are things like Stocks (especially high yield stocks) and cryptocurrency.
Heavily market driven, can fluctuate a lot and crash.

if you buy safe stocks, you won't get a return rate of 8%.

Things like state bonds and lotterybonds (for those countries who have it), as they have a low chance of crashing and fluctuating; you are most likely guaranteed to not even be at risk of losing anything on it.
In return though, they have low interest rates.

There's other investments that's safe/unsafe, but in relation to the budgets being discussed, these are more or less the only viable ones.

[Freighter]

And? You convert less money to more and greatly outpace inflation. What's so difficult to understand? This kinda answers my original question...

The fact you think $3600 is a lot of money is kind of sad.

[mittacc]

The fact you think $3600 is a lot of money is kind of sad.

Turning $180 into $3600 while literally doing nothing is amazing.

[Freighter]

Turning $180 into $3600 while literally doing nothing is amazing.

Over 39 years? No, that's not amazing. It's pitiful, even if you manage to do it, which I doubt you would.

[mittacc]

High risk/unsafe investments are things like Stocks (especially high yield stocks) and cryptocurrency.
Heavily market driven, can fluctuate a lot and crash.

if you buy safe stocks, you won't get a return rate of 8%.

Things like state bonds and lotterybonds (for those countries who have it), as they have a low chance of crashing and fluctuating; you are most likely guaranteed to not even be at risk of losing anything on it.
In return though, they have low interest rates.

There's other investments that's safe/unsafe, but in relation to the budgets being discussed, these are more or less the only viable ones.

I do know what risk refers to. But the guy seem to think that there exist any investment without any risk. Risk is generally more a measurement of stability as opposed to if you lose everything or win big. If you do your research and mostly invest in boring companies with a large "moat" you should be safe. Index funds are also a good option as you follow the general market which always trends up over long periods of time.

- - - Updated - - -

Over 39 years? No, that's not amazing. It's pitiful.

20 times the money. It's the relative gain, not the absolute gain we're talking about here. Do you think Warren Buffet thinks 100 million is a lot of money to earn over five years? Not a chance.

[Freighter]

20 times the money. It's the relative gain, not the absolute gain we're talking about here. Do you think Warren Buffet thinks 100 million is a lot of money to earn over five years? Not a chance.

And you think the costs of places to live, food, gas and so on is going to stay at the levels it is at today?

$3600 is pitiful over 39 years.

[mittacc]

And you think the costs of places to live, food, gas and so on is going to stay at the levels it is at today?

$3600 is pitiful over 39 years.

Why are you stuck on that one number? What are you not understanding? If we assume an inflation rate of 3% per year (is usually lower) prices would only have gone up to 3,17 times the current costs. 20/3,17 = 6,31 times the buying power. If we instead use 2% inflation your buying power increases 9,26 times.

Let's say you invest $20,000.00 today and that would give you $400,000.00 in 39 years or $185,200.00 i ntoday's money. Not worth it? Get out of here...

[Freighter]

Why are you stuck on that one number? What are you not understanding? If we assume an inflation rate of 3% per year (is usually lower) prices would only have gone up to 3,17 times the current costs. 20/3,17 = 6,31 times the buying power. If we instead use 2% inflation your buying power increases 9,26 times.

Let's say you invest $20,000.00 today and that would give you $400,000.00 in 39 years or $185,200.00 i ntoday's money. Not worth it? Get out of here...

It won't give you that much, unless you have some freak luck streak.

[mittacc]

It won't give you that much, unless you have some freak luck streak.

I just did the math. It's also funny how you went from "that is pitiful" to "it can't be that good" when I just changed the invested amount...

[Freighter]

I just did the math. It's also funny how you went from "that is pitiful" to "it can't be that good" when I just changed the invested amount...

You're not guaranteed to have it increase it every year like you assume.

[mittacc]

You're not guaranteed to have it increase it every year like you assume.

Did I say every year? No... How about you go and do some research before you try a rebuttal. The S&P 500 index value has increase by a factor of 29,3 in the past 40 years (remember how I said 20 times your money's worth in 39 years, that's conservative according to history.)

[Freighter]

Did I say every year? No... How about you go and do some research before you try a rebuttal. The S&P 500 index value has increase by a factor of 29,3 in the past 40 years (remember how I said 20 times your money's worth in 39 years, that's conservative according to history.)

You're vastly overestimating how much you're going to get.

[mittacc]

You're vastly overestimating how much you're going to get.

Me: presenting historical data and doing the math
You: NOPE!

Great...

[Freighter]

Me: presenting historical data and doing the math
You: NOPE!

Great...

It's a different world now.

[Rasulis]

It's just easier for some people to blame the average American than to actually admit that they're never going to be wealthy.

Corporate apologism is a horrible disease in this country.

But for those that want to play the it worked for me card so it can work for anyone card -- I bought a house in Chicago that is now worth over a million dollars. My father in law died leaving my wife and I a house in the suburbs and a home in Arizona. So now we have three houses. Just get lucky and buy a house in a booming neighborhood and have your parents die and you'll have no problem with social mobility. Yes that is exactly how stupid it sounds when people say Americans should just give up small luxuries and they'll be financially set.

Generational wealth is very real. Every time properties/stocks/bonds were passed to the next generation, the value automatically increased.

When my mother-in-law passed away in 2012, my wife inherited her million-dollar childhood home in Chicago that her parents bought for $40k in late 40s. The moment she inherited the house, the capital gain reset to zero. In effect the property had gained around 300k in value for not having to pay capital gain tax.

The same went for the ESCO stocks that she inherited. When my father-in-law received them as compensation, they were worth around $2 per share. In 2012 they were worth $40 per share. The capital gain reset to zero and the stocks in effect gained around $8 per share. The stocks are currently valued at close to $100 per share. Likely we will be leaving them to our children. At that time, the capital gain will again reset to zero.

[JohnBrown1917]

Me: presenting historical data and doing the math
You: NOPE!

Great...

Trying to pretend its true does not make it so.

[mittacc]

Trying to pretend its true does not make it so.

What am I pretending is true?