｜霜の狼｜人面獣心」
Walked by a bank with an ATM splash screen advertising a CD with 5.00% APY (or some acronym like that?) interest. (The CD was 2-month, so you'd have to put your money back in pretty often.)
That sounds pretty high!
If we put in $100, we'd get $5.
$1000 => $50.
If we somehow had $10,000, $500!
... Per year.
We'd probably need to be a millionaire to get enough to live on that way. Let's see that'd be...$50,000 a year? So yeah, millionaire. But at that point, we'd be a millionaire ANYWAY, and could spend $100,000 a year for 10 years straight. So poo.
The rich really have it made, huh.
Like, just stick your billion dollars in that 5% CD and now you're getting 50 MILLION A YEAR. For free. WTF.
Hell, you could get a free 50 million in a year, give 2 million to 25 people, they invest it, and boom they have a cool $100,000 a year for life.
AND YOU LOST NOTHING, and can do it again for amother 25 people next year!
Why do they have to be such greedy fucks??
looks like index funds are ~10%
so what if we
– get a $100,000/yr tech job (or $120k or whatever, enough that the take home is $100k)
– save half of it, that's $50k/yr
– slave away for 20 years until we have $1 million
– toss it all in an index fund
– PROFIT! Literally! $100k a year without having to work
– retire and not have to break ourselves working anymore
(yes, it's be better if nobody was forced to work in the first place, but...)
long, negative sadly
* remember, you probably aren't going to get $100K+/year to start off, you're looking at more than 20 years. Worse tech jobs have this pump and dump tendency (remember, they're there to make as much money as possible, not to have a committed corps of devoted happy employees), so you might not be looking at even 10 years of really good stable income. And a chunk might go to the company's retirement thing.
* HOUSING. In order to get $100K+/year at a job, you're almost assuredly working in Seattle or the Bay Area or somewhere rancid. So either you're flushing money down the toilet so some landlord can be comfortable, OR paying a lot of your savings into your own place.
* other expenses. Maybe you want a fursuit or attending a con. Maybe you want GRS or a potential skin cancer looked at (remember, American health care is about hurting people). Maybe your car gets totaled. Maybe you meet someone and have a family. Money goes away quickly.
I'm really sorry, and it's maybe not impossible to get something out of this mess, but AFAIK this system is set up to make sure rich people get richer, not to allow non-rich folks to survive. I mean thrive.
long, negative sadly
@Leucrotta Apparently if we start investing right away, that cuts the time from 20 years down to 12 years, which feels a little more achievable in an unstable world. Assuming I didn't screw up the script I wrote.
Of course, that's assuming we CAN save half of it, and expenses are only $50k a year. Which this is the Bay Area...
rent is probably gonna be $2000 a month or something, maybe $3000, from what we've been seeing places going "NOW LEASING!!" and looking them up. That's like $36000 a year. I can't imagine other stuff would cost more than rent per month? So maybe $50k is a reasonable expenses figure, minus Big Stuff That Blows Up like car/house repair / fursuits / whatever.
long, negative sadly
@Leucrotta The tech jobs we've been seeing are often $80-90k+ on the low end... if that's not entry level, where ARE the entry level jobs?? Maybe that's why nobody's ever replying except the odd form-letter denial.
more hopeless numberfiguring
@Leucrotta If we make $70k a year take-home, still have $50k expenses, and only have $20k to invest a year,
(hh... "only"... all these numbers are way too big to think about)
then that'd be 50 years if we don't start right away, but 19 years if we did.
I don't know. Maybe we shouldn't have hope. I like having hope though.
long, negative sadly
@Leucrotta Yeah... yeah.
Yeah.