AI slop
millionaires
721,868 Views |
2953 Replies |
Last: 2 days ago by Texag5324
BenTheGoodAg said:62strat said:
Why not liquidate the assets if/when a job loss actually happened and you know you need it?
No two situations are the same, but I think about your question through the lens of my own life. Single income family, in a medium-sized city, and I work for the largest employer in the region. The risk is low, but if there ever was a lay-off for my employer, it would be hard to sell a home for a while in this community, so you're potentially double screwed.
We talk a lot about diversification of assets, but I think diversification of risk is also worth considering. To a family with two incomes in a large community like Houston, this could be a completely irrelevant risk. For our personal situation, it makes a lot more sense.
Biggest reason I haven't given into the wife's interest in moving to Albuquerque (Sandia Labs) or Bentonville (Walmart).
AgsMyDude said:
AI slop
Agree. The problem with trying to copy and paste from ai is that you lose the formatting. And no one wants to read all that stuff anyway.
Post your human-written content and maybe summarize ai or just quote a small snippet of it. Nobody wants to read all that poorly formatted gibberish.
QBCade said:BenTheGoodAg said:62strat said:
Why not liquidate the assets if/when a job loss actually happened and you know you need it?
I previously worked for a private-held company, and the owner was often asked about issuing stock for employees. At one of the all-hands meetings, he gave an answer that has stuck with me. He didn't want to have his workforce invested in his company because if they company ever went bust, not only would people lose their livelihoods, they also might lose their retirement savings in one fell swoop.
No two situations are the same, but I think about your question through the lens of my own life. Single income family, in a medium-sized city, and I work for the largest employer in the region. The risk is low, but if there ever was a lay-off for my employer, it would be hard to sell a home for a while in this community, so you're potentially double screwed.
We talk a lot about diversification of assets, but I think diversification of risk is also worth considering. To a family with two incomes in a large community like Houston, this could be a completely irrelevant risk. For our personal situation, it makes a lot more sense.
I completely disagree with his take and IMO, he just wants to keep ownership. It isn't about being generous, but the opposite. Also, as others have mentioned, it's not binary. Meaning, he could give some ownership, but retirement accounts don't have to be company stock. Actually, I believe this isn't allowed anymore post Enron. Giving employees ownership IMO helps foster more pride in the company and more desire to perform and you have more vested.
Enron Employees would say otherwise.
The main argument in favor of home ownership is disciplined savings with an average return of 4.3% to 4.7% over time. A disciplined side fund can earn double that, paying for rent increases, a boat, or early retirement - your choice. Simple math, like I said.
For people who don't have any savings discipline, home ownership is a tax-advantaged godsend. For others, renting is worth consideration. That's my only real point, here.
For people who don't have any savings discipline, home ownership is a tax-advantaged godsend. For others, renting is worth consideration. That's my only real point, here.
I bleed maroon said:
The main argument in favor of home ownership is disciplined savings with an average return of 4.3% to 4.7% over time. A disciplined side fund can earn double that, paying for rent increases, a boat, or early retirement - your choice. Simple math, like I said.
For people who don't have any savings discipline, home ownership is a tax-advantaged godsend. For others, renting is worth consideration. That's my only real point, here.
And then there are the Black Mondays, Black Tuesday, Black Thursday, Black Friday, 1937, 1974, and 2008. The last 3 generations all faced a time or two of potentially being homeless and broke if they only rented. If you own your home outright, it's a little safer as the government would most likely give leniency to tax issues.
I'd have a lot more in stocks or savings if I rented. After my divorce I rented a sweet two BR corner penthouse in Atlanta. It was over $3k per month. But that's ALL I spent. Anything broke, hey maintenance, come fix this ***** Utilities were nothing. I spent a lot more on dining out and events, but:
I now have over 20 acres and a big house to maintain. Equipment, home repairs, huge utility bills, just had to replace 3 HVAC units for $30k+. Ammo costs (lol). Way more expensive. Sure, I'm building equity and have a tax write off, but my money would have been way better off in the stock market.
But luckily I moved out just before Covid hit. That would have sucked way more living in an urban environment.
I now have over 20 acres and a big house to maintain. Equipment, home repairs, huge utility bills, just had to replace 3 HVAC units for $30k+. Ammo costs (lol). Way more expensive. Sure, I'm building equity and have a tax write off, but my money would have been way better off in the stock market.
But luckily I moved out just before Covid hit. That would have sucked way more living in an urban environment.
AgLA06 said:QBCade said:BenTheGoodAg said:62strat said:
Why not liquidate the assets if/when a job loss actually happened and you know you need it?
I previously worked for a private-held company, and the owner was often asked about issuing stock for employees. At one of the all-hands meetings, he gave an answer that has stuck with me. He didn't want to have his workforce invested in his company because if they company ever went bust, not only would people lose their livelihoods, they also might lose their retirement savings in one fell swoop.
No two situations are the same, but I think about your question through the lens of my own life. Single income family, in a medium-sized city, and I work for the largest employer in the region. The risk is low, but if there ever was a lay-off for my employer, it would be hard to sell a home for a while in this community, so you're potentially double screwed.
We talk a lot about diversification of assets, but I think diversification of risk is also worth considering. To a family with two incomes in a large community like Houston, this could be a completely irrelevant risk. For our personal situation, it makes a lot more sense.
I completely disagree with his take and IMO, he just wants to keep ownership. It isn't about being generous, but the opposite. Also, as others have mentioned, it's not binary. Meaning, he could give some ownership, but retirement accounts don't have to be company stock. Actually, I believe this isn't allowed anymore post Enron. Giving employees ownership IMO helps foster more pride in the company and more desire to perform and you have more vested.
Enron Employees would say otherwise.
Read my post again pls. I specifically said not in retirement accounts.
I bleed maroon said:
The main argument in favor of home ownership is disciplined savings with an average return of 4.3% to 4.7% over time. A disciplined side fund can earn double that, paying for rent increases, a boat, or early retirement - your choice. Simple math, like I said.
For people who don't have any savings discipline, home ownership is a tax-advantaged godsend. For others, renting is worth consideration. That's my only real point, here.
We bought a house in 2017 for $346K and sold it in 2022 for $636K. We never considered renting so maybe I'm just one of those people with no savings discipline. I'm also not a finance guru but turning a $70K down payment into $290K over 5 years seems ok to me.
I believe the conversation though is that's not a normal real estate rate of return for five years. The real estate market has been irrational the last decade in relation to historical norms.
Everyone that has banked substantial equity in the last decade should relish it.
Everyone that has banked substantial equity in the last decade should relish it.
This is a fun thread and I look forward to reading through it when I have time and seeing what, if anything has changed over the years. Obviously I know being a millionaire isn't exactly the same financial security as it used to be.
I'm 33 now, but hit the mark at 30. I have a good job in sales, but the biggest factor was being patient when buying real estate (even in a hot market) and then the appreciation on that.
Here's what worked for me.
1. Buying a farm in 2019 for below market value that is now worth at least 3 times what i paid for it.
2. Buying a house on a few acres 2022 that needed lots of work. Probably worth at least 2.5 times what we paid for it.
3. No debt or payments other than the real estate above.
4. Minimal eating out.
5. Driving cars into the ground.
6. Automatic withdraws into retirement and savings accounts.
7. Marrying someone who doesn't spend money like she's in congress.
I'm 33 now, but hit the mark at 30. I have a good job in sales, but the biggest factor was being patient when buying real estate (even in a hot market) and then the appreciation on that.
Here's what worked for me.
1. Buying a farm in 2019 for below market value that is now worth at least 3 times what i paid for it.
2. Buying a house on a few acres 2022 that needed lots of work. Probably worth at least 2.5 times what we paid for it.
3. No debt or payments other than the real estate above.
4. Minimal eating out.
5. Driving cars into the ground.
6. Automatic withdraws into retirement and savings accounts.
7. Marrying someone who doesn't spend money like she's in congress.
I can think of maybe 7 "main arguments" to support home ownership before I get to I Bleed Maroon's argument about 4% returns. Acting like landlords are running a charity and renting places out for less than they cost to own doesn't make any sense to me.
My point is that if I followed the argument and decided to rent instead of buy in my early 20s I would be nowhere close to the financial and living situation I'm in now. Sure I could maybe have stayed in a small apartment and invested like crazy and have a higher net worth but there is zero chance I could have the same standard of living through renting for the last 15 years.
My point is that if I followed the argument and decided to rent instead of buy in my early 20s I would be nowhere close to the financial and living situation I'm in now. Sure I could maybe have stayed in a small apartment and invested like crazy and have a higher net worth but there is zero chance I could have the same standard of living through renting for the last 15 years.
I bleed maroon said:
The main argument in favor of home ownership is disciplined savings with an average return of 4.3% to 4.7% over time. A disciplined side fund can earn double that, paying for rent increases, a boat, or early retirement - your choice. Simple math, like I said.
For people who don't have any savings discipline, home ownership is a tax-advantaged godsend. For others, renting is worth consideration. That's my only real point, here.
Your "math" is still wildly wrong.
You return 4% on the total value of the house when it appreciates including the leveraged portion.
coolerguy12 said:
I can think of maybe 7 "main arguments" to support home ownership before I get to I Bleed Maroon's argument about 4% returns. Acting like landlords are running a charity and renting places out for less than they cost to own doesn't make any sense to me.
My point is that if I followed the argument and decided to rent instead of buy in my early 20s I would be nowhere close to the financial and living situation I'm in now. Sure I could maybe have stayed in a small apartment and invested like crazy and have a higher net worth but there is zero chance I could have the same standard of living through renting for the last 15 years.
This is exactly how I became a millionaire in my 30's and several others I know. I had a pretty good quality of life renting a nice high rise apartment with a lot of amenities.
The easiest/fastest way to become a millionaire is living below your means and saving/investing a large percentage of your salary in assets. Buying always doesnt make sense especially in HCOL areas. Its hard to save/invest when you have a huge mortgage and taxes youre responsible for paying. Of course, everyone's situation is different and those with a cheap montly mortgage and cheap interest rate, more power to them.
But the truth is, its much harder to have a "cheap" monthly mortgage with the real estate market super high right now as well as high interest rates. What made financial sense 5-10 years ago may not make sense today. Stock market investing is more accessible to the average joe right now compared to buying the average home.
Featured Stories
See All
Bobby Shuttleworth hired as Texas A&M's next head soccer coach
by Richard Zane
24:24
2h ago
3.1k
Six Aggies earn All-SEC recognition from the league's coaches
by Richard Zane
21:06
1d ago
7.2k
TDub
Recruiting staff to HS state title over Aggie playoff game
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
157
BetterNotBeChipKelly
TexAgs Should Double Premium Subscription Rate
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
130
rockwalltxag
Recruiting staff to HS state title over Aggie playoff game
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
106
tn_ags
Texas A&M's Incorrect Seeding is CFP Committee's Latest Mistake
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
76
txaggie2012
Recruiting staff to HS state title over Aggie playoff game
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
70