[slg]

I am not victim blaming, I am pointing out a way that the "broken system" has failed to educate people about the problem. You also can't just cite the average cost of living as if that it is a standard that has no waste in it. We need to do a better job of framing things like "if you switch to a worse phone plan and save $10 per month to invest, you will probably have something around $30,000 in 30 years while only investing $3,600.".

[kadenshep]

I edited my comment to remove the statement "Stop blaming people for a system they didn't choose." I'm sorry you read it. It was unnecessary and you're right, you're not really victim blaming.

I got frustrated at face value because increasing wages would do more to alleviate a lot of American's financial woe's -- now and later -- than (rightfully) helping to educate Americans about investing money. You're right, even small bouts of investment can net large gains in the future. I jumped the gun and took it as "if you just stopped being dumb with money everything would be better!"

Wage increases are not only largely (historically) objectively justifiable, but wage increases would be more consistent and easier to "implement" than educating an entire populace in a better manner. There would also be the enormous task of changing purchasing habits. We know that even when people understand "doing X is bad for future results", that doesn't mean they'll make the more rational choice.

Neither perspective is exclusive. We can increase wages and we should also invest in educating Americans about sound financial practices. But wage increases can happen now, would be immediately beneficial to everyone, while also making it easier to invest and take on the risks associated with investing.

[slg]

I sincerely appreciate this reply. Not enough people are willing to do to what you just did.

I agree with everything else you said here. More money is always going to be the quickest and simplest fix for this. I was simply pointing out that financial education should also be part of an ideal solution and that education alone is "better than nothing."

[peacetreefrog]

I appreciate the spirit of this comment too. I do think though that where many well-intentioned people go wrong is that they think wages are just like a dial that "we" (or gov or whomever) can easily turn. I think this essay gets at a lot of these ideas very well:

http://russroberts.info/article/the-reality-of-markets/

[s73v3r_]

"We need to do a better job of framing things like "if you switch to a worse phone plan and save $10 per month to invest, you will probably have something around $30,000 in 30 years while only investing $3,600."."

Prove that is possible. Find an investment that will do that.

[slg]

Those were back of the napkin numbers. The S&P 500 has an average annual return around 10%. With a monthly investment of $10, it would take just over 32 years to get to $30,000. So I might have been a little too generous but the numbers are still realistic and the specific numbers were not really the point of the comment anyway.

[s73v3r_]

The numbers were very much a part of the comment, and thus it is quite valid to guarantee you're still operating in reality when you make claims like that. Your 32 years to get $30,000 makes a lot of assumptions. One, that in 32 years $30k is going to be a significant amount of money, still. Second, that the person investing does not have an event in their life that would drain away any investments that they have, like an illness.

[bluGill]

I can only find you that in hindsight - I can figure out the correct investments to have made over the last 30 years, but I can't tell you next years.

For a reasonable return on investment you would be looking at 10k-15k final total depending on your luck.