In my previous post https://steemit.com/finance/@jdbertron/the-not-so-get-rich-quick-scheme-trading-the-market-from-usd5000-to-usd1m, I claimed saving and investing for retirement is what the experts recommend.
Here's why they're wrong:
It might have been feasible when I was younger to save 5-15% of my income towards investing. By wasting 20 years spending it all, I've put myself in a bind. Starting now with 20 years delay, it would take saving almost all my income to get to the same goal. And clearly, with my track record of average discipline, to achieve the same financial goal I had in my twenties, it would be even harder now to sacrifice more. For example my inability to pass up on little things in life that make life livable - a bottle of wine every now and then, a small family trip - would make it impossible to save today. It might work on paper but I can't ask my kids to make bigger sacrifices than those I didn't make before they were born just so I can reach that financial independence.
The alternative is to accept the fact I won't have much at retirement and will probably end-up greeting your kids at WalMart. The terrible thing is that it means I might become a financial burden to my kids later.
The experts assume once you can save money and invest it, it will grow. The fact is, they don't know that at all. You can slice 100 years of stock market data several ways to show returns of 15% year over year, as well as you can slice it to show periods of 20 years where returns were 0%.
All the people that saved money all their lives for a 15% yearly return might not have reached 1/2 their goal yet, because the economy just tanked. They might have lost as much as 30% of their investments.
So to summarize: I don't have a choice. I have to make that stereotypical million dollar to liberate my family from my burden, and save myself from a miserable retirement.
I have $5000 in the bank. The race is on. I will share my strategies with you.