Hacker News Reader

Comment by paxys | Hacker News Reader

$100K would have been "comfortable retirement" money in the 80s. But I guess the same attitude that got you the money is what prevents you from quitting while you are ahead. A true gambler will always continue to double down until he loses it all.

View on HN

Michael was aged 33 when he won the prize. $100k would not have been sufficient to plan for ~50 years of retirement, see the inflation-adjusted math here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40302525

Not really. Adjusted for inflation, that's only $300,000 today. Even in the lowest cost of living areas, $300K isn't doing much for you. If you used it to buy a rental in a great area with a high return, you'd still only get about $15,000 a year in rental profits.

I am becoming more and more uncomfortable with a simple "adjusted for inflation" as a meaningful comparison of money.

Let's say Larson simply parked the winnings in real-estate. How much would that be worth today?

Imagine he used the capital to continue reinvesting the money generated by said real-estate investment to expand his holdings?

That isn't valid either as if he is retired he needs some of that money to buy things like food.

Well, at the time he could have bought 1.5 median houses. Today that would cost you about $500K. So if you want to use real estate, that bumps it up a bit, but still doesn't get you into retirement territory.

Even back then it wasn't retirement money. It was life changing, and invested well could have set him for a very comfortable life, but it wasn't retirement money even back then.

> Let's say Larson simply parked the winnings in real-estate. How much would that be worth today?

Considering he lived in the booming metropolis known as Lebanon, Ohio, probably not all that much.

It's easy today, in retrospect, to look at all the "winners" of real estate ownership, while forgetting about the Detroits, the Buffalos, the Baltimores. Plus high interest rates, high crime in many cities, lack of conveniences, businesses and services, etc. Places like San Francisco, Miami and most of New York City were NOT particularly desirable places to live 40 years ago.

Lol the HN bubble is strong. $300k would be life changing for 90% of people.

Life changing but not retirement. There's nowhere in the USA you could retire on a $300k windfall.

You can retire on that - if you move to a small town in someplace like New Mexico - someplace where you can buy a house within walking distance of the local grocery store, do not need much heat or AC. (this implies the town is large enough to have a grocery store!). You won't get a car to drive though so select your town to live in well as you won't leave it often - once in a while someone might offer you a free ride elsewhere but you can't ask that often enough that they feel abused. You won't be eating out, just cooking your own meals.

There are lots of cheap things you can do in those towns - and you will do only those things for entertainment. You will probably be known as the guy who makes desert art because that is all you can do.

I wouldn't want to live that life, and I don't think most others reading this would either. However you could do it. Most of us would enjoy that life for a week or two every year but then want to get back to modern life. To each their own - if you want it go for it.

I don't think you could. Let's say you found a house for $50K that meets your requirements. Heck let's say you bought a trailer for $20K and found some land for $10K. You'd still have $200K left (don't forget you had to pay $70K in taxes on it).

$200K could net you about $10,000 a year if you put it in super high rate tax free muni bonds.

Even with the hermit lifestyle and no taxes, you'd still have to pay for maintenance, property tax, food, and clothing once in a while. Remember, we're talking retirement, so you don't have any other income.

I don't think you could pull that off. Substance farming is work, not retirement. And like you said, without internet, you'd pretty much be relegated to desert paining.

That is $2000/month to live on. That will buy plenty of food, and clothing and leave something left over. It will not buy good health insurance, but you are poor enough to qualify for subsidies. I also selected a mild climate where you won't need much heating and cooling. Property taxes are cheap in rural areas (state selection matters). Maintenance is cheap, though you do need to do it yourself.

It's $833 a month.

Opps. Though the rest of my point stands, you get food, clothing and not much elsei

And?

It would be life changing, but it would still be hard to retire on 300K in the US.

So?

yeah, for people like that, money is just a way to measure how much smarter/slicker they are than their mark. it’s really about the grift. that $100k invested well in the 80s would have been an enormous portfolio in 30 years had he just been interested in a living.

Average house price in 1983 in the US was $62k. Assuming he's in a lower col area, and isn't going top of the market, he could have bought 2-3 houses outright, or put down payments on a solid 10 homes. Then renting them out and paying mortgages, that would be very lucrative.

Assuming he did his "invest in houses" plan as he said.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com