Almost nobody in my workplace invests in the stock market for their retirement, it's insane.

eskbanker

Kotokos said:

eskbanker said:

^ Too much information....

maybe so but absolutely true, countless many folk like that in Thailand, my girl taught herself to read and write because her parents couldn't afford to send the bairns to school on a full time basis, she loved going to school but she had to work the land for her parents, starvation wasn't uncommon either, resorted to eating monkeys, snakes, lizards, rats and such. 

Nobody's challenging that, my point was simply that even if you feel the need to go beyond specifying a rough age and instead highlighting a phase of human development, there's really no need to venture into detail about exactly what that entails (we've all been through it and know that already).

Barkin

subjecttocontract said:

 I think a lot of younger people know they have something significant coming their way and live accordingly.

My brother-in-law thought that and it seems that's the sum total of his financial "planning" 

We're in the process of selling FIL's house to pay his nursing/care home fees... 

ZeroSum

subjecttocontract said:

A major factor today that wasn't around for most in the 1960/70's is inheritance. I think a lot of younger people know they have something significant coming their way and live accordingly.

Don't think it is, as with longer life expectancy they might not get it until 70's and care home fees can wipe most of it out.
And the people I know who live like there's no tomorrow, will have very little inheritance as their parents had very little 

kippo1

Many people see pensions and investing as gambling and won't do it.
I watched tipping point the other night and the jackpot counter was on the bottom shelf hanging over the edge you could of sneezed and it would of dropped for the £10000 but the person wouldn't gamble his £3000 winnings in case he lost.

masonic

kippo1 said:

Many people see pensions and investing as gambling and won't do it.
I watched tipping point the other night and the jackpot counter was on the bottom shelf hanging over the edge you could of sneezed and it would of dropped for the £10000 but the person wouldn't gamble his £3000 winnings in case he lost.

In fairness that is a much more difficult decision as there's a realistic probability of losing everything.

Bostonerimus1

My mum and dad lived through the Depression and WWII and their finances were based on thrift, a life insurance policy, bank saving accounts and paying off the mortgage asap, but they also had generous non-contributory DB pensions and so were comfortable in retirement. That's just not possible for most people today.

I began investing after college, at age 25, with thrift and safety in mind so I chose a "deferred annuity" that guaranteed 3% minimum growth, but it's max annual return has been 6%. That is far less growth than in stocks and shares over the last 35 years. When I changed jobs that "deferred annuity" wasn't available and so I used index funds after reading about Jack Bogle's investing philosophy. I had disposable income and so I quickly maxed out my contributions and only reduced them slightly when I got married and a mortgage. Using mostly equity index funds I've averaged 9% annual return for the last 35 years. So given my experience I'd strongly recommend investing in low cost equity index funds and starting asap and putting as much as you can into them. But that's using hindsight and who knows what the next 30 years will bring - I'm still invested in the same way now that I'm retired so we'll see.