# I'm 30. How much money should I have? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [April 8, 2009, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-30-how-much-money-should-i-have/492389 "2009-04-08T13:42:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![atomicbadgerrace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e7dd6/32.png) [@atomicbadgerrace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/atomicbadgerrace)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2009, 11:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-30-how-much-money-should-i-have/492389/21 "2009-04-09T11:40:29Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > One generally doesn’t switch jobs until they have a new one lined up. Unless one doesn’t have a choice in the matter. All too common nowadays. > [@](#): > > If you fail to start a 401k in your 20s, that’s another 10 years of compounding interest and employer matching you’re missing out on. A lot of people don’t though and that’s a mistake. I used to see a lot of kids at my old job who were right out of school fail to take advantage of our company’s 401k (100% matching up to 6% of income) or Employee Stock Purchase Program (15% off lower stock purchase price at beginning or end of each 6 month period). That’s like throwing money away. It’s not that cut and dry. In many cases, it’s not a mistake, though it may be throwing money away. Your 401k and your ESPP won’t put food on the table tonight, or pay the rent on the 1st. Many folks in their 20s have a hard enough time doing the best they can to make ends meet as it is without someone there to remind them about how much money they’re not making by not contributing the max to their 401k. Sure, it’s the ideal advice for the ideal situation. If you have the means, take advantage of it. But for most people coming straight out of high school today, the best advice I can give is simply “do what you have to do to make ends meet.” ---
**Author:** ![Fuzzy\_Dunlop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/848f3c/32.png) [@Fuzzy\_Dunlop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuzzy_Dunlop)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2009, 11:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-30-how-much-money-should-i-have/492389/22 "2009-04-09T11:56:48Z")
> [@davekhps](#): > > Home-buying is a tricky thing, however. Some economists will say that over a long enough time there’s no return on your investment, and that you’re better off renting and putting the money you would otherwise spend on your home into other investments (which are more liquid than your home equity-- particularly in this market, where getting home equity loans is much harder than it was before, and selling your house is obviously much harder). Which economists say that? Did you mean that over a \*\*short \*\*enough period of time, if you know you will be moving, you’re unlikely to build any equity and would be better off renting at a lower monthly payment? If you know you’re going to own a home for 2 years before moving and don’t have a reasonable expectation it will appreciate in value significantly, I could see the valuing in pointing out almost all your payments will go toward interest. I’ve never heard anyone, economist or otherwise, suggest that owning a home over the \*\*long \*\*term is a bad investment. ---
**Author:** ![psychonaut](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/psychonaut/32/4655_2.png) [@psychonaut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psychonaut)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2009, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-30-how-much-money-should-i-have/492389/23 "2009-04-09T13:43:28Z")
> [@Desert\_Nomad](#): > > When I was in my mid 20s, I had saved $100,000. I drove a crappy car, did not have cable TV (I still don’t) and lived well below my means. How did you manage that? Am I correct in assuming that you didn’t pursue postsecondary education? I think the vast majority of people in their mid-20s who have a degree haven’t been in the workforce long enough to have saved $100,000. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2009, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-30-how-much-money-should-i-have/492389/24 "2009-04-09T14:15:07Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > One generally doesn’t switch jobs until they have a new one lined up. > > If you fail to start a 401k in your 20s, that’s another 10 years of compounding interest and employer matching you’re missing out on. A lot of people don’t though and that’s a mistake. You know, when I was 20 401(k)'s didn’t exit. In fact, they didn’t exist at all until I was 23, and seldom offered to working stiffs (it was originally an executive thing) until I was in my late 20’s, and did not get a job with a company offering one until my 30’s So, you know, some of us who didn’t get on board in our 20’s weren’t stupid, we were just born too early. That said, I think there is some misunderstanding about “gross” and “net” worth. Your net worth is your assets _minus_ your liabilities. If you have debt it subtracts from that net. So having a “net worth” of $11,000 may mean you have no debt and $11,000 in bills stuffed in your mattress, or lots of assets but just acquired a large mortgage. Yes, a house is an asset, but your "asset " is only equal to your equity in it, and at the start that’s quite low. If you buy a $200,000 home the day you sign your only equity is your downpayment, the rest is a liability until you pay it off. You don’t need a million dollars to live a comfortable lifestyle. You just need your income to equal or exceed your outgo. Of course, since income can be interrupted you should also have a reserve to support you during such interruptions. See, finance is easy - it’s the _details_ that will kill you. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2009, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-30-how-much-money-should-i-have/492389/25 "2009-04-09T14:24:45Z")
> [@atomicbadgerrace](#): > > It’s not that cut and dry. In many cases, it’s not a mistake, though it may be throwing money away. Your 401k and your ESPP won’t put food on the table tonight, or pay the rent on the 1st. Many folks in their 20s have a hard enough time doing the best they can to make ends meet as it is without someone there to remind them about how much money they’re not making by not contributing the max to their 401k. > > Sure, it’s the ideal advice for the ideal situation. If you have the means, take advantage of it. But for most people coming straight out of high school today, the best advice I can give is simply “do what you have to do to make ends meet.” Clearly everyone’s financial situation is different. However there are also always people who make less money. A lot of 20-somethings also spend a lot of time in the bars drinking. That’s a huge money sink. Even if it’s just a little bit, I really encourage everyone to take advantage of their company’s 401k or some other saving plan. > [@psychonaut](#): > > How did you manage that? Am I correct in assuming that you didn’t pursue postsecondary education? I think the vast majority of people in their mid-20s who have a degree haven’t been in the workforce long enough to have saved $100,000. It’s possible, but you would have to live a very spartan existance. I calculate that you can reach about $100,000 in 5 years if you save about $15,000 the first year, increasing it by 5% every year and investing it in something that returns about 8%. For a kid right out of school making $45,000 that’s about a third of their salary. That means no cable. No going out to the bars and clubs (maybe $1 drink specials). As many roomates as possible. It begs the question though, what are you working for? What good is just accumulating money if your life is essentially living in an empty shoebox? A better plan, IMHO, is to live a comfortible but sustainable lifestyle. Live within your means. Save a bit each month in your 401k and in savings for a contingency cushion. And continue to train and educate in your profession in order to increase your earning potential. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2009, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-30-how-much-money-should-i-have/492389/26 "2009-04-09T14:27:54Z")
> [@atomicbadgerrace](#): > > It’s not that cut and dry. In many cases, it’s not a mistake, though it may be throwing money away. Your 401k and your ESPP won’t put food on the table tonight, or pay the rent on the 1st. Many folks in their 20s have a hard enough time doing the best they can to make ends meet as it is without someone there to remind them about how much money they’re not making by not contributing the max to their 401k. I agree. Seems like a lot of people save their money in their 20s so they can pay a fertility doctor 10 or 15 years later. I think there should be a happy median between pregnant teenagers who become single mothers; and professionals who defer having children until their late 30s. ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2009, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-30-how-much-money-should-i-have/492389/27 "2009-04-09T14:44:47Z")
[quote=“MikeS, post:11, topic:492389”] Like I said, there’s more data in that Fed survey than you would ever want. All of the numbers below are for households whose head is 35 or younger. On the assets side:[ul][li]Median amount in “transaction accounts” (savings & chequing), among the 87% of households who have them: $2,400[/li][li]Median amount in retirement accounts, among the 42% of households who have them: $10,000[/li][li]Median value of vehicles owned, among the 85% of households having them: $13,300[/li][li]Median value of primary residence owned, among the 41% of households having one: $175,000[/li][/ul]And on the liabilities side:[ul] [li]Median outstanding mortgage value, among the 37% of households having one: $135,300[/li][li]Median outstanding “installment loans” (car loans, student loans, etc.), among the 65% of households having them: $15,000[/li][li]Median credit card balance, among the 49% of households carrying one: $1,800[/ul][/li][/QUOTE] It IS however, pre (or early) housing crash data. 2009 figures should show the loss of a lot of wealth from the 2007 numbers, although probably not that much for the 20-29 group since they are somewhat less likely to have owned houses. Also, people should keep in mind everyone doesn’t earn their assets. I have a number of friends who inherited decent sized amounts of money before they were 30. My cousin had easily six figures before she was 30 in assets and in her case it was earned - she is extraordinarily frugal and started investing in the stock market at 12 with babysitting money - and at 14 one one of those kids working corn fields in Iowa (hot, difficult work, but Iowa teens can make a lot of money in a summer). She went to a state school her parents paid for out of pocket (she gets frugal from her Dad) ---
**Author:** ![Hakuna\_Matata](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a88e4f/32.png) [@Hakuna\_Matata](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hakuna_Matata)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2009, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-30-how-much-money-should-i-have/492389/28 "2009-04-09T18:04:06Z")
[http://cgi.money.cnn.com/tools/networth\_ageincome/index.html](http://cgi.money.cnn.com/tools/networth_ageincome/index.html) I have used this site for comparisons before. However I am not sure how old the data is–so in reality most peoples net worth is likely smaller then what is indicated here. Frankly I was shocked at how little net worth people my age (late 40’s-early 50’s) actually had. ---
**Author:** ![anson2995](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c77e96/32.png) [@anson2995](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/anson2995)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2009, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-30-how-much-money-should-i-have/492389/29 "2009-04-09T19:03:36Z")
> [@MikeS](#): > > Like I said, there’s more data in that Fed survey than you would ever want. All of the numbers below are for households whose head is 35 or younger. On the assets side:[list][li]Median amount in “transaction accounts” (savings & chequing), among the 87% of households who have them: $2,400[/li][li]Median amount in retirement accounts, among the 42% of households who have them: $10,000[/li][li]Median value of vehicles owned, among the 85% of households having them: $13,300[/li][li]Median value of primary residence owned, among the 41% of households having one: $175,000[/li] But this is incredibly misleading for the OP because it excludes all the people who don’t have those things. For HH \<35, the median amount in retirement accounts is zero, and the median value of primary residence is zero. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2009, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-30-how-much-money-should-i-have/492389/30 "2009-04-09T19:09:34Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > I agree. Seems like a lot of people save their money in their 20s so they can pay a fertility doctor 10 or 15 years later. I think there should be a happy median between pregnant teenagers who become single mothers; and professionals who defer having children until their late 30s. I think that’s a pretty silly statement…on so many levels. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2009, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-30-how-much-money-should-i-have/492389/31 "2009-04-09T20:55:14Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > > [@brazil84](#): > > > > I agree. Seems like a lot of people save their money in their 20s so they can pay a fertility doctor 10 or 15 years later. I think there should be a happy median between pregnant teenagers who become single mothers; and professionals who defer having children until their late 30s. > > I think that’s a pretty silly statement…on so many levels. How so? Human female fertility starts to fall in the mid-20’s, the decline accelerates around 30, and really starts to plunge after 35. Yes, some women who are 40 or 45 conceive naturally, but the fact is for every year a woman delays childbearing past 30 her risk of infertility goes up, and the risk rises more rapidly as the years go by. If having children is very important to a woman (and it is to many) she should really try to get started in her 20’s. She doesn’t _have_ to, but from the standpoint of reproducing successfully the odds are much better in her 20’s than in her 40’s. ---
**Author:** ![phreesh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9fc29f/32.png) [@phreesh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/phreesh)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2009, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-30-how-much-money-should-i-have/492389/32 "2009-04-09T21:38:50Z")
> [@](#): > > I’ve never heard anyone, economist or otherwise, suggest that owning a home over the long term is a bad investment The NY Times has a handy tool for determing when it’s better to rent or buy: [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/10/business/2007\_BUYRENT\_GRAPHIC.html#](http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/10/business/2007_BUYRENT_GRAPHIC.html#) So, there are, indeed, scenarios where renting is better than buying. It all depends on the appreciation of your investments vs. the appreciation of your home. It’s not as cut and dried as many people think. ---
**Author:** ![phreesh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9fc29f/32.png) [@phreesh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/phreesh)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2009, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-30-how-much-money-should-i-have/492389/33 "2009-04-09T21:40:44Z")
Also, here’s the article that’s linked to the graph: [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/28/business/28leonhardt.html?\_r=1](http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/28/business/28leonhardt.html?_r=1) It’s about a year old, but I don’t know if the intervening crisis has strengthened or weakened its thesis. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2009, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-30-how-much-money-should-i-have/492389/34 "2009-04-10T03:48:57Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > How so? Human female fertility starts to fall in the mid-20’s, the decline accelerates around 30, and really starts to plunge after 35. Yes, some women who are 40 or 45 conceive naturally, but the fact is for every year a woman delays childbearing past 30 her risk of infertility goes up, and the risk rises more rapidly as the years go by. > > If having children is very important to a woman (and it is to many) she should really try to get started in her 20’s. She doesn’t _have_ to, but from the standpoint of reproducing successfully the odds are much better in her 20’s than in her 40’s. - Fertile or not, a lot of 20-somethings just aren’t mature or financially stable enough to raise kids - You aren’t doing your kids any favors by having them before you can financially support them - Not everyone believes the height of human achievement is getting knocked up (Then again, working for some corporation isn’t exactly the height of human achievement either) - Getting knocked up to avoid fertility doctor bills in the future seems like piss-poor financial planning In short, yes, I agree with you. But the realites of modern life often make if difficult to realistically plan to have kids in your 20s. ---
**Author:** ![Desert\_Nomad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/desert_nomad/32/177_2.png) [@Desert\_Nomad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desert_Nomad)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2009, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-30-how-much-money-should-i-have/492389/35 "2009-04-10T04:39:47Z")
> [@psychonaut](#): > > How did you manage that? Am I correct in assuming that you didn’t pursue postsecondary education? I think the vast majority of people in their mid-20s who have a degree haven’t been in the workforce long enough to have saved $100,000. I started working full time when I was 16 and lived at home till I was 24. After high school I took 3 years off before starting university. I was working full time and starting my own business on the side. I went to an in state school and only had to pay about $1200 per semester. I was 26 when I graduated from university. ---
**Author:** ![ParentalAdvisory](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/53a042/32.png) [@ParentalAdvisory](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ParentalAdvisory)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2009, 9:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-30-how-much-money-should-i-have/492389/36 "2009-04-10T09:08:38Z")
> [@Fuzzy\_Dunlop](#): > > I’ve never heard anyone, economist or otherwise, suggest that owning a home over the \*\*long \*\*term is a bad investment. Ask someone who bought an 800k house in California 3 years ago. > [@msmith537](#): > > What good is just accumulating money if your life is essentially living in an empty shoebox? Why would you assume this? One can save, and spend, and have a fine life. It’s about spending less than you earn. The key, save as much as early as you can. I don’t buy into this “save a little in your twenties and spend the rest, save later” business. Also, I never understood why any one would question someone who accumlates _their_ money. Ask accumulators of cash today if they regret it. The simple answer to that question, maybe, is that you’re buying your freedom of tomorrow my slaving away today, and this is key, _while you can_. I lose my job when I’m 50 with no savings, that’s gonna suck. I lose my job at 50 with bank, and that’s a bit easier I’d say. Maybe lose it at 50 and not give a damn at all because I can retire. But hey, those 100k student loans, 300k house, 20k new car, and Hooker and Blow days at 25 were so worth it, dude! ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2009, 9:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-30-how-much-money-should-i-have/492389/37 "2009-04-10T09:28:43Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > - Fertile or not, a lot of 20-somethings just aren’t mature or financially stable enough to raise kids > - You aren’t doing your kids any favors by having them before you can financially support them > - Not everyone believes the height of human achievement is getting knocked up (Then again, working for some corporation isn’t exactly the height of human achievement either) > - Getting knocked up to avoid fertility doctor bills in the future seems like piss-poor financial planning > > In short, yes, I agree with you. But the realites of modern life often make if difficult to realistically plan to have kids in your 20s. I responded to this [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=513619). ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2009, 10:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-30-how-much-money-should-i-have/492389/38 "2009-04-10T10:54:17Z")
> [@ParentalAdvisory](#): > > But hey, those 100k student loans, 300k house, 20k new car, and Hooker and Blow days at 25 were so worth it, dude! They are when you die of a heart attack at 49. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2009, 11:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-30-how-much-money-should-i-have/492389/39 "2009-04-10T11:23:55Z")
> [@ParentalAdvisory](#): > > Why would you assume this? One can save, and spend, and have a fine life. It’s about spending less than you earn. The key, save as much as early as you can. I don’t buy into this “save a little in your twenties and spend the rest, save later” business. I think we’re in agreement here. I’m just saying it’s ok to find a sustainable balance. You should put yourself in debt to buy a sweet car but you don’t have to live in an empty appartment either. > [@ParentalAdvisory](#): > > Also, I never understood why any one would question someone who accumlates _their_ money. Ask accumulators of cash today if they regret it. Ideally, you want to spend your last dollar on the day you die (since you can’t take it with you). Problem is we don’t know when that will be and we don’t know what emergencies will crop up in the meantime. But what good is a million dollars if you live in a cramped appartment you hate, drive a beater that barely runs and never have any fun in life? ---
**Author:** ![Fuzzy\_Dunlop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/848f3c/32.png) [@Fuzzy\_Dunlop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fuzzy_Dunlop)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2009, 12:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-30-how-much-money-should-i-have/492389/40 "2009-04-10T12:13:05Z")
> [@phreesh](#): > > The NY Times has a handy tool for determing when it’s better to rent or buy: > > [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/10/business/2007\_BUYRENT\_GRAPHIC.html#](http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/10/business/2007_BUYRENT_GRAPHIC.html#) > > So, there are, indeed, scenarios where renting is better than buying. It all depends on the appreciation of your investments vs. the appreciation of your home. It’s not as cut and dried as many people think. I specifically said there are scenarios where renting is better than buying in my post. Did you read it? **davekhps** said this: [QUOTE=davekhps] Home-buying is a tricky thing, however. Some economists will say that **over a long enough time there’s no return on your investment** , and that you’re better off renting [/QUOTE] The New York Times tool and me in post 22 both say that under a SHORT enough time, renting can be a better decision. There are no scenarios on that tool where buying makes sense in the short run but ultimately is a bad deal, which is what **davekhps** suggested. In extreme examples with that tool, there’s no timeline when buying is a good decision - but that’s still not for the reason **davekhps** suggested. It just wasn’t sound financial advice. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-30-how-much-money-should-i-have/492389.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-30-how-much-money-should-i-have/492389.md?page=3)