Bug Out Bag / Prepper Setup / Survival-based UL kit and philosophy

Doesn't matter if you earn a lot or a little

If you save 20% of your income and invest it in stock market mutual fund, in 35 years you'll have 25 times your income, and then you can live off the interest

If you save more or less it'll take less or more time

"Doesn't matter if you earn a lot or a little"

With all due respect Jerry…..it does matter.
I can't believe I am having this conversation, but if you barely make it to the end of the month, that 10 or 20% is just not possible.
I only took objection to the statement that everyone can and ought to save money. I will save that many could and don't. Many others work so much to do that …that they do little else in life. Many more battle to just keep afloat.

Smacks of elitism.

Who has seen stable growth lately ?

9/11, the bank collapse, the flirtation with default… All wiped my mutual funds.

To get better returns, Predict the collapse, short some stocks, and profit on the misery of others.

I'm not being elitist Kat, just mathematical.

Yeah, if you have a low paid job it's difficult to live off 80% of it and save 20%. A lot of well paid jobs have disappeared since 2000 which is a problem that needs to be fixed.

There are super well paid people that spend more than they earn and they're stuck having to work forever.

If you earn $40 K and can live off $32K and save $8K, then in 35 years you'll have enough to earn $32K a year off interest.

This assumes the stock market grows 7% more than inflation, which it has the last more than a hundred years. The stock market in the last decade or whatever is consistent with this historical trend.

"The Truth about Mutual Funds" by John Bogel is a pretty good book that talks about this in quite a bit of detail.

If you can save 50% of your income, then it takes only 22 years.

"9/11, the bank collapse, the flirtation with default… All wiped my mutual funds.

To get 35% returns, Predict the collapse, short some stocks, and profit on the misery of others."

Easy for me to say, but in 2000, 2008, and today the S&P 500 is about 1500. Dividends cancelled out inflation. If you were in a low cost S&P 500 mutual fund, you would'nt have lost any money. No 7% growth, but before that, and in the future, it'll grow more and average out to something like 7%.

> 9/11, the bank collapse, the flirtation with default… All wiped my mutual funds.

Sure makes the mattress look like a good place to put your money eh?

"> 9/11, the bank collapse, the flirtation with default… All wiped my mutual funds.

Sure makes the mattress look like a good place to put your money eh?"

If you put your money "under a matress" inflation will kill you

If you put all your money in a bank or other company that went bankrupt then you would have lost your money

If you put your money in a diversified low cost mutual fund like a S&P 500 index fund with for example Vanguard or Fidelity, then all the recent financial nonsense is just part of the historical variation that is unimportant.

> If you put your money in a diversified low cost mutual fund like a S&P 500
> index fund with for example Vanguard or Fidelity, then all the recent financial
> nonsense is just part of the historical variation that is unimportant.

My grandpa always told me never to put all my eggs into one basket.

"My grandpa always told me never to put all my eggs into one basket."

That's why you want an Index fund like S&P 500 – 500 baskets.

"If you put your money "under a matress" inflation will kill you"

If you put your money under a mattress, be careful who you invite over for the night. ;0)

In America, if you can save 50%, they can replace you with someone at half your pay.

If someone can save 20%, they can replace you with someone that will work for 80% of your pay.

The race to the bottom hasn't been great for America.

"In America, if you can save 50%, they can replace you with someone at half your pay.

If someone can save 20%, they can replace you with someone that will work for 80% of your pay.

The race to the bottom hasn't been great for America."

If you let "the free market" run unregulated, then yes, the cost of labor will reduce to the point of subsistence. Like Karl Marx and Rousseau talked about. I just happened to read the Communist Manifesto and Discourse on the Origin of Inequality recently.

After the great plagues killed off a lot of people there was a shortage of labor, pay increased, the whole economy in Europe improved.

Early in the U.S., there was a shortage of labor so wages increased resulting in our amazing prosperity. And after WWII.

Currently, the right wingers seem to have the upper hand somewhat so wealth has been redistributed to the few, but we can change that.

There is a shortage of well trained people, engineers or whatever, so if you get a good education you'll be able to get paid more than subsistance.

Maybe is this right wing wacko hysteria that has overtaken us passes, things will get better

I hesitate following the herd going off topic, but on the other hand I’m concerned someone might read the previously remarkably ideological post and think there’s truth in it. (And, this thread is already hopelessly derailed so I’m not having pangs of conscience saying this.)

The cost of the vast majority of labor has *not* reduced to the point of subsistence in the past century in developed (mostly capitalist) countries–it’s done just the opposite! Unless of course you redefine the fat, opulent lifestyle of developed countries as “subsistence.” One of the great disconfirmations of Marx’s now thoroughly discredited theories (which not even Socialists in good standing attempt to defend) is that the poor did not get poorer in capitalist countries…they got richer; the middle class was born and thrived in capitalist Europe and America, not Soviet Russia. Allowing private capital in the post-Mao mix in China has caused a similar rise of the middle class there. (China, despite being Communist, is also relentlessly capitalistic–the amazing sort of synthesis that the Chinese can pull off.)

And the line about “currently the right wingers seem to have the upper hand…”. In case you’d not noticed, the left wingers have unprecedented control of the US government, and have had it for the past 5 years! Having the left wing in charge has not made the lower or middle class richer, or our society more equivalent. Just the opposite, in fact. The difference between rich and poor has gotten more severe during this administration. (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/10/the-rich-get-richer-through-the-recovery/?_r=1) Soviet Russia was likewise sharply divided into a privileged “governmental ruling class” and the “ruled citizenry,” just as the USA is becoming. Wealth is widely redistributed in the USA, but of course, it’s never enough. I realize leftists need the “right wing boogeyman” as the necessary villain in their morality play, but the political right in the USA is at its lowest nadir in 60 or 70 years, barely clings to power in the House alone, and can do nothing to stop O's "transformation." They may be entirely gone from congress and white house by 2014, and we’ll be back to a single-party system.

Now someone will step in and rap my knuckles for talking politics, but I felt the previous post required a rebuttal. I’ll gladly shut up about politics when everyone else does.

"I get your point and I am aware of people's spending habits. However I find your
"We all have good times and bad times in our lives, the same with finances" to be overly simple and possibly offensive to those that haven't had their fair share of good times, financially and otherwise.
I also work with people that eat out daily and whine that they have no savings, but I am aware that I am not spending time with those that are truly unfortunate."

I honestly do not believe my opinion to be overly simplistic Katharina.

Using myself as an example i've times in my life where i have had to work 3 poorly paid jobs to make ends meet.
This necessitated living in a bedsit, visiting the bakers 30mins before they close to get vastly cheaper bread, buying out of date pasta and rice at the beginning of the month for food and sitting staring out the window at night to try and save electricity.

STILL i managed to put some money aside during those times

If someone is living hand to mouth for years on end then THEY need to do something to change their situation, if work is limited in their area they need to move, if they are getting into debt then they need to stop living beyond their means.
If their medical bills are crippling them, then they should have made sacrifices beforehand to afford private medical insurance.

It's all basic housekeeping and the amount you earn doesn't matter, if your thrifty you should still be able to save a percentage of your earnings.

Personally i could not sleep at night if i didn't have a plan in case i fell ill or lost my job, this is basic fundamental prepping IMO
Keep yourself fit
Have your family eat healthy
Have a good medical plan
Have enough savings/investments aside to see you through at least 6 months
If you can't find a job after 6 months, retrain, move location or have have a attitude adjustment as they're the only 3 reasons i can see sustaining long term unemployment.
A good mate of mine had to quit his job to take care of his Mrs, he retrained and 1 year on is earning more money than he did before and is working from home.

It can be done if you have enough savings to buy you some breathing time so you can think things through

Using yourself as an example still won't cut it as far as addressing people that live in real poverty.
I could use myself too and make an even better point for you, as I make little, work an insane number of hours ( my 40 hour job, 10 or so hours a week for my landlord and another 25 or so sewing and knitting. Plus I cook our meals, clean etc) and so rarely eat out that it seems silly. I don't owe money, don't live beyond my means, eat healthy home cooked meals etc. I could be the poster child ( …) for what you are saying and I used to say the same here on BPL. Now I think there are just too many variables and we are privileged bunch and to go around saying that "everyone" is able to save, is borderline insulting.

The amount you earn does matter.
Maybe you need to hang out with a different crowd for a while.

Marx and Rousseau seemed very simplistic to me. Obviously turning everything over to the state didn't work so well. But they did say some good things.

If you look at wealth distribution, it's got progressively worse since 1930. Like Warren Buffet said, there's class warfare and my (Buffet's) class won.

There are a lot of people that had good jobs in 2000, but who are now not doing so well – maybe not subsistence but going in that direction.

Politicially, the Nadir in recent times was when Goldwater got beat for president. Then the right wingers got together and came up with a strategy that got them progressively more power until now.

Maybe things are turning around now with Obama being elected. But if you look at the House now, they are as as right wing as ever, I think even worse than when Gnewt was Speaker. The Democrats did get Obamacare passed which they have been trying to do since the 1930s, but otherwise there have been no liberal programs.

The left wingers had unprecedented control of the US government when FDR was president and when LBJ was pushing through all his programs.

I think you've let your conservative bias effect your views of how things are today.

"The amount you earn does matter."

I think you're right, saving 20% of what you earn doesn't work for everyone.

Some people are in a position where it's not possible to work three jobs or get re-trained. Government safety net is a good thing in some situations.

But, I worked as engineer and a lot of my co-workers had all the latest gadgets, spent all their income or more, and they'll be working until they drop dead. And that's okay, a lot of people refuse to "retire" because they enjoy working. I liked working for the most part. I like not working even better : )

I get that Jerry. I also know plenty of people that live well, and well beyond their means, then whine all the time. It is frustrating and you just want to take out pen and paper and do some math for them. Those, and even those with modest incomes that spend too much and borrow, are not the people I am talking about that cannot save.

I’m not a political scientist, economist, or any other kind of social scientist. I am merely a photographer. So, I’m open to being wrong the musings I put forth below.

I think we can all agree that the purpose of ideologies is noble: They aim at guiding governing policy so that the largest number of people will benefit. Their aim, I should hope, is to increase social well being.

Sadly, ideologues get so caught up in their ideas that they forget to check them against reality. For example, the fanatic-right tends to idealize free markets so much they leave greed unchecked. Conversely, the fanatic-left tends to idealize regulation so much it creates micro-managing bureaucracies.

Science looks at commonly observable facts and creates theories about how these observations occur and interact. Pseudo-science creates a theory and tortures observations to fit the theory. Until now we haven’t had extensive data on happiness, well being, health and prosperity. So all ideologies are, to varying degrees, pseudo-scineces. They have not had extensive, global, hard data to to support or deny their positions.

This is why I find the UN’s World Happiness Report so fascinating. It is a serious attempt to understand happiness and well- being on a global scale. It provides quantifiable data that can be used to improve human well-being around the world.

I’ve only been able to skim through it but there are a couple of things that stand out, at least in its’ opening arguments. First is that subjective happiness has objective, positive repercussions on society at large. Second, that it would appear that access to health care is an important factor contributing to well-being (duh!), but the means of access is not. For example Denmark (this reports’ #1) uses a mandate model and Costa Rica (last reports’ #1) uses a state run health system parallel to a private market.

It would seem to me that when ideologies become idiotologies we all loose. When we loose sight of the goal of general well-being because we want our favorite pseudo-science to win then we lose again. Furthermore, we lose when our ego’s prevent us from seeing reality and our reality becomes idiotological vapor.

> But they did say some good things.

Exactly. Good oratory is often a precursor for really bad political results and widespread suffering. Marx, Lenin, Hitler, Mao, and unmentioned others were (or are) all awesome socialist orators. But socialism is without doubt the most deadly form of modern government. The vast majority of genocides from the past century were perpetrated by socialist rulers: Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pot, Sung, Mariam. That short list totals 100 million dead. No non-socialist leaders even come close.

Your history of disparity is far too short; humans have almost always lived under a system where the many labored for the few, from the Pharaohs on down through thousands of years of history. The masses (to which I belong) have gotten much, much more of the pie in the last 100 years, compared to previous history. The real danger is letting the power revert back to the political class, which is happening even now. Our government is getting more powerful, more controlling, more intertwined with business, and the legislators are getting richer and more untouchable. Give the power back to the citizens.

Wrong on conservative history, also. Goldwater was the beginning of a resurgence. The right was at another "super" low (as now) under FDR. The American Right has a history of caving under strong socialist rulers.

> Maybe things are turning around now with Obama being elected.

Amazing. You act like this happened last week, when we have five years of evidence. And you ignore the fact that under the current president, the disparity you bemoan has gotten markedly worse, not better. No, it is not turning around. Equality didn't occur (as planned) in the USSR either. You had a wildly unequal ruler/ruled division. Socialism preaches equality but in reality, does the opposite: it sets up powerful tyrants.

> I think you've let your conservative bias effect your views of how things are today.

I knew you'd go personal, and to someone who is to the left of Mao, I'm certain everyone else looks conservative. But you are wrong once again. Centrist independent here. The difference between you and me is, I happen to have a degree in history, and know what happened in the past.

Again, my offer stands: You shut up about your political perspective, and I won't teach history. These discussions don't belong here, but neither should your erroneous assertions go unanswered. Let's end it, and get back to the thread.

"I knew you'd go personal, and to someone who is to the left of Mao, I'm certain everyone else looks conservative"

I'm pretty much in the middle with a slight liberal bias. Maybe slightly more libertarian than anything else.

I was just arguing people should save more so they can support themselves, that's pretty conservative.

Like I said before, your conservative bias is affecting your perspective.

"Bug Out Bag / Prepper Setup / Survival-based UL kit and philosophy" topic is not lightweight backpacker topic, is inviting thread drift.

"but neither should your erroneous assertions go unanswered" – we agree on that : )

Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pot, Sung, Mariam. That short list totals 100 million dead.

6 people, 100 million dead, 100/6 = 17 million per evil guy.

Native American population, 30M -> 3M = 27M dead.

Which socialist regime did it ?

That's pretty subtle Cameron : )

You're saying there are non socialist regimes that have done atrocities?

Also there are socialist regimes that are pretty good, like Denmark is about the most socialist country and also they have the happiest people (arguably?) and the best/cheapest health care.

So if someone says "socialism is without doubt the most deadly form of modern government" then they're just letting their far right wing idiotology flow through?

"Keep yourself fit
Have your family eat healthy
Have a good medical plan
Have enough savings/investments aside to see you through at least 6 months
If you can't find a job after 6 months, retrain, move location or have have a attitude adjustment as they're the only 3 reasons i can see sustaining long term unemployment.
A good mate of mine had to quit his job to take care of his Mrs, he retrained and 1 year on is earning more money than he did before and is working from home."

Regarding all points above, save staying fit and possibly eating healthy: On a minimum wage job? In today's outsourced-at-the-top-insourced-at-the-bottom labor market? Really?

Might you sketch us out a rough plan for accomplishing this? If so, you could well be a legitimate candidate to be our next Secretary of Labor. Assuming the D's don't screw things up even worse and hand the White House to the R's.