You think they should be worried? $2.2 milly each to carry you the next 3 decades +? I think its very much manageable, even if compounding inflation is going to eat into a decent chunk of that purchasing power
Discussion
If my calculations are correct, that’s $6k per month
2.2M / 360 months
Purchasing power over those 360 months is the unknown
Well that's hoping you paid your house off and any other finance like car loans and student loans, and you don't have any major costs in the next 3 decades.
I still think that's enough to live, but you'll likely have to scale down, which is wild, not too long ago this would be winning on an epic scale
Id rather just be dead than elect to never add value to society ever again and leach for 35 years. What are they gonna do? This miserable mindset is a product of the Fiat, wage slave psyop .
If you add value via your actions, you don't worry about 'running out of money'.
If you added value ethically while able, there will be a community you earned that takes care of you and values your wisdom for consult as you age.
Weird take, as accumulating wealth isn't leeching. For a trust-fund kid sure you can maybe make that argument, but how is front-loading your economic output early in life to trade it back later in any way unethical?
Its unethical in my opinion because if you stop creating value and simply live off of money, you are ultimately borrowing from future generations, from your community to persist. What if everyone did this? Who is left to take from to sustain it.
I agree with your general train of thought, I just think you are conflating earned wealth with unearned wealth. If I earned enough wealth via my work and time, to retire early I have (at least in theory), contributed my fair share of value to society, I've just done it early or more efficiently.
Now if everyone is retiring off inheritance, never having worked or created value, that is unearned and the whole thing stops working as you mention.
But let's say everyone is crazy work work efficient and retires at like 50, that still works because the same economic output is being created just earlier and by less people. So with the right tools and efficient work, yes everyone could retire earlier than retirement age, because someone else will be working towards their retirement.
If course in practice it is more nuanced, and not all jobs align with the value they create, but in general that is why I think earned wealth accumulated for early retirement is not unethical. Otherwise retiring at all would be unethical.
just my two sats, cheers
i think retirement in general is a phenomena that is a bizarre modern phenomena, and that what has usually been the case in history is that you worked creating value for society, and then you were lucky enough to have kids or grandkids that took care of you in your older years. The idea that somehow people can have a retirement phase in life, which I still don't agree how they aren't one way or another pulling value from future generations via seignorage if they aren't creating new value (whether it's saved money or investments), for 20 or 30 years seems utterly unsustainable.
We don't agree, but that's ok :) I enjoy the convo
I appreciate the measured response as well. I'd zap you back but coinos is down. I guess my main question on that would be should people be punished for not having kids? Some people provide a lot of value in their early adult years, others don't. If no one retires, what's my incentive to not do only the bare minimum for my community, even when I'm at peak physical and cognitive health?
I do agree though that in recent generations "early retirement" has mostly been due to bad monetary policy bleeding wealth from the working class, and indeed the future. I just think if money worked as it should, it would be an accurate measure of your contribution and therefore a means to buy back your time.
I will say it's nice to have a civil disagreement online. Hope you have a nice week! (I assume based on our conversation we will both be working and trying to create some value 😄)
I don't know what they did for a living but as long as you're not in politics I'm pretty sure you did generate some value to earn that amount of money, no?
Even if they got most of their wealth through asset inflation, they still had the foresight to put their purchasing power into assets, I don't think thats leaching that's just wealth preservation.
Having enough wealth that you don't need to look to your family or the state for help I think is ethically better than leaching off a 3rd party
I have trouble seeing how a person not providing value for decades ( regardless of what they did before) is an ethical, sustainable structure. Its people benefitting from seignorage at the expense of future generations. If everyone magically produced enough 'value' to retire at 50, and live for 30 years...who keeps them alive? Its the young people buying the money from them one way or another, right? And if the young don't have the money, debt is created to do it, whether thats public debt or holding assets its creating a bag holder before they're even born.
They’re gonna die broke and unhappy. Sorry to break the bad news…
If we work on a 12% inflation rate over 30 years, they'll still have something around but yeah they'd have to scale down massively
If their assets are dollar denominated 401ks, securities and real estate, they are toast.
I'd think they're toast if they are sitting in cash, assets still try to fight against inflation somewhat even if not very well, so theres still some buffer. I think if you live frugally and have no debt they'll be fine
It is easily manageable. If it becomes unmanageable, then there will be riots and societal collapse well before they've inflated away 50% of the $5MM in purchasing power, so your savings wouldn't matter much anyway.
Most people have negative net worth. If any substantial percentage of people cannot eat, there will be violence.
If you own hard assets, you will be fine with the traditional 25x yearly spend imo.
Unfortunately the paycheck-to-paycheck service worker gets screwed either way.
I think so too, if you've got n debt and some cash flow or asset appreciation, while it might not beat inflation it stems some of the bleeding and at $4.4 million the appreciation and cash flow you can generate should be enough that you don't have to eat into your principle too much
If they can scale down i'm sure they'll be safe and have something to leave to their kids
I will say it does get a little bit tighter if you're trying to bake in an inheritance. I'm on that "die-with-zero" train, personally.