Confirmed Signing with Link: [PHI] Jordan Weal (1 year, 650k)

[klamla]

Uh... what? How does this matter in terms of raw $?

$10 a day, every day for a week is the same amount of money as $70 on Sunday. It may take a lot more self control and restraint to not blow that $70 immediately, but it doesn't change the amount of money, which is my point.



It's irrelevant when you get the money. The salaried worker at 50k/year for 40 years ends up with the same amount of money in his account as the 200k/year for 10 year AHL player*.

*Again, ignoring tax differences and ignoring the potential for massive compounded investment returns.

I mean, if you want to get technical or use relevant economics/financial theory, it definitely is relevant when you get the money.

Time value of money. A dollar today is worth more than a dollar tomorrow because of inflation/buying capacity. Read up on it if you're interested.

Also, if your argument has such a huge factor taken out of account in order to make it, it kind of hurts your argument overall. Ie. "ignoring potential for massive compounded interests returns."

That in itself would make it very relevant.

 

[CloutierForVezina]

Let me spell this out again for you.

In your scenario (40 year career), your retirement savings only have to pay for about 20 years of retirement (say, ages 65-85).
In the AHL player scenario, retirement savings have to pay for about 50 years of retirement (say, ages 35-85).

The raw amount you need to save for a 20 year retirement is LESS than the raw amount you need to save for a 50 year retirement. That should be painfully obvious to anyone.

But you're not saving the same amount, you're earning the same amount. Those are completely different things.

If you sustain yourself on 40k/year, that means the guy earning 50k/year is saving 10k for 40 years ~= 400k. The guy earning 200k/year is saving 160k a year for 10 years ~= 1.6M. The 400k has to last 20 years and the 1.6M has to last 50 years.

Yes, the numbers will be messier when you include tax differences and retirement accounts and investment returns, but the principle is the same.

I mean, if you want to get technical or use relevant economics/financial theory, it definitely is relevant when you get the money.

Time value of money. A dollar today is worth more than a dollar tomorrow because of inflation/buying capacity. Read up on it if you're interested.

Also, if your argument has such a huge factor taken out of account in order to make it, it kind of hurts your argument overall. Ie. "ignoring potential for massive compounded interests returns."

That in itself would make it very relevant.

I understand time value of money and I ignored it for simplicity's sake.

I was biasing my argument against myself. I was making it look worse than it actually was for the AHL player - this absolutely does not hurt my argument. If we want to take into account the compounded returns from getting 200k/year for 10 years and investing it, it would be absolutely trivial to set up a retirement account that uses even a super conservative 3% safe withdrawal rate that is sustainable indefinitely.

 

[Garbage Goal]

I don't get why people bicker over how well of wealthy people are. 200k every year for ten to fifteen years (and even if he's just an AHL player he should be able to get at least ten in) is enough for any person with financial common sense and respectable intelligence to live off of the rest of their life. Just live within your means like the rest of the world and plan ahead like the rest of the world has to and he'll have no problems whatsoever. If he doesn't want to retire early, which would be a problem, then literally work any freaking job in a first world country where there's minimum wage and somebody will hire him because that's all anybody who had made 200k over ten to fifteen years would ever need after that. Or start your own business or invest with the ridiculous amount of money that is and that compounded savings would be.