Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-10-2020, 05:25 AM
cornflakes2 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 162

Time or Money? And why?


I already know what I'd choose but here are the details of the debate.

Let's say you have two choices:

A) You are 20 years old but have $0 in the bank

or

B) You are retired at 65 years old and have $1 million in the bank

Which life path would you choose? Start off at 65 as a retiree and have a million bucks
to do with for the rest of your life or be young (like 20 years old) but have not a penny to spend and
start from scratch with nothing.


Reasoning:

People would choose A because they'd say even though you don't have any money right now, you could earn that money plus have 45 years of life to live while making it.

People would choose B because they'd say why bother living all those years if you are going to be 65 one day anyways with a million? I'd rather just start living off the million right now and enjoy retirement and the million bucks at my disposal.

Last edited by cornflakes2; 05-10-2020 at 05:26 AM.
  #2  
Old 05-10-2020, 05:39 AM
Alessan's Avatar
Alessan is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Tel Aviv
Posts: 25,511
A, of course. You can't buy youth.
  #3  
Old 05-10-2020, 05:42 AM
Calavera's Avatar
Calavera is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 280
$1 million isn't what it was. While it's some serious walking around money it's not that special. I would probably sacrifice 45 years of my life for truly "fuck you" money, as long as the 65 starts off baseline healthy, but $1 million isn't close enough.

Last edited by Calavera; 05-10-2020 at 05:44 AM.
  #4  
Old 05-10-2020, 06:53 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: the Land of Smiles
Posts: 21,526
I've always thought that one way to cheer up a heart-broken young person is to remind him that a 70-year old billionaire would change places with him in a heartbeat!
  #5  
Old 05-10-2020, 07:04 AM
elbows is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: London, Ontario
Posts: 14,598
It’s kinda hilarious that you asked Us for our thoughts, then explained OUR reasoning to US!

No amount of money can replace the life experiences that fall between 20 and 65yrs, in my opinion. And I’m including both good and tragic.

How does $1m make up for zero youthful adventures and zero life shattering learning moments?

Nope, I’ll not give those up for money/security.
  #6  
Old 05-10-2020, 08:12 AM
Alessan's Avatar
Alessan is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Tel Aviv
Posts: 25,511
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
I've always thought that one way to cheer up a heart-broken young person is to remind him that a 70-year old billionaire would change places with him in a heartbeat!
Exactly. What 65-year-olds wouldn't pay every cent they have for the body of a 20-year-old and 45 more years of life?
  #7  
Old 05-10-2020, 08:25 AM
Wesley Clark's Avatar
Wesley Clark is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 23,844
Saving a million over 45 years isn't super hard.

If you can put $500 a month into investments that should take care of it. Probably less if the market does well.

A better debate is would you rather be 20 with $0, or would you rather be 55 with $10 million?
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion

Last edited by Wesley Clark; 05-10-2020 at 08:27 AM.
  #8  
Old 05-10-2020, 08:56 AM
etasyde is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 289
I'm sure I'll piss off a lot of people, but if you were born in the USA without serious disadvantages and make it to 65 with less than $1 million, you've failed financially pretty hard.

No question I'd take 20 @ $0, especially since I'm much wiser now than I was then and would have far more earning potential.
  #9  
Old 05-10-2020, 09:09 AM
ThelmaLou's Avatar
ThelmaLou is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Neither here nor there
Posts: 18,314
Hell, I'd take 65 and $1 million. At my current age, 65 seems young-ish!
__________________
ďAll you have to do every day is eat, drink and move forward in some capacity.Ē --Mary Ann Thomas who cycled 6,000 miles solo over six months across the US and Canada.

Last edited by ThelmaLou; 05-10-2020 at 09:09 AM.
  #10  
Old 05-10-2020, 11:04 AM
cornflakes2 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 162
Very interesting. Yes, as I suspected, I also think the same way about being young with $0 than to be old with a million....even several millions might not even do it.
  #11  
Old 05-10-2020, 11:05 AM
cornflakes2 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThelmaLou View Post
Hell, I'd take 65 and $1 million. At my current age, 65 seems young-ish!
Thanks for your perspective! Yes, I suppose 65 actually could seem pretty young to 90 or 80 year olds. My grandfather is 94 and near death and to think of him being 65 again would be like thinking of him as a young man!
  #12  
Old 05-10-2020, 11:28 AM
ThelmaLou's Avatar
ThelmaLou is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Neither here nor there
Posts: 18,314
Quote:
Originally Posted by cornflakes2 View Post
Thanks for your perspective! Yes, I suppose 65 actually could seem pretty young to 90 or 80 year olds. My grandfather is 94 and near death and to think of him being 65 again would be like thinking of him as a young man!
My mother lived to 93, so at 71 I wouldn't mind a million dollars to piss away during my next 22 years.

Re the irony of the age thing: the motto of my generation was "Don't trust anyone over 30." That seems absolutely LUDICROUS to me now. Dear God, we were a cocky bunch. Yikes! Now I barely trust anyone UNDER 50!
__________________
ďAll you have to do every day is eat, drink and move forward in some capacity.Ē --Mary Ann Thomas who cycled 6,000 miles solo over six months across the US and Canada.
  #13  
Old 05-10-2020, 11:37 AM
HoneyBadgerDC is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Torrance Ca
Posts: 8,402
A million dollars is not a lot of money. If the question was 5,000,000 and 40 years old I would stay 40 and keep the 5 million.
  #14  
Old 05-10-2020, 12:06 PM
glee is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Obama country
Posts: 15,962

An uncanny coincidence


I'm 66 and if you include the value of my house (which I own) and assume that my three pensions are valuable (which they are); then, combined with my savings (and no debt), I'm worth around $1,000,000.

When I was 20, I had just dropped out of University , was living with my parents and had no money.

So I'm in the ideal position to judge.

It would make a lot of difference if at 20 I knew what I know now.
I don't mean 'buy Microsoft stock', but just how I could make the best of myself.

I'll assume that you're going to disallow such self-knowledge.

In which case ... I don't know.

Overall I've had a pretty good last 40 years, so I don't know if I would do better starting again. I've certainly been very lucky on occasion, so perhaps I'll take life as it is.
  #15  
Old 05-10-2020, 12:06 PM
cornflakes2 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoneyBadgerDC View Post
A million dollars is not a lot of money. If the question was 5,000,000 and 40 years old I would stay 40 and keep the 5 million.
Sorry, in my original question I meant that whatever scenario you end up with, in both scenarios you'll have the SAME amount of money.

The question is if you'd prefer to just "skip" those years and go straight to the year where you have all the money or live out those years to get to the same point where you'll end up with all the money.

Most people will always choose to live out those years and enjoy it while you make the money...why just throw away those years and skip a few years to the money.

So yes, if the question is re-phrased: would you like to be 40 years old with 5 million dollars right now or be 10 years old with $0? But that 10 year old will eventually have 5 million when they reach 40 years old.

But I see where this debate can become more interesting if we change the question and make it more enticing hehe.

Last edited by cornflakes2; 05-10-2020 at 12:07 PM.
  #16  
Old 05-10-2020, 12:22 PM
Oredigger77 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Back at 5,280
Posts: 5,537
A million dollars at 65 is a shitty retirement you only get ~$40k per year. I'd absolutely take the 20 years old with $0. Now if the offer was 65 with $10mm it would at least be worth considering. Going from 70 years to 30 years those last 30 would have to be awesome.
  #17  
Old 05-10-2020, 12:23 PM
Wesley Clark's Avatar
Wesley Clark is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 23,844
Quote:
Originally Posted by etasyde View Post
I'm sure I'll piss off a lot of people, but if you were born in the USA without serious disadvantages and make it to 65 with less than $1 million, you've failed financially pretty hard.

No question I'd take 20 @ $0, especially since I'm much wiser now than I was then and would have far more earning potential.
Median net worth for retired people is about 250k. Saving a million on paper isn't hard after factoring in mortgage and 40 years of compound growth on investments, but it doesn't happen in reality as often. Around 20% of people in their 70s have a net worth of a million or more.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #18  
Old 05-10-2020, 12:48 PM
cornflakes2 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
Median net worth for retired people is about 250k. Saving a million on paper isn't hard after factoring in mortgage and 40 years of compound growth on investments, but it doesn't happen in reality as often. Around 20% of people in their 70s have a net worth of a million or more.
This is true. Majority of Americans (I don't know about the rest of the world but probably even poorer) don't have more than 500k savings by retirement.

If you break it down by year, 1 million in savings by 65, that's like saying you saved up 20k every year AFTER paying off mortgage/rent, car payments, insurance, health, food, bills, other daily necessities and expenditures on family/kids, friends, events, social life etc.

If you are actually still saving 20K after spending your money on all those things I mentioned, you must be either A) making well over 50k per year or B) living in a really cheap country.

It's not easy to save 20k per year AFTER expenses. I forgot the stat but majority of Americans are living pay check to pay check.
  #19  
Old 05-10-2020, 12:51 PM
BrickBat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: US
Posts: 701
Before I answer, can I get a clarification?

20 years old ( with zero dollars ) today or back when I was 20 years old?
  #20  
Old 05-10-2020, 01:43 PM
Wesley Clark's Avatar
Wesley Clark is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 23,844
Quote:
Originally Posted by cornflakes2 View Post
This is true. Majority of Americans (I don't know about the rest of the world but probably even poorer) don't have more than 500k savings by retirement.

If you break it down by year, 1 million in savings by 65, that's like saying you saved up 20k every year AFTER paying off mortgage/rent, car payments, insurance, health, food, bills, other daily necessities and expenditures on family/kids, friends, events, social life etc.

If you are actually still saving 20K after spending your money on all those things I mentioned, you must be either A) making well over 50k per year or B) living in a really cheap country.

It's not easy to save 20k per year AFTER expenses. I forgot the stat but majority of Americans are living pay check to pay check.
Yeah, In america we've had 40+ years of wage stagnation combined with skyrocketing cost of living. Prices on real estate, tertiary education, health care, daycare and regressive taxes have all gone up. At the same time, pensions disappeared and people are supposed to save for their retirement w/o employer help.

Having said that, $1 invested in the stock market in 1980 would be worth something like $70 today. So you don't need to put 20k a year into investments, more like 5k inflation adjusted a year as long as there is decent long term growth potential in investments.

Plus you have your primary residence. You get a house with a 15 or 30 year mortgage, then when you retire its worth a few hundred grand in assets. Some people got lucky on this (I know people who bought a home for 30k and sold it for 500k decades later) and some people are permanently locked out of hte housing market due to high prices now.

Plus some people (not all obviously) get an inheritance when their parents die. That can be a few hundred grand too.

I mean, its easy to assume that 'everyone' is a middle class or upper middle class college educated worker with a stable career. But a lot of people aren't.

But 'on paper', getting to a million isn't too hard. Get a 15-30 year mortgage on a house worth a few hundred grand, get an inheritance worth a few hundred grand, and invest a few hundred a month into long term growth stocks for 45 years. But thats not realistic for everyone for various reasons.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion

Last edited by Wesley Clark; 05-10-2020 at 01:47 PM.
  #21  
Old 05-10-2020, 01:54 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 17,493
Yeah, I have a hard time seeing how the answer could be anything other than Option A. It would have to take something utterly enormous, like billions and billions of dollars, to make me swap to age 65, and even then it would be tough.
  #22  
Old 05-10-2020, 02:06 PM
Oakminster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Surefall Glade, Antonica
Posts: 19,386
Do I get to go back to 20 years old knowing what I do now? Sign me up.
__________________
"Yes, but that's because you're a wild human, not a tame human. The likes of you would have to be kept in a zoo, and the keepers would be very careful to never put their tentacles inside the bars"--Lemur866 describing Oak, 11/13/09
Molon labe--Leonidas I
  #23  
Old 05-10-2020, 02:19 PM
Wesley Clark's Avatar
Wesley Clark is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 23,844
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oakminster View Post
Do I get to go back to 20 years old knowing what I do now? Sign me up.
I'd be worth billions if I knew that. I'd invest in microsoft, apple, bitcoin, berkshire, google and amazon when they were low and then sell high. Fuck a million dollars.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Yeah, I have a hard time seeing how the answer could be anything other than Option A. It would have to take something utterly enormous, like billions and billions of dollars, to make me swap to age 65, and even then it would be tough.
I think I'd take being a billionaire are 65 over broke at 20. At 65 I could support charities, research and other agendas I believe in.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #24  
Old 05-10-2020, 02:26 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 17,493
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
I'd be worth billions if I knew that. I'd invest in microsoft, apple, bitcoin, berkshire, google and amazon when they were low and then sell high. Fuck a million dollars.
To fight such tactics, I think it is common in many such hypothetical threads to say, "Going back with all the wisdom you have now, but the world turns out differently" - so it wouldn't be Amazon, Microsoft, etc. booming, but some other companies in some other trend. But your non-historical knowledge, such as how people behave, how you should act or talk differently, is retained.
  #25  
Old 05-10-2020, 04:36 PM
DrFidelius's Avatar
DrFidelius is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Miskatonic University
Posts: 12,641
Skip those years?
Skip the time I met and won my life partner? Skip the time I learned about history? Skip my daughters? Skip my neck injury or those kidney stones?

No. No amount of money can make up.fir the experiences which brought me to where I am now.

I was twenty without a pot to piss in. I am approaching sixty with a lifetime of wonderful memories (and despite having no business sense a bit more than a million set aside for retirement.)
__________________
The opinions expressed here are my own, and do not represent any other persons, organizations, spirits, thinking machines, hive minds or other sentient beings on this world or any adjacent dimensions in the multiverse.
  #26  
Old 05-10-2020, 04:49 PM
etasyde is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 289
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
Median net worth for retired people is about 250k. Saving a million on paper isn't hard after factoring in mortgage and 40 years of compound growth on investments, but it doesn't happen in reality as often. Around 20% of people in their 70s have a net worth of a million or more.
Ok... what do these statistics have to do with anything? It's not a race or comparison, I don't care if your performance was average (mean or median) - the average American fails miserably with money.

In fact, the mentality that you're fine as long as you're "keeping up" is probably half the reason people fail so miserably.

Now, I'm not shaming those people or attacking them, but I am being uncompromising about a harsh reality. Most people don't know what an investment is beyond a vague idea of "stonks gon go up!" Few people exercise discipline in any form, let alone discipline in spending and investing. People are actually taught anti-financial wisdom in schools, taught hyper consumerism in every aspect of culture...

So yes, the median is 250k? So what? The majority fail, will have nothing in retirement after a few short years, and will wind up no better off than an 18 year old working right alongside them at walmart.
  #27  
Old 05-10-2020, 06:32 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 47,732
I'm at option 2 now, but with more than $1 million (which indeed is pushing it) but I'd go with option 1 since the ride was fun. I was there also - in college with pretty close to no money.
However I'd want to have option 1 have me go back to 1971. I'm kind of glad I'm not going to be around to see what a mess the world will be 45 years from now.
  #28  
Old 05-10-2020, 07:13 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 2,389
If I had to be 20 again the way I was 20 the first time, I think I'll take 60 and the million. (Hey, I get to be nearly a decade younger! And being 20 was physically pretty good, but mentally not much fun.)

If I can be physically 20 again but with the general mental state that I've got now, I'll take 20 and broke -- I think. If I were suddenly 20 physically but had no place to live, no car, no food, no other goods, no family supporting me, no money at all -- do I at least know somebody who'll take me in while I find a job? Because otherwise, that's a pretty terrible starting point, even in the USA; and I don't know whether I'd manage to pull out of it. A lot of people who start off even somewhat better than that don't pull out of it.
  #29  
Old 05-10-2020, 08:21 PM
cornflakes2 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Yeah, I have a hard time seeing how the answer could be anything other than Option A. It would have to take something utterly enormous, like billions and billions of dollars, to make me swap to age 65, and even then it would be tough.
I like your way of thinking.
  #30  
Old 05-10-2020, 08:22 PM
cornflakes2 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oakminster View Post
Do I get to go back to 20 years old knowing what I do now? Sign me up.
In this specific scenario that I am creating, no.
You go back to 20 years old, which also means having your 20 year old brain as well unfortunately.
  #31  
Old 05-10-2020, 08:23 PM
cornflakes2 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrFidelius View Post
Skip those years?
Skip the time I met and won my life partner? Skip the time I learned about history? Skip my daughters? Skip my neck injury or those kidney stones?

No. No amount of money can make up.fir the experiences which brought me to where I am now.

I was twenty without a pot to piss in. I am approaching sixty with a lifetime of wonderful memories (and despite having no business sense a bit more than a million set aside for retirement.)
excellent response, I agree.
  #32  
Old 05-10-2020, 08:25 PM
cornflakes2 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by etasyde View Post
Ok... what do these statistics have to do with anything? It's not a race or comparison, I don't care if your performance was average (mean or median) - the average American fails miserably with money.

In fact, the mentality that you're fine as long as you're "keeping up" is probably half the reason people fail so miserably.

Now, I'm not shaming those people or attacking them, but I am being uncompromising about a harsh reality. Most people don't know what an investment is beyond a vague idea of "stonks gon go up!" Few people exercise discipline in any form, let alone discipline in spending and investing. People are actually taught anti-financial wisdom in schools, taught hyper consumerism in every aspect of culture...

So yes, the median is 250k? So what? The majority fail, will have nothing in retirement after a few short years, and will wind up no better off than an 18 year old working right alongside them at walmart.
brilliant. I agree. Shades of Robert Kiyosaki.
  #33  
Old 05-10-2020, 08:29 PM
cornflakes2 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
I'm at option 2 now, but with more than $1 million (which indeed is pushing it) but I'd go with option 1 since the ride was fun. I was there also - in college with pretty close to no money.
However I'd want to have option 1 have me go back to 1971. I'm kind of glad I'm not going to be around to see what a mess the world will be 45 years from now.
Amazing. I've always been interested to learn and hear about the life experiences of older people. I'm fascinated by your stories and how you see the world today as compared to yesterday.

Yes, even at 40 (me), I would love to go back to the 80s and 90s and live in those "innocent/simpler" times LOL. Of course they were not innocent and simpler times but in retrospect knowing what I know now and what I knew back then, it sure did seem like simpler and innocent times in the 80s and early 90s. I also do not look forward to what this world is becoming and I have to live longer to see it. I would happily trade in my smartphones, internet and social media for just good ol books, magazines, and cable tv with 20 channels lol. God those were days! It was so simple to have fun and find the wonder and joy in all the small things in life. Now today, you can't impress anyone even if you can walk on water.

Although, I think in terms of medicine/health care, it's so much better to live now or in the next 40 years than it was to be old and sick in the 80s or 90s.

Last edited by cornflakes2; 05-10-2020 at 08:31 PM.
  #34  
Old 05-10-2020, 08:50 PM
PhillyGuy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Pennsylvania U.S.A.
Posts: 1,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by cornflakes2 View Post
People would choose B because they'd say why bother living all those years if you are going to be 65 one day anyways with a million? I'd rather just start living off the million right now and enjoy retirement and the million bucks at my disposal.
As can be seen in the thread, people from the United States, if they have a fair amount of social capital, are going to pick young and $0. But the answer for a high school dropout with a rap sheet, and a Brown University sophomore, will probably not be the same.

There are tens -- probably hundreds -- of millions of people who would have changed their answer from A to B in the last six weeks. It's not a matter of enjoyment of money, but that they no longer can support their family. Think of all the people who work terrible jobs so they can send home remittances.

As for the amount, I thought of it as whatever a person would think is enough to be quite comfortable. For people living my neighborhood, a million is low, especially if that is family net worth including pension plan. In most of the world, including less prosperous U.S. neighborhoods, the equivalent of US$1 million still is a dream.

Last edited by PhillyGuy; 05-10-2020 at 08:52 PM.
  #35  
Old 05-10-2020, 09:44 PM
AHunter3's Avatar
AHunter3 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: NY (Manhattan) NY USA
Posts: 21,241
I've already been 20 years old and I don't ever want to go through that again. I'm 61 now and I could do some decently cool things if I gained a million in the next four years.
  #36  
Old 05-10-2020, 10:42 PM
Wesley Clark's Avatar
Wesley Clark is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 23,844
Quote:
Originally Posted by etasyde View Post
Ok... what do these statistics have to do with anything? It's not a race or comparison, I don't care if your performance was average (mean or median) - the average American fails miserably with money.

In fact, the mentality that you're fine as long as you're "keeping up" is probably half the reason people fail so miserably.

Now, I'm not shaming those people or attacking them, but I am being uncompromising about a harsh reality. Most people don't know what an investment is beyond a vague idea of "stonks gon go up!" Few people exercise discipline in any form, let alone discipline in spending and investing. People are actually taught anti-financial wisdom in schools, taught hyper consumerism in every aspect of culture...

So yes, the median is 250k? So what? The majority fail, will have nothing in retirement after a few short years, and will wind up no better off than an 18 year old working right alongside them at walmart.
The problem is if everyone saves and invests 20-50% of their net income, the economy as a whole will take a major hit. I'm not sure if there are models for how to build an economy with such large savings rates. Consumption is a big part of how the economy works.

And yeah you are shaming and attacking people. Not sure why you're in denial about that. If thats what you want to do have at it, but you obviously believe 90% of people are idiots and you've figured it all out.

Plus there is the issue of what do you do if you die rich? Not everyone shares that goal. Its laudable to leave money to kids and grandkids, but if they squander it in 6 months (which a lot of people do), it loses its appeal in a lot of ways. I've known multiple people who are on track to retire with 7+ figure nest eggs. What then? Maybe if they build a trust to fund medical expenses, education costs, etc of children and grandchildren but a lot of inheritances are wasted. Living on a fraction of your income because you have a goal (retire early, travel the world, work part time, etc) is one thing. Living on part of your income and investing the rest so you can leave an inheritance that is squandered is another. but again, trusts can be set up to help avoid things being squandered.

Also I've met retired people who can live fairly comfortably on low incomes. Not everyone blows through 250k in a few years, that can provide 10k a year in interest income when combined with SS is enough to live on if you're reasonably frugal and own your own home. Its more of a personal decision, but there is an issue with underfunding of 401ks. I think making 401k savings mandatory (opt out instead of opt in) combined with tax credit matching funds would be a good idea to look at.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion

Last edited by Wesley Clark; 05-10-2020 at 10:46 PM.
  #37  
Old 05-11-2020, 02:44 AM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 47,732
Quote:
Originally Posted by cornflakes2 View Post
Amazing. I've always been interested to learn and hear about the life experiences of older people. I'm fascinated by your stories and how you see the world today as compared to yesterday.

Yes, even at 40 (me), I would love to go back to the 80s and 90s and live in those "innocent/simpler" times LOL. Of course they were not innocent and simpler times but in retrospect knowing what I know now and what I knew back then, it sure did seem like simpler and innocent times in the 80s and early 90s. I also do not look forward to what this world is becoming and I have to live longer to see it. I would happily trade in my smartphones, internet and social media for just good ol books, magazines, and cable tv with 20 channels lol. God those were days! It was so simple to have fun and find the wonder and joy in all the small things in life. Now today, you can't impress anyone even if you can walk on water.
I started collecting sf books in 1967, and I kept steno notebooks of when and where I bought my books, and when I finished reading them. In '68 and later I was reading 2 or 3 books/magazines a day. I can't do that today, and I'm retired. How the hell did I do it? Then I remembered that back then there was no internet to get lost in (and no Dope to post to or YouTube to watch) and if you missed something on the few channels we had, even in NY, you missed it, not watched it the next day. So I had a lot more time, even in high school or when I was doing things over the summer.
Quote:
Although, I think in terms of medicine/health care, it's so much better to live now or in the next 40 years than it was to be old and sick in the 80s or 90s.
Yes, I've had cause to be very grateful for our medical advances, and was clever enough to avoid getting sick until they were available. I'd never go back in time to even the early 20th century.
  #38  
Old 05-11-2020, 11:23 AM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 19,673
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oakminster View Post
Do I get to go back to 20 years old knowing what I do now? Sign me up.
Hell, even if it was become 20 right now, knowing what I know right now, I'd take it.

I mean, I have all the knowledge of a 47 year old in terms of navigating the system, what to do, what not to do, etc... and 27 more years to deal with it in.

Plus, I'd be younger, less gimpy and all that.
  #39  
Old 05-11-2020, 12:31 PM
DrCube is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Caseyville, IL
Posts: 7,680
Maybe I'm fighting the hypothetical here, but going back to when I was 20 means my kids cease to exist, and won't exist again. At best, some other kids may be born in their place. I'm not sure I'd do that for any amount of money or youth.
  #40  
Old 05-11-2020, 09:33 PM
Isosleepy's Avatar
Isosleepy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,206
I’d take 20 and broke over *25* and a million.
  #41  
Old 05-11-2020, 09:49 PM
Hilarity N. Suze is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Denver
Posts: 8,315
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alessan View Post
Exactly. What 65-year-olds wouldn't pay every cent they have for the body of a 20-year-old and 45 more years of life?
Well, me. I would certainly not pay even one cent for the same body I had at 20 because I still have essentially that body, with one big improvement. I'll take the money.
  #42  
Old 05-12-2020, 04:05 PM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 6,506
In my current situation taking the youth would be a no-brainer. I have a secure good paying job, could afford to take on some debt to make it through the next few years until I develop a cushion and be well on track to being at or over a million in 45 years. I more challenging question would be taking away all assets, your job and your resume', and your contacts (basically making yourself homeless) for the extra life. That would be a bit more of a challenge, particularly in with the economy going the way it is. I think I might still choose the youth, but the first few years aren't going to be fun.
  #43  
Old 05-12-2020, 04:18 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 17,493
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isosleepy View Post
Iíd take 20 and broke over *25* and a million.
What would you do at age 20 that would make your next five years worth $200,000 apiece?
  #44  
Old 05-12-2020, 06:32 PM
pkbites's Avatar
pkbites is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Majikal Land O' Cheeze!
Posts: 11,265
What about those of us who already have some wealth?

Iíll keep what I have now at 59. There is really no amount of money you could offer me to add 6 years forward toward my eventual demise. I donít want to be the richest guy in the cemetery.

But forced to choose either/or Iíll take 20 years old and broke. Been there, done that, and I persevered. I did it before I can do it again.
  #45  
Old 05-12-2020, 09:52 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 17,440
Quote:
Originally Posted by cornflakes2 View Post
In this specific scenario that I am creating, no.
You go back to 20 years old, which also means having your 20 year old brain as well unfortunately.
If that is the scenario, then it is more difficult. My mother is 66 and when I go over there, many of her friends talk about stuff. The general thought is that they are happier in their mid 60s than they have at any other point in life.

They are financially stable, houses are paid for, and there are none of the social pressures (or not as many). When they were in their 20s many of them did not have the necessary maturity for adult life and made poor financial or marital decisions, worked shitty, demanding, and/or demeaning jobs, were out of work at times, and had varying levels of intense stress.

Today, they say, sure they wake up with aches and pains, but after a few ibuprofen, it is fine. They are content and happy because they are no longer in the rat race, no longer making 5 and 10 year plans, just doing what they want. If they want to sleep until noon today, then they do. If they want to get on an airplane and spend a week in Vegas, they do that. If they want to plant a giant garden this year and learn a new hobby--say canning vegetables---then fuck it, they do that.

They look back on many things with fondness--having their children and the like---but they are very happy right where they are thank you very much.
  #46  
Old 05-12-2020, 10:37 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 17,493
For Dopers who are already in their retirement years, but say they would happily jump back to being age 20 and broke, how do you think that might make your life feel (good or bad)? Do you think you might suffer from feeling over-extended in life, since this would essentially boost your life by half a century (you might have originally passed away at age 80, but now, thanks to jumping back to young age, you're going to die at age 80 + 50, thus living a total of 130 years?)

Do you think you might get hit by too much "life fatigue?"
  #47  
Old 05-12-2020, 10:54 PM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 43,053
Shit, I can make a lot more than a million bucks before retirement if I become 20 years old tomorrow. I wouldn't be an idiot this time around. I'd be much wealthier than that by the time I hit 65.

And no, life fatigue? Nonsense. I'd live a thousand years if I could.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #48  
Old 05-12-2020, 11:24 PM
pkbites's Avatar
pkbites is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Majikal Land O' Cheeze!
Posts: 11,265
Quote:
Originally Posted by cornflakes2 View Post
In this specific scenario that I am creating, no.
You go back to 20 years old, which also means having your 20 year old brain as well unfortunately.
Wipe out my memory of those 45 years? How do I know that didn't already happen?

The choice to go back to 20 broke but no knowledge of what I already know isn't any fun.
  #49  
Old 05-12-2020, 11:29 PM
msmith537 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 28,144
Am I plopped into 20 year old college sophomore me in 1992 or am I transformed into a 20 year old version of me in 2020?

Same question regarding the 65 year old version? 65 now or fast forward to 2037?

Do I retain my current memories?








Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
Shit, I can make a lot more than a million bucks before retirement if I become 20 years old tomorrow. I wouldn't be an idiot this time around. I'd be much wealthier than that by the time I hit 65.

And no, life fatigue? Nonsense. I'd live a thousand years if I could.
Yeah, I think an extended lifespan offers some opportunities to course correct that one would not have otherwise.
  #50  
Old 05-13-2020, 09:48 PM
cornflakes2 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by msmith537 View Post
Am I plopped into 20 year old college sophomore me in 1992 or am I transformed into a 20 year old version of me in 2020?

Same question regarding the 65 year old version? 65 now or fast forward to 2037?

Do I retain my current memories?

Yeah, I think an extended lifespan offers some opportunities to course correct that one would not have otherwise.
Oh, of course you have to be you as 20 year old in 1992. That would be completely unfair advantage to be 20 year old you with 2020 experience / knowledge carried over

No retaining of current memories either.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:33 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017