I can't speak for others but I can speak for myself and my wife. When the US economy crashed we did take a hit but fortunately not a really bad hit. As we planned and approached retirement we dropped any investments which may have been considered high risk. Matter of fact my suggestion to our financial adviser was what I called "snail funds" a reference to lower return but much lower risk. I was not interested in risk as we would never be able to put back any loss before we retired and I wanted to retire, not continue to work trying to cover losses. While we are not rich, we are comfortable and I am good with that. Last year we made about 9% and I was ecstatic with that return. The young can likely afford much better to have a larger share of their investments in higher risk funds than us older people.

Ron

Agreed. As people get older they generally need to become more risk averse with their retirement funds. But at any given age, people that have more money still tend to be less risk averse. As you say, your concern was that you'd be concerned about not being able to make back losses and having to go back to work as a result. But if you had enough money saved that you could put a portion of it into conservative investments to preclude that, you'd probably be willing to put the rest at higher risk so that you have the potential to enjoy a fuller retirement. Just ask yourself if all of your funds would be in those same conservative investments if you had 5x the savings. You'd more than likely be more willing to consider putting a significant portion of it at higher risk, particularly if you have heirs that you would like to pass it on to (which may or may not be a good thing for the heirs).

 

Agreed. As people get older they generally need to become more risk averse with their retirement funds. But at any given age, people that have more money still tend to be less risk averse. As you say, your concern was that you'd be concerned about not being able to make back losses and having to go back to work as a result. But if you had enough money saved that you could put a portion of it into conservative investments to preclude that, you'd probably be willing to put the rest at higher risk so that you have the potential to enjoy a fuller retirement. Just ask yourself if all of your funds would be in those same conservative investments if you had 5x the savings. You'd more than likely be more willing to consider putting a significant portion of it at higher risk, particularly if you have heirs that you would like to pass it on to (which may or may not be a good thing for the heirs).

Thinking about it I really don't know. Even if we had 5X what we have would I be more inclined to diverse the investments a little more? That is a tough question. My one of my sisters is two years behind me and a pretty wealthy woman. Cindy got a bad deal in life in that her husband passed away. Mike was a 20 year US Marine and retired as a Captain. Two things Mike disliked were lawyers and social workers, so following retirement he went to Virginia Law and became an attorney. Mike was diagnosed with Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma in a form attributed to his service in Vietnam. Mike and Cindy worked hard and invested all their lives and when Mike passed away Cindy was pretty well off. Cindy was a CPA and managed their investments. When the economy tanked Kathy and I sold converting everything to cash. This included one large fund which held the monies we got when my company sold. I converted one very large IRA to a ROTH and over two years we paid one heck of a tax burden but things worked out quite well. Cindy questioned that move when I did it. That ROTH IRA has done very well.

Currently Cindy is enjoying and actually trying to spend money. Cindy is 66 and I think at age 70 she needs to "cash in" on her investments and get slammed with taxes. While with the ROTH we do not face mandatory withdraw I believe my sister is not to be as fortunate. She is fun to travel with. I feel bad for her in that she lost the husband she planned these years with but happy she is enjoying her years now. The girl loves to travel. She has shared investment thoughts with me and I see in her what I see in Kathy and I. She is much more conservative in her investments than when we were younger and before the economy tanked. I am glad Kathy and I are where we are at but thinking about it can't say if we had more to play with if I would consider higher risk investments.

Something else Kathy and I have done that some consider strange. The children are doing very well fortunately. We don't have any live at home kids. Each of the kids has given us grand kids and when we check out the grandchildren inherit whatever there is. Monies for college or at age 25 they begin to draw on a trust. So what we have done is skipped a generation. Our son and daughter get the worldly possessions like jewelry and my gun collection but the holdings and actual bucks go to the grandchildren.

Ron

 

This thread has gone pretty much off the rails from the original question. Some people, like I assume the TS is thinking, is you get rich from buying/investing in stocks. But it is like thinking you can get rich gambling. If you're living from pay check to pay check, you have no business either gambling or buying stock. The guy who wrote the book he referenced wasn't 'poor' when he wrote the book, but did add to his wealth by selling books telling people, looking to get rich, how to do it. Like P. T. Barnum said, "there's a sucker born every minute".

 

We were talking about money...

 

Why do some people to have money and others have no money?

Now I got to read the book:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Intelligent_Investor
The Intelligent Investor by Benjamin Graham.


Do you think a book can help you get out of poverty?
Or people with money talk about this book, just to hide their real business?

The book says that this success does not depend on school grades, maybe neither on the IQ: It would be a good chance for me ....

I read a part of this book, but my ability to earn money has not improved at all .......

Yeah, we have gone off topic. So in my opinion and just my opinion and speaking strictly for living in the USA. No a book will not make or help to make someone wealthy. Working ones butt off unless you inherit wealth can get someone started. Once someone has some money then investing wisely certainly helps along with some luck tossed in. The wage gap is nothing new in the US and is not about to go away anytime soon. Therefore I suggest some folks get over it. People should be paid fairly for what they are worth and if someone feels they are not then move along until you find your dream job. Yes, it really is that simple.

No book is going to place beanies and weenies on anyone's table. The only person getting wealth is the one who managed to peddle the book. Living payday to payday also will not get anyone anywhere.

Just My Take....
Ron

 

I can tell you've never worked in the labor side of things.

If your metric is working for a large corporation and union shop, then my answer is no. Just like your answer would be to my specific metrics in this lifetime.

I can only give things I've actually experienced not any 'theory' on how it works. When I first started at GM, in 1980, the workers had to give up 9 paid days, to keep the company 'afloat' do to the auto industry at the time.

Are you telling me your union didn't agree to this?

Promised that when things got better the days would be given back. when things got better those days were never given back. During the 'give back', the guys at the top, never took a hit, and ended up being given a bonus, in stock, for "saving" the company.

If you owned stock, you could have objected at the shareholders meeting.

As to the engineers, again from GM point of view. Many of the engineers I worked with, were not even degree certified in what they were doing. Civil engineers designing electrical and mechanical stuff. Doing things that anyone that had a common knowledge of what was needed would never have chosen to do.

Did you address this issue with anyone that COULD make a difference?

But we were tasked to make it work, because it was our fault the absurdly incompetently designed machines and processes were designed by unqualified engineers. And because they had a degree, not the one that was needed but a degree, management blamed the peon workers.

Really, how may cars go from concept to dealership without being built and tested?

I'm sure you know of workers who, on payday, turn their checks over to the payday loan companies.
I'm sure you know of workers who, on payday, turn their checks over to their drug dealers.
I'm sure you know of workers who sit in the work center playing cards when GM is retooling.

As a worker/labor, the blame stops with them.

Are you saying labor shouldn't be held accountable for their mistakes? How did many in the labor class, by your definition, escape the VW cheating? Apparently the buck doesn't stop at the worker/labor class in the caste system.

So why doesn't the blame also go to those at the top that are incompetent? Or don't preform up to "expectations"? In my opinion it's because they, at the top, have each others back. And to use a phrase from the military, shit flows down hill.

Again, if you were at the shareholders annual meeting, you could have posed that exact question.

The caste system has been extinct for a number of years now. I don't know why you just didn't quit working to spare yourself from these unfathomable conditions.

Labor has many subsets. Your experience is but one.

 

MOD NOTE: Let's all of us make sure that we put forth an effort to keep this from turning too personal.

 

Yeah, we have gone off topic. So in my opinion and just my opinion and speaking strictly for living in the USA. No a book will not make or help to make someone wealthy. Working ones butt off unless you inherit wealth can get someone started. Once someone has some money then investing wisely certainly helps along with some luck tossed in. The wage gap is nothing new in the US and is not about to go away anytime soon. Therefore I suggest some folks get over it. People should be paid fairly for what they are worth and if someone feels they are not then move along until you find your dream job. Yes, it really is that simple.

No book is going to place beanies and weenies on anyone's table. The only person getting wealth is the one who managed to peddle the book. Living payday to payday also will not get anyone anywhere.

Agree.

With very few exceptions (and those exceptions DO exist), anyone can reduce the funds they need below what they are currently spending. Similarly, with very few exceptions, anyone can increase their income above what they are currently making. It may not be pleasant, but it can almost always be done. It is almost always possible to reduce your lifestyle so as to be within your achievable means, and hence make headway toward debt freedom. The road getting there may not be pleasant, but it is almost always doable. Once you get there, then you are on the right side of the wealth curve and, to a much larger degree than you could have imagined, in control of your destiny. Again, exceptions do exist.

 

Agree.

With very few exceptions (and those exceptions DO exist), anyone can reduce the funds they need below what they are currently spending. Similarly, with very few exceptions, anyone can increase their income above what they are currently making. It may not be pleasant, but it can almost always be done. It is almost always possible to reduce your lifestyle so as to be within your achievable means, and hence make headway toward debt freedom. The road getting there may not be pleasant, but it is almost always doable. Once you get there, then you are on the right side of the wealth curve and, to a much larger degree than you could have imagined, in control of your destiny. Again, exceptions do exist.

Actually, there is a floor on how much anyone in the middle class can reduce their spending without creating a serious hardship like going without health care.

In big cities, there is little "expense elasticity" and many people are already living paycheck to paycheck with no wiggle room. Here in the San Francisco Bay Area, many people have already "hit bottom" and they're now living in tents on the streets. That shows you how managing personal finances is a delicate balancing act on a tie rope with no net below. Furthermore, the economy of this area has become heavily dependent on political connections rather than merit or skill. So your chances of getting a job that pays a living wage for the region is next to nothing unless you've got political ties.

Yes, some people can reduce their spending and they can have more $$$ to put away - but most people are not in this group. I'm a rare exception because I was a fairly high earner (over $100K/year) and I've never been married or had children. Furthermore, I hate going anywhere in this heavily urbanized area so I've never owned a car -which has a hefty price tag.

However, most people wouldn't want to live my restrictive life style so I can't blame them for not being a "tightwad".

 

If your metric is working for a large corporation and union shop, then my answer is no. Just like your answer would be to my specific metrics in this lifetime.

Are you telling me your union didn't agree to this?

Does it matter? It was ancient history. He is explaining the history. Why so hostile?

If you owned stock, you could have objected at the shareholders meeting.

He could have but have but it's a completely ineffective effort. Have you heard of someone affecting change by that method? I haven't.

Did you address this issue with anyone that COULD make a difference?

Why do you ask like that, I don't think shortbus was accusing or complaining, he was stating a fact. Why are you so hostile?

Really, how may cars go from concept to dealership without being built and tested?

I'm sure you know of workers who, on payday, turn their checks over to the payday loan companies.
I'm sure you know of workers who, on payday, turn their checks over to their drug dealers.
I'm sure you know of workers who sit in the work center playing cards when GM is retooling.

What is your point with those three sentences?

Again, if you were at the shareholders annual meeting, you could have posed that exact question.

That's not a tactic worth anyone's time.

The caste system has been extinct for a number of years now. I don't know why you just didn't quit working to spare yourself from these unfathomable conditions.

Who said it was unfathomable except you? I don't think @shortbus is nearly so weak - you on the other hand seem quite traumatizd by his story (since you brought up the word "unfathomable"

Labor has many subsets. Your experience is but one.

Has he implied otherwise? I think he was crystal clear about this.

 

Does it matter? It was ancient history. He is explaining the history. Why so hostile?

He brought it up. What makes you think I was hostile? I never called him any names, but I certainly had thoughts to do so.

As far as the rest of your diatribe, I asked if he taken any action, if he did, good for him, if he didn't shame on him.

Has he implied otherwise? I think he was crystal clear about this.

He implied his metric. He was crystal clear about that.

His "like the military statement" with shit flowing down, while true, it does not apple in his labor situation because of his union protections.

You may not have noticed but they didn't relieve and low level enlisted with the two most recent Naval incidents in the Far East. You know about them, they do a lot of the labor.

Why are you so concerned? Why did you "attack me"?

 

I've had a copies of the 10K report for several large tech companies (Google/Alphabet, Yahoo, Facebook, etc.) in the S.F. area and that vast majority of their stock (about 60% to 80%) is owned by a relatively small number of principals (like about 25 to 40) rather than the public.

Furthermore, their stock is sold in a minimum quantity (like 1000 shares) and that's beyond what your Average Joe small investor can afford. There are also broker's fees to buy or sell.

So buying stock in a large corporation is not an option for most people including the rank and file workers. Unless you're a major shareholder, management is not going to listen to anything you've got to say. That's where unions got rooted in big industry.

 

Furthermore, their stock is sold in a minimum quantity (like 1000 shares) and that's beyond what your Average Joe small investor can afford.

Numerous companies have offered their employees stock options via payroll deductions.

Now, I've seen a lot of those options being sold short term.

I can't answer for Silicon Valley.

 

Numerous companies have offered their employees stock options via payroll deductions.

Now, I've seen a lot of those options being sold short term.

I can't answer for Silicon Valley.

As I said before, most of the shareholders are in upper, upper management or the principals and that's why they'e multimillionaires or billionaires. Furthermore, they're "insiders" who know when to bail out if the company tanks or hits a large bump like "Kenny Boy" Lay of Enron.

 

When I first started at GM, in 1980, the workers had to give up 9 paid days, to keep the company 'afloat' do to the auto industry at the time. Promised that when things got better the days would be given back.

I experienced that where I worked too. My company gave everyone a 10% pay cut. Then they asked salaried people to work at least 50 hours per week. When the bad times were over, the company gave back the 10% and may have given us small bonus checks. I was was so burnt out (I was already working 80+ hours a week before they asked for 25% more), I left for a startup company and a hefty raise.

 

He brought it up. What makes you think I was hostile? I never called him any names, but I certainly had thoughts to do so.

because it was clear to anyone reading your post that, as you said, "I never called him any names, but I certainly had thoughts to do so." (thanks for answering your own question. Do you even realize what you say?)

As far as the rest of your diatribe, I asked if he taken any action, if he did, good for him, if he didn't shame on him.

Shame on him? An hourly worker that sees through the BS of Management and HE should be shamed for not telling Management they are asking civil engineers to do an electrical engineers job. Ha! What response do you think Management would have given him? They would have said, "we know, we just don't want to pay for an EE because they are too expensive right now - the opportunities in Silicon Valley sucking them away from Detroit."[/quote]

He implied his metric. He was crystal clear about that.

yet you still had a snarky comment to him.

His "like the military statement" with shit flowing down, while true, it does not apple in his labor situation because of his union protections.

Certainly you are joking. Shortbus' union may have protected him from any discipline (rightly so) so he was not personally affected by shit flowing down hill*. But, the shit in this example is BLAME. The fact that Management could blame hourly employees certainly protects Management or the Civil engineers that Management hired of any consequences.

(* I am assuming that his union protected him because you did. It is completely possible that blame impaced his career advancement opportunities).

Why are you so concerned? Why did you "attack me"?

Why are you not concerned? Is it normal to want to call him names and act so hostile?

Also, my previous post was an "attack" from your point of view? Wow, my dad wasn't right often but his view of the coast guard was apparently spot on. I appologize for my "attack".

 

Also, my previous post was an "attack" from your point of view? Wow, my dad wasn't right often but his view of the coast guard was apparently spot on. I appologize for my "attack".

Can one apologize if one can't spell it?

If you think your BS posts bother me, you'd be incorrect. I respond when I want to. It's nice of you to stick up for your homeboy though.

His statement about management blaming down is nothing new. He never stated he was involved personally and neither did I. I did state labor had the protection of their union.

 

You did not answer me to this:
And I find it weird.
Because there was a tendency to contradict me and this helped me to know what I'm wrong with.

I'll give you an example I've seen.
A lot of people bought land with 1E/ square meter. Meanwhile his price has reached 100E/ square meter.

They have become rich without producing anything in the economy.
And the land bought?
They are owners and do not want to use it.

If the state oblige them by law to use it, they find a use that it is not useful to anyone.
Why ?
The lower the supply, the higher the price - that's what the economy teaches us.

They expect to increase the price of those lands.
They does not offer anything useful, just keep land unused or use in the wrong direction and their wealth rises.
Who loses? that they did not produce anything and became rich.
(The relation is between the risk of investing and kept unused for safety)

And to use a phrase from the military, shit flows down hill.

Sounds bad, but it's so real. I experienced myself.
The mind of a born sociopath can not accept the blame from birth.

And who to blame? He can not accuse his boss.(he is coward)
To put the blame on you who are lower hierarchically is the easiest way.
If you are the same, it's your turn to blame the inferior.
That why.......shit flows down hill...

 

People that are wealthy almost always have a significantly larger fraction of their money invested.

if the salary is just for food and accommodation then yes.
What to invest?
For example, in the city where I am now,

A high school teacher has the 300E /month salary(full-time salary).
The rent of an apartment is 150-200E/ month.
Spending on winter with heating of apartment is 50E/month.
The rest of the clothes and food.
It is the salary of a young teacher at a state high school.
Here 95% of high schools are state high school.

When I got to college my dad told me:
Please do not save money and do not eat enough. You will get ill.
And I did so...........

 

Can one apologize if one can't spell it?

If you think your BS posts bother me, you'd be incorrect. I respond when I want to. It's nice of you to stick up for your homeboy though.

His statement about management blaming down is nothing new. He never stated he was involved personally and neither did I. I did state labor had the protection of their union.

I'm glad to see that the questions you had are no longer important to you.