• qtj@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          But with a million bucks you wouldn’t really be bound by location anymore. You could just retire somwhere that is cheaper and without the need to work most of your waking time you aren’t even really limited by language as you have plenty of time to learn a new language.

  • Annoyed_🦀 @monyet.cc
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s meh, but put it in saving account with 3%p.a. mean you’re getting 2.5k per month from doing nothing. It’s meh money as well, i know, but you won’t goes hungry in a stable economy at least.

      • Annoyed_🦀 @monyet.cc
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        and need to go back to work

        Well, that’s the issue. The dividend of 2.5k from investment obviously won’t allow a comfortable living and should be treated as something extra. It’s pretty ridiculous to live in a big city with rent higher than the dividend and without job lol.

  • Rikudou_Sage@lemmings.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    1 year ago

    I mean, it’s not as great as it used to be, but if you have any extra million bucks, feel free to give them to me if you feel like it’s meh.

  • AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    “I feel like a million bucks” = “I’m OK” “I feel like a thousand bucks” = “I’m one misfortune away from total collapse”

  • Chainweasel@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    1 year ago

    A million bucks isn’t what it used to be, but it would still solve basically all of my problems and that would make me feel pretty great

    • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Think about it.

      Even twenty years ago, $1 million meant you could buy a great place for yourself and a business that would let you live large.

      In 1960, $1 million meant a Beverly Hills mansion, a dozen cars, and a place by the beach.

      Kind of a giant leap from that to ‘living stingy.’

      • ShittyRedditWasBetter@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Absolutely not. It’s enough to provide you with a$4000 a month of retirement income. It’s a very middle class income to live comfortably.

    • KaiReeve@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      This isn’t how retirement works.

      If you try to retire on $1M you’re going to end up in a medicaid facility. Interest rates are high right now, so $1M in the bank may get you as much as $5,000/mo if you’re lucky. This is $60,000/yr and can be supplemented with social security to allow a person to live well enough at today’s cost of living.

      However, inflation is a constant and is ideally restricted to 2-3% per year. This means that every year you live after you retire, your spending power is reduced by at least 2%. So even if interest rates stay high (they won’t) then by the time you hit 85 your $60,000/yr will feel more like $24,000. This will still be supplemented by social security, but you will also find that your needs are increasing by this age and you will likely need to start using your savings to pay a lovely nurse or two to help with, well, everything. In-home care and even nursing facilities are quite costly and will eat away at your savings, so if you only have $1M you better start dying soon after needing them.

      This all assumes best-case-scenario. It doesn’t account for runaway inflation rates, pandemics, recessions, catastrophic events (it’s not uncommon for the elderly to accidentally set things on fire), or other possibilities that can take a bite out of your retirement savings.

      When your money runs out you won’t be kicked out on the streets, thankfully. But a medicaid facility in the US can be nearly as dangerous for the elderly.

      • AlDente@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        You’re ignoring that your balance will increase over time through interest and stock gains. I believe this is historically around 8%, exceeding inflation.

        • KaiReeve@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          My scenario focuses solely on interest income for simplicity’s sake. There are other investments one can make to increase your gain, but such investments are more volatile. You could end up doing quite well and increasing your nut, or you could invest in the wrong stock and lose a large chunk of it.

          I also left our other considerations for simplicity’s sake like the fact that most retirees are couples and past the age of 65 the odds that one of you will require significant medical treatment increases every year. Some elderly couples are getting divorced so as to only bankrupt one of them when this happens.

          Life is messy and $1M will only work in the best case scenario. It’s just not realistic. By allowing people to think that $1M is enough, you’re actually leading them into ruin. We need to be aware that retirement is becoming a dicey proposition and we should be taking steps to ensure that the elderly will be provided for in the coming decades, especially since a large number of millennials won’t have children to make sure they are properly cared for.

  • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s wild when you watch a show like ‘The Rockford Files’ because Jim et al were always using specific sums when they talked. Someone boasting about owning a $1 million house in Beverly Hills or spilling their guts for $20 is pretty mindboggling.