Gyroscopic Investing

MangoMan wrote: You do realize that, one way or another, the people on this board and others like them, who saved diligently for a lifetime will be called on [at gunpoint] to bail these people out? It may be hidden/stealth, but you will do it.

I finally realized this and went in part-time retirement.
I don't even dare paying off the mortgage when government signals debt is good.

Not working and not saving and not paying off the mortgage really is a simple, low-cost and low-risk approach.
Especially if you happen to die before retirement age.

AnotherSwede wrote:

MangoMan wrote: You do realize that, one way or another, the people on this board and others like them, who saved diligently for a lifetime will be called on [at gunpoint] to bail these people out? It may be hidden/stealth, but you will do it.

I finally realized this and went in part-time retirement.
I don't even dare paying off the mortgage when government signals debt is good.

Not working and not saving and not paying off the mortgage really is a simple, low-cost and low-risk approach.
Especially if you happen to die before retirement age.

Absolutely. And of course if you are unfortunate enough to live to retirement age, you can always fix that problem very simply.

Libertarian666 wrote: Absolutely. And of course if you are unfortunate enough to live to retirement age, you can always fix that problem very simply.

Yes, just keep working.

But as Pugchief wrote a democratic trade off will be reached, between retirement age and retirement standard for those who havent saved or worked much.

AnotherSwede wrote:

Libertarian666 wrote: Absolutely. And of course if you are unfortunate enough to live to retirement age, you can always fix that problem very simply.

Yes, just keep working.

But as Pugchief wrote a democratic trade off will be reached, between retirement age and retirement standard for those who havent saved or worked much.

No, I was thinking of a more universally applicable solution: suicide.

Another solution... Mooching off of relatives. I have been on the giving end of that.

Libertarian666 wrote:

AnotherSwede wrote:

Libertarian666 wrote: Absolutely. And of course if you are unfortunate enough to live to retirement age, you can always fix that problem very simply.

Yes, just keep working.

But as Pugchief wrote a democratic trade off will be reached, between retirement age and retirement standard for those who havent saved or worked much.

No, I was thinking of a more universally applicable solution: suicide.

It didn't pass me by ,,, I choosed being an optimist.

But really, saving is for if you can't/won't work and society can't/won't provide. That is not an easy probability calculation done on individual basis.

If you don't like to work but has to - you will.
If there is any surplus in society it will be distributed, true in a democracy as long as a majority is economically irresponsible.
So what you are really insuring against is if you can't work (very old or very disabled) and there is no surplus in society. I don't think the markets will be very healthy in this case and your retirement might end with a quick drop and sudden stop anyway.

Saving could also be for, possibly, having more later by delaying gratification. This means you have a surplus now. Chosing to spend that surplus now or not even earning the surplus by working less is a preference, not an error.

AnotherSwede wrote:

Libertarian666 wrote:

AnotherSwede wrote:
Yes, just keep working.

But as Pugchief wrote a democratic trade off will be reached, between retirement age and retirement standard for those who havent saved or worked much.

No, I was thinking of a more universally applicable solution: suicide.

It didn't pass me by ,,, I choosed being an optimist.

But really, saving is for if you can't/won't work and society can't/won't provide. That is not an easy probability calculation done on individual basis.

If you don't like to work but has to - you will.
If there is any surplus in society it will be distributed, true in a democracy as long as a majority is economically irresponsible.
So what you are really insuring against is if you can't work (very old or very disabled) and there is no surplus in society. I don't think the markets will be very healthy in this case and your retirement might end with a quick drop and sudden stop anyway.

Saving could also be for, possibly, having more later by delaying gratification. This means you have a surplus now. Chosing to spend that surplus now or not even earning the surplus by working less is a preference, not an error.

No, what you are insuring against by saving is more than that: it is being reduced to a minimal standard of living. Of course, the tradeoff is that you have something to steal.

Libertarian666 wrote: No, what you are insuring against by saving is more than that: it is being reduced to a minimal standard of living. Of course, the tradeoff is that you have something to steal.

This still implies you can't compete in the work market.

Also, my country pretends to be a welfare state. Benefits for sickness, unemployment and retirement depends on previous tax payments.

If everything develops as promised I will do just fine. If not ... redistribution by force or stealth is a possibility.

AnotherSwede wrote:

Libertarian666 wrote: No, what you are insuring against by saving is more than that: it is being reduced to a minimal standard of living. Of course, the tradeoff is that you have something to steal.

This still implies you can't compete in the work market.

Also, my country pretends to be a welfare state. Benefits for sickness, unemployment and retirement depends on previous tax payments.

If everything develops as promised I will do just fine. If not ... redistribution by force or stealth is a possibility.

I have saved enough not to have to work, although I could almost certainly get a job if I needed one, considering how many cold approaches I'm getting from recruiters without even trying.

Actually I am still working, but on my own projects, not as an employee.

Libertarian666 wrote:I have saved enough not to have to work

Congratulations. I decided that that wasn't possible for a salary worker in my country (maybe if I was 10y older and benefited fully from the asset booms), and the soccer pro career worked out as well as my rock star career.

I am convinced, given my circumstances, this approach leads to least amount of work days for the rest of my life.

MangoMan wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2017 7:57 am

WiseOne wrote:

Almost one-quarter of workers said they and their spouse combined have less than $1,000 saved for retirement, according to a report from the Employee Benefit Research Institute. Nearly half of everyone surveyed said they had less than $25,000.
Sure, $25,000 can sound like a lot. But it's a reasonable goal to have that much stashed away by the time you're 30 years old.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/21/retirem ... index.html

My emphasis.

You do realize that, one way or another, the people on this board and others like them, who saved diligently for a lifetime will be called on [at gunpoint] to bail these people out? It may be hidden/stealth, but you will do it.

Was this "angry voter" you??!!!

Vinny

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/eliza ... vi-BBZj89W

Wow, I must have been having a bad day.

But it's kinda looking like that's where we're going, isn't it?