Assuming I have a time horizon >10 years.

Edit: thanks for all the replies!!

  • JoshuaFalken@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    20 hours ago

    Taking a step further, if the last thirty five years are any indication, that future $21k would be worth less than today’s $10k.

    Besides, to overcome inflation, you’d need to average double digit returns on your investment every year for half a lifetime.

    Like you say, it’s a tough decision if there’s anything that can provide you value now. Not to argue against savings, but expecting it to grow exponentially with no effort is folly.

    • Hacksaw@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      20 hours ago

      To overcome inflation you need returns higher than inflation. That’s it. Historically the markets outperform inflation. You’re saying things out of fear and not reality.

      • JoshuaFalken@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        15 hours ago

        Funny how a mistake in a single sentence earns vitriol on the entire comment.

        Despite what I’d mistakenly wrote, I meant that to overcome inflation and see a return of double to quadruple your investment - which is what the comment starting this thread suggests as the outcome - you’d have to beat the market by around 10%.

        Regardless, my point was more to do with whether someone with only $50 to spare a month is truly in a position to invest in anything or whether they might be better off saving it for a rainy day or something like that.

        If someone has a few dollars to spare come month’s end, but has found themselves skipping the odd meal, that money would probably be better spent on a small grocery trip than putting it into an ETF that’ll take years to turn a profit.

        • Swordgeek@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          10 hours ago

          Regardless, my point was more to do with whether someone with only $50 to spare a month is truly in a position to invest in anything or whether they might be better off saving it for a rainy day or something like that.

          True enough, but short-term or non-locked-in investments are available to most people.

          If OP doesn’t have the starting funds to buy an investment vehicle of some sort, then they could put it into a zero-fee savings account and vigorously ignore it. This is, in fact, your rainy day fund.

          Then when they have scrounged up the appropriate amount (likely $500 or $1k), they can buy a guaranteed investment certificate or the like, and get better interest rates while they continue to put money into their account.

          When the term is up, they can buy a bigger one with their new savings. This way, they have both an emergency fund, and the starting point for a life of investing towards retirement, if nothing else.

          (Of course your later point - if they’re struggling to eat - is still true as well.)