Bitcoin Forum
December 16, 2017, 07:34:53 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 [3]  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Why Bitcoin might soon make your 401k obsolete  (Read 2525 times)
ShakyhandsBTCer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 448


It's Money 2.0| It’s gold for nerds | It's Bitcoin


View Profile
June 28, 2014, 04:21:19 PM
 #41

I'm not liquidating my retirement fund in favor of bit coin just yet, but as my purchasing power shrinks over time it might be something worth thinking about. It is just too new to put all of my eggs into one basket just yet.

If your purchasing power is shrinking you're doing it wrong. It has been the best stock market in the last 5 years and almost a challenge to not compound faster than inflation..
This will not continue to be the case as QE has influenced returns greatly. This would also not apply to you if you were to able to invest additional amounts into the market over the last 5 years (or large amounts as a percentage of your total portfolio). If you are decades into your career then you would hopefully have a substantial retirement fund saved as of 5 years ago, so the new money that you contribute will do well but the rest would not as a lot of the returns would simply be recovering the losses from the bear market
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1513409693
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513409693

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513409693
Reply with quote  #2

1513409693
Report to moderator
1513409693
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513409693

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513409693
Reply with quote  #2

1513409693
Report to moderator
1513409693
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513409693

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513409693
Reply with quote  #2

1513409693
Report to moderator
DannyElfman
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 406



View Profile
June 28, 2014, 07:27:01 PM
 #42

Problem with 401K is that it's not inflation proof.  Your Grandmother, presumably if she's old enough, likely remembers when she only paid $0.05 for a Coca Cola in a restaurant; whereas today, a Coca Cola costs up to $2 (if not $3 in a bar).  Coca Cola increased 40 to 60 times within generational memory.  The samething will happen to your 401K - it'll decrease in value by 20 to 60 times by the time you collect.


Pensions suffer the same issue too, I might add, unless you have an indexed pension like government workers.  The reality is most of us will probably die from starvation in our old age due to not having any money, unless we manage to keep a job somehow.  

That's the reality of inflation, folks.  Back in the age of prosperity, when currencies did not inflate to the moon, it wasn't uncommon for people to retire in their 50s.  It's a dystopian society if we are working people to death, especially when this is contrasted by all the Paris Hiltons and other capital owning parasites
The price of a soda varies very widely from restaurant to restaurant. The vast majority of restaurants also offer something called "free refills" today, while this was likely not the case when Coca Cola cost $0.05 (fountain drinks technology was not available at this time, and it was always sold in bottles), so when you pay "$2" at a restaurant you are really paying a total of $2 for as many Coca Colas as you drink while you are at the restaurant.

The value of 401k's is based on the investments in the account. It is the goal of these investments to beat inflation. In 1914 the Dow Jones Industrial average (DJIA) was at ~71 (for rounding we can call it 100), as of yesterday the DJIA closed at 16851.84 (call it 16,000 for rounding). This is a return of 160x verses 60x for your soda example (from 5 cents to $3 at a bar). 

This spot for rent.
jonald_fyookball
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260


Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political


View Profile
June 28, 2014, 07:29:22 PM
 #43

Problem with 401K is that it's not inflation proof.  Your Grandmother, presumably if she's old enough, likely remembers when she only paid $0.05 for a Coca Cola in a restaurant; whereas today, a Coca Cola costs up to $2 (if not $3 in a bar).  Coca Cola increased 40 to 60 times within generational memory.  The samething will happen to your 401K - it'll decrease in value by 20 to 60 times by the time you collect.


Pensions suffer the same issue too, I might add, unless you have an indexed pension like government workers.  The reality is most of us will probably die from starvation in our old age due to not having any money, unless we manage to keep a job somehow.  

That's the reality of inflation, folks.  Back in the age of prosperity, when currencies did not inflate to the moon, it wasn't uncommon for people to retire in their 50s.  It's a dystopian society if we are working people to death, especially when this is contrasted by all the Paris Hiltons and other capital owning parasites
The price of a soda varies very widely from restaurant to restaurant. The vast majority of restaurants also offer something called "free refills" today, while this was likely not the case when Coca Cola cost $0.05 (fountain drinks technology was not available at this time, and it was always sold in bottles), so when you pay "$2" at a restaurant you are really paying a total of $2 for as many Coca Colas as you drink while you are at the restaurant.

The value of 401k's is based on the investments in the account. It is the goal of these investments to beat inflation. In 1914 the Dow Jones Industrial average (DJIA) was at ~71 (for rounding we can call it 100), as of yesterday the DJIA closed at 16851.84 (call it 16,000 for rounding). This is a return of 160x verses 60x for your soda example (from 5 cents to $3 at a bar). 

This raises an interesting dilemma... When you assume it's free refills and they double charge you,
do you complain about the bill or let it slide?  Smiley

DannyElfman
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 406



View Profile
July 01, 2014, 04:55:04 AM
 #44

Problem with 401K is that it's not inflation proof.  Your Grandmother, presumably if she's old enough, likely remembers when she only paid $0.05 for a Coca Cola in a restaurant; whereas today, a Coca Cola costs up to $2 (if not $3 in a bar).  Coca Cola increased 40 to 60 times within generational memory.  The samething will happen to your 401K - it'll decrease in value by 20 to 60 times by the time you collect.


Pensions suffer the same issue too, I might add, unless you have an indexed pension like government workers.  The reality is most of us will probably die from starvation in our old age due to not having any money, unless we manage to keep a job somehow.  

That's the reality of inflation, folks.  Back in the age of prosperity, when currencies did not inflate to the moon, it wasn't uncommon for people to retire in their 50s.  It's a dystopian society if we are working people to death, especially when this is contrasted by all the Paris Hiltons and other capital owning parasites
The price of a soda varies very widely from restaurant to restaurant. The vast majority of restaurants also offer something called "free refills" today, while this was likely not the case when Coca Cola cost $0.05 (fountain drinks technology was not available at this time, and it was always sold in bottles), so when you pay "$2" at a restaurant you are really paying a total of $2 for as many Coca Colas as you drink while you are at the restaurant.

The value of 401k's is based on the investments in the account. It is the goal of these investments to beat inflation. In 1914 the Dow Jones Industrial average (DJIA) was at ~71 (for rounding we can call it 100), as of yesterday the DJIA closed at 16851.84 (call it 16,000 for rounding). This is a return of 160x verses 60x for your soda example (from 5 cents to $3 at a bar). 

This raises an interesting dilemma... When you assume it's free refills and they double charge you,
do you complain about the bill or let it slide?  Smiley
What do you mean by double charge me?

Do you mean that the restaurant charges more then they have to charge me? In other words they could charge me $1.50 but charge me $3.00 instead. If this is the case then no I would not say anything as this is their posted price and I have the right to not buy the product (soda in this case) if I so choose.

If you mean that their price is $3.00 for one soda and the server put $6.00 on the bill, then yes I would absolutely say something. There is no reason to pay more for something that what I had agreed to pay. The server would likely be more then happy to remove the extra charge as if she wouldn't then the extra charge would likely come directly out of her tip. 

This spot for rent.
Pages: « 1 2 [3]  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!