[cookiecaper]

It's about the entire cost. If the average wage for a programmer is 72k, but they can make that for 10 years while the future-doctor is living off student loans, that's worth something; at the end of the 10 year training period for the physician, they've made -200k while the programmer has made +720k. If the physician comes out of school and makes the median wage of 187k, at year 20 the programmer will have grossed 1.4 million while the physician has grossed 1.8 million, but the physician also has had to pay down 200k student debt at a rough estimate of a 6% total interest rate (total: 266k), making his 10-year career take home only about 220k more than the programmer.

It's definitely true that doctors make more money over the long run, but if by year 20 (~age 40), the difference is only about 2 years' extra salary, a lot of people would say it's not worth the stress.

[kamaal]

Plus if you are smart enough to make good investment decisions while you are young, as a programmer you are pretty much set to retire by the time doctors start making money.

[ryandrake]

LOL, only if by "investment decisions" you mean "luck into a 1 out of 1000 unicorn startup". I don't know a single programmer retired in their 30s who did it with salary and retail investing.

[pc86]

I think what they mean is:

1. If you are a programmer who can make an above-average salary immediate upon graduating; and

2. If you are able to save an above average amount of that salary; and

3. If you are exceptionally good at traditional investment decisions (stock picking) such that you can consistently beat the market; and

4. You actually decide to use the money from #2 for #3

Then it's possible to retire after a sub-20 year career. In the same sense that it's possible to win the lottery multiple times. Each of the first three points are by definition exceedingly rare as single traits of any one person, let alone all three together.

[kamaal]

>>who can make an above-average salary

An above average salary in most common cases is interchangeable with 'living within means'. You can start with whatever little you have and grow.

Its really not about how small you start, its about how quickly and consistently you are making an attempt to grow.

[ryandrake]

If you have $100 to invest, you're down 5-10% right off the bat just from fixed price trading fees. Having little to invest is a huge roadblock.

[pc86]

I've never seen someone with any background in or knowledge of retail investment suggest that anyone start with less than $5,000. That seems to be about the minimum, especially if you're picking stocks where you're almost guaranteed to under-perform the market in the long term.

[kamaal]

Even if its not that. It still doesn't mean - "Blows entire salary to smithereens'. Basic knowledge of savings and investments will put you ahead of bulk of the crowd out there.

As an Indian, I don't know much about the US market. But you guys still have index funds, Roth IRA, IRA and real estate to invest in.

In India even cab drivers who made bad real estate decisions have typically reaped X00% returns. People who made intelligent decisions are already retired. Many programmers in early 90's and even 2000's I know are already make big money in rents. And of course that doesn't mean every body did that.

When it comes to savings and investment there really is a binary crowd that I've seen. The first crowd says its just not possible and doesn't even try, the other crowd tries and some how makes it to be known as those "1 in 1000".

[ryandrake]

You cannot start taking penalty-free distributions from an IRA until you're 59.5 years old. So that's definitely not the way to retire in your 30s.

I've found people who boldly claim you can invest your way to early retirement always speak in vague generalities, and never have specific advice to offer. "Just be smart" and "pick the right funds" but if you press them on exactly what to do with, for example, $1000 in investable income a month in order to retire in 20 years with $5000 a month in income, they tend to come up short on details.