> generally look for quality items with lifetime warranties, 1 coat that costs $1000 but lasts 30 years has better ROI than buying a $100 coat every other year. Plus it's less mental strain since you don't have to think about replacing it and you'll get to use something you actually like.
This is a common thing I hear, e.g. the rich man/poor man parable about boots, but I have never been able to give it real credence. It just isn't a realistic choice, whether we're talking about coats, boots, beds, knives, or whatever.
First, I cannot assess the value of a good I do not yet possess to a sufficient degree to determine if it will really last, and will be something I'll 'love' for >5 years, and I wouldn't trust any company to actually honour a "lifetime guarantee" on a meaningfully expensive purchase. Very few of those are even advertised.
Second, trying to make that sort of assessment for most purchases sounds extremely stressful. What if I go wrong? A lot of business depends on tricking un-knowledgeable consumers into spending big money on perceived-but-false "quality". One mistake puts you way in the hole overall in this cost/benefit analysis, and the internet is full of shills.
So rather than trying to find the coat that's "really worth" $1000, and hoping beyond hope it'll last 30 years without any way to tell, I will spend ~$150 on a coat, and it should last ~2-3 years.
I learned how to mend buttons and sew small tears, and my actual coat that I bought for ~$150 lasted almost a decade before it was done. I spent 5 minutes at the first store I found in the mall, way back in college, and just asked for something warm. Last year, I did a lot of research and I spent $700 on a new coat, and it had lost a button and gained a hole in its pocket within a month.
I have a more controversial take overall:
Wealth is, unfortunately, only really available to the lucky, so most of this just doesn't matter.
I'm comparatively lucky, (I was born in North America! I have a ton of majority privilege! I liked computers!) but I don't have connections to anyone from any top 10 schools, and I am unlikely to even ever work for a FAANG.
Living frugally and intelligently investing will likely make the difference between whether or not I can take vacations during retirement, and maybe move the retirement date around by 5-7 years, provided I don't actively throw my money away on things (like GME).
But becoming "wealthy"? That would require a lottery-type win. The literal lottery, or the startup lottery, or similar. As a ~30-something, (hopefully) competent, privileged urban software engineer, with a decent scholastic and vocational pedigree, actual wealth just probably is not in the cards, no matter what actions I take.
So (again excepting learning not to throw all my money away), I just can't make myself feel like personal financial advice really matters overall. Either I win the lottery someday, or I don't.
I'm curious though, to anyone still reading, what makes it matter to you?
Plenty of people create wealth in the second half of life. But not by going to a regular 9-5 job. Typical middle class behavior leads you to average middle class wealth (i.e. very little). People amass wealth by creating businesses that scale (not necessarily software, either) and focusing on the accumulation of income producing assets. May or may not be possible for you, but itβs not because of your age.
I don't think I was very clear because I agree with you, but I'm also confused by you -- my age wasn't meant to be a key part of the post. It is there to show that I should still 'have time' to create wealth, but doing so is not assured, even if I'm very frugal.
Mere work and knowledge are not sufficient to create wealth, regardless of how they are applied. Many people work, and even work intelligently, and also save, but they never make or have wealth. To your point, many smart people start and work very hard on businesses, but they still do not succeed beyond a normal salary's value. Luck remains necessary, and I would argue, is often sufficient. Even just avoiding the bad luck (health, family crises, economic downturns) that can derail a nascent business.
The luck surface area concept definitely comes into play here, but I feel the money habits touted by r/personalfinance and similar don't really have much impact on wealth-luck, only on slightly nicer retirements.
With a few hours to think about it more, I have softened in the view a little, though: I think they help with creating a cushion. If you're going to do something stupid, doing some smart preparing first may really help you recover.
But I still don't think it's worth trying to find a 30-year coat.
I feel awkward posting again but I couldn't help but point this out once I had noticed: if you spent $1000 on a coat that's good for 30 years, in 30 years you'll just have one very old coat.
But if you spend $100 on a crappy coat today, and invest the other $900?
Assuming you can swing a 6% average return over 30 years, you'll get ~$108 interest every 2 years. Buy a new coat with that and repeat, and in 30 years you'll have a new coat, 15 old ones (to sell?), your original $900, and ~$120 extra!
This is a common thing I hear, e.g. the rich man/poor man parable about boots, but I have never been able to give it real credence. It just isn't a realistic choice, whether we're talking about coats, boots, beds, knives, or whatever.
First, I cannot assess the value of a good I do not yet possess to a sufficient degree to determine if it will really last, and will be something I'll 'love' for >5 years, and I wouldn't trust any company to actually honour a "lifetime guarantee" on a meaningfully expensive purchase. Very few of those are even advertised.
Second, trying to make that sort of assessment for most purchases sounds extremely stressful. What if I go wrong? A lot of business depends on tricking un-knowledgeable consumers into spending big money on perceived-but-false "quality". One mistake puts you way in the hole overall in this cost/benefit analysis, and the internet is full of shills.
So rather than trying to find the coat that's "really worth" $1000, and hoping beyond hope it'll last 30 years without any way to tell, I will spend ~$150 on a coat, and it should last ~2-3 years.
I learned how to mend buttons and sew small tears, and my actual coat that I bought for ~$150 lasted almost a decade before it was done. I spent 5 minutes at the first store I found in the mall, way back in college, and just asked for something warm. Last year, I did a lot of research and I spent $700 on a new coat, and it had lost a button and gained a hole in its pocket within a month.
I have a more controversial take overall:
Wealth is, unfortunately, only really available to the lucky, so most of this just doesn't matter.
I'm comparatively lucky, (I was born in North America! I have a ton of majority privilege! I liked computers!) but I don't have connections to anyone from any top 10 schools, and I am unlikely to even ever work for a FAANG.
Living frugally and intelligently investing will likely make the difference between whether or not I can take vacations during retirement, and maybe move the retirement date around by 5-7 years, provided I don't actively throw my money away on things (like GME).
But becoming "wealthy"? That would require a lottery-type win. The literal lottery, or the startup lottery, or similar. As a ~30-something, (hopefully) competent, privileged urban software engineer, with a decent scholastic and vocational pedigree, actual wealth just probably is not in the cards, no matter what actions I take.
So (again excepting learning not to throw all my money away), I just can't make myself feel like personal financial advice really matters overall. Either I win the lottery someday, or I don't.
I'm curious though, to anyone still reading, what makes it matter to you?