[drzaiusapelord]

Yep this. The average rate of return is 10% so this is someone who can make $50k a year just off this money alone. The real median wage in the USA for workers who worked full time in 2020 was $56k. This person has enough money to nearly replicate the financial success of your average American via a do-nothing secondary income. Your average American retires with only $200k saved up by age 65 as well. $500k is a lot of money and its bothersome that its being played up here as being unsuccessful.

This person is doing very, very well and I suspect "I only have half a million dollars sitting idly by" is a humble-brag as that is obviously a lot of money.

Also 35 isn't 65. This is the prime age for most business people, artists, writers, etc. This is typically a professional and creative peak that lasts, at least, another decade or so. A person this age often has the drive and vitality of youth but the wisdom of someone older. Its no wonder so many great works are created by people around this age.

I think this post says a lot about the demographic here who lean towards worshipping money to the point where having half a million is being "unsuccessful" and being merely 35 is being "old." Capitalism does a great job of making people feel bad about themselves because they arent mega millionaires and commercial media sells images of youth because promoting anti aging things like makeup, drugs, surgeries, fitness, etc is so profitable. Hiring managers also discriminate on age because working young and naive people like dogs and leading them to burn out is "good business sense," while dealing with an older person who knows this con and understands class struggle and the dishonesty of management and the perverse incentive profit demands is "bad business."

My advice is that forums are a very, very poor place to get therapy. Go see a professional if you feel depressed. Forums like these are just echo chambers full of people with similar unresolved issues or with coping mechanisms that aren't healthy. And egotists who just want to tell you their life story, knowing full well stories aren't healing because if they were, we could cure all our malaise with just biographies of people who struggle.

So, no "fitness" or "hobbies" or "kids"[1] isn't it, maybe some of those things is part of it, but there's a lot more a human being needs who has lost their way in an ultra capitalist and competitive society. Part of it is seeing the forest for the trees and a professional can help them get the rational self-awareness they seem to lack, as well as address their emotional issues.

[1] If you are not dying to have kids then you shouldn't not have kids. There is a lot of toxic advice here about having children to "fix" things. Children should not be born as a way to fix yourself. It is 100% valid to not want children. I say this as a parent. Its a grueling and hard life compared to not having children, and if you have difficulty in life and don't even want kids, do not have them. They will not magically suddenly fulfill you or make your life easier. In fact, in many ways they will make things much harder for you in literally every avenue in your life. The world does not need more unwanted children or children used a marriage or personal emotional fixers.

[Xenoamorphous]

> If you are not dying to have kids then you shouldn't not have kids. There is a lot of toxic advice here about having children to "fix" things. Children should not be born as a way to fix yourself. It is 100% valid to not want children. I say this as a parent. Its a grueling and hard life compared to not having children, and if you have difficulty in life and don't even want kids, do not have them. They will not magically suddenly fulfill you or make your life easier. In fact, in many ways they will make things much harder for you in literally every avenue in your life. The world does not need more unwanted children or children used a marriage or personal emotional fixers.

So much this. I’m horrified at the number of replies here touting kids as some magical fix for all problems. I became a dad in December after being in the fence for a few years preceded by several years of “no way I’m going to have kids”.

It’s pretty darn tough. My quality of life has declined very substantially, we’re mostly at home and go for a walk in the morning and another afternoon in a very small radius and in constant fear the baby might get fussy. We don’t go to watch a movie, or restaurant or to a bar. I’ve stopped drinking alcohol (not that I was getting drunk before, just tipsy) as I have a baby to hold and move around the house. Even taking a shit requires some planning. I work remotely and switched to part time (4 hours per day) as I can’t fathom placing all the burden on the mother (on top of breastfeeding which only she can do and it’s also very tough) and hiring a nanny in covid times is not an option, but it’s still hard.

And the constant worry if the baby is ok, are those noises during sleep normal? Is she regurgitating too much? What are those twitches, is she having spasms? Is she developing well physically and neurologically?

And I think I’m blessed with a “good” baby that sleeps quite well at night, waking only 2-3 times for feeding and falling asleep again shortly after.

I recognize some of these issues are probably due to being a first time dad and/or my personality, and also that hopefully it gets easier over time. By the way none of this means I regret it, but still: OP is in no way in the right mindset to have kids right now.

[drzaiusapelord]

My take is that you're still in the easy period because babies are just still, well, babies. As they age into children and go to school, academics, socializing, etc matter and their own existential dread of the universe, etc come into play it gets much much harder. My son and I talk about death a lot because he's shocked by it. I try to explain to him what money means. Also you're building both a loving parental but also a peer relationship -- not a parent to baby one, past ages 4 or 5, with someone with their own interests, strong personality, mental health issues, hangups, habits, etc. This is a relationship that cant fail and you can't ever walk away from. This relationship only ends on your death which will badly hurt your children just like the loss of your own parents hurt you.

Especially not only as their parent guiding them through this universe, but also knowing the economic and political system they are inheriting is terrible, unjust, unequal, racist, and dishonest and how they'll have to come to terms with that just like we did, if we ever did. And finding ways for them to avoid getting crushed by this unjust wheel we called capitalism by doing your best to get them into good schools, tutors, pulling strings on their behalf, guiding their interests, etc.

[demadog]

Same boat, congratulations! I think the biggest thing about having a baby is that we change for the better and mature. Getting to a new level of wisdom and grit that sticks around even after they get easier when they’re older!

[Aidevah]

>Also 35 isn't 65. This is the prime age for most business people, artists, writers, etc. This is typically a professional and creative peak that lasts, at least, another decade or so. A person this age often has the drive and vitality of youth but the wisdom of someone older. Its no wonder so many great works are created by people around this age.

The age of 35 does represents an important milestone for many artists; it is the age when their creativity fades in both intensity and volume. What used to arrive almost spontaneously now requires hard and conscious works. This is the age where even Mozart needed to increasingly rely on sketches, and some of those who relied on their youthful facility, such as Rossini, simply quit composition altogether. On the other hand, someone like Beethoven who always struggled with composition from the beginning of his career probably did not notice this creative slump (Beethoven's crisis came later in his mid-40s).

This barrier to creativity that arrives in the mid-30s is especially evident in the Romantic artists, not just Wordsworth and Coleridge, but also Holderlin, Schlegel, Chateaubriand and Senancour. Charles Rosen speculates that is is because the inspiration for the Romantics was "drawn directly from memories of adolescence, and as these memories receded into the past their evocation became more and more artificial, or else the writer found himself with a fully developed manner and no content."[1] In this sense I do believe 35 is in some ways "old" as it represents a paradigm shift in one's approach to the creative arts, and maybe life itself.

[1] Romantic poets, Critics and Other Madmen, 1998

[drzaiusapelord]

Those are all pre-modern people before the invention of vaccines and antibiotics and who had terrible health and suffered by now preventable childhood diseases. Their 35 is not our 35. Shakespeare, I believe, wrote about joint pain, aging, and losing his memory and mind at 35, which is not typical of a modern 35 year old. Substance abuse and artistry go hand in hand and a lot of these artists were addicts and drunks who badly damaged their brains. Many of them had mercury poisoning from medical treatments of their day and other edge cases not common today.

Not to mention these people were elite global competitors, so if they felt less sharp at 35, that means they were merely just the top 1% instead of being the top .1%. They still were amazing thinkers and producers after 35.

Just off the top of my head, Stanley Kubrick's career peaked with his decade plus long Lolita, Strangelove, 2001, and Clockwork Orange period in the 1960-70s, which was around his 30-40s. Then nearly 20 years after Lolita, well into his 50's he made The Shining, which is considered an important American film, perhaps not as groundbreaking as the others, but something miles ahead of his younger competitors. So even as these people supposedly age out of their peak years, these super high performers are still amazing. The Oscar winner that year? Kramer vs Kramer, a largely forgotten piece of art and "safe pick" that played to social issues of the time. The best screenplay? Breaking Away, a completely forgotten movie. The Shining is still a beloved classic, cultural icon, horror master-class, an iconic actor's defining role, and a movie studied in film school religiously today and for the foreseeable future.

Then almost a decade later in 1987 at age 59, he directed Full Metal Jacket, a lesser work, but considered one of the best anti-war films, arguably stealing or matching the crown from beloved critic favorites like Apocalypse Now and The Deer Hunter, long after the 60s and 70s fad of anti-war movies faded away and Vietnam a now faded memory and during the right-wing, pro-military, pro-interventionist foreign policy Reagan administration. This was a bold and provocative move you'd associate with a younger director trying to get attention and not a man close to retirement. So even "old" Kubrick was competing on a world class level and doing interesting and challenging things.

A genre horror film from a famous director who hasn't delivered a great film in a decade? An anti-war film in the late 80s on the tail of Top Gun? Both of these genres were fads once and decidedly uncool at the time of their release. This on paper sounds almost foolish, but in practice, an artist of his calibre pulled off something very special in both cases.

For modern people, career peaks are mid-30s. The "wisdom" of two hundred old plus composers and poets is a nice toilet read but isn't scientific at all. Science has its own ideas about aging:

The journals Psychological Science, Science Direct, and Harvard claims various mental peaks come later in life. New vocabulary peaks at 67, learning new information at 50, concentrating at 43, learning new faces 32, etc.

https://nextluxury.com/mens-lifestyle-advice/what-age-do-men...

So yes 35 is not only a good age, its the start of a peak, and a 35 year old modern worker has still another two decades of high performance waiting for them.

[Aidevah]

I do not deny the existence of creative peaks after 35, which is of course not a rarity (just look up Elliott Carter for a truly awe-inspiring example). What I mean to say is that there seems to be a certain (mental? physiognomical? spiritual?) obstacle at 35 which affects all artists but especially those who relied on their precocity or talent which was more abundant in their early years. Those who cruised through their youth using the gifts they were born with are faced with a difficult decision in their 30s: they can either accept the decline in the rate and quality of their works or shift to methods which requires much more effort. Of course, not all artists were prodigies and they are not equally affected by this obstacle.

I don't know how sickness affects creativity, although quality of health has never seemed to be a disqualifying factor for the production of great works. Thomas Mann of course utilised this as his central idea in The Magic Mountain. The sickness of Schubert, Chopin and Beethoven does not see to have negatively impacted their creativity; Schubert seems even more sublime when he realised death was near, and Beethoven's deafness hasn't affected the quality of his late works.

The case of Shakespeare is peculiar in itself. If you read all his plays in sequence of composition, you would notice a certain weariness that becomes gradually apparent. Coriolanus, Timon of Athens and Troilus and Cressida contain an undisguised bitterness which is largely absent in the earlier tragedies (although you can glimpse a hint of it in Anthony and Cleopatra). The late romances, Winter's Tale and The Tempest, are of course unusually heavy in their subject matter. Harold Bloom interprets this as a certain melancholy in Shakespeare which made him weary of the theatre business altogether, which certain explains his early retirement. The health complaints in his 30s doesn't square with the fact that most of his greatest works were still to come at that stage.

[djkivi]

There should be a 20-year Academy Awards, for movies people still care about 20 years later. Stanley Kubrick's films would do very well in such a competition.

[tayo42]

Where are you getting 10% guaranteed a year?

[ejb999]

nowhere - there is NO PLACE you get safely get 10% guaranteed per year. Zilch, none.

Better plans is to plan on living off 4% of you nest egg if you don't want to run out when you are too old to start working again.

[derangedHorse]

The number is quoted from being averaged over several years. I think the basic premise is correct though, one can live off that type of money passively and comfortably (depending on where you live of course). If you aren't seeing those kind of returns on average, move your money to a total stock market index fund.

[lotsofpulp]

The premise is incorrect because real rate of return is what determines how you can “live”. Even if you received 10% returns every year, it makes a huge difference if the medicine/food/labor you need increased by 5%, or 10%, or even 20%.

Additionally, if you have lost the ability to earn an income, then you cannot afford to be down a few years, hence you need to greatly expand the proportion of assets that are earning less than equities, and quite possibly putting you behind inflation. Especially if you live in a popular area.

Combine this with a nation whose population is aging and therefore competition for buying young people’s labor is going up, and you might want to be more conservative about expectations of the future.

[lrem]

Just average the winning move of betting everything on Greenspan Put over the past couple years and ignore anything that happened before ;)

[czbond]

Just wait until the 10% returners start to see -5-10% for 10 years returns.

[fegu]

The 10% is not guaranteed. But it is average over several years. Although I prefer to go for global index funds which is more like 7% and less risky.

[brobinson]

As of right now, dividend-paying mortgage REITs pay around 9-10%. The US government will never let its housing market fail, and low interest rates let these trusts borrow inexpensively.

[Drdrdrq]

> The US government will never let its housing market fail,...

Maybe I'm totally missing your point, but didn't exactly this happen in 2008?

[brobinson]

The US government came out and said that it would guarantee Freddie's/Fannie's debt which caused a sharp downtick as the government effectively admitted there was a possibility they could go to zero. Short (on the scale we're looking at) downturns, even if large in % terms, aren't a failure of a market. So, to answer your question, no.

[rhexs]

While I agree that ever-increasing housing prices are almost the only platform both parties agree on, when there are already low interest rates and inflation occurring, the government is out of moves.

Never say never. Markets revert to the mean eventually.

[tharne]

> Where are you getting 10% guaranteed a year?

If anyone gets the answer to this question, PM me the details.

[davidmurdoch]

My 401k lost 6% last year... and after factoring in inflation and the account maintenance fees I might have been better off playing the lottery.

[datavirtue]

Just about any index fund.

[alvah]

You must be very young. Just about any index fund would have returned ~0% pa from mid 2000 to mid 2013, i.e. not very long ago.

[wrycoder]

Recently. Also, subtract inflation, which has been uncommonly low in recent years.

[nprateem]

10%?! On what planet? Where are you investing to get that kind of return now?