Hacker News Reader

Comment by imperfect_light | Hacker News Reader

No one doing these surveys ever details whether we're talking about per individual or per couple, is this a standard retirement at 65 or an early one, and is this in an urban center or a cheap retirement area. Given that it's hard to take any of these seriously other than as a marketing tool for investment advisors.

View on HN

I get these "MLIV Pulse" surveys! No qualifications required - you just need to be on their "Five Things You Need to Know to Start Your Day" newsletter. (I quite like Joe Weisenthal's editorial that's usually, though not today, at the end, which is why I continue to read it.) The surveys are very basic - not more than a few questions. I would put about as much stock in their results as a Twitter poll.

And they never say if the amount includes equity in your home. (The video didn't say in this case but I couldn't read the article)

I would say owning your home free and clear is a prerequisite to retire. Rent or payments on debt are often our biggest expenses. Retirement is possible only when passive income is enough to cover expenses.

> I would say owning your home free and clear is a prerequisite to retire.

People in countries like Switzerland with a high percentage of renters (58%) somehow manage to retire...

Switzerland being one of the wealthiest countries in the world with a very good social setup may have something to do with that. In quite a few countries your whole social security payment and then some would be eaten up by rent if you're still renting at that point. Hence the existence of trailer parks and such niceties in other parts of the world.

Hum, no?

I would say a prerequisite for safe retirement is to have enough to buy a home outright in cash, otherwise mortgages will weigh you down like a stone:6% interest on a 1 million gbp loan in the UK is unpayable for majority of people even in London and yet you wont find anything worth buying there below that price.

Also we should stop saying a house has equity: it doesn't. You are a paying off a loan for a commodity. A house is like a car or groceries: necessary, yes, but not an investment, unless its luxury. This is how we exploded house prices.

Your first line sounds like you're disagreeing with phkahler, but the rest of your comment sounds like you're agreeing with phkahler.

Both of you say a mortgage is unacceptable.

A house is equity once you've started paying down on the principal and the home is not 'under water'. Until then it is a liability.

Assets that increase in value over time are investments. Regardless of their utility.

Equity is simply the assets you hold. You can have equity in a car or groceries only it will disappear quickly if you don't sell the car or groceries.

It might be possible someone is using home equity loan for leverage.

You can do that, but if your bets don't pay off you'll be in a deeper hole than before.

huh? why is it impossible for passive income to cover a mortgage?

>> huh? why is it impossible for passive income to cover a mortgage?

It's not, but that's a level of passive income that most Americans can not achieve. I suspect it's also structurally impossible for everyone to get there, but yes some individuals can do it.

Or, hear me out, a pension.

Exactly, depending on the house that's another 500k to 2M, and takes a bigger chunk out of their argument.

Indeed. And add to that the number of kids you want to see through college with the variations of undergrad in your city vs undergrad + grad in private institutions out of your state

Reply on news.ycombinator.com