[M3 Number 86]

Originally Posted by PoorLurker

Kim K is not an idiot. She is a master of marketing. People like to talk about how idiotic people are, however, success rarely lands in one's lap. The people put themselves in a position to capitalize on what is being dealt to them.

Copy what Kim K. or Andy Rooney or Pew Die Pie does. Let's see how you rack up and how profitable you are. They did not get to where they are for being idiots. Yes, they may be complete morons in some aspects of their lives, however, Pew Die Pie is not an idiot in what matters most to him. Kim K could be a complete moron, but she is not an idiot on how to get people to pay her millions to be herself, etc.

Find that idea that could get low IQ people to be interested in your idea, develop it, market it, and then retire.

No. it's porn video to reality show to that many idiots following her. Her mom is the batshit crazy mastermind lol

Kendall I guess is normal and I think is much more successful and respectable. She did have real life first hand knowledge on what not to do lol

[PoorLurker]

edit: deleted my novel

Maybe my philosophy differs because I try to think that people reap what they sow taken to the extreme causes and effects.

Maybe I am just a champion for trying to find a sliver of hope for today's society. hahahaha



She's talented

[01101001]

Originally Posted by PoorLurker

edit: deleted my novel
Maybe my philosophy differs because I try to think that people reap what they sow taken to the extreme causes and effects.

Maybe I am just a champion for trying to find a sliver of hope for today's society. hahahaha

2036 should be a fascinating year. I doubt many americans will actually hold jobs by then if AI takes off. Some AI can already train itself in limited ways to learn new things, but if that ever goes exponential... it's a whole new world.
Capitalism is going to need a MAJOR makeover, and soon.

[1MOREMOD]

Originally Posted by PoorLurker

edit: deleted my novel

Maybe my philosophy differs because I try to think that people reap what they sow taken to the extreme causes and effects.

Maybe I am just a champion for trying to find a sliver of hope for today's society. hahahaha



She's talented

Is she old enough for me to be having a boner?

[PoorLurker]

Originally Posted by 01101001

2036 should be a fascinating year. I doubt many americans will actually hold jobs by then if AI takes off. Some AI can already train itself in limited ways to learn new things, but if that ever goes exponential... it's a whole new world.
Capitalism is going to need a MAJOR makeover, and soon.

Kind of scary when you think about it.

Have you read


Like you mention when AI can replicate itself to be better, paradigm shifts will be exponential. He goes over a lot of that in his book.

If you were in the OC, I'd give you my copy. Save you a penny for the fateful day when we are replaced, haha.

[PoorLurker]

Originally Posted by 1MOREMOD

Is she old enough for me to be having a boner?

She's like 47.

Source:

[01101001]

Originally Posted by PoorLurker

Kind of scary when you think about it.

Like you mention when AI can replicate itself to be better, paradigm shifts will be exponential. He goes over a lot of that in his book.

If you were in the OC, I'd give you my copy. Save you a penny for the fateful day when we are replaced, haha.

I'm aware of his book, but haven't read it.
I'm a crackhead for sciency stuff.
I watch a lot of TED talks, read a lot of publications (New Scientist, Scientific American, etc)

I honestly believe if we ever are visited by aliens, they won't be biological.
In fact, once you achieve a level of intelligence to see what's possible, biological life makes no sense at all. An artifical life form has some of these great traits...
1. Never gets old (parts are replaceable)
2. Never gets sick
3. Never gets tired
4. Never experiences emotional distress or disorder (fear, hate, loneliness, OCD, attachment disorder, borderline personality, psychosis, schizophrenia, etc.)
5. Can withstand highly toxic environments
6. Essentially has an unlimited life span, short of complete anhilation, but even then there might be a "cloud backup" lol.
7. Can consume light/radiation/etc for nutrition, so no need to seek food sources.
8. Far stronger, faster, quicker thinking, multi-processing consciousness.

And that's just off the top of my head. I'm sure there are dozens more good reasons.

Also, as far as the Fermi paradox, and "The Great Filter" hypothesis, I think another possible reason we've never met aliens is simply because once you've reached a level of intelligence, you have no need to visit EVERY SINGLE LIFE BEARING PLANET in the universe. You can "sample" a few dozen planets and extrapolate the rest. They'd have nothing to learn visiting us that they haven't already learned visiting someone/something else elsewhere. Thats the beauty of statistics... you can make extremely accurate predictions without needing to sample the ENTIRE population. lol.

There are many other factors at play as well... time/dimensional travel which would entirely obviate the need to visit us here and now, as well as doing their own 'simulated universes' which could teach them as much or more than wasting their time/resources visiting our ant hill.

[01101001]

Originally Posted by 1MOREMOD

Is she old enough for me to be having a boner?

I'm glad you wrote it first, then I just appreciate it.
The 'maid in pigtails' is a good look, lol.

[Alpine300zhp]

Originally Posted by RickFLM4

What's not to like about waiting in line behind a bunch of people ordering fancy individualized drinks for a cup of overpriced crappy coffee you need to prep yourself (i.e. cream and / or sweetener)?

I'll make mine at home or stop at Dunkin if I need to stop anywhere. I may stop by Starbucks once or twice / year and immediately remember why I don't stop there.

I discovered Racetrac and have been in love with their coffee ever since. Try it, you will be shocked how good it is.

[se15679875]

Originally Posted by 01101001

I think it's simply that they are lazy. How much effort does it take to have your nurse wake you from your coffin, get a sponge bath, get wheeled out to your limo, driven to the studio, then sit in front of a camera and read a teleprompter for a $1+ million dollars for a few hours work.

Take crusty, ice cold Andy Rooney. Many many years ago he was making $850k for 5 minutes TV time each week. Now tell me what kind of moron you'd have to be to be unable to take that $850k, dish out $200k for an actual thinker on a weekly topic, have them write it up for you, you then get wheeled in to the studio and read what your personal staff wrote for you. Seriously, any ditch digger in america could do that job.

And lets not forget that some of the dumbest people on the planet are also raking in tens of millions per year. Kim Kardashian ring a bell. Talk about the worlds most untalented undeserving female. $50 million a year for THAT.

Or how about Pew Die Pie, who sits in front of a camera playing video games and making YouTube videos. He makes around $7-9 million a year.

I think there are plenty of talentless hacks that fell into success far more than earned it with 16/7/365 work days. If you can find a hook that snags millions of low IQ Walmart shoppers into being interested in you, you've got a money tree beyond your wildest dreams.

The best money is money others earn for you, right. Bill Gates, if you averaged his income out over his career made well over a million dollars an hour, by utilizing the blood, sweat, and tears of others on a product that people refused to do without. A product that sold itself once Windows arrived. So for 30+ years he's been coasting through life without needing to type a single line of code on a keyboard, while a worldwide army made his money for him. That's how you do it.

Sounds like sour grapes to me. You're trivializing what Pew Di Pie does, yet the fact remains he provides a service to people (entertainment) and people are willing to pay him for that service (in the form of time spent watching his videos and any associated ads that come with it).

Originally Posted by SakhirM4

I personally never made more than $85K and my wife never more than $75k, so between us, we never made more than $160k gross. Of the 18 BMWs (that's over 40 years time), 7 of them were new and the oldest was 6 years old (a 1998 540i we bought in 2004 as a second car). Our house is paid for, our cars are paid for, we have no debt at all, and $400k+ in savings. You don't have to make megabucks to live comfortably when you spend smartly. But that's just me.

Originally Posted by SakhirM4

$90 per month for coffee???

So let me get this straight. You've never made more than $85k/year in your life. You have less in savings than Benedict (probably) makes in an entire year. You go through cars like a pubescent teenager goes through new shoes. You drive a newer and more expensive vehicle than he does (brand new M4 versus 8 year old M3). And you're giving him flack for spending $90/month on coffee. Is that correct? Have I gotten all the facts straight?

You can't possibly be this stupid can you ?

Originally Posted by NemesisX

The way I define affordability is extremely simple and extremely stringent, and it's almost certainly a function of my background and the kind of household I grew up in.

You are W years old. You make $X/year. You have $Y in liquid assets. Your annual expenses are $Z per year, and you want to retire at the age of Q.

If, after spending $Z/year you save and invest enough money in the stock market ($X-$Z plus any money placed into tax-deferred (401k/403b) or tax-advantaged (Roth IRA) retirement plans) such that assuming a conservative 3% real annual compounded rate of return, a 3% withdrawal from your nest egg at retirement age + your annual pension + any guaranteed, passive income will generate at least $Z/year and ideally (1.5 times $Z)/year in perpetuity without eating into the principal amount, then you can afford whatever it is you want to buy at the moment. I don't care if it's a Starbucks coffee or a Bugatti.

Why do I suggest 1.5 times $Z and not just $Z? It's admittedly arbitrary, but health care costs skyrocket for most individuals around retirement age. The average person can expect to spend $300,000-$400,000 out of pocket in health care from age 67 to 87.

So as a rule of thumb, a $1 million nest egg will safely generate $30,000/year at retirement age. If you spend $60,000/year right now, you'll need either a $3 million retirement nest egg or a less than $3 million nest egg + a guaranteed pension + guaranteed passive income (e.g. rental income) to make up the difference. Doable, but it takes discipline. Under my conditions, one cannot make $90,000/year after tax and comfortably spend $60,000/year. You'd need more like $150,000/year after tax.

How many people actually save and invest enough money annually to meet these requirements? Probably less than 0.1%.

The facts (particularly in the U.S.) are pretty sobering. Having $1 million in liquid net worth not including primary residence puts you in the top 6%, and yet the entry point to top 6% for income is more like $150,000/year. There's a clear disconnect there. If you make $150,000/year and spend $100,000/year, it's unlikely that you're saving and investing enough money to meet the criteria listed above, and the problem simply gets worse as one moves down the income ladder to the point where it's completely infeasible for those near or below the median household income to come anywhere near fulfilling the requirements I posted above.

I'm fully aware that the criterion I've provided is extremely stringent, mostly due to four factors:

(1) my requirement of being able to generate 1.5 times your current annual expenses per year when most people assume that their expenses will decrease (often significantly) at retirement age

(2) the fact that I've only allowed for a 3% compounded real annual rate of return when historically the stock market over large periods of time has returned more like 4-6%.

(3) the fact that I've ignored social security [see recent headlines on Republicans planning to significantly slash benefits]

and

(4) the fact that I've implicitly assumed that one will stay in one's primary residence throughout retirement. In reality, many people sell their primary residence and downsize significantly to generate additional investment income and slash costs (on property taxes, among other factors).

In principle this is good advice, but it's unreasonable. I'd also argue that the goal should not be to generate "1.5 times your pre-retirement income in perpetuity without eating into the principal" The goal should be to generate enough income such that you've spent every dime you have by the time you die. Why do you suggest that the principal amount should not be eaten into over the course of retirement?

Edit: Oh wait you're suggesting 1.5 times pre-retirement expenses, not gross income. That's more reasonable I suppose. I thought you were suggesting 1.5 times pre-retirement income which is ludicrous and would require Draconian-levels of frugality.

[PoorLurker]

Originally Posted by se15679875

Sounds like sour grapes to me. You're trivializing what Pew Di Pie does, yet the fact remains he provides a service to people (entertainment) and people are willing to pay him for that service (in the form of time spent watching his videos and any associated ads that come with it).






So let me get this straight. You've never made more than $85k/year in your life. You have less in savings than Benedict (probably) makes in an entire year. You go through cars like a pubescent teenager goes through new shoes. You drive a newer and more expensive vehicle than he does (brand new M4 versus 8 year old M3). And you're giving him flack for spending $90/month on coffee. Is that correct? Have I gotten all the facts straight?

You can't possibly be this stupid can you ?



In principle this is good advice, but it's unreasonable. I'd also argue that the goal should not be to generate "1.5 times your pre-retirement income in perpetuity without eating into the principal" The goal should be to generate enough income such that you've spent every dime you have by the time you die. Why do you suggest that the principal amount should not be eaten into over the course of retirement?

Edit: Oh wait you're suggesting 1.5 times pre-retirement expenses, not gross income. That's more reasonable I suppose. I thought you were suggesting 1.5 times pre-retirement income which is ludicrous and would require Draconian-levels of frugality.

Whoa - who is this guy...

[se15679875]

Originally Posted by PoorLurker

Whoa - who is this guy...

Back to spice things up on these forums, but really I just call out bullshit as I see it LOL

[PoorLurker]

Originally Posted by se15679875

Back to spice things up on these forums, but really I just call out bullshit as I see it LOL

haha You beat me to it! I switched out the gif to one that may be more appropriate and obvious to people on this forum.

your gifuseage = 100

I read that retirement post the same though. A second read had me catch his ideals.

Not sure why people think they need to save every penny for their children. Maybe I am just a selfish meanie head. I just hope that my child's life won't be too drastically impacted at 50 when I leave him with X or X+Y or Zilch.

[VRG_135]

Originally Posted by G35POPPEDMYCHERRY

http://f80.bimmerpost.com/forums/sho...ghlight=living

You have to sign up for that forum to comment on it. Apparently, our pay grade is too low.

[StatenEye]

Investment banking. I hate my job. Even if i made 10mm a year I'd still hate it.

[jmg]

Originally Posted by VRG_135

You have to sign up for that forum to comment on it. Apparently, our pay grade is too low.

It's just like every other section of bimmerpost. You just gotta re-login.
You don't need to submit a paystub for and credit checks.

[NemesisX]

Originally Posted by se15679875

Sounds like sour grapes to me. You're trivializing what Pew Di Pie does, yet the fact remains he provides a service to people (entertainment) and people are willing to pay him for that service (in the form of time spent watching his videos and any associated ads that come with it).






So let me get this straight. You've never made more than $85k/year in your life. You have less in savings than Benedict (probably) makes in an entire year. You go through cars like a pubescent teenager goes through new shoes. You drive a newer and more expensive vehicle than he does (brand new M4 versus 8 year old M3). And you're giving him flack for spending $90/month on coffee. Is that correct? Have I gotten all the facts straight?

You can't possibly be this stupid can you ?



In principle this is good advice, but it's unreasonable. I'd also argue that the goal should not be to generate "1.5 times your pre-retirement income in perpetuity without eating into the principal" The goal should be to generate enough income such that you've spent every dime you have by the time you die. Why do you suggest that the principal amount should not be eaten into over the course of retirement?

Edit: Oh wait you're suggesting 1.5 times pre-retirement expenses, not gross income. That's more reasonable I suppose. I thought you were suggesting 1.5 times pre-retirement income which is ludicrous and would require Draconian-levels of frugality.

I don't know what's funnier, your brutal callout of SakhirM4
or that hilarious cat gif you posted

You're right - not eating into the principal amount isn't technically required. Ideally we'd all retire comfortably with guaranteed pensions, but those are looking to be a thing of the past these days. I'm envious of those who have access to guaranteed pension plans (former military, police force, and public education come to mind)

[Rik84]

This forum is hilarious sometimes. The amount of butt hurt and arguments between ppl with supposed (it is the internet afterall - 1/2 of us probably drive Geo Trackers) wealth and those they disagree with regarding how to spend said wealth is staggering.

I own a local business and do well enough. I have a house I don't live in that has lost value over the last 5 years because no one in their right mind buys houses in Nova Scotia (unsure as fuck wasn't when I did) I live in a townhouse in the city which I lease because for various reasons it actually is fiscally responsible for me to do so.

I don't save, I build equity in my business which could one day go tits up. I spend pretty much everything on go fast bits, good food/wine and travel.

I'm in Canada so we don't have a 401k but if we did mine would be empty and in its' place would be some amazing stories and a killer hangover.

For the record, I come from a lower class family which in my youth had next to nothing aside from a house to live in. I'd much rather enjoy myself while reasonably young and can handle a few benders and great vacations. I may regret it when I'm 70, I may not. But I've got 38 years to figure it out.

[01101001]

Originally Posted by se15679875

Sounds like sour grapes to me. You're trivializing what Pew Di Pie does, yet the fact remains he provides a service to people (entertainment) and people are willing to pay him for that service (in the form of time spent watching his videos and any associated ads that come with it).

Sour grapes huh.
Well, true, you got me. No need to read further, unless you like to be outrageously entertained.


People who find enormous wealth for doing nothing even remotely talented is pretty infuriating.
Yes, I am trivializing what he does... because he doesn't do anything.
Literally billions of people on the planet are just as capable of doing exactly what he does, yet somehow he's the one that wins the lottery of retards that bless him with views. Are you honestly telling me that out of 6 billion people on the planet, none have a personality that can even remotely compete with his?
Fine, lets restrict it to those who are only actively making YouTube videos... so we're down to a few hundred thousand easily that can do exactly what he does.

Again, it's like my Andy Rooney example. An untalented crusty old fossil gets rolled out in front of a camera to read off a teleprompter and you actually think he's the only guy in the world that can do that job. I'd say there's at least 3 billion people that can do that job equally as well, and yet where is their fortune?

Yes, life is unfair in the extreme. People in famine and war torn areas of the world $hitting out babies because they're so effing sick and evil, they couldn't forego sex. They'd rather see a human baby starve to death over a 6 year period rather than forego sex. I love that.

But in that unfairness, we should find rage and outrage.

But I shouldn't hate the player, I should hate the game.

It's sort of like politics right. All the Trumptard voters think Hillscary Clinton voters are america destroying, brown loving, gay rubbing loons, and all the Hillscary voters think Trumptard voters are racist redneck hillbilly deplorables.

In the end, it's not really the lying, pandering, self-serving, narcissistic, mealy mouthed, flip flopping, word parsing, pandering, poll sniffing ay_holes that are running for office we should hate... we should hate the human garbage that allowed such nutjobs to even reach that position in the first place.

So you're correct, I shouldn't hate on Puke Die Pie, I should hate all the low IQ short bus autistic morons who watch his stupidity, allowing him to make that fortune for being an untalented moron.

Though I must say, I always enjoy those that present their argument as ... "you're jealous of XYZ because XYZ has more than you" and thereby removing any and all legitimate reasons to find someone, or the things they do, insanely annoying, stupid, or whatever feelings it generates in the person with the opinion.

I'm sure if you look really really hard. Really really deep. You can find someone who makes more money than you that you hate for reasons other than jealousy over their success.

Kaepernick?
Bill Cosby?
Kim Koont_trash_ian?
Paris Hilton?
Martin Shkreli?
Jesse Jackson?
Donald Sterling?
Ted Cruz?
Sarah Palin?
Rahm Emanuel?
Whoopi Goldberg?
Arnold Schwarzenegger?
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/2021...eaving-office/

Arnold is a particularly disgusting pile of bile.
I'd love nothing more than to send him to Syria to play hide-and-behead with ISIS.

Lastly, it is kind of ironic that I hate people who make fortunes for doing absolutely nothing of any measurable skill, because I'm going to be one of those people. ROFL. I inherited a lot of money over a decade ago that I invested, and a tiny shave off the top of that bought a nice chunk of my car, and by the time I'm in retirement, that money will be in 7 figures. Not only that, my wife's family has a hefty 7 figure fortune that will eventually make it to our coffers. So, while I won't be in Mitt Romney's level of ahole-ery, and similar human garbage that do nothing and pay 15% taxes on their mega millions, I'll be a little smudge of that, and enjoying every minute of it.

Now I'm going to go out in my back yard and start digging a hole.
I know it's not a special talent, but if I market it properly to the right crowd of dumb@$$ imbeciles, I'm sure there's a way I can make a hundred million dollars off it. Perhaps I'll dig with a teaspoon or something that makes it go viral.

[InternetFame]

Hello.

[PoorLurker]

Originally Posted by 01101001

Now I'm going to go out in my back yard and start digging a hole.
I know it's not a special talent, but if I market it properly to the right crowd of dumb@$$ imbeciles, I'm sure there's a way I can make a hundred million dollars off it. Perhaps I'll dig with a teaspoon or something that makes it go viral.

That last sentence shows me that you are really getting it. That's the way the world works. I look at people on Instagram and think that they are profiting from their ridiculously fake lives, but hey they are making ends me marketing themselves.

Also, people with autism are typically very intelligent people. Their "lack of intellect" is often in the realm of social skills.

[SakhirM4]

Originally Posted by SakhirM4

I personally never made more than $85K and my wife never more than $75k, so between us, we never made more than $160k gross. Of the 18 BMWs (that's over 40 years time), 7 of them were new and the oldest was 6 years old (a 1998 540i we bought in 2004 as a second car). Our house is paid for, our cars are paid for, we have no debt at all, and $400k+ in savings. You don't have to make megabucks to live comfortably when you spend smartly. But that's just me.

Originally Posted by se15679875

So let me get this straight. You've never made more than $85k/year in your life. You have less in savings than Benedict (probably) makes in an entire year. You go through cars like a pubescent teenager goes through new shoes. You drive a newer and more expensive vehicle than he does (brand new M4 versus 8 year old M3). And you're giving him flack for spending $90/month on coffee. Is that correct? Have I gotten all the facts straight?

You can't possibly be this stupid can you ?

I have owned 24 cars in my lifetime, starting with the first one 51 years ago. I owned our '77 BMW 320i for 25 years, our '87 325is for 12 years, my '71 Corvette for 7 years, and have currently had our '01 Z3 for 16 years. Most of the other cars were owned for 3-4 years each. I hardly call that going through cars like a pubescent teenager going through shoes.

I also don't consider asking a question the same as giving someone flack.

You can't possibly be this stupid can you ?