Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I guess we will see, won't we. The longest I have worked for a company in my career is 3 years. That would qualify me for no pensions, yet I have 200k through 401ks and rollover IRAs.
You don't have to be a stock expert to understand the benefits of tax-deferred investment vehicles.I'm not talking about "stock picking" I'm talking about the basic laws of compounding and the understanding that putting a little away today can turn into a lot 40 years from now. Again, taking a few minutes to understand the money you spend 50+ years working for.
I find it's always old people that love the idea of pensions. These are typically the same people that worked for the same company for their entire lives. It can be great for people like that, but the average person will work in the same job for 4.4 years. Most basic pensions require 10-15 years of service. I don't want to be forced to stay in a role to qualify for my match. I'd rather take my dollar for dollar 6% match and move somewhere after 5-6 years if I find a better opportunity. People that are holding on for pensions that I know are miserable. Many hate their jobs, but they have put so much time into their tenure they have to hold on for a few more years to get a benefit they could survive on.
^^^^^^
This. And I am a believer in the random walk theory. Unless you're really good (or think you're really good) your best bet is to pick index funds (of if your 401k doesn't offer real index funds, pick the closest thing) and diversify. 80% of professionally managed funds don't beat the market over the long run. So by investing in index funds you're already in the top 20% of funds.
When I switched jobs, in the early 2000, I had a modest amount in my company 401k which I rolled over into an IRA and put in an index fund. Part of it was my paycheck contributions and the other part was company match and fund growth. I could only afford to start contributing around 1995, so I only had about 5 years of contributions and company match. I never added to this money. Nine years later, at the rock bottom of the Great Recession, when the stock prices dropped to their lowest point, I still had more money in that account than what I contributed from my paycheck. Now, it is about 2.5x as much as I rolled over. If I was smart I would've pulled my money out of the market in 2007 and reinvested in 2009 and made a killing. I didn't pull it out on time, but then I didn't pull it out at all, assuming since I already missed the boat, might as well just wait it out. Guess what, it was still the second best strategy - I didn't make as much as I could, but I didn't lose anything either, in the long run it all averaged out. A lot of people panicked and pulled their money out of the market at or near the worst time, locking their losses in.
Could I make more money in real estate or some other field ? Sure. As long as I knew what I was doing and was better than the other guy. But realistically, I'd probably lose my butt, and for sure a great deal of nerve cells. I am good at my job, doesn't mean I am good at any job without proper training and experience. Investing in the broad market with a long term perspective requires very little effort - some common sense, knowing your timeline, knowing when not to panic, and keeping an eye on major market moves. Over time, unless we hit the next Great Depression that lasts for 30 years, your money will grow. And if we do hit it, you have bigger problems to worry about.
folks managed to survive on just ss since the beginning . it may not be a life you or i want but it has been done and will be done forever.
A perhaps comforting but inaccurate thought. SS alone will barely keep a low-income worker above the poverty line in retirement. At that level, people are prone to malnutrition, chronic diseases of old age, isolation, heatstroke, and other factors that adversely affect longevity. Pretending that all is well with such people is simply to close one's eyes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107
there is no official wide spread financial census. there is only the random ACS study that some get as part of the census.
The ACS questionnaire is sent to some 250,000 households every month.
Last edited by Major Barbara; 06-13-2015 at 09:17 AM..
Since 2009, had been buying in smaller US shale companies, energy infrastructure, and biotech. ...
Last summer, when oil prices plummeted, moved those funds into small and big biotech.
... Buying a biotech fund that emphasizes small companies is almost a no brainer.
You are to be commended for your good sense and impeccable timing. But I ask - with no envy or facetiousness - is this trend sustainable? Can one over a lifetime consistently catch trends with such deftness?
Too often, a "no brainer" soon becomes a brainless disaster. Witness how this phrase evolved after its celebrated usage by George Tenet, onetime director of the CIA, regarding the Iraq war. But the time that a decision comes to resemble a "no brainer", too often those with brains will have taken the opposite side of that bet.
Returning to the theme of this thread, often we hear that Chinese stocks are no brainers... hundreds of millions of Chinese consumers being elevated to the middle-class, slow but sure cementing of the rule of law and of increasing transparency and accountability in business-practice, an unchallenged industrial colossus, a rising technological leader without the retrograde self-doubts and divisions plaguing with moribund West mired in anomie, defeatism and internal strife, and so on. How could investment in Chinese stocks be a losing proposition? Yet what has happened in the past 10 years? And what are the genius stock-pickers going to predict next?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ummagumma
...I could only afford to start contributing around 1995, so I only had about 5 years of contributions and company match. I never added to this money. Nine years later, at the rock bottom of the Great Recession, when the stock prices dropped to their lowest point, I still had more money in that account than what I contributed from my paycheck.
Pardon if I'm misquoting, but I don't understand how the above is possible. In March of 2009, the US stock market bottomed out to a level that it had not seen since 1996. 13 years of accumulation was wiped out. For persons who invested heavily in equities that didn't pay much in dividends, the cumulative return would have been negative, as they would have been buying into the market at prices above the March 2009 low. I started investing in the early 1990s, almost entirely in index funds (but never 100% in equities). Even so, in March of 2009 I was sitting at a cumulative lifetime negative rate of return. And it sorely hurt!
Of course, since then we've had a remarkable turnaround. Today it's easy to feel rich and comfortable. But as of March 2009, it felt like the apocalypse.
You are to be commended for your good sense and impeccable timing. But I ask - with no envy or facetiousness - is this trend sustainable? Can one over a lifetime consistently catch trends with such deftness?
Too often, a "no brainer" soon becomes a brainless disaster. Witness how this phrase evolved after its celebrated usage by George Tenet, onetime director of the CIA, regarding the Iraq war. But the time that a decision comes to resemble a "no brainer", too often those with brains will have taken the opposite side of that bet.
Returning to the theme of this thread, often we hear that Chinese stocks are no brainers... hundreds of millions of Chinese consumers being elevated to the middle-class, slow but sure cementing of the rule of law and of increasing transparency and accountability in business-practice, an unchallenged industrial colossus, a rising technological leader without the retrograde self-doubts and divisions plaguing with moribund West mired in anomie, defeatism and internal strife, and so on. How could investment in Chinese stocks be a losing proposition? Yet what has happened in the past 10 years? And what are the genius stock-pickers going to predict next?
Pardon if I'm misquoting, but I don't understand how the above is possible. In March of 2009, the US stock market bottomed out to a level that it had not seen since 1996. 13 years of accumulation was wiped out. For persons who invested heavily in equities that didn't pay much in dividends, the cumulative return would have been negative, as they would have been buying into the market at prices above the March 2009 low. I started investing in the early 1990s, almost entirely in index funds (but never 100% in equities). Even so, in March of 2009 I was sitting at a cumulative lifetime negative rate of return. And it sorely hurt!
Of course, since then we've had a remarkable turnaround. Today it's easy to feel rich and comfortable. But as of March 2009, it felt like the apocalypse.
What I meant was that I still had more money than what was withdrawn from my paychecks to contribute to the 401k.
I.e. I paid something like 12% of my pre-tax salary in that 401k account for 5 years. My employer matched, I think, the first 4%. My last contribution was in December 1999. I rolled it over sometime in 2000. When I look at the lowest statement from 2009, I had less money in my account than what I rolled over, but more than what came out of my paycheck. I.e. contributions + employer match + growth - losses was still more than contributions.
A perhaps comforting but inaccurate thought. SS alone will barely keep a low-income worker above the poverty line in retirement. At that level, people are prone to malnutrition, chronic diseases of old age, isolation, heatstroke, and other factors that adversely affect longevity. Pretending that all is well with such people is simply to close one's eyes.
The ACS questionnaire is sent to some 250,000 households every month.
the shift from the long form and its accuracy now with the ACS survey has been questioned over and over.
it would require 12 years of data collection to achieve the 2000 Census sample size for the nation’s smallest counties (under 20,000 population), more than twice the maximum 5‐year data collection period currently utilized.
In other words, even if the current ACS sampling rate were doubled, the sample size used for the 5‐year estimates would still fall short of levels used in the 2000 Census. The key implication from the lower sampling rate will be a higher risk of sampling error i.
have you ever seen a survey form ? no one i know personally has gotten one .
Last edited by mathjak107; 06-14-2015 at 03:31 AM..
A perhaps comforting but inaccurate thought. SS alone will barely keep a low-income worker above the poverty line in retirement. At that level, people are prone to malnutrition, chronic diseases of old age, isolation, heatstroke, and other factors that adversely affect longevity. Pretending that all is well with such people is simply to close one's eyes.
so all of those just living on ss really are not doing it , is that what you are trying to tell us ? no one said it is a good or healthy life but the fact is millions make it work.
the Social Security Administration says 10.6 million people, or 22% of the 48 million who will receive Social Security benefits this year, live on that check alone.
many get subsidized health care , rent , food stamps , etc.
the shift from the long form and its accuracy now with the ACS survey has been questioned over and over.
By Ron Paul and the like. In general, people who mistrust the government and don't understand statistics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107
it would require 12 years of data collection to achieve the 2000 Census sample size for the nation’s smallest counties (under 20,000 population), more than twice the maximum 5‐year data collection period currently utilized.
The Census is a count, not a survey, and the old Census long-form no longer exists. It has been replaced by the ACS, which is implemented in monthly cycles similar to those that support estimates of the CPI and unemployment rate. Meanwhile, national survey sample sizes of well under a thousand are adequate to meet a 95% confidence interval on binary questions. The ACS includes more complex questions and seeks higher levels of confidence, hence it relies on a much larger sample size. It is in fact the largest actual survey in the country. Meanwhile, the survey sample size necessary to achieve a given level of confidence for any given set of questions and intended purposes can be calculated in advance. No one would bother to collect these data if sample size issues were destined to render the results unusable and uninformative. Seriously. The people who do this work are not nearly as dumb as you for whatever reason want to assume them to be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107
In other words, even if the current ACS sampling rate were doubled, the sample size used for the 5‐year estimates would still fall short of levels used in the 2000 Census. The key implication from the lower sampling rate will be a higher risk of sampling error i.
All surveys are built in light of cost-benefit analysis. In the case of the old long-form, they were already going to mail stuff out to everybody anyway. The marginal costs of sending the long-form to one household in six were next to nothing. The current ACS does have costs and it reaches only about 3 million households per year with individual recipients not being repeated within a five year interval. Run some numbers to compare.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107
have you ever seen a survey form ? no one i know personally has gotten one .
No, and I've never won a Powerball jackpot or contracted ebola either. The whole purpose of surveys is to avoid the inclusion of huge numbers of people. That you even ask a question such as this suggests that you might have a very limited understanding of demographics and social statistics.
so all of those just living on ss really are not doing it , is that what you are trying to tell us ?
Bent out of shape from distorting what was said? That can't be a good sign.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107
no one said it is a good or healthy life but the fact is millions make it work.
You have a peculiar definition of "making it work".
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107
the Social Security Administration says 10.6 million people, or 22% of the 48 million who will receive Social Security benefits this year, live on that check alone.
Try again. They estimate that among elderly Social Security beneficiaries, 22% of married couples and about 47% of unmarried persons rely on Social Security for 90% or more of their income. Also that 52% of married couples and 74% of unmarried persons rely on Social Security for 50% or more of their income. Also that nine out of ten individuals age 65 and older receive Social Security benefits, and that Social Security benefits represent about 38% of the income of the elderly.
many get subsidized health care , rent , food stamps , etc.
Ah, the good life! SS alone will leave one living on the same block as the poverty line. There are many sources out there documenting the adverse mortality effects and quality of life deficits that are associated with such a status. Maybe you should go google up some of those.
i have zero reason to goggle anything. as i said millions live on ss alone. whether you or i are happy with the life they lead is irrelevant . the fact is they do it , they have to do it , and they make it work,
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
