Unpopular Opinion
Welcome to the Unpopular Opinion community!
How voting works:
Vote the opposite of the norm.
If you agree that the opinion is unpopular give it an arrow up. If it's something that's widely accepted, give it an arrow down.
Guidelines:
Tag your post, if possible (not required)
- If your post is a "General" unpopular opinion, start the subject with [GENERAL].
- If it is a Lemmy-specific unpopular opinion, start it with [LEMMY].
Rules:
1. NO POLITICS
Politics is everywhere. Let's make this about [general] and [lemmy] - specific topics, and keep politics out of it.
2. Be civil.
Disagreements happen, but that doesn’t provide the right to personally attack others. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Please also refrain from gatekeeping others' opinions.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Shitposts and memes are allowed but...
Only until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.
5. No trolling.
This shouldn't need an explanation. If your post or comment is made just to get a rise with no real value, it will be removed. You do this too often, you will get a vacation to touch grass, away from this community for 1 or more days. Repeat offenses will result in a perma-ban.
Instance-wide rules always apply. https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/
view the rest of the comments
They still make enough in a year on average that they could do it one year and retire.
Edit: Looks like a bunch of idiots never heard of investing, 2.8m makes you enough interest that you're richer than the median and average, by quite a wide margin.
Do you think someone can retire at 25 with 2.8 million dollars? They'd have about 40k a year to live on, so I guess it'd be technically possible as long as they didn't mind moving back in with their parents, waiting for them to die and hoping the house wasn't worth enough to cause a big tax bill that year.
I'd be hard to retire (in the classical sense) at 60 with 2.8 million.
A very conservative rate of return on investments would be 5% per year. With $2.8M, 5% is $140,000/year. So, someone with $2.8M invested would, conservatively, earn $149K per year without touching the principal.
Rate of return and dividends are not the same thing. Dividend payouts are usually closer to 2-2.5% for an index fund loke the S&P500. At those rates, you'd nees closer to $5 mil/$100k of desired annual income. For the regular stocks, in order to get that money, you'd have to actually sell shares, which means your earning potential off the stock decreases over time (in addition to the buying power of that money decreasing over time as well). It takes about $11 today to buy what would cost $1 in 1960...if we assume a linear trajectory for inflation, that $100k you'd pull in from that $5m would be worth less than $10k by the time our hypothetical athlete reached 75. While I can't see into the future, i don't imagine there will be many job opportunities for a 75 year old who's been out of the job market for 50 years and $10k/year probably won't even be enough to feed themselves.
Interesting. I didn't realize that dividend rates are so much lower than rate of return. Why are they so much lower? Does that mean that your money is only growing at 2-2.5% in an index fund or does that mean that your investment is growing at the same time as you are taking out a portion of your returns as a dividend?
I'm just starting to learn about investing as I try to shift some of my savings towards long-term investments. I think I need to find a fee-based financial planner to get me pointed in the right direction.
First, I'm not qualified or certified to give financial advice. I can't and won't provide any investing advice... Basically, IANAL, but for investing instead of legal stuff.
So, say I start a publicly traded company called Goople. You buy 10 stocks in Goople for $100 per share. So you have $1000 total in Goople stick now. Since I'm a hypothetical business genius, the stock price quickly grows to $150 a share. You now have $1500 in stock value, but you don't get a check for $500... you just have an asset that has grown in value. If you want to get $500 in cash, you'd need to sell some of your shares. Sometimes, you can buy and sell fractions of stocks, but for this example, we'll say you can only trade full stocks...so at $150/share, you need to sell 4 stocks for $600...you're broker will take a cut and you'll likely have to pay taxes on that $600 so we'll say you end up netting $520. Now you have some cash, and you have 6 shares of stock left. Now, originally, the stock going up $50 meant you made $500 dollars (increase in stock value x shares held). Now, if the stock goes up another $50....you only make $300 because you only have 6 stocks left. Now, even if the market rate stays the same, your absolute earnings have decreased. This is what makes selling stocks to love on untenable... the more stocks you sell, the slower your returns grow. Dividends are when the company pays you a quarterly or annual payment based on the stocks you own and the performance of that stock, even if you never sell a share. If the company has a bad quarter or year, you dont get paid either...sonif you're trying to survive off dividends, you (or your broker) need to pay WAY more attention to the company's financials and forecast or you might not have enough money to survive. Usually, companies want to pay the lowest dividends they can because dividends come out of the company's profits. Smaller companies that are growing will pay little/no dividends because they want to reinvest that money back into the business to fuel growth. Additionally, many dividend-paying companies are running high debt ratios, so your dividend payments are likely to go down when interest rates increase because the company needs more money to service that debt. Rising intereat rates also make borrowing more expensive for you, so the easiest way to offset those dividend losses - going into debt yourself - is also harder to do.
You are correct and definitely using a conservative estimate, like you said. ETF/index funds have an average return of 7-10 percent according to a quick search. These are often considered one of the safest investments you can possibly make, too.
Returns aren't dividends. You can only capitalize those returns by selling your shares, which decreases the rate at which your portfolio grows and incurs additional tax liability.
Yea but the point is that you get 140,000 dollars of return per year on 2 million dollars principal. You can easily cover the taxes and live pretty comfortably from that. You don't need to grow your portfolio at that point if you don't want to.
You could go the route of investing in stocks with dividends, as well. Most people who live off of their investment returns do a mix of both.
You have to sell 140k worth of stock each year to get that much. That means that each year, you have fewer stock, so you see a diminishing return on that.
What? Maybe I am missing something, but I don't think so.
You start with 2 million. You make 140,000 profit and have 2,140,000 total. You sell 140,000. You still have 2 million to make another 140k next year.
You are just using your profit immediately and keeping your portfolio the same as your initial investment. It doesn't diminish, it just doesn't grow because you are using the profits for expenses.
You have the same amount of money invested in the market, yes... but you have fewer shares. If you have 100 shares and the stock price goes up $5 per share, you made $500. Then, you sell 10 shares to access that money, and now, if the stock goes up $5 again, you only make $450. If you want to keep your income the same, you're gonna decrease your share amount each year...if you wanna maintain your actual spending power, it's gonna go down even faster.
I see what you are saying. I'm not saying that investing all of your money in index funds and then selling your profits every year is by any means the smartest way to invest money. It was more just to illustrate how easy it is to make profit with the kind of money that NFL players are given, even if their careers are short.
What about the rest of that article, which said the median was 860k?
They would have to risk more than 3 years of damage to even get the 40k
Construction workers have to risk 40 years of damage to get the same amount of money.
40k is if you're dumb enough to keep an that money in the chequing account
Maybe the construction workers deserve more money?
Edit: It is also worth mentioning that if the median salary is 860k, and the minimum salary is 870k at one year, what are your chances for making that 3 years in comparison to making 40 as a construction worker?
Average career length in the NFL is 3.3 years
After making hundreds of thousands for a year or two you can still retire safely and live off the interests. 2.8m gets you 140k/year, you don't need that much to live, even with 1m in the bank you're safely making an extra 50k/year (about median US salary), allowing you to pretty much choose to take whatever side job you want no matter the salary to end up more comfortable than the vast majority of the population.
Go be a football player then, if you have it all figured out.
Personally, with 80% going bankrupt after 3 years, I don't like those odds
Because they're basically kids who get money thrown at them in a system that encourages them to spend it on stupid shit.
"Go Be A fOoTbAlL pLaYeR tHeN!"
Hey bud, I would gladly work a job where I make 800k/year for a year or two and retire if I had the competences, not everyone can become an NFL player, but I sure as hell could manage their money better than most do!
I would too. It's just that the job you described doesn't exist, and all I'm saying is that it's not that simple.
Even if it did, and there was an 80% chance I would end up bankrupt, I wouldn't play those odds.
Except it's not the bankrupt lottery. You don't just get money and then have an 80 percent chance to lose it. How you choose to manage the money is what really affects whether you go bankrupt, or not.
All that the 80 percent figure shows is that NFL players have a poor education on money management, just like the vast majority of young Americans. NFL players are usually just beginning adulthood. We all know that if you give most young adults a large sum of cash that they will probably mismanage it and spend it on frivolous things.
If the NFL and teams actually cared about the players and the 80 percent bankruptcy, they could fix it by educating them on money management.
https://byjus.com/free-ias-prep/difference-between-de-facto-and-de-jure/
But yeah. Along with take care of their healthcare.
Ever heard of... Investing your money?