When you go to work, arrive 15 minutes early, leave 5 minutes late, and do what you are told to do.
I'm attempting to have 3 jobs again. Seems harder than before, however.
Just had my best year ever.
How did your fiat currency incantations perform this solar-cycle?
.
It's been almost 10 years:
1. Are you a millionaire yet?
2. Why not?
1. Maybe.
2. Yes.
But isn't it that because of inflation a $million dollars is no longer worth a $million dollars?
That would be correct.
That would be correct.
Converted amount ($1,000,000 base) for today, 2022 back to 2013 => $786,283.74
.
I sure could go for a million tacos right about now...
Because I don't need money.
Because I don't need money.
They have a NFT for that! Going fast so you better hurry!!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You curd invest in cheese, people tell me it's the whey to go.
I am working on it, and everything else is nonsense
Considering the boss saw all the work and effort I put into everything I do this past weekend I might be there already!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, I'm a millionaire. But I die before the first chapter, just to leave my money to the main character contingent on a series of hapless misadventures that move their personal story along. Don't mind me. I'll just be here, all undeveloped, with no hopes and dreams of my own, beyond leaving millions to someone who needs to learn the meaning of true love or some bullshit.
I asked an AI why david isn't a millionaire?
As an AI language model, I do not have access to your financial situation or personal circumstances. However, becoming a millionaire usually requires a combination of factors such as hard work, dedication, sound financial planning, and sometimes, a bit of luck. It's possible that you haven't yet achieved millionaire status because you haven't yet fully utilized these factors, or perhaps you have faced unexpected challenges or obstacles that have hindered your progress.
It's important to keep in mind that everyone's journey is different, and financial success does not happen overnight. It may take years of hard work, persistence, and smart decision-making to accumulate a significant amount of wealth. It's also important to note that being a millionaire does not necessarily equate to happiness or fulfillment. Focus on setting achievable financial goals, living within your means, and taking steps to improve your financial situation. With dedication and perseverance, you can work towards financial security and success.
Here are some practical steps you can take to help increase your chances of becoming a millionaire:
1. Develop a clear financial plan: This should include short-term and long-term goals, as well as a budget and a savings plan. Set specific, measurable, and achievable goals to help you track your progress and stay motivated.
2. Invest in yourself: Invest time, effort, and money into developing skills that can help you earn more money in the long run. This could mean going back to school, taking courses or training programs, or pursuing other professional development opportunities.
3. Live within your means: Avoid overspending and living beyond your means. Instead, try to live below your means by cutting unnecessary expenses and being mindful of your spending habits.
4. Invest wisely: Investing your money in stocks, mutual funds, real estate, or other ventures can help you build wealth over time. However, it's important to do your research and seek advice from financial experts before making any investment decisions.
5. Network and build relationships: Building relationships with successful people in your industry can open up opportunities for growth and development. Attend networking events, join professional organizations, and seek out mentorship opportunities.
Remember that becoming a millionaire takes time, effort, and patience. Don't be discouraged if you haven't achieved this goal yet. Keep working hard, stay focused on your goals, and seek out opportunities to improve your financial situation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm entertained that even the AI buys into the misconception that "hard work" has anything to do with earnings.
An agricultural worker works longer hours doing much more grueling labor than I do, yet would be lucky to make 25% of my salary.
My job as a college teacher was much harder than what I do now and took at least 20% more hours per year, yet it only pays about 60% of what I make in private industry.
Cross off "hard work" and the rest of the advice is reasonable.
I like "dedication" much more -- as I told my kids: "Show up to work on time every day. When you're at work, do what you're asked to do. If you have free time, find more company-related work to do. You will be the best employee your employer has ever had."
It's amazing how powerful "don't goof off while at work" is as an attitude.
And what's missing is the REAL money-maker: Always be working for opportunities to upgrade your position. I'm dysfunctionally loyal to employers who treat me well; I get a job and stay in it. I have colleagues who move jobs every 2-3 years because they can make 10% more at another company. They now make nearly twice what I do, because they practice "aggressive mobility".
As a complete side note, I was entertained that this thread got resurrected just as I finished a "what if?" calculation, where I asked, "If I'd followed financial planners' advice and started investing 10% of my income in an index fund every year, how much better off would I be?"
The answer was fairly refreshing: "Only" 60% more than I have now. Which means I haven't been that terrible about putting money away for retirement.
Just gets tiring when you're 55 and looking at 65 and thinking, "Yeah, maybe 67 is a better target..."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The trouble is being able to afford putting 10% of income in investments.
Honestly, as far as I can tell, middle class people who don't move up financially are doing something wrong in most cases. They have the capacity to do something with their money to grow financially, even if that requires them to live like lower class for a while to achieve.
Lower class people are the ones who are less likely to be making mistakes financially (though they probably have terrible financial instincts) as the main cause of being not-rich, because they lack financial flexibility as they generally can't reduce their living expenses without massive penalties. Being homeless is nearly as expensive as renting, as food costs go up, and there are penalties associated with it such as the inability to shower properly, which significantly hinder attempt to move up. Bosses are less likely to hire someone who doesn't shower, regardless if whether their reason is laziness or homelessness. Further, lower class have less flexibility to attempt starting something new such as a new business or product as they simply lack the time and resources to put towards developing a new product or business. Thus, lower class people have basically no room to even try at being wealthier, with their main chance being to get schooling at a job worth a middle class income, achooling that requires either great studiousness and luck to have full scholarship, or a family support structure to feed them with noodle cups while they go to school and rack up debt. The schooling option however doesn't really work well as most such options don't actually grant anything that will get those individuals hired but they have no idea of that until too late.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The trouble is being able to afford putting 10% of income in investments.
Honestly, as far as I can tell, middle class people who don't move up financially are doing something wrong in most cases. They have the capacity to do something with their money to grow financially, even if that requires them to live like lower class for a while to achieve.
Lower class people are the ones who are less likely to be making mistakes financially (though they probably have terrible financial instincts) as the main cause of being not-rich, because they lack financial flexibility as they generally can't reduce their living expenses without massive penalties. Being homeless is nearly as expensive as renting, as food costs go up, and there are penalties associated with it such as the inability to shower properly, which significantly hinder attempt to move up. Bosses are less likely to hire someone who doesn't shower, regardless if whether their reason is laziness or homelessness. Further, lower class have less flexibility to attempt starting something new such as a new business or product as they simply lack the time and resources to put towards developing a new product or business. Thus, lower class people have basically no room to even try at being wealthier, with their main chance being to get schooling at a job worth a middle class income, achooling that requires either great studiousness and luck to have full scholarship, or a family support structure to feed them with noodle cups while they go to school and rack up debt. The schooling option however doesn't really work well as most such options don't actually grant anything that will get those individuals hired but they have no idea of that until too late.
All too true. I worked out a quick spreadsheet and to have $1 million at 65 assuming a 7% interest rate you'd need to start investing $2650 a year at 18. (I didn't break $2650/year in gross income until I was 24.)
So... you're 26, never got a college degree, and are making $14.36 working full-time minimum wage in Oakland, California, where mean rent is $2813 a month.
Er... wait a minute! You're not even making enough to pay rent, much less buy food or pay for medical care or transportation. The notion of setting money aside is ludicrous.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have given up on money and now home school children.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have given up on money and now home school children.
Still a millionaire.
Still have to work for a living.*sigh*
On the bright side, it looks like in a couple of years my liquid net worth will finally be positive, so there's that to look forward to.
The trouble is being able to afford putting 10% of income in investments.
Honestly, as far as I can tell, middle class people who don't move up financially are doing something wrong in most cases. They have the capacity to do something with their money to grow financially, even if that requires them to live like lower class for a while to achieve.
Lower class people are the ones who are less likely to be making mistakes financially (though they probably have terrible financial instincts) as the main cause of being not-rich, because they lack financial flexibility as they generally can't reduce their living expenses without massive penalties. Being homeless is nearly as expensive as renting, as food costs go up, and there are penalties associated with it such as the inability to shower properly, which significantly hinder attempt to move up. Bosses are less likely to hire someone who doesn't shower, regardless if whether their reason is laziness or homelessness. Further, lower class have less flexibility to attempt starting something new such as a new business or product as they simply lack the time and resources to put towards developing a new product or business. Thus, lower class people have basically no room to even try at being wealthier, with their main chance being to get schooling at a job worth a middle class income, schooling that requires either great studiousness and luck to have full scholarship, or a family support structure to feed them with noodle cups while they go to school and rack up debt. The schooling option however doesn't really work well as most such options don't actually grant anything that will get those individuals hired but they have no idea of that until too late.
Oh, hey, all that schooling only goes to the favored few who are connected/wealthy so the cycle continues to perpetuate itself.
Seriously, the 'Honors' programme at my junior high and high school were a Who's Who of the 'affluent' members of the community -- and everyone else got an 'average' education at best.
I knew *more* about the alleged 'Honors' material than the 'mainstream' (which was basically propaganda to keep folks in their place).
Very little motivation to excel if one is being actively kept down by an educational system that rewards the well-to-do and punishes the not-so-much.
The 'Basic' program students (Learning or behavioural concerns) even got a better education than the 'average' education because they were taught job skills like how to fix a car or wire a house.
I honest to goodness tried to set aside money when I first started working the 'essential retail gig', and even with help from the folks in the form of allowing me to 'live at home' until I 'got my feet under me' I was underwater most of the time.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, it's like I've been telling my kids:
Up until the 1930s, debt was an unsavory thing and you didn't go into debt for any reason unless you absolutely had to. Along came the FHA and taking out a loan to buy a house became "normal", and we had our first notion of "debt that every adult should have".
What's really surprising to me is that car financing predates the FHA (1928 vs. 1934) but even in the 1970s I recall car financing as being something that you didn't do unless you absolutely had to, and it wasn't until the 1980s that everyone was expected to finance their cars.
Suddenly all adults were supposed to have two loans.
When I went to college in the 1980s and 1990s, nobody took student loans. If you couldn't afford a school, you didn't go there. Student loans were for law school and med school and that's it. By the 2000s, student loans were standard.
So now you have an "average" American kid who turns 18:
- At 18, take out roughly $120,000 for a 4-year school. (My friends' kids are at U.C. Santa Cruz, and even with in-state tuition at a state-run school it's $28,000/year.)
- At 22, while still paying back the student loan, take out another $40,000 for a car.
- At 30, buy a house for (what's a reasonable price here?) $300,000.
They spend their lifetime in debt, not thinking once about how it wasn't always this way...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have no debt.
Didn't go to college.
Paid cash for my car.
I Rent.
NH: And if that subset they get *too* far into debt, they just 'declare bankruptcy' and have a few 'lean' years as they get their debt finagled down to 'acceptable levels' before starting the process all over again.
Outliers do occur, like CY, but they are not common.
Well, it's like I've been telling my kids:
Up until the 1930s, debt was an unsavory thing and you didn't go into debt for any reason unless you absolutely had to. Along came the FHA and taking out a loan to buy a house became "normal", and we had our first notion of "debt that every adult should have".
OTOH, up to the 30s the vast majority lived in poverty it's hard to imagine today. Home ownership and the FHA mortgage programs were a big part of what helped families built even a bit of generational wealth.
College loans were definitely a thing in the 80s and 90s. Not as ubiquitous or as large as today, but I knew lots of people who took out loans.
Yeah, the problem is that growing up in the Bay Area you get a skewed view of things, because it was upper middle class long before Apple came along and turned it into a world-class economic powerhouse. So yeah, where I grew up people didn't take student loans, but families definitely had more disposable income than most.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Where and when I grew up "disposable income" was a pair of words that had never been put together in that particular order before and certainly had no meaning.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Posted back on Apr 26, 2015, 02:39 pm.
So, we're now millionaires.
Most of it's tied up in our paid off house.
We have an investment property, paying itself off but we own half of it.
And we have superannuation tied up until retirement.
I was hoping to be able to retire, but I'm still a fair few years away.
My wife's job imploded. She has a much lower paying job now, but she's happy and working part time. We save her entire income.
The investment property almost lost us a fortune. We think the seller was taking cash in hand or fixing the books, but as soon as we bought the place, the tenants didn't pay any rent. We hadn't increased it or anything, but after months of no rent, we eventually had to evict and the tenants trashed the place as they left. Fortunately, it come with insurance and the place was finally fixed up and now we have boring tenants. We haven't raised the rent since before covid and everyone seems happy.
I'm still working my mediocre job that I hate and covering all our expenses.
We still have no children.
We still have no major medical issues.
Next step in the dream is to save enough for me to retire. Should take 3-5 years.
Will update again then. :-)
Congratulations on the paid-off house!
On paper, we're approaching the $2 million mark.
In reality, we actually have to live in the house we own in the Bay Area so it's hard to think of it as a "financial asset". This year our liquid net worth should finally hit $0, which I think is a much better measure of wealth. (Liquid cash plus investment property, which puts us at about $160k right now.)
You have to live somewhere, so calling me a "millionaire" when I'd have to abandon my home and move out of the area to achieve it is a bit disingenuous, in my mind.
As I tell GothBard, we could quit our jobs, sell our house, and retire very comfortably in Mexico today. If we'd actually like to stay where we are when we retire, then it's going to be another 10-15 years of saving up liquid assets so we can keep the house.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And I think that's the real peril of retirement planning in general: Too many people, financial advisors included, think of retirement as, "Living the exact same life you are today, except without a job," and plan accordingly.
But do you really want to sit around doing nothing for 8 hours a day in place of a job?
My mother's a great example. She grew up during the Depression, hence is very frugal. She planned a frugal retirement: Start each morning at the gym, then volunteer at the local high school, then go hiking with the local Sierra Club group and occasionally go out to dinner with them.
But of course the "local" hiking quickly turned into, "Where in the U.S. haven't we hiked before? What would be interesting to see?"
She ended up learning and then teaching snow survival training, traveling throughout the U.S. including Alaska to go hiking, and her annual expenses were $20,000-$30,000/year higher than before she retired.
So you can't just plan "survival"; you have to plan, "enjoyment".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that's what's irritating about being a Gen Xer raised by Depression-Era parents: It was drilled into me from a young age that Social Security and any notion of pensions would be gone by the time I retired so I'd be on my own, but I never got any decent advice on what to do about it.
My parents didn't believe in the stock market so they gave me money but made me put it in savings accounts. Which didn't keep up with inflation. So instead of letting inflation wither my money into nothing (it was the 1970s), I spent it on fun stuff. Not wise, but I had no better ideas.
EDIT: And in case you're thinking, "Wait a minute! Gen Xer with money in the 1970s? Just how old were you?", I started filing my own taxes at the ripe old age of 9, because my parents believed in self-reliance. So I knew exactly how much I was making and losing even then.
My brother ignored my parents and invested the money he got in the market, especially in the budding computer industry. And retired at 35.
Never listen to your parents' advice on investing.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So you can't just plan "survival"; you have to plan, "enjoyment".
While you're absolutely right about that "enjoyment" doesn't necessarily have to mean "spend lots of money".
I've been retired for over 10 years at this point.
My tastes are relatively cheap. Reading, internet, movies, tv, gaming. playing with my cats, helping at the rescue agency, socializing with some friends. I splurge on the occasional opera or live theatre or the like. Go out to a decent dinner at least once a week but mostly make my own meals or eat fairly cheap.
I did lots of travelling before I retired and seem to have totally gotten it out of my system.
I live in a city with good transit and walk, cycle or take transit nearly everywhere. With an occasional renting of a car.
Be realistic about what you want to do when you retire. But it really does NOT have to be expensive unless your tastes lean that way.
So you can't just plan "survival"; you have to plan, "enjoyment".Be realistic about what you want to do when you retire. But it really does NOT have to be expensive unless your tastes lean that way.
That was honestly where I was trying to go. I like my mother's example because in spite of her simple tastes she ended up spending significantly more money after she retired because she learned that she loved to travel.
If you've always dreamed of living in a cabin, writing poetry, and reading the classics, all you have to do is budget for that. My mother-in-law is quite happy on a budget that would drive her daughter to madness, because she's literally a happy poet in a quiet nook enjoying a peaceful and quiet retirement.
Understanding yourself and what you'll want to do is critical.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Note, it is a common misconception that your house is an asset. It's not. Assets are things that bring you money. The only time a house is an asset is when you have paying tenants or when you are selling it. If you live in it, it's a liability.
That's incorrect however. A house costs you taxes every year, to say nothing of the maintenance costs. Even once paid off, it costs you money to have a house. Therefore, it's a liability.
It is no accident that it is a misconception that houses are assets, as big money is made on selling houses and so houses are marketed, and marketing always wants to sugar coat everything as the best investment you could make.
There is a difference between "something that adds to net worth" and "something that brings you wealth." But people get the two confused because they try calling both categories "assets."
Yet you perpetuate the confusion by calling net worth items, assets. Consider whether you call having a boat an asset, or a car, or a toy. They all have some inherent value that adds to your net worth, but how often does anyone call them assets? Never, because adding to net worth is not what makes something an asset.
The difficulty here is that Dancing Wind is discussing generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) that were developed for corporations and that are being applied to individuals. As you point out, these principles don't work well for "ordinary" people, because if a corporation owns a car, it can sell that car without affecting its function, and therefore the car is an asset. Yet if an individual sells that exact same car, they'll almost certainly have to buy a new one (especially if they live in the U.S.), and suddenly calling the car an "asset" is questionable, at best.
But the original question of this thread is, "Why Are You Not A Millionaire", and, right or wrong, the generally accepted definition of an individual being a millionaire is if their GAAP net worth is over $1 million.
Which is abjectly silly. Articles flourished across the U.S. a few weeks ago that the average net worth of U.S. citizens is now over $1 million. It's not because they suddenly became wealthy and are swimming in liquid assets. It's because home prices have skyrocketed. I bought my house for $470k. It's now worth $1.6m. Did I really make over a million dollars, or is it a silly abstract concept because it's the house I live in?
Which is why, as I said, I far prefer starting with GAAP and then removing anything that could be considered "necessary for day-to-day life": Clothing, vehicles, electronics, housing. Corporations consider them "assets". But we shouldn't be considering them "assets" for everyday folk.
But at the moment, we do. Disingenuous, but the current state of affairs.
EDIT: And while I'd personally love an addendum such as, "To calculate an individual's net worth, start with their GAAP net worth and then remove any assets whose sale would require immediate replacement," that's too subjective and complex and it would never get off the ground. Contrary to popular belief, accountants like to keep things simple.
And the problem is, once you move away from GAAP, things get really wonky:
- My house is worth $1.6M, but I'd have to pay roughly $300k in taxes if I sold it. Do I count it as $1.6M or $1.3M?
- Similarly, I'm only 56. When I add in my 401(k) and IRA balances, do I include the tax penalty I'd incur for early withdrawal?
- Even worse, I'm 10% owner of a rental property where I'd need unanimous permission from the other owners to sell my stake. Is something I can't sell without permission really an asset?
The reason people like to use GAAP is that it's absolute; there are no questions, no wiggle room, you get a raw number and that's it. And you're right; for individual homeowners GAAP net worth is a nigh-meaningless number.
Your house has no worth until you sell it, at which point it's only worth what you sell it for.
Net worth is not an asset to individuals because individuals make no money from net worth. Corporations however, do make money from net worth, by using it to inflate their value as a company and get more investment.
Assets are things that make you money. Houses cost money. A house is a constant drain on your finances. Being a constant drain on your finances is clearly a liability.
Sits in house. Listens to rain dripping from eaves of house. Notices that it is quite comfortable in house. Knows that the rain outside is very damp and chilly. Disputes the comment above, that suggests that a house has no value.
Sits in house. Listens to rain dripping from eaves of house. Notices that it is quite comfortable in house. Knows that the rain outside is very damp and chilly. Disputes the comment above, that suggests that a house has no value.
I did not say it has no value. I said it's a liability. People have reasons to acquire liabilities, sometimes very good reasons, but that does not change the fact that they are liabilities.