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.
...Yep agree 100%. We're both in our 40s and still have lots of contacts. Wife could return to work if needed, she's actually kept up her bar dues in some kind of inactive status, and I still get contacted non-stop by recruiters and former coworkers asking if I'm interested in xyz...
Bar dues as in legal profession? We never gave up our active status in the Florida Bar. Because it would have saved us about 10 cents a year to go to inactive (as opposed to resigning altogether). The only thing we have to pay extra for is CLE - which costs both of us about $75/year in the cheapest possible courses. Peanuts. IIRC - if you go inactive in the Florida Bar - you have to take the bar exam to go active again. Super big PITA - especially when you're older. You might ask your wife to look into exactly what she did/what her situation is.
Quote:
This is a great option to have, although I suspect if needed we'd be more likely to cut expenses by moving to a low cost of living country instead of going back to work.
Being able to return to work is a good option IMO. Moving to a lower cost living part of the country may or may not be a better option. Depends on where you're coming from - and where you're going. Also what you want to do. I wouldn't last in many low cost "senior areas" for 10 minutes. FWIW - when I moved to where I live now - it was lower cost - compared to other places in Florida like Miami. Because our school district is highly rated and attractive to young higher income families now - it really isn't a bargain or perhaps even a good value these days. Robyn
Bar dues as in legal profession? We never gave up our active status in the Florida Bar. Because it would have saved us about 10 cents a year to go to inactive (as opposed to resigning altogether). The only thing we have to pay extra for is CLE - which costs both of us about $75/year in the cheapest possible courses. Peanuts. IIRC - if you go inactive in the Florida Bar - you have to take the bar exam to go active again. Super big PITA - especially when you're older. You might ask your wife to look into exactly what she did/what her situation is.
The reason she went inactive instead of resign was so she wouldn't have to take the bar exam again if she did go active. The difference in bar dues is about $250 annually versus active.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robyn55
Being able to return to work is a good option IMO. Moving to a lower cost living part of the country may or may not be a better option. Depends on where you're coming from - and where you're going. Also what you want to do. I wouldn't last in many low cost "senior areas" for 10 minutes. FWIW - when I moved to where I live now - it was lower cost - compared to other places in Florida like Miami. Because our school district is highly rated and attractive to young higher income families now - it really isn't a bargain or perhaps even a good value these days. Robyn
I mean a lower cost area of the world. We like hanging out in 'em anyway.
I think it's likely that more money has been lost to stupidity and hubris than actual larceny.
Hanlon's Razor - "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity"
Agreed. But my point was that most bankers lost money - for themselves, their firms and their clients - not because of malfeasance, turpitude, fraud or betting against their customers; they lost it from sheer stupidity and greed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107
i always made it a rule never to even buy company's in my industry .
why ?
because i worked in a very technical industry and i would see new products all the time i thought were great . only problem was the rest of the world couldn't care less nor even understands the product.
This is indeed a salient cautionary tale – and not just about relying on company-stock from one's employer, but overall in one's industry or even for products that one happens to like. Indeed, repeatedly I find that products and services that I personally consider to be stupid, useless and subpar, are popular and profitable… Facebook, Linked-In, Amazon, Tesla and so forth are good examples. Quite often, the products that I like, and the stores that I like, nobody else likes, and those companies fail. For example, I liked Borders Bookstores, and patronized them extensive – instead of Amazon. Borders went bankrupt. I still like Sears, and the hardware stores that are getting mauled by Home Depot and Lowes. So much for buying what you know/like.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lieqiang
Definitely on #2, of all the variables in our personal finance universe that is the one we feel we have the most control over.
While certainly I agree that frugality is important, both while trying to accumulate wealth and during the spend-down stage, we can also become the so-called victims of our own success.
If Joe Average (or not so average) makes $50K/year as a school-teacher or $100K/year as a general-practice physician, but has millions of dollars in his portfolio, Joe can't possibly use additional frugality to offset stock-market losses, even if Joe is still only middle-aged. Certainly, Joe can extend the viability of his portfolio by living modestly and prudently. But if Joe's aim is to become wealthier than he already is, well, that aim won't be fulfilled by clipping coupons, at this stage in Joe's life.
If Joe Average (or not so average) makes $50K/year as a school-teacher or $100K/year as a general-practice physician, but has millions of dollars in his portfolio, Joe can't possibly use additional frugality to offset stock-market losses, even if Joe is still only middle-aged. Certainly, Joe can extend the viability of his portfolio by living modestly and prudently. But if Joe's aim is to become wealthier than he already is, well, that aim won
If Joe has "millions" in his portfolio then Joe probably doesn't need to worry about growing his portfolio to the level where Joe would need to take on much risk. Joe could have a portfolio that is heavily weighted towards various lower-risk investments and fixed income type investments once he has made these millions. Joe's market losses would then be much less.
By contrast, if middle age Steve needs to save $40K - $50k/year and invest those monies in order to be able to accumulate enough to fund his/his wife's retirement by age 62 and Steve makes $100K/year, Steve will have to live more frugally and take some calculated risks with his investments.
If Joe has "millions" in his portfolio then Joe probably doesn't need to worry about growing his portfolio to the level where Joe would need to take on much risk. Joe could have a portfolio that is heavily weighted towards various lower-risk investments and fixed income type investments once he has made these millions. Joe's market losses would then be much less.
By contrast, if middle age Steve needs to save $40K - $50k/year and invest those monies in order to be able to accumulate enough to fund his/his wife's retirement by age 62 and Steve makes $100K/year, Steve will have to live more frugally and take some calculated risks with his investments.
Ah, but our entire quandary is how Joe can nurture and protect his portfolio! He needs to avoid untoward risk and simultaneously to fend off inflation/taxes/etc. If Joe's only concern is his own retirement, then there's no problem. But suppose that Joe wants to leave a legacy? Suppose that Joe wants to turn his handful of millions into 10s of millions, so that Joe Jr. can subsequently aim for 100s of millions, and Joe III - renamed Franz Josef - can become the Andrew Carnegie of the early 22nd century?
Joe doesn't need the money. Certainly, he'd be aghast at losing it. But the money isn't there for his eventual nursing-home care, or his sail-boat for retirement in the Caribbean, or for building a classic sports-car collection. Remember, Joe is already frugal. Joe wants to become an American colossus, of the sort that would confound Theodore Dreiser or Kurt Vonnegut. Can he do that through disciplined savings and munis and CDs?
About housing being "contained" hey did anybody expect him to come out openly and say "that's right guys we're screwed".
Being the FED chair is highly political.
But one thing i criticise him is he shouldn't have lowered rates to zero.
Markets were looking for a discount window so 1.xx% would do the job.
ZIRP was a mistake and it made rate hike process much more difficult just like we have today
Bernanke is a DEVIL! We like to think it will be different this time, but it is NEVER different this time. Bernanke's installed policies will fail; he NEVER attacked the debt; the debt is the problem. He kept interest rates low and encouraged MORE debt. Spending more money to protect bad debts and levitate asset prices is the absolute wrong thing to do, although it seems to soften the blow; it seems more humane. However, governmental attempts to protect people from their own financial mistakes (both as creditors and debtors) is not a legitimate role for government. Government should not seduce people to borrow money to spur economic growth; and it should not attempt to protect them from the inevitable destructive sides of this seduction.
We are heading for a nuclear winter of debt destruction. Bernanke and now Yellen do understand that this is just a stalling tactic. The FED is feeding the beast (and the beast is the Big Banks holding trillions in leveraged derivatives that cannot be addressed in any way except through eventual default, which will implode the entire global financial system. AAA TBonds are the collateral of the derivatives markets, so the FED is feeding the beast with these bonds, not knowing what else to do, hoping against hope that unlimited borrowing will not lead to the end of the AAA rating on his TBonds. The FED is stalling for time, kicking the can.)
America is not recovering. We are just experiencing another Fed-blown bubble. When it pops, we all go down.
Ah, but our entire quandary is how Joe can nurture and protect his portfolio! He needs to avoid untoward risk and simultaneously to fend off inflation/taxes/etc. If Joe's only concern is his own retirement, then there's no problem. But suppose that Joe wants to leave a legacy? Suppose that Joe wants to turn his handful of millions into 10s of millions, so that Joe Jr. can subsequently aim for 100s of millions, and Joe III - renamed Franz Josef - can become the Andrew Carnegie of the early 22nd century?
Joe doesn't need the money. Certainly, he'd be aghast at losing it. But the money isn't there for his eventual nursing-home care, or his sail-boat for retirement in the Caribbean, or for building a classic sports-car collection. Remember, Joe is already frugal. Joe wants to become an American colossus, of the sort that would confound Theodore Dreiser or Kurt Vonnegut. Can he do that through disciplined savings and munis and CDs?
joe could always go in to defensive mode with something like the permanent portfolio .
that covers you in good and bad times .
but you give up some gains in bull runs for that protection .
it does better when things are crappy and not so well in comparison when things are good .
The reason she went inactive instead of resign was so she wouldn't have to take the bar exam again if she did go active. The difference in bar dues is about $250 annually versus active.
It's very different in Florida. "Inactive members" have to pay the same annual dues as "active members". $265/year these days. I keep my Bar membership active because I still have a pretty inexpensive excess insurance policy though the Florida Bar. Which would cover some expensive drugs I might need down the road. Suspect it will make some sense to drop it all in the future (perhaps it even makes sense now). But I don't see any financial need to do it now. So I'll keep things status quo.
Quote:
I mean a lower cost area of the world. We like hanging out in 'em anyway.
Like where? The parts of the world I like tend to be high priced spread places.
Also - once you're a senior on Medicare - your health care options outside the US are limited and often very expensive and/or poor. Robyn
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.
