How many "Joe Sixpacks" have 20k to lose?

[Johnny Coli]

I bet there's hardly a full-time employed couple in the USA that couldn't figure out a way to save 12K/year.

A full-time employed couple is not the reality for the majority of Americans in this country. The problem is that people who relate everything to the best-case scenario of a young full-time employed couple living in a fabulous, yet affordable home happily taking the train from the suburbs back and forth from their jobs are ignoring the majority of Americans. The JoeSixPacks who enter their mid-40's without 230k in their retirement fund far outnumber the ones who do. That's reality. And that's why Palin's comment that she's just like everybody else because she just lost 20k is laughable. It couldn't be further from the truth.

[Chef Jim]

A full-time employed couple is not the reality for the majority of Americans in this country. The problem is that people who relate everything to the best-case scenario of a young full-time employed couple living in a fabulous, yet affordable home happily taking the train from the suburbs back and forth from their jobs are ignoring the majority of Americans. The JoeSixPacks who enter their mid-40's without 230k in their retirement fund far outnumber the ones who do. That's reality. And that's why Palin's comment that she's just like everybody else because she just lost 20k is laughable. It couldn't be further from the truth.

 

The funny thing is I don't think anyone has linked any source to what was really said by Palin. (Thanks Deb). I don't put it past her (Palin that is) though because she's a politician and they'll all say anything to get votes. But don't delude yourself into thinking that there are not a good amount of average Joes out there with a good amount of money saved. My point is that it CAN be done and for those who do not have at least six figures saved for retirement at 40 have only one person to blame. The good news is that it's never too late but compounding works wonders when you start young and give it many (25 plus) years to work.

[Johnny Coli]

The funny thing is I don't think anyone has linked any source to what was really said by Palin. (Thanks Deb). I don't put it past her (Palin that is) though because she's a politician and they'll all say anything to get votes. But don't delude yourself into thinking that there are not a good amount of average Joes out there with a good amount of money saved. My point is that it CAN be done and for those who do not have at least six figures saved for retirement at 40 have only one person to blame. The good news is that it's never too late but compounding works wonders when you start young and give it many (25 plus) years to work.

Agreed. The point is that the number of Americans who don't have six figures saved is far greater than the many that do, and it's not because they're lazy, shiftless, or throwing money around.

[BillsFanNC]

A good place to start with investing basics is The Bogleheads' Guide to Investing. I agree with many posters that a 200k portfolio for someone in their mid 40's is not substantial, however you still have time to right the ship.

 

Also, peruse the Bogleheads' forums here. Those in the financial planning field can probably guess that I have a lot of my portfolio in Vanguard funds.

[KD in CA]

Ah, now it's becoming clear. You think the working class should just schlep back and forth to work every day, never giving a thought to the quality of their life. Wear your crappy shoes. Drive that crappy car. Never take your spouse to the movies. Never take your kids to a sporting event or a vacation. Work and save. Work and save.

 

How freaking out of touch are you? Those are the small things people do to give their everyday lives value. I see nothing wrong with that at all.

 

No one is suggesting that the working class shouldn't do whatever they want with their money. But you are suggesting that the "government" (i.e., people who make more money than you) should be subsidizing those purchases for you.

[Chef Jim]

Agreed. The point is that the number of Americans who don't have six figures saved is far greater than the many that do, and it's not because they're lazy, shiftless, or throwing money around.

 

I don't think any one is accusing them of being lazy (but then our very own JoeSixPack hasn't chimed in yet ). The reason most Americans don't have enough put aside is because they're living in it, driving it, eating it and drinking it. My reason is the latter two. And no, I'm not on track either and it bugs the shiit out of me.

[IDBillzFan]

We have the physical evidence that McCain is not an average American from an economic standpoint. What evidence do you have that Obama is incapable of running the country? Not just to run it the way you would like, but incapable of running it.

First of all, when I say he's incapable of running the country, I specifically mean the way I'd like. Any idiot can run the country, as Jimmy Carter showed. But there's a difference between running the country, and running it into the ground, which is precisely what I see happening when I keep reading up on Obama's policies.

 

Second, these two candidates have extremely different views on how they want to run the country, and to be honest, NEITHER of them is strong enough for my tastes where it matters: national security and the economy. But Obama's plans for both will be so devastatingly bad for this country in the long term that I actually have decided to back him and vote for him and do what I can to get him elected just to remind people that they have NO idea how bad things can really be. I'm personally willing to brave his economic and military plans just to prove the point, as bad as the results can be. (That's not as big a deal as it might sound, since I live in California, which will be awarded to Obama precisely three seconds after the polls close.)

 

Once he's president, he will be completely unable to "denounce" or sue his way out of his poor judgement because once he's in and McCain and Palin are gone, the media will have no choice but to turn on their own. And when that happens, you'll see why I think he is unable to run this country correctly. Mostly because Obama doesn't care about making this a great country. He cares about himself. When the media turns on him, he is absolutely !@#$ed, and they WILL turn on him when they have no one else to turn on.

 

I deeply resent him making this a racist thing, which HE absolutely did with his "He doesn't look like the other candidates. Oh, and did I tell you he's black?" comments. Absolutely and pathetically shameless.

 

Finally, he has all the leadership of a wet mop, as was evidenced at the peak of the economic crisis last week, when one man went to Washington and one man said "If you need me, just give me a call." I almost puked when I heard him say that. Physically puked right here at my desk. How utterly irresponsible. At least to me. I know your stance...whatever McCain did made you puke. I get it.

 

So there's only one thing to say: Go Obama/Biden!!!!

[Johnny Coli]

No one is suggesting that the working class shouldn't do whatever they want with their money. But you are suggesting that the "government" (i.e., people who make more money than you) should be subsidizing those purchases for you.

Exactly where in this thread did I suggest that? It's not about subsidizing shoes and vacations. It's about removing some of the insurmountable burdens that the middle and lower class are faced with in trying to survive, or even better, aspire to a higher standard of living. Healthcare is a significant burden. Education is a significant burden.

 

And, once again, that's not what this thread topic is about. This thread is about the absurdity of Palin suggesting she's anywhere near the same boat as average Americans.

[blzrul]

The funny thing is I don't think anyone has linked any source to what was really said by Palin. (Thanks Deb). I don't put it past her (Palin that is) though because she's a politician and they'll all say anything to get votes. But don't delude yourself into thinking that there are not a good amount of average Joes out there with a good amount of money saved. My point is that it CAN be done and for those who do not have at least six figures saved for retirement at 40 have only one person to blame. The good news is that it's never too late but compounding works wonders when you start young and give it many (25 plus) years to work.

 

OH if you insist...

 

It had been on the CNN Political Ticker but scrolled off.

 

You can read it and see that Josephine Six Pack makes $125k, her husband $90k, plus all those great public servant bene's and perks.

 

Yup, just another middle-class American.

[bills_fan]

OH if you insist...

 

It had been on the CNN Political Ticker but scrolled off.

 

You can read it and see that Josephine Six Pack makes $125k, her husband $90k, plus all those great public servant bene's and perks.

 

Yup, just another middle-class American.

 

 

See, now in NYC, $215k with 5 kids....thats definately middle class.

 

But according to Obama, she's about 35k away from being "rich" and should be taxed accordingly, when in NYC she would be hard-pressed to own a home big enough for those kids. And Biden says she should be patriotic and pay.

 

No friggin clue.

[finknottle]

OH if you insist...

 

It had been on the CNN Political Ticker but scrolled off.

 

You can read it and see that Josephine Six Pack makes $125k, her husband $90k, plus all those great public servant bene's and perks.

 

Yup, just another middle-class American.

 

C'mon, they are in the upper part of the middle class. If you are calling that rich - two well-paying salaried jobs - then we are in for one wild ride under Obama.

[finknottle]

Nice. Couldn't formulate a response? How is this even remotely related to how many homes John McCain has and whether or not he can relate to the average American as he claims?

 

I thought the thread is whether or not Palin was average economically. What does McCain (or more precisely, his wife) have to do with it? Is this a straw man, like if I made fun of Obama's 4 million dollar income last year?

[finknottle]

Ah, now it's becoming clear. You think the working class should just schlep back and forth to work every day, never giving a thought to the quality of their life. Wear your crappy shoes. Drive that crappy car. Never take your spouse to the movies. Never take your kids to a sporting event or a vacation. Work and save. Work and save.

 

How freaking out of touch are you? Those are the small things people do to give their everyday lives value. I see nothing wrong with that at all.

 

It's a choice. Some people sacrifice for the long term, and some decide that toys today are what matter.

 

If you don't like work and save, fine - just don't complain to me if you don't have anything saved. And don't try to tell me you are justified in taking money from those who did choose to put their noses to the grindstone, live frugally, and put savings ahead of gratification.

 

Yeah, work sucks, and it's worse when you don't have any money to spend. But there are a lot of people who think it's worth it, whether we are talking about saving for retirement or putting a spouce through medical school.

[finknottle]

Look at the timeline and ask why would Paulson & Bernanke ask for the relief package two weeks ago, and look what has happened since. Ask why in the world would an industry leader like GE come running to Warren Buffet for $3 bn? Why would giant AT&T, which is minting money, suddenly have trouble in the commercial paper market?

 

Of course, this could be a false alarm and everything will be fine.

 

No, not a false alarm - it is what it is. The question is where it goes from here.

 

How would you compare this debate with the debate on climate change? In both cases we are being asked to commit ourselves to dubious plans, with the clock ticking, and no consensus when you cherry pick the experts. Some say (and have been saying for a year now) that the worst is over. Some say this will do it. Some say it will cost much more. Some say this approach will actually undermine the system. Who do we believe?

[SD Jarhead]

I'm 42 and have about a tenth of that. It's not as uncommon as you think.

 

Don't forget that many of us have read your blog and know how you spent a good deal of your younger life. If you chose to party away your younger years while others saved, why should the Gov't be responsible for that. Take responsibility for the decisions you've made in your life, period, end of story.

[Johnny Coli]

It's a choice. Some people sacrifice for the long term, and some decide that toys today are what matter.

 

If you don't like work and save, fine - just don't complain to me if you don't have anything saved. And don't try to tell me you are justified in taking money from those who did choose to put their noses to the grindstone, live frugally, and put savings ahead of gratification.

 

Yeah, work sucks, and it's worse when you don't have any money to spend. But there are a lot of people who think it's worth it, whether we are talking about saving for retirement or putting a spouce through medical school.

Un-freaking-real. You're never going to get it. There are millions of people in America "putting their noses to the grindstone" every day, living without and scraping by. Occasionally buying a pair of shoes or going on vacation isn't about "gratification." It's about doing what they can to make the rest of the hard work meaningful, giving themselves something to keep them going, making their hopeless lives a little brighter.

 

If a single mom takes her kids to a baseball game, she's not screwing you because she didn't bank it all for when she's 65. She's not concerned with her ability to pay rent 40-some years from now. She's spending that money on her kids.

 

If a city kid chooses to buy himself a new pair of sneakers or a jacket with the money he made at some crap job, then good for him. He's not thinking about when he's 65, because in his day-to-day world 65 and retiring in the burbs is a freaking fantasy.

 

Retiring and playing out the string is so far off some peoples' radar it's moronic to even suggest they should put that money into "savings." You can bet they'd love to plan for the future. They'd love to be able to eliminate a few "luxuries" and sock that money away. But a lot of have no future to plan for because the hurdles to get to that mindset are too high.

[Chef Jim]

Don't forget that many of us have read your blog and know how you spent a good deal of your younger life. If you chose to party away your younger years while others saved, why should the Gov't be responsible for that. Take responsibility for the decisions you've made in your life, period, end of story.

 

And Johnny, you can do both.

 

Sous-Chef Jim circa 1989:

 

"Let's see if I buy a gram it'll cost me $100 and then I can't fund my IRA. But if I go in on an 8-Ball I can sell some and snort some and still fund my IRA."

 

Drugs and investing do mix.

[Johnny Coli]

Don't forget that many of us have read your blog and know how you spent a good deal of your younger life. If you chose to party away your younger years while others saved, why should the Gov't be responsible for that. Take responsibility for the decisions you've made in your life, period, end of story.

Find the post where I'm asking for your money. I used myself as an example that not everyone who has a job and is in their 40s has a massive 401k. It's not reality. A handful of TSW blog posts four years ago relating some stories from twenty years ago, and you've got me pegged as a shiftless punk on the dole? Tell me, how much of the government's assistance do you get from being in the military?

 

The issue was that Palin thinks she's some blue-collar representative of the working class, fighting the system tooth and nail to become VP. She's not.

[Johnny Coli]

And Johnny, you can do both.

 

Sous-Chef Jim circa 1989:

 

"Let's see if I buy a gram it'll cost me $100 and then I can't fund my IRA. But if I go in on an 8-Ball I can sell some and snort some and still fund my IRA."

 

Drugs and investing do mix.

Sure. Sous chef circa same period. Chose to live a musician's lifestyle because the job sucked, then busted my ass to go back to school to become an infectious disease scientist. It's all about student loans. What others here are saying is that I should have just stayed a sous chef instead of going back to school, continued to rent and take public transportation, and pump everything into savings so I could retire at 65. Not only is that unrealistic, it's stupid, and it's incredibly stupid (and probably a lie) to suggest that many would remain on that same dead-end path.

[Chef Jim]

Un-freaking-real. You're never going to get it. There are millions of people in America "putting their noses to the grindstone" every day, living without and scraping by. Occasionally buying a pair of shoes or going on vacation isn't about "gratification." It's about doing what they can to make the rest of the hard work meaningful, giving themselves something to keep them going, making their hopeless lives a little brighter.

 

If a single mom takes her kids to a baseball game, she's not screwing you because she didn't bank it all for when she's 65. She's not concerned with her ability to pay rent 40-some years from now. She's spending that money on her kids.

 

If a city kid chooses to buy himself a new pair of sneakers or a jacket with the money he made at some crap job, then good for him. He's not thinking about when he's 65, because in his day-to-day world 65 and retiring in the burbs is a freaking fantasy.

 

Retiring and playing out the string is so far off some peoples' radar it's moronic to even suggest they should put that money into "savings." You can bet they'd love to plan for the future. They'd love to be able to eliminate a few "luxuries" and sock that money away. But a lot of have no future to plan for because the hurdles to get to that mindset are too high.

 

There are people who are truly is dire straights, I understand that. But most people that don't have enough put aside have made bad choices when it comes to money. Most people don't know how to balance their checkbook let alone how to properly budget themselves. Sometimes it only takes $100 a month to start. Believe it or not $100 per month from the age of 25-65 grows to $300,000. Most people blow at least $100 a month on something they truly don't need.