Ulysses90 said:

---

I don't talk much to my fellow Gen X friends about retirement savings but this is certainly not my situation. My father was adamant from the early 1980s when I entered the labor force that Social Security would collapse before I reached age 65 so it would be stupid to plan on it being a safety net. I have planned accordingly. I've made a lot of bad investments but also enough good ones I feel pretty good about maintaining my standard of living and leaving something to my kids.

---

He was wise but I'd extrapolate that out to everything government funded. Treat it as a nice to have, not a guarantee.

infinity ag said:

---

torrid said:

---

AW 1880 said:

---

For that $1 million, are we talking liquid funds or net worth, and does home equity count towards the million?

---

A financial planner may say no, but personally I do. Two reasons behind that.

One, by not having a mortgage that means I will not have a monthly note to pay in retirement. Also, it is equity I can tap into if I really need it.

I will say this. If your net worth is entirely wrapped up in your home's equity, you will probably have an unhappy retirement. I money in several areas, my home being just one of them.

One other comment. I've had my house paid off for years. In retrospect, I would have been better off putting some of that money in the stock market instead. However, I'm not going back on that decision.

---

I bought my house in 2010 and paid it off in 2018. Best decision I made. It's not just the financial part, it is the mental peace part of it. When my job got unsteady (which it did many times), I never had to worry about a mortgage payment. Mental peace does not have a price, it is invaluable.

So I think you did the right thing.

---

I've discussed this with other people. Paying off your mortgage early is not a financial decision, it's an emotional one. And one I'm glad I made.

torrid said:

---

Any Gen X'er that started saving for retirement as soon as they got their first job out of school, and I mean putting enough into their 401k to get the full match, should be sitting on a nice little nest egg at this point.

---

I doubt there was much information was out there about 401K's and getting the full match starting in 1983 when Gen X joined the workforce. For that matter, how many companies had them back then?

I would argue that for the vast majority of American's with retirement on there mind, 401K's did not become important until the early 2000's. This would clearly put (elder) Gen X at a disadvantage, as many of them hey joined a workforce without pensions or any other alternative.

BigN--00 said:

---

torrid said:

---

Any Gen X'er that started saving for retirement as soon as they got their first job out of school, and I mean putting enough into their 401k to get the full match, should be sitting on a nice little nest egg at this point.

---

I doubt there was much information was out there about 401K's and getting the full match starting in 1983 when Gen X joined the workforce. For that matter, how many companies had them back then?

I would argue that for the vast majority of American's with retirement on there mind, 401K's did not become important until the early 2000's. This would clearly put (elder) Gen X at a disadvantage, as many of them hey joined a workforce without pensions or any other alternative.

---

1983? Any Gen-X starting their career that that age was probably flipping burgers. Granted I started my career a little late by going to grad school, but the fly-by-night startup I worked at in Clear Lake had a 401k by 1996. They were well-stablished benefits for real companies by then. And they've had thirty years to grow. IRAs were a thing too.

BigN--00 said:

---

torrid said:

---

Any Gen X'er that started saving for retirement as soon as they got their first job out of school, and I mean putting enough into their 401k to get the full match, should be sitting on a nice little nest egg at this point.

---

I doubt there was much information was out there about 401K's and getting the full match starting in 1983 when Gen X joined the workforce. For that matter, how many companies had them back then?

I would argue that for the vast majority of American's with retirement on there mind, 401K's did not become important until the early 2000's. This would clearly put (elder) Gen X at a disadvantage, as many of them hey joined a workforce without pensions or any other alternative.

---

I don't think so. The oldest GenX would have started their careers in the late 80's. I'm four months older than the oldest GenX and didn't start my career until 1991 due to a five year delay from time served in the military and graduate school. I was eligible for both a pension (which kept accruing until 2018) and a generous 401k.

There's a significant slice of GenX that was able to "double dip" and benefit from the transition away from pensions to 401ks. Most boomers didn't get to participate in 401ks, and pensions were largely gone by the time the Millenials came along.

The GenX folks I know are doing well.

BQ2001 said:

---

figure out how much you spend in a year, multiply by 25 and you can get a ballpark retirement number that will be pretty comfortable. If you want to retire early, be sure to add the ACA or Healthcare needs into that yearly number (at least for the amount of years you need it) unless you go without insurance or get it from another source. Saving in a HSA for years is a great way to pay for that if you retire early.

---

This interesting. Where did you come up with the 25 number?

My target has always been $15 million liquid. Your formula says that I need $12.5. So it is definitely in the ballpark.

I would say the average person could live quite comfortably on $2.5 or $3 million liquid.

I do not see how anyone working a professional job for 40 years does not have 1 million liquid. Every fed Leo would have closer to 2 million if they put in 5% into the C-fund of the TSP and received their 5% match starting on their first day employed. That is in addition to their FERS retirement.

Something is off if government employees now have on average better retirement savings than the private sector employees. That is the whole point of choosing private over public. Earning power over security.

We talk about this all the time on F57 for anyone interested and recently discussed this $1M number. Completely depends on when you retire. That number is laughably inadequate unless you are older. My parents are 82 and have ~$1M in their nest egg. They should be good. They also lived off of passive rental income up until about 2 years ago so they are just now touching their actual retirement for first time in their lives (minus RMDs).

I'm 52 and retired 3 months ago. That number is obviously a joke to retire on at my age. And I'm not saying that has a humble brag. Just think we have to lay out the assumptions. This board is an outlier. F57 is even more likely an outlier than this one so we get into arguments about what the numbers should be forgetting that many of us are in top 1-5% wealth groups.

And because someone brought it up and we also always argue about that - your home is included in your net worth by default. The definition of Net Worth = Assets - Liabilities. Yes, everyone has to live somewhere which the argument one side makes, however there are various strategies to leverage your home in retirement to help your financial situation. Thus, it's not a "dead" asset on the books if you don't want it to be. It has to be included.

If you retire early, your biggest fixed expenses will be the following and they are only going to increase:
- Mortgage (ours is paid off or I wouldn't be retired yet)
- Property Taxes
- Health Insurance (minimum $25k per year out of pocket at my age; will only get higher until I hit Medicare age)
- All Other Insurance
- House bills

Now factor in inflation stacking on above every year going forward. I think the number everyone should be shooting for to cover the unknowns is $5M.

I doubt very few will have 10 mil saved for retirement and if you do 1/2 will go to medical situations, we are screwed as a nation.

Have spoke at lengths with a few retired mentors recently. Two important financial lessons they've both experienced:

1) you spend more money working than you realize. The gas, the clothes, the lunch out, it adds up. Their daily expenses dropped a lot more than they expected.

2) drawing less out than expected out of their nest egg, means more was there to compound interest. Both admitted they were too conservative and have frankly doubled their nest egg over since retiring where they had believed the value would be pretty consistent.

Logos Stick said:

---

Quote:

---

but expect to accumulate just $603,000

---

The vast majority won't have near that much in the end, even including the equity in their home.

---

Great point, as usual. Yeah, counting the worth of your house in you retirement assets is generally double counting, imo.

FrioAg 00 said:

---

Have spoke at lengths with a few retired mentors recently. Two important financial lessons they've both experienced:

1) you spend more money working than you realize. The gas, the clothes, the lunch out, it adds up. Their daily expenses dropped a lot more than they expected.

2) drawing less out than expected out of their nest egg, means more was there to compound interest. Both admitted they were too conservative and have frankly doubled their nest egg over since retiring where they had believed the value would be pretty consistent.

---

For me this points to a double edged sword - they're lucky the market has done what its done in that time period.

In a different cycle, they could have halved it. The double edged sword is the degree to which most retirees are exposed to equity markets with a significant portion of their nest egg.

you can't draw from your 401k without penalty until you're 60. you can't get any social security until you're 71 (if there's anything left at that point). the value of our currency only goes down with our bloated socialist government growth and spending. if anyone wants to have any sort of retirement before then, like at 55, you have to not only put enough away in 401k/IRA your whole adult life, but also save and invest a lot more outside of that. why don't they teach this stuff in school?

oh no said:

---

you can't draw from your 401k without penalty until you're 60. you can't get any social security until you're 71 (if there's anything left at that point). the value of our currency only goes down with our bloated socialist government growth and spending. if anyone wants to have any sort of retirement before then, like at 55, you have to not only put enough away in 401k/IRA your whole adult life, but also save and invest a lot more outside of that. why don't they teach this stuff in school?

---

Rule of 55 would disagree with you.

Logos Stick said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

Maroon Dawn said:

---

Those of us in our early/mid working years right now are screwed. The Gray Tide of Boomers and X who didn't plan for retirement will dominate politics and demand the government tax us to death to give them their constitutional right to free everything in their retirement. Get ready for them to actively talk of seizing our 401ks to pay for all the freebies the olds will demand.

They will impoverish us to keep their cushy jobs by placating the olds who didn't plan for retirement

---

The thread wasn't about Boomers………until it suddenly was.

Most Gen X poor planners I know of don't comprehend the first two basic principles of accumulating wealth for retirement:
1. Compound interest
2. "Pay yourself first"

---

Boomers are evil.

---

Responsible for all the ills in America.

infinity ag said:

---

Rocky Rider said:

---

There are several YouTube channels which describe the savings issues in the USA. Holy Schmidt is one of my favorites because the guy is level headed and offers good advice.

The short version is well over 50% of people approaching retirement age have done a very poor job planning for their non-working years. Many at retirement age still carry large amounts of debt. It's a very sad picture.

---

This is America of today. It is structured very poorly so that the rich find it easy to get richer and the poor find it very hard to break out of poverty. The CEOs and moneybags got greedy and added H1B programs so qualified Americans demanding more money cannot get jobs and the corporations get an unending supply of slaves who don't demand anything. How can one break out of the cycle? Almost impossible. This is not 1975 where you can "work hard", you still need an ecosystem for that and that is going away. No one becomes a billionaire by themselves. Even Elon is begging for H1Bs and he needs people to buy the crap he makes.

Musk went from 500B to 680B in months. Steve the Homeless guy cannot even get a job that pays a decent wage anymore. That is the America of today. Made only for CEOs and H1Bs. And yes, investors. Luckily I became an investor 11 years ago and am comfortable. Are you?

---

Networth and liquid wealth are very different.

"billionaires" don't have billions sitting in a bank accounts… if they tried to tap it their stock values would tank and so would the networth.

Their "billions" is better described as influence and ownership in a company than it is as money. We place a value on an ownership fraction, but it's not like it was purchased, with CEOs and founders it was literally built from nothing and other people decided it was valuable by investing at specific negotiated share prices.

Believeing that billionaires steal wealth from poor people is misguided lie. Heirs aside, founders of corporations built a business from nothing and other people assigned their efforts value by agreeing to high share prices in order to participate.

Now, I will say, some unethical Venture Capitalist do "steal" wealth by taking advantage of startups. Some advantageous terms are needed for VCs
to offset risk of failures, but some VCs really screw inexperienced founders.

FrioAg 00 said:

---

Have spoke at lengths with a few retired mentors recently. Two important financial lessons they've both experienced:

1) you spend more money working than you realize. The gas, the clothes, the lunch out, it adds up. Their daily expenses dropped a lot more than they expected.

2) drawing less out than expected out of their nest egg, means more was there to compound interest. Both admitted they were too conservative and have frankly doubled their nest egg over since retiring where they had believed the value would be pretty consistent.

---

Definitely agree on #1. Hell, COVID was a wake up call for us, personally. I actually started a thread on this way back then tracking expense changes over time due to it. Our restaurant bills dropped dramatically during COVID (for obvious reasons) but then never really increased back to the mean because we got used to eating at home. Another item is that if you move away from a larger city to a smaller town like we did your spending drops precipitously simply because you have fewer opportunities to spend money and really no reason to.

We have zero reason to buy clothing at the pace we once did when we were in the corporate rat race. I wear the same 3-5 t-shirts and pairs of shorts every week. My wife is essentially the same now although she does have her own business and maintains a more respectable line of outfits than myself. We call our downstairs guest bedroom closet a department store because it holds all of our clothing from our former corporate lives. When we want something nice or new to wear, we go shopping in that closet first. I usually discover something really cool I forgot I owned. When I was working for a startup the last 3 years, I wore company branded polos pretty much every day so that was my wardrobe for 3 years all provided by the company.

Compounding interest is an amazing thing. When you get your numbers high enough, it just starts working on its own assuming the market is positive (which it won't always be). At some point, you are simply going to bring in more on interest every year than you can spend unless you are buying exotic stuff and going on multiple elaborate trips per year.

If you have 2-3 million in your 50s and are not materialistic and not have to have all the new gadgets and trends you can retire part time and be happy. Set up a health plan for long term care as you age. You can live comfortably and happy. Have multiple friends that have done this. Its not hard with not buying all the stuff you dont need.

Sims said:

---

FrioAg 00 said:

---

Have spoke at lengths with a few retired mentors recently. Two important financial lessons they've both experienced:

1) you spend more money working than you realize. The gas, the clothes, the lunch out, it adds up. Their daily expenses dropped a lot more than they expected.

2) drawing less out than expected out of their nest egg, means more was there to compound interest. Both admitted they were too conservative and have frankly doubled their nest egg over since retiring where they had believed the value would be pretty consistent.

---

For me this points to a double edged sword - they're lucky the market has done what its done in that time period.

In a different cycle, they could have halved it. The double edged sword is the degree to which most retirees are exposed to equity markets with a significant portion of their nest egg.

---

My mom retired with only about 350k and bought a small 200k house. Social security, with a federal gov pension and she's managing while hardly drawing down her 300k, and it's grown with the bull market despite her taking RMDs. Mostly saving it for the high risk of needing more care services through end of life.

If she didn't have a federal pension she'd probably be just as well off with 600k and taking a larger annual draw.

But if I look at my current life, I'd need a few million as I've got 2 young kids to provide for and would have no social security or pension.

Early retirement and early financial independence takes way more wealth than retiring with social security and no family to raise.

My in laws are in a different boat. They're reaching their early 70s and have no retirement savings. We have to help them financially on occasion, but that's okay, they've been a blessing in many ways, and I consider it a blessing and privilege to have the means to help family that really needs it from time to time.

oh no said:

---

you can't draw from your 401k without penalty until you're 60. you can't get any social security until you're 71 (if there's anything left at that point). the value of our currency only goes down with our bloated socialist government growth and spending. if anyone wants to have any sort of retirement before then, like at 55, you have to not only put enough away in 401k/IRA your whole adult life, but also save and invest a lot more outside of that. why don't they teach this stuff in school?

---

You can start drawing Social Security as early as 62 years old.

MookieBlaylock said:

---

wsince everyone is a inancial idiots- please give a detailed plan- genius

---

1) Live way below your means
2) Marry, and to someone even cheaper than you are
3) Save, Save, Save
4) Occupation makes a difference, choose wisely
5) Be lucky, or at least not unlucky

I'll give you a quiz on this later, if it will help. Not really much to it, is there?

Edit - sp

If you have your house paid off, 1 million isn't a terrible start for most people retiring close to 70 years old. I know multiple people enjoying retirement on much much less, and not depleting their smaller nest eggs.

Your fixed expenses are pretty low, and that 1 million will be earning interest.

I know some who have retired with nothing close to 1 million, and make it work ok. Is it ideal? No. But it can work.

All that said, it's assuming people have SS coming in...which isn't exactly a guarantee in the future.

bmks270 said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

Rocky Rider said:

---

There are several YouTube channels which describe the savings issues in the USA. Holy Schmidt is one of my favorites because the guy is level headed and offers good advice.

The short version is well over 50% of people approaching retirement age have done a very poor job planning for their non-working years. Many at retirement age still carry large amounts of debt. It's a very sad picture.

---

This is America of today. It is structured very poorly so that the rich find it easy to get richer and the poor find it very hard to break out of poverty. The CEOs and moneybags got greedy and added H1B programs so qualified Americans demanding more money cannot get jobs and the corporations get an unending supply of slaves who don't demand anything. How can one break out of the cycle? Almost impossible. This is not 1975 where you can "work hard", you still need an ecosystem for that and that is going away. No one becomes a billionaire by themselves. Even Elon is begging for H1Bs and he needs people to buy the crap he makes.

Musk went from 500B to 680B in months. Steve the Homeless guy cannot even get a job that pays a decent wage anymore. That is the America of today. Made only for CEOs and H1Bs. And yes, investors. Luckily I became an investor 11 years ago and am comfortable. Are you?

---

Networth and liquid wealth are very different.

"billionaires" don't have billions sitting in a bank accounts… if they tried to tap it their stock values would tank and so would the networth.

Their "billions" is better described as influence and ownership in a company than it is as money. We place a value on an ownership fraction, but it's not like it was purchased, with CEOs and founders it was literally built from nothing and other people decided it was valuable by investing at specific negotiated share prices.

Believeing that billionaires steal wealth from poor people is misguided lie. Heirs aside, founders of corporations built a business from nothing and other people assigned their efforts value by agreeing to high share prices in order to participate.

Now, I will say, some unethical Venture Capitalist do "steal" wealth by taking advantage of startups. Some advantageous terms are needed for VCs
to offset risk of failures, but some VCs really screw inexperienced founders.

---

OK, here is a question for you. Would you rather be a billionaire with value trapped in stocks, or not be a billionaire without this "problem"?

I am sure everyone will say that they want to be a billionaire. When you are one, there is no existential threat. You have the option to sell your stock if you need the money. I am in the same situation, most of my net worth is in stock and I have the option to sell if I need the money but I hope not to until I am in retirement. I am not a market-maker so I cannot impact a stock with any action I do.

Where these people steal wealth from people is when they misuse their power to not pay their employees a fair wage, do not give employees fair bonuses that even keeps track of inflation. Why can they do it? Because they now have changed the laws (paying politicians) to allow in unlimited supply of labor from foreign countries. Those people live in worse places so they are okay with low wages. Then they lobby and get various kinds of tax breaks to get even wealthier. Who pays? Everyone does. Who benefits? The billionaire boss.

NE PA Ag said:

---

oh no said:

---

you can't draw from your 401k without penalty until you're 60. you can't get any social security until you're 71 (if there's anything left at that point). the value of our currency only goes down with our bloated socialist government growth and spending. if anyone wants to have any sort of retirement before then, like at 55, you have to not only put enough away in 401k/IRA your whole adult life, but also save and invest a lot more outside of that. why don't they teach this stuff in school?

---

You can start drawing Social Security as early as 62 years old.

---

They now define "full retirement age" as 67. I think that covers all of Gen-X. In truth there is a sliding scale from 62 to 72, the longer you wait the more you get. Most financial advisers would say start drawing as soon as you can due to life expectancy. Would be bad to wait until age 72 to start drawing, then die of a heart attack at age 74.

BusterAg said:

---

Over_ed said:

---

A million dollars would not be a comfortable retirement for many posting on this board, if they retired tomorrow. Particularly if female and in good health, because y'all live longer. $1M for millennials' average goal is tragic.

---

This is interesting.

What kind of a lifestyle do you think 70+year old people need where they will need more than $1M?

Most people don't plan to retire until they are really old. That is the big difference between good savers and not-so-good savers. Good savers want to retire around 62.

How much is a "comfortable" lifestyle for someone that is too old to get out much? I think it is less than what you think it is.

How old is the assumed death age? That is important. Macabre, but important to address.

A person aged 70 that want's to live to 88, and has $1,000,000 i liquid savings, gets a 3.5% real return, could draw down ~$80k per year. That's a lot more than most need. If your house is paid for, $80k is likely more money than most will want to spend on one or two people unless you want to continue to collect nice things or travel a lot.

---

Most retire long before 70. SS starts at 62, and as you can see in this thread people earlier than that.

It is not at all unusual for women to live to 95 +.

As long as health holds, $1M seems OK - with the qualification that inflation does not outpace draws. But this is not guaranteed, particularly since some could be looking at 35 year period.

Bad health luck is the destroyer. 24 hour care, quickly starts eating through principal. TBH, extended disability is relatively uncommon (most die relatively quickly), but my MIL needed it for a couple of years and it was $225K per year after getting some back for LTC policy.

So, $1M is OK, but certainly not "safe", imo. Again, losing a few pct per year due to income/inflation <1 for potentially many years is probably a greater risk, give the way I see our spending/economy. Again, just my opinion.

AgGrad99 said:

---

If you have your house paid off, 1 million isn't a terrible start for most people retiring close to 70 years old. I know multiple people enjoying retirement on much much less, and not depleting their smaller nest eggs.

Your fixed expenses are pretty low, and that 1 million will be earning interest.

I know some who have retired with much less, and make it work ok. Is it ideal? No. But it can work.

All that said, it's assuming people have SS coming in...which isn't exactly a guarantee in the future.

---

Depends on age. I'm looking at retirement around 2050. $1MM would only give me $50K-$60 per year at retirement. The buying power of that much money, in 25 years, will be similar to $20K-$30K, today.

I save with the assumption I will never receive a dime of social security. I wouldn't be surprised if Social Security is changed to give to people like this food stamp woman and will be held from me because the government will determine I have enough money.

I left public education 5 years ago and I have TRS waiting for me when it's time for me to draw at full benefits.

Currently stocking away a good amount in a 401K at my current job, with the idea that I will retire from here sometime in the next 5-10 years (so that would have me retiring around 57-62).

But the biggest key is I will also do a lifestyle change at that time. Downsize the house to something smaller, no longer commute every day, etc. Simplify. That will also be a variable in my retirement equation.

And even is doomed to Medicare, you really need to plan for Part B. Saved my parents a ton of money when my father got cancer.

I'll post what I always post...

any healthy Gen X'er -- man or woman -- better not be complaining about retirement...and then paying a lawn crew $50 per week to mow their grass

c'mon...it's not difficult. And it's an easy $2,000 savings per year

torrid said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

torrid said:

---

AW 1880 said:

---

For that $1 million, are we talking liquid funds or net worth, and does home equity count towards the million?

---

A financial planner may say no, but personally I do. Two reasons behind that.

One, by not having a mortgage that means I will not have a monthly note to pay in retirement. Also, it is equity I can tap into if I really need it.

I will say this. If your net worth is entirely wrapped up in your home's equity, you will probably have an unhappy retirement. I money in several areas, my home being just one of them.

One other comment. I've had my house paid off for years. In retrospect, I would have been better off putting some of that money in the stock market instead. However, I'm not going back on that decision.

---

I bought my house in 2010 and paid it off in 2018. Best decision I made. It's not just the financial part, it is the mental peace part of it. When my job got unsteady (which it did many times), I never had to worry about a mortgage payment. Mental peace does not have a price, it is invaluable.

So I think you did the right thing.

---

I've discussed this with other people. Paying off your mortgage early is not a financial decision, it's an emotional one. And one I'm glad I made.

---

I've got a couple 2 or 3 freinds that are finance guys. Every single one of them has said that they have yet to have a client that regretted paying their house off early.

Sure, you might be able to make a little extra money in the markets over the years, but not enough to offset the fact that not having a mortgage is worth a lot more on the other side of the equation than it is on the financial one most of the time.

W said:

---

I'll post what I always post...

any healthy Gen X'er -- man or woman -- better not be complaining about retirement...and then paying a lawn crew $50 per week to mow their grass

c'mon...it's not difficult. And it's an easy $2,000 savings per year

---

Ha! I'm actually firing our lawn crew and taking over duties next month. Not that there is any mowing happening right now. And that's about what we pay. I've also considered taking over pool duties, but I don't want to mess with pool equipment when it breaks so probably keeping them.

gen x here

both wife and i have saved via 401k and additional precious metals etc so we have put ourselves in a decent position however personally i can not ever see myself retiring. not fully. i will do what i want but to me sitting around looking for something to do is cool for a while but would get old soon.

MaxPower said:

---

Ulysses90 said:

---

I don't talk much to my fellow Gen X friends about retirement savings but this is certainly not my situation. My father was adamant from the early 1980s when I entered the labor force that Social Security would collapse before I reached age 65 so it would be stupid to plan on it being a safety net. I have planned accordingly. I've made a lot of bad investments but also enough good ones I feel pretty good about maintaining my standard of living and leaving something to my kids.

---

He was wise but I'd extrapolate that out to everything government funded. Treat it as a nice to have, not a guarantee.

---

I do. I view my military pension the same way.

They will confiscate 401ks and IRAs. Thats damned near guaranteed. Who is going to vote for that? These folks: the millions of 3rd world immigrants and those that think you wrongfully acquired your wealth. Either that or they will wipe it out through inflation/devaluation of the dollar.

Hate to be so negative, but it's gonna happen.

infinity ag said:

---

bmks270 said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

Rocky Rider said:

---

There are several YouTube channels which describe the savings issues in the USA. Holy Schmidt is one of my favorites because the guy is level headed and offers good advice.

The short version is well over 50% of people approaching retirement age have done a very poor job planning for their non-working years. Many at retirement age still carry large amounts of debt. It's a very sad picture.

---

This is America of today. It is structured very poorly so that the rich find it easy to get richer and the poor find it very hard to break out of poverty. The CEOs and moneybags got greedy and added H1B programs so qualified Americans demanding more money cannot get jobs and the corporations get an unending supply of slaves who don't demand anything. How can one break out of the cycle? Almost impossible. This is not 1975 where you can "work hard", you still need an ecosystem for that and that is going away. No one becomes a billionaire by themselves. Even Elon is begging for H1Bs and he needs people to buy the crap he makes.

Musk went from 500B to 680B in months. Steve the Homeless guy cannot even get a job that pays a decent wage anymore. That is the America of today. Made only for CEOs and H1Bs. And yes, investors. Luckily I became an investor 11 years ago and am comfortable. Are you?

---

Networth and liquid wealth are very different.

"billionaires" don't have billions sitting in a bank accounts… if they tried to tap it their stock values would tank and so would the networth.

Their "billions" is better described as influence and ownership in a company than it is as money. We place a value on an ownership fraction, but it's not like it was purchased, with CEOs and founders it was literally built from nothing and other people decided it was valuable by investing at specific negotiated share prices.

Believeing that billionaires steal wealth from poor people is misguided lie. Heirs aside, founders of corporations built a business from nothing and other people assigned their efforts value by agreeing to high share prices in order to participate.

Now, I will say, some unethical Venture Capitalist do "steal" wealth by taking advantage of startups. Some advantageous terms are needed for VCs
to offset risk of failures, but some VCs really screw inexperienced founders.

---

OK, here is a question for you. Would you rather be a billionaire with value trapped in stocks, or not be a billionaire without this "problem"?

I am sure everyone will say that they want to be a billionaire. When you are one, there is no existential threat. You have the option to sell your stock if you need the money. I am in the same situation, most of my net worth is in stock and I have the option to sell if I need the money but I hope not to until I am in retirement. I am not a market-maker so I cannot impact a stock with any action I do.

Where these people steal wealth from people is when they misuse their power to not pay their employees a fair wage, do not give employees fair bonuses that even keeps track of inflation. Why can they do it? Because they now have changed the laws (paying politicians) to allow in unlimited supply of labor from foreign countries. Those people live in worse places so they are okay with low wages. Then they lobby and get various kinds of tax breaks to get even wealthier. Who pays? Everyone does. Who benefits? The billionaire boss.

---

There are unethical scum bags among both the rich and the poor, and there are good caring people among both the rich and the poor.

Power amplifies one's virtues or lack of them.

Lack of loyalty to one's country or tribe may have helped a few people get rich, but often simply going public the founders become billionaires but they also lose control over the company to the board. The founder becomes controlled and now in a game of power and influence trying to maintain some influence over their creation, the company, but having to be a slave to board members to do it.

I suspect your issues are largely with publicly traded companies.

There are billion dollar corporations that treat people well. Chick-fil-a is a stand out, also Publix a south eastern grocery chain has a good reputation for being really good to employees although I've heard things getting a little worse in very recent years.

It's almost always public companies controlled by boards that want to squeeze blood from a stone by screwing employees and customers. Cost cutting for little fractions of percentage more profit but making products worse and employee conditions worse.

I once had a chat with a professional driver whose clients were billionaires. He had to have FBI background checks to drive on airport tarmac's so he could pick up and drop off people from their private jets. He said some are the most generous people you will ever meet, usually the self made ones, and others are toxic *******s. He said the grandchildren of a self made billionaire who were heirs are the worst of the bunch.

Maroon Dawn said:

---

Those of us in our early/mid working years right now are screwed. The Gray Tide of Boomers and X who didn't plan for retirement will dominate politics and demand the government tax us to death to give them their constitutional right to free everything in their retirement. Get ready for them to actively talk of seizing our 401ks to pay for all the freebies the olds will demand.

They will impoverish us to keep their cushy jobs by placating the olds who didn't plan for retirement

---

Go ahead and fire up the excuse machine. The only thing limiting you is you.