• AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    Billionaires? No, but there are self made millionaires, they’re just considered lower middle class these days. Anyone of a certain age could drop out of highschool, get an apprenticeship with a plumber, electrician, carpenter, etc. and end up with 1-2 million to retire on. Doctors and lawyers routinely save up 5-10 million. It’s when you’re doing significantly better than that, that you absolutely have to have had significant support and luck.

    I’m not sure that scenario plays out for the majority of people anymore because the COL has gone out of control, while wages are in the shitter. That’s why I work for myself.

      • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        In different States in the US you need a whole lot more money to retire on than in other States.

          • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            The hell you can, not in certain regions of the US. Don’t know about the rest of the world.

            • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              11 months ago

              You can you just have to redefine what easy means. Get some land in the deep south, put a trailer on it, and sign up for every government benefit.

            • cricket98@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              11 months ago

              maybe not san fransisco but in most parts of the us you can retire off $1m can’t believe this is controversial

              • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                San Diego (and all its suburbs), Los Angeles (and all its suburbs), San Francisco, etc. etc. etc. Basically any major city in wealthyish states.

                its not controversial, its just that there’s a variance in cost of living, based on where you are in the US. Last I heard, a few years ago, one million was the absolute minimum that you needed.

                Try Googling “How much do I need to retires on?” and see the answers that you get.

                Fidelity says the following …

                Our savings factors are based on the assumption that a person saves 15% of their income annually beginning at age 25 (which includes any employer match), invests more than 50% on average of their savings in stocks over their lifetime, retires at age 67, and plans to maintain their preretirement lifestyle in retirement (see footnote 1 for more details).

                Based on those assumptions, we estimate that saving 10x (times) your preretirement income by age 67, together with other steps, should help ensure that you have enough income to maintain your current lifestyle in retirement. That 10x goal may seem ambitious. But you have many years to get there.

                And even they call that formula “ambitious”.

                • Blackmist@feddit.uk
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  You can move. Nobody is tethered to their place of birth.

                  Doesn’t even have to be a shithole.

                  • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    11 months ago

                    The issue being discussed is not of someone can move or not, is if a million dollars is enough money to retire.

                    The argument I’m putting up is that in most places a million dollars is not enough, that you would have to relocate to places that have very inexpensive cost of living and the quality that goes along with it.

                    For some reason people keep assuming I’m talking about the ability to move or not.

                • cricket98@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  Then… don’t live in the most expensive places to live in the USA? All those places are NOTORIOUSLY expensive.

                  • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    11 months ago

                    The topic being discussed was if one million dollars is enough to live in expensive areas of the country.

                    If you move away from expensive areas of the country, then the dollar amount needed to retire becomes less.

      • Takumidesh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        11 months ago

        1 million dollars would only support a family of four living a lifestyle equivalent to the poverty line for 16 years. Sure that’s a long time, but that’s not forever, it’s not generational wealth and it’s not a luxurious lifestyle.

        This example of course is if they don’t work, but that’s kind of the point. A household with a million dollars in the bank doesn’t just mean they can retire and live off of that forever, unless they are old, in which case they worked all of their life to have that money and are only retiring in old age.

        There is a huge difference between someone who saved $1 million through retirement plans over their working life and someone with a $50 million dollar trust.

        The first case is absolutely lower middle class. You need more than a million dollars if you want to retire at 55 for example and have an annual retirement income of 50k.

        If you create a 401k when you are 18 making 15k a year, putting 10% each month and expecting a modest 4% return And an annual salary increase averaged out to 3% (putting you just under 100k salary by the end of your working career in your 60s) you will have over a million in your retirement fund by the time you retire, that’s with no employer match.

        If you are slightly more successful, and manage an averaged out 5% annual salary increase (remember average, sometimes you might jump up higher, and some years you may not get any salary increase) you will end up with 2.5 million.

        I wouldn’t consider someone who worked their entire life, saved what they could, got some pay raises from things like getting degrees and promotions, and finishing their career with a salary around $100k to be anything but middle class.

    • Blackmist@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      A “self made millionaire” these days can be somebody who bought a cheap inner city house in the 70s and now it’s worth over a million though nothing more than being in the right place.

      Doesn’t mean they have a luxury lifestyle, but they could always sell up and move somewhere cheaper.