|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted July 28, 2010 06:35 PM |
|
|
JJ:
Quote:
You are like a smoker who says, I'm not smoking because I'm addicted, NO. I smoke because it tastes so fine. And while the addicted will smoke EVERY brand, no matter what, YOU insinst on only smoking that one or two brands that tastes fine, while the rest tastes like crap and if there were only those brands you'd immediately stop.
Nonsense.
It's not nonsense, it's having taste.
As for certificates of deposit, that sounds strange because at least my bank offers much better deals than that.
Quote:
if you want to buy a car - it doesn't get any cheaper than now
Well, that's not quite true. Cars are always improving (albeit slowly), so buying a car in the future, you can be sure that it will probably be a better car.
Quote:
Going into fonds and shares and so on isn't saving, though. It's GAMBLING. It's speculating, and you may make losses as well. The reason is, that you are not "delaying consumption"
But you're not consuming. You're putting that money into other places where you hope it can get you more later, so you can consume more in the future. Sounds like delaying consumption to me.
angelito:
Taxes in Western Europe are ridiculously high. This is nothing new. (Also, buying life insurance is a bad idea.)
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 28, 2010 07:37 PM |
|
|
Quote:
It's not nonsense, it's having taste.
Not so. It's just clinging to an illusion.
Quote:
As for certificates of deposit, that sounds strange because at least my bank offers much better deals than that.
Try this
http://dynamisch.vergleich.de/vergleich/termingeld/vergleich?Variante=produktempfehlung5
leftmost is call money, middle is time money, right is certificates.
Quote:
Quote:
if you want to buy a car - it doesn't get any cheaper than now
Well, that's not quite true. Cars are always improving (albeit slowly), so buying a car in the future, you can be sure that it will probably be a better car.
And that's true for computers even more so.
I on't think that matters, though.
Quote:
Quote:
Going into fonds and shares and so on isn't saving, though. It's GAMBLING. It's speculating, and you may make losses as well. The reason is, that you are not "delaying consumption"
But you're not consuming. You're putting that money into other places where you hope it can get you more later, so you can consume more in the future. Sounds like delaying consumption to me.
But that wasn't the point.
The initial point was, there's comsumption, there is saving, and there is investing.
If you save you delay consumption to comsume later, while your money may actually be used by someone else to consume or invest.
If you invest, you generally try to actively use money to make money. That has nothing to do with saving and delayed comsumption because that's money not planned for consumption at all.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 28, 2010 08:39 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Not so. It's just clinging to an illusion.
Then you're such a consumerist you can't even tell the difference. 
Quote:
http://dynamisch.vergleich.de/vergleich/termingeld/vergleich?Variante=produktempfehlung5
leftmost is call money, middle is time money, right is certificates.
That 2.25% is greater than this, which says Germany's annual inflation is 0.934%.
Quote:
I on't think that matters, though.
Why not?
Quote:
The initial point was, there's comsumption, there is saving, and there is investing.
If you save you delay consumption to comsume later, while your money may actually be used by someone else to consume or invest.
If you invest, you generally try to actively use money to make money. That has nothing to do with saving and delayed comsumption because that's money not planned for consumption at all.
No, investment is a form of saving. If you delay your consumption to consume later, that money may be used by someone to consume (or invest) now, regardless of whether you put it in a bank or in stocks. If you're investing, you're delaying your consumption in the hopes of greater consumption later. The only difference as from putting the money in the bank (as far as the saver is concerned) is the amount of risk and return.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 28, 2010 09:10 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Not so. It's just clinging to an illusion.
Then you're such a consumerist you can't even tell the difference.
The difference is that you have no point, explaining where the difference is supposed to be.
Quote:
which says Germany's annual inflation is 0.934%.
That's the JUNE 10 Inflation rate. We had 2.6% in 08 and 0.4 in 09 due to the crisis which led to steep price drops in some areas. Since then the rate is going up constantly and is expected to hit the 2-percent margin at the end of the year - tendency, going up.
Of course the EZB lowered interest rate to 1% and is expected to raise it next year again, but then inflation rate is expected zo rise even more.
Anyway, the fact is, saving doesn't earn you money - the banks are just paying you the inflationary loss - if any.
At this point, it would be OBVIOUSLY folly to buy long term certificates.
Quote:
Quote:
I on't think that matters, though.
Why not?
Because that's the case with all things. Since the next model will always be better, following that logic you could wait forever.
Quote:
No, investment is a form of saving. If you delay your consumption to consume later, that money may be used by someone to consume (or invest) now, regardless of whether you put it in a bank or in stocks. If you're investing, you're delaying your consumption in the hopes of greater consumption later. The only difference as from putting the money in the bank (as far as the saver is concerned) is the amount of risk and return.
*Sigh* But that difference is a QUALITY difference. When you SAVE your money, you can COUNT on that money - even if your bank breaks down, there's a bank insurance. Before you lose your SAVINGS (nowadays) the possibility to consume anything would vanish, so you wouldn't need that money anymore.
You can make a reliable plan, let's say a basic sum for getting the loan to buy a house or a car: you KNOW what you have and what you get.
If you INVEST, though, you canNOT count on anything - that's why you don't make an investment to consume more later on, because you might end with consuming nothing at all.
Of course you MIGHT even say, investment is a form of consumption as well - it has many similarities to gambling.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 28, 2010 10:12 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The difference is that you have no point, explaining where the difference is supposed to be.
The difference is in what your goal is, and thus the amount of pleasure you receive from it is different. I would have no objection if consumerists were just as happy as "true enjoyers", but they aren't.
Quote:
Since then the rate is going up constantly and is expected to hit the 2-percent margin at the end of the year - tendency, going up.
I don't know German, so I don't know what this is, but the interest rate is certainly higher than 2%, so it's beating expected annual inflation.
Quote:
Since the next model will always be better, following that logic you could wait forever.
There are two sources of pleasure in buying consumer goods - the feeling of owning "the best" and/or "the new" (that is, the consumerist's pleasure) and the feeling of using something good. When things start loading slowly and you can't run the programs you want, then buying a new computer makes sense at that moment, even though they'll get better in the future. But it makes no sense to buy a top-of-the-line computer every three months or so, even if you can afford it.
Quote:
When you SAVE your money, you can COUNT on that money - even if your bank breaks down, there's a bank insurance.
And that partially explains why interest rates are so low - because the risk is tiny. (Still, it is riskier - not to mention more frictional - to keep money in the bank.)
Quote:
If you INVEST, though, you canNOT count on anything - that's why you don't make an investment to consume more later on, because you might end with consuming nothing at all.
Sure, you can count on something - depending on how you invest. Bonds, index funds, mutual funds - all are somewhat risky but reliable in the long run. One can comfortably save for retirement that way. Sure, you MIGHT end up with nothing, but that's relatively unlikely, and the increased returns make up for it.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 28, 2010 10:54 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
The difference is that you have no point, explaining where the difference is supposed to be.
The difference is in what your goal is, and thus the amount of pleasure you receive from it is different. I would have no objection if consumerists were just as happy as "true enjoyers", but they aren't.
And you know that because? You have any reason to believe that?
Quote:
Since then the rate is going up constantly and is expected to hit the 2-percent margin at the end of the year - tendency, going up.
I don't know German, so I don't know what this is, but the interest rate is certainly higher than 2%, so it's beating expected annual inflation.
The link isn't working, so I don't know which offer you mean. Everything exceeding a certain time span must be significantly higher than the projected inflation to because not only will you lose, when inflation increases later on, you will lose higher interest rates as well. If you delay 10.000 € for one year and get 2%, you get 200 € after that year. Considering, that your 10.000 may buy you only 9850 € - why did you delay at all? The win is marginal.
Look, the only reason to SAVE is to
a) put money away for old age
b) avoid taking a loan and pay HIGH interest rates
If interest rates are low there is no reason to avoid taking a loan.
Quote:
Quote:
Since the next model will always be better, following that logic you could wait forever.
There are two sources of pleasure in buying consumer goods - the feeling of owning "the best" and/or "the new" (that is, the consumerist's pleasure) and the feeling of using something good. When things start loading slowly and you can't run the programs you want, then buying a new computer makes sense at that moment, even though they'll get better in the future. But it makes no sense to buy a top-of-the-line computer every three months or so, even if you can afford it.
Don't you see that "when things start loading slowly" means, you always buy the newest programs. Why would THAT make sense? You could play Homm 3 or 4 depending on your preferences your whole life after all.
There is no "sense" in this, other than either necessity (you need stuff for your work and have to upgrade) or "fun", but fun is fun, no matter whatmakes you have fun.
Quote:
Quote:
When you SAVE your money, you can COUNT on that money - even if your bank breaks down, there's a bank insurance.
And that partially explains why interest rates are so low - because the risk is tiny. (Still, it is riskier - not to mention more frictional - to keep money in the bank.)
There is no risk putting money in the bank.The risk of having it at home is higher.
Quote:
Quote:
If you INVEST, though, you canNOT count on anything - that's why you don't make an investment to consume more later on, because you might end with consuming nothing at all.
Sure, you can count on something - depending on how you invest. Bonds, index funds, mutual funds - all are somewhat risky but reliable in the long run. One can comfortably save for retirement that way. Sure, you MIGHT end up with nothing, but that's relatively unlikely, and the increased returns make up for it.
That's what the bankers said before 2001, and that's what they said again in 2004, until 2009.
Investing involves a high risk, and the main point is, that you have absolutely no control over value devbelopment - you just cannot count on something. That means, no matter what you say, that you cannot plan any consumption of that money - you may, for example, WANT to, but can't since the actual situation doesn't advise selling - you are in a loss situation.
Therefore INVESTED money is gambling money - it is, however, a good way to put money away for old age, especially when you know your way a little bit around.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 28, 2010 11:43 PM |
|
|
Quote:
And you know that because? You have any reason to believe that?
Because while I am familiar with the pleasure of getting something new, the pleasure of having it is greater.
Quote:
Don't you see that "when things start loading slowly" means, you always buy the newest programs. Why would THAT make sense?
It really doesn't, which is why I still use Office 2003. But sometimes files from new programs are incompatible with the older version, in which case the new version is necessary.
Quote:
That's what the bankers said before 2001, and that's what they said again in 2004, until 2009.
And they were right then, and they're right now. Sure, it's not 100% dependable, but you can still count on it.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted July 29, 2010 12:18 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Anyway, even at 45.5K per year I think it's still possible. At 45K per year I would be saving probably around 20-25K per year,
This is where we (JJ and me) probably have difficulties to compare it with Germany.
When you did that tax thread, I was thinking that the tax in Germany was higher than the US, but not by a lot.
Anyway, we were just throwing around rough numbers to illustrate a point. The point is that becoming a millionaire is not some imaginary fantasy. It's not an illusion created by propaganda. It's not something that you have to go to extremes to attain. It's not something that requires super luck or winning the lottery. All it requires is for a normal person to have a decent salary and the ability to save money.
For the record, when I crunched the numbers I just used a rule of thumb of 75%. For many years I used 70-75% as a rule of thumb and it was pretty close. Maybe that's a little off with an income of $45K. Using rough numbers, 75% comes to around 34K take home pay. So even if the taxes are off, whatever income gets a take home pay of 34k is still something very realistic for the average person.
I said I would save 20-25K. With a 34K take home pay, to save 20K means I live on 13K. That's very very realistic. With 13K I could probably even save some money. To save 25K is a little more difficult. That means living on 8K which is getting pretty low. The most obvious way to make up the difference is to get a roommate instead of living by myself.
btw, In the tax thread (my 3rd post) take home pay was 71% for an income of 68K. So the numbers I used for 45.5k are probably reasonably close.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 29, 2010 08:28 AM |
|
|
@MvassQuote:
Because while I am familiar with the pleasure of getting something new, the pleasure of having it is greater.
Yeah, well, so? For you it may be greater, but that doesn't mean it is greater for everyone OR that you are normal and everyone else feeling different is not.
I already mentioned that seeing things from the viewpoint of what you throw away or don't use anymore is a much more interesting perspective: everytime you replace something that is still perfectly working, you are guilty of consumerism.
Quote:
Sure, it's not 100% dependable, but you can still count on it.
You can't, because you have no control. Your money is left to the vagaries of market, general economic development and whatnot, and you cannot count on having a certain sum available at a certain point. In short - you can't calculate with it, except that you can say, ok, in 20 years chances are I have somewhat more, whicch should obviously be the case, bcause in 20 years prices will have doubled as well. You know, Mvass, there ARE those people out there who really lose moneyy with fonds and shares and stuff.
@ Binabik
http://www.karl-braeuer-institut.de/files/20363/Sonderinformation_Nr._61.pdf
While this is in German, there are a couple of tables in there, comparing a couple of countries, the difference should be obvious.
The first thing is - your saving plan can't work for families with children, right? Which means, if the plan is to work for everyone, humanity will be dying out.
Anyway, you pay less taxes and stuff when you are married, and even less when you have children - but then you have more expenses as well.
The AVERAGE SINGLE person in the USA pays roundabout 30% taxes and so on; the average GERMAN SINGLE pays 52.5% of the same, and this is WITHOUT sales tax. Adding sales tax, with 11% in the US and 19% in Germany, there's an even bigger difference. And if you have a car - fuel taxes in Germany are somewhat higher than in the US.
If you take an average of 40.000 bucks, the US single keeps 28.000, while the German single keeps 19.000. That's a 9.000 bucks difference, and I daresay that prices in Germany are somewhat higher: a litre fuel costs 1.40, which makes the gallon 5.30. Glas of open wine in a normal restaurant, lowest category, 4.00. Eating in a restaurant, if you don't go for a fast pizza, expect 25.00 per person - and that isn't something special.
Rent: If you are single you may want something like 60 sqm. 400 € a month - without water, heating. electricity, gas, phone, internet and so on -, and that's cheap. A smaller apartment isn't much cheaper - even a single room thing will go for not much under 300.
Of course you don't HAVE to go to the restaurant - but if you want to live on a somewhat healthy diet, tough luck. Prices for fruit and vegetables have skyrocketed somewhat. You wouldn't believe what simple stuff like potatoes cost, but you can eat a lot of very cheap meat, which I wouldn't advise to. Strawberries - good ones, not the sorts breed for longer duration and hardness that are imported (we are in the season now), 5.00 the kilo, gone up to 6.00 now, since we are nearing the end.
Life has become EXPENSIVE within the last 10 years, and with 19.000 bucks per year, which equals to short of 1.600 a month, you may be able to save something, but if you save more than 3.000 per year, you are really a candidate for secretary of finances.
In the US the problem is somewhat different, since 20% of the people earn less than 19.000 bucks a year (figures from 2007. However, the average is at 40.000 as well (men at 45.000, women at 35.000).
So admitting a leftover of 28.000 bucks in the US I can imagine a possible 15.000 bucks savings per year.
However - and that's a big however:
1) If a lot of people would do that, there'd be a steep drop in children and a steep drop in economy, devaluating the saved money: no one buys something, so no one wants money, jobs are lost and poverty comes in,
Which means, while the system may allow an average person to become a millionaire in, let's say 40 years, this has to be limited to individual and rare occurences, because the system would die otherwise.
2) Why becoming a millionaire at all, if you live 40 years off of nothing?
Because in Germany the pension is contained in the 21.000 we pay from the 40.000, so basically there is no need to save extra for old age.
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted July 29, 2010 09:10 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I said I would save 20-25K. With a 34K take home pay, to save 20K means I live on 13K. That's very very realistic. With 13K I could probably even save some money.
To live on 13k a year? I pay 1k (EURO!!) rent a month for my house. That's already 12k a year.
How can you live with est. 1k a month including rent, car, insurance, food etc.?
Even the oil price has gotten to a pretty high level (from american point of view), while in europe it is still around 5 times higher.
Don't you have to pay a rent for your house?
You don't have a car?
No insurances?
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 29, 2010 10:29 AM |
|
|
There is another problem, though. Social contacts.
MOST people having a "decent" income (meaning, in the range we talk about), are NOT trying to save themselves to millionaire. Social activities with them involve expenses: you meet for a dinner somwhere, birthday parties, gaming evenings and so on, and if those evenings are with you, you don't serve water from the tap and some hardtack, d you? Nor do you suggest a dinner meeting at Burgerking's for a 99er.
This will result invariably in finding NEW friends with the same life-style than you - which is of course way easier, when you leave your parental home and move into to somewhere far away, giving up all your old friends anyway.
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted July 29, 2010 11:07 AM |
|
|
Well, I'm tired and don't want to get into too much detail. (plus OSM needs to be taken in very small doses and I'm already way over my monthly dose - so I'm due to disappear for a month or so )
Angelito, to answer you I should probably do some research to give more accurate numbers. But I think 1k Euro per month would get a nice house here in a nice suburb. That would be something like 1500-2500 sq feet (139-232 sq m) plus a basement, 2 car garage and 1/2 acre (2000 sq m) lot.
In this video, after he makes the right turn he points the camera to the left. The houses you see are the type I'm talking about. I think 1k Euro might even get a nicer house than those.
Like I said, I should do a little research because my guesses could be way off. I own a house and I moved in this house when I moved back here from California. It's been over 20 years since I paid rent in this area. I think my last apartment rent in California was $435 per month (in 1999). The prices in California vary a LOT, so if you've heard about high prices there, it wasn't like that where I lived.
Btw, in that video, the people owning those houses would be nurses, older teachers, engineers, older tradesmen (plumbers, electricians, mechanics, etc), military officers, accountants, older police, etc.
I'm really tired, so maybe I'll get back to this tomorrow.
see here and here
@JJ, social contacts? No. They might just go home and work in the yard.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted July 29, 2010 11:43 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I think you are the one who don't understand. people who seriously complain about work don't do it because they want to become rich sitting on their butt... work is a cause for many of world problems.
health problems, from tiredness and stress to more serious illness
psychological problems due to pressure at work, or simply the alienation due to a repetitive task for example. work makes people stupid.
deterioration of social life, due to people becoming stupid and to the education learning you that life is competition.
by extension, defection from political life, due to people having lost their ability to think AND not having enough time for it anyway, since they are spending their time working their ass off.
and of course, critical environmental problems due to industrials wanting to keep selling mass of useless items. producing something doesn't only involve the work of some people, but also, a lots of pollution, and often, the utilisation of that item will also cause pollution.
and the system actually encourages people to contribute to that disaster : if you want to be happy, buy stuffs, if you want to buy stuffs, work harder that way more stuffs are produced. if you want them, work even harder.
notice also that the "miracle" solution to "save the world" usually is to "relaunch the economy" which basically means polluting more and brainwashing people.
and seriously, you can just laugh when people so concerned about economy talk about ecology, because they can't care less about the future of the planet, the only thing they see is how much money they can save thanks to ecology on the long term. (I read Paul Aries who just slaughters the pseudo-ecologist. guys who try to look respectable but only care about their own interests)
Best post in this topic, if you ask me.
"Working hard" seems to be some sort of obsession for many people. I don't want to generalize, but American folk usually seem to follow that line (Bin, Elodin, well technically Mvass doesn't really qualify but... )
All of them seem to ignore the fact that "working hard" isn't something to be proud of in modern ages. Yes, I agree, it's nice to be able to live as you like, not ask for money, earning it instead. But why the praise on the HARD part? Since ages we work as humanity to give a better life to everyone. How on earth working HARD most of your life fits that? Working HARD makes your work not enjoyable, unless you are a masochist. The constant weariness, the lack of energy after a whole day's work (HARD work means burning your energy through your 8-10hours of work time, obviously.. if you don't feel tired after that, you don't work hard, period.) means your social life, private hobbies, start to diminish, because you're exhausted and thinking about eating and sleeping, mostly.
This turns you into an amoeba, which lives to work. The amount of time and energy you have left each day is too slow to develop YOURSELF. Your knowledge, hobbies, wisdom. You are a corporate slave, you know nothing but the little job you're doing every day, the same traffic jams which consume another big chunk of your life, and the same old 4 walls in which you eat, sleep and watch TV. No room for creativity. Working HARD should be NOT condemned because it KILLS us, reducing us to work robots. Unless you see nothing wrong with that, I think you should reconsider your praise.
Oh, and if you start telling me how hard you work while STILL being able to develop yourself... that just means you're not working hard and you're praising something you're not doing. Or you're a cyborg. One or the other, you shouldn't do it
As for the saving part..Lol. Again, assuming I will not emigrate (I will, but let's assume I won't), I can earn around 600-800 euro per month in Poland in the first ten years of my work. This is because employers look for EXPERIENCE and only for that in Poland, this means after a University I offer them nothing they want, hence the low payment... also, I'm expendable. Because in Poland, percentage of people finishing colleges is huge. Getting someone like me, willing to work for LESS isn't a problem when most people can't find any job at all.
So, I'm stuck with 600-800 (not likely) Euro for the next few years. I have to live somewhere, so if I'm married, I'll probably take a monstrous loan together with my wife, which will consume most of our salaries for most of our life. If I'm not, I won't afford such a debt, so I'll have to rent a flat. Small one. Not small by JJ's standards - 60-70 meters is actually considered quite big here. I'll be stuck with 35-50 meters MAX. If still living in Warsaw, that will cost me 400-500 euro alone. NOT including bills for electricity, water, gas, mobile phone, internet. Keep in mind that I'm left with 200-400 euro now, and if its 400 euro, I'm happy, but that means highest possible salary (unlikely) and a smallest flat (likely, but highly uncomfortable).
Skipping the calculations, I can tell you that the bills take another 100 euro. So now I have 100-300. Assuming I cook for myself, which isn't possible because I have to work and getting from and to work takes a lot of time too, not to mention SHOPPING which also takes a lot of time, I have to pay around 200 euro for food. As you can see, in the worst scenario (a bit better flat, lower salary) I don't have enough to make a living already, and in the best (horrible flat, but good job) all I get at the end of the month is 100 euro.
And that's all I can save, provided I:
- never go to cinema, restaurant, or even a damn coffee since one small cup costs about 2.5 euro
- never buy any games, movie or music (now do you understand piracy in poor western Europe countries, Binabik?)
- never buy clothes, boots, cosmetics, perfumes, which I kinda have to unless I want to stink or wear rags
Which pretty much means I:
Can't afford ANYTHING at all with such a salary and can barely live unless doing some EXTREME money saving on food, clothes and stuff
Can't rent a decent flat if not married, unless I earn above 800 euro per month which is UNLIKELY in the first few years (up to 10 actually)
Basically am forced to marry, or to live with my parents. Or to rent a room because I can get one for 100 euro, but come on, I'd rather live with my parents than with strangers.
What are our top capitalist agents' solutions for life in my country? Mvass? Bin? Elodin? Come on, tell me how can we get rich here without relying on our parents, luck or extraordinary job (but getting one falls under the LUCK category). Tell me how "hard" work makes it any BETTER. And yes, even in a scenario where my job is pretty light, I still don't have time OR money to afford doing my hobbies. Wanna ride a bike? oops, it costs another 250 euro... if you don't mind riding the cheapest, most crappy model offered. Wanna go to a theatre? too bad it's 10 euro which is 10% of what you are left with at the end of the month... optimistically. Wanna box? 25 euro per month fee in the club, plus gloves, gear, nutrition... and where will I get spare three-four hours if I work HARD ?
Not that I have the energy to train after HARD working anyway...
Idk guys, to me, it's not possible to implement your ideology in my situation. It just doesn't work, as you can see.
but feel free to comment.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 29, 2010 11:53 AM |
|
|
For living space, let me add, that my example is considering the fact that in Germany SMALL flats are more expensive in terms of sqm price than bigger ones. If you HAVE money to spare at all - and that as the prerequisite, obviously, because otherwise it makes no sense anyway, then it is dumb to rent a one-room flat with a kitchenette and a shower cab for 300, when you can have a 2-room with a real kitchen and a bath for 400.
Of course, with more limited assets, you may HAVE to go for the cheaper flat no matter what, but saving yourself to millionaire in that case...
I mean, seriously, why stick to living your life in a shoebox, just to die as a millionaire? Makes no sense to me.
EDIT:
Oh, and DF - just get 3 jobs, one of them offering you a chance to sleep a couple hours. See, with just a little bit of effort and initiative you can come to at least 2000 a month saving everything except, well, say 200 for food and clothing, since with 3 jobs you don't need a flat, being either on the job or in a bus, that will allow you to save 20.000 bucks a year, and with interest you'll be a millionaire in, well, 25 years, considering that you will earn more after ten years.
There you are - just a little goodwill and effort, and voila.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted July 29, 2010 11:55 AM |
|
|
100 euro is often all you have left, so a shoebox might be the only choice... provided you call it a "choice" in the first place
edit: awesome plan  
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted July 29, 2010 12:17 PM |
|
Edited by angelito at 12:18, 29 Jul 2010.
|
Quote:
Angelito, to answer you I should probably do some research to give more accurate numbers. But I think 1k Euro per month would get a nice house here in a nice suburb. That would be something like 1500-2500 sq feet (139-232 sq m) plus a basement, 2 car garage and 1/2 acre (2000 sq m) lot.
This is round about what my house looks alike. Just the garden is a bit smaller. But the reason why I "only" pay 1,000 Euro a month for that house is, I live pretty far outside of a bigger city. The same house in Munich would probably cost 2,500 Euro. We don't have a bus driving through our small town (650 inhabitants) and the next bigger cities are 15-20 km away. This is the reason I can afford such a house for my family at all. I drive 1 hour to get to my office, and no my car isn't that slow
So I guess a nurse in New York City will have a much harder time to become a millionaire than a nurse in Wyoming, right? Just because the living costs are so different.
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 29, 2010 12:37 PM |
|
|
Out of interest, angelito, is that 1 K "cold" or "warm" (cold, I suppose).
____________
"Nobody dies a virgin ... Life f*cks us all." - Kurt Cobain
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted July 29, 2010 03:00 PM |
|
|
It is warm.
- 700 rent
- 110 ancillary rental costs (Nebenkosten)
- 100-150 heating oil (depends on current price of course)
- 45 electricity
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 29, 2010 05:06 PM |
|
|
DF:
Poland isn't a rich country, so it's unrealistic to expect an American standard of living there.
600-800 Euros a month? That's extremely low. That's $9421-$12561 a year. No one in America makes that little money.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted July 29, 2010 05:51 PM |
|
|
Quote:
600-800 Euros a month? That's extremely low. That's $9421-$12561 a year. No one in America makes that little money.
Lol mvass. How about you just look outside of your "everybody is rich in america" window and face reality? If you have a GDP of 45,ooo$ a year (2009), there have to be people who earn much less, because you have plenty of people who earn much more.
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
