What's wrong with people.

Audaxer

longleggedhair wrote: »

most of my money has been invested over the good market run we have had over the last 8 years (although I have now sold out of most of my shares).

Interested to know why you have sold most of your shares? Because you have a good run over 8 years have you decided to capitalise all your gains and move most of the £200k to cash savings? If so it does seem to be overly cautious.

atush

I am unsure about the whole 'london card' people pull.

My son is a young professional new to London. yes it is expensive, but knowing what his salary was before bonus/after tax, he chose to live in Streatham.

Sure he could have choosen somewhere flashier, but he wanted to live within his means. So he lives in south london (sure it is a house share and not his own flat) he has a work pension, he has savings, and is saving more. And he has a pretty great lifestyle.

I imagine buying may be difficult w/o out help but we dont know if he will have a partner earning the same or not. He doesnt need a flash car, he uses public transport and even left his car at home- it now belongs to his younger brother.

I think it depends on how you were raised re attitudes to money. The OP parents didnt have a grip, and that stuck with him. WE taught our kids that even though the income coming intot he house could pay for pensions, university and travel abroad, we didnt get takeouts every night (once every 2 months max) and that we didnt pay 100 quid for trainers or designer stuff.

They didnt like it, but when they went to university (w/o student loans) and had a set amount to live on, they soon knew how to budget and how to live within their means.

If they want a new laptop, a new phone or new expensive trainers - ask for them for xmas or birthday. Now they earn their own money, they arent profligate, and they all have savings and pensions.

So, you learn both good and bad from your parents, and you can live in london as a young professional w/o going to a food bank.

Malthusian

jack_pott wrote: »

Status competition is a zero sum game: it's not how much you have, but whether you have more than the neighbour. The problem is that if the Jones' are only happy when they have a bigger car than the Smiths, and the Smiths are only happy when they have a bigger car than the Jones', then society is locked into a competition to consume more and more when no amount of wealth will make them both happy at the same time.

Which is all well and good until you decide that the solution to this problem is to take both the Jones' and the Smiths' cars away. Success! Now both are equally happy and there is no more wasteful conspicuous consumption. Of course, they can't get to the shops, or have a weekend away in Cornwall, but the idea that people can be made happy by buying goods and services or travelling to nice places is an illusion promoted by the capitalist media.

Where have the cars gone? I don't know, but isn't that a lovely car the Equality Director is driving - and his wife too.

The only thing that makes people more miserable than conspicuous consumption is the alternative.

longleggedhair

Audaxer wrote: »

Interested to know why you have sold most of your shares? Because you have a good run over 8 years have you decided to capitalise all your gains and move most of the £200k to cash savings? If so it does seem to be overly cautious.

I spent week after week post Brexit watching my portfolio increasing by several thousands of pounds (as the supposed meltdown turned into a surge) earlier this year I just thought this can't possibly continue and felt that I should capitalise the gains. I'm still doing the regular monthly investing as I always have but for me there is a little too much heat in the market. It's a personal thing, by and large I always have been a buy and hold person. That strategy has done very well for me over the years-but for the minute I'm waiting it out.

binaryuniverse

So it's easy if you a) don't pay rent/mortgage and b) you were given a starter of 50k. Also guessing at no children?

You'll find that probably some 99% of people, on minimum wage, do not get that luxury.

Whilst I get what you were trying to say about frivilous spending, to claim it is easy, and also believe there is something 'wrong' with people, for not being able to duplicate your achievments is frankly ludicrious, and does reek of sneering, if I'm being bluntly honest.

And, if somebody is on minimum wage, struggling to get by, can you really blame them for buying themselves something nice now and then, in an attempt to make life seem a bit better?

fiisch

atush wrote: »

I am unsure about the whole 'london card' people pull.

Streatham is hugely expensive compared to outer suburbs of Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds for example. Yes, salaries are higher, but not commensurate with higher housing costs.


When he goes to buy a house, not only will the house cost significantly more, associated costs - council tax and stamp duty for example - will be much higher. When he comes to have a family, what then? Will he stay in Streatham, or be looking to re-locate to Coulsdon, Warlingham, Purley, Reigate? Or move further out to leafy Sussex, and pay £6k+ for the annual train fare?


We have often been tempted to move away (my wife is from Herefordshire, for example), but there are more opportunities in and around London for a lot of careers, although with increasing remote working possibilities this may change in the future.

ams25

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/new-study-finds-investment-strategy-is-in-the-genes-78136732.html

Maybe its genetic.

I have a sibling who is the complete opposite to me...when they have money they largely spend it. As they approach pension age with limited provision there is a bit of a "hope for the best' approach. Our parents did not overtly teach personal finance and for reasons I can't explain we are polar opposites in matters financial.

Not saying which is better btw.

[Deleted User]

fiisch wrote: »

I am still only 30 and plenty of time to change my ways and start saving.

The point is that compound interest works against you when you spend then save, but it works in your favour when you save then spend.

[Deleted User]

Malthusian wrote: »

Which is all well and good until you decide that the solution to this problem is to take both the Jones' and the Smiths' cars away.

Who said anything about taking anyone's cars away?

This will get you to work just as efficiently as this, it's just less likely to trump the neighbours car.

AE448

Whilst I understand your thinking and I adopt some aspects of it myself, in a roundabouts way you are no different to those people who spend all their money. So you've saved 200K...but it's just sitting there doing nothing. So you could ask, what's the point in you saving that money? What're you going to do with it between now and the day you die? Those people who have the luxuries...flash cars, fine dining etc. may 'not have any money left' because they've spent it all, but there is a way of thinking that you're only here once. One day they could decide to sell the flash cars, downsize their property and live like a hermit for the rest of their lives and have the same sum of money saved as you have. You were given a property + £50K...that's whats made you. If you didn't have that initially, you would find it a very different world living on minimum wage.