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.
The fun thing about retirement is you save money for 30 to 50 years but when you take it out, those early IN dollars are devalued over 10 fold. And the newly hired are making much higher salaries for the same jobs you did. This forces you to continually keep your savings invested and hope for the best. Lots of serendipity involved.
The fun thing about retirement is you save money for 30 to 50 years but when you take it out, those early IN dollars are devalued over 10 fold. And the newly hired are making much higher salaries for the same jobs you did. This forces you to continually keep your savings invested and hope for the best. Lots of serendipity involved.
But didn’t that money grow more than the inflation rate over 30-50 years and if not , why not?
With at least 2% inflation part of the fed goals one needs to invest like it or not .
But didn’t that money grow more than the inflation rate over 30-50 years and if not , why not?
With at least 2% inflation part of the fed goals one needs to invest like it or not .
As you well know, that money didn’t grow unless it was invested AND the investments did well on the whole. That is with few buy high sell low losses and little giving away of all your gains to “money managers”. So you are absolutely right. Of course world events can have dramatic effects too.
The fun thing about retirement is you save money for 30 to 50 years but when you take it out, those early IN dollars are devalued over 10 fold. And the newly hired are making much higher salaries for the same jobs you did. This forces you to continually keep your savings invested and hope for the best. Lots of serendipity involved.
Very good point, as well as quite a bit of irony. I know exactly what you mean, as I started working full-time, in 1971, at $3.30/hr. as an apprentice in a skilled trade. That was pretty much the average pay for that position, with, of course, the opportunity to work my way up the ladder, which would bring a higher rate of pay.
But today, the general consensus is that $15/hr. should be the "minimum wage". I hate to use the worn out phrase, "$15/hr to flip burgers", but I can't help but let it get under my skin....It took me a number of years to work my way up to $15/hr, and I had to acquire a number of skills, within my field, to get there. Today, they're talking that amount of money just to walk in the door, and perform a minimally skilled job??
On an inflation adjusted scale it is likely close. I bet your social security payment is way more too then had you been retiring instead of joining the work force back then
Very good point, as well as quite a bit of irony. I know exactly what you mean, as I started working full-time, in 1971, at $3.30/hr. as an apprentice in a skilled trade. That was pretty much the average pay for that position, with, of course, the opportunity to work my way up the ladder, which would bring a higher rate of pay.
But today, the general consensus is that $15/hr. should be the "minimum wage". I hate to use the worn out phrase, "$15/hr to flip burgers", but I can't help but let it get under my skin....It took me a number of years to work my way up to $15/hr, and I had to acquire a number of skills, within my field, to get there. Today, they're talking that amount of money just to walk in the door, and perform a minimally skilled job??
Your starting pay today be over $27/hr as an unskilled apprentice. The average salary for someone working in a burger restaurant is paid $11.
"Five-figure salary" was still considered a status symbol when I was a teenager in rural Pennsylvania in the mid-1960's.
As a medical intern I made $13.2K my first year. My daughter made something like $52K her first year, as I recall in 2015. With inflation, the same number.
IMO lifestyle and standard of living are more important metrics than the USD numbers.
The fun thing about retirement is you save money for 30 to 50 years but when you take it out, those early IN dollars are devalued over 10 fold. And the newly hired are making much higher salaries for the same jobs you did. This forces you to continually keep your savings invested and hope for the best. Lots of serendipity involved.
Stocks over the long term do this. The serendipity is mainly in the timing of your initial investing and then when you start taking money out.
It seems to me that some people who realize they will never have $1 million try to convince themselves that $1 million is just a paltry sum of money.
LOL
Right? A million bucks is still a million bucks, still has a quite nice ring to it. Pay a financial guy 1% to have him manage it.
Buying a house isn't "wasting" it either.
I probably wouldn't move to Manhattan or SF but yeah.
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.
