|
|
|
|
|
by lotsofpulp
1600 days ago
|
|
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. |
|