Hacker News Reader

Comment by jerf | Hacker News Reader

One of my favorite infographics ever: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/01/02/business/20110...

As I say every time I link it, read it carefully; it does not say what most people initially think it is saying when they first see it.

In this particular case I bring this up to show that the "standard" 7% over a long term can be optimistic. As it happens that corresponds to the first light green color, and that is not as pervasive as you may have been led to believe. Sub 3% over 20 years is a very realistic possibility.

Individual snapshots of that graph can be highly deceptive. The whole is quite interesting and difficult to summarize.

View on HN

Yes, great graph.

It illustrates the fundamental truth overlooked by most retirement planning schemes: the stock market doesn't just automatically grow in value over time. It grows in emphatically punctuated booms driven by technological advances.

The boom of the 1920s owed a lot to the telephone and automobile, linking businesses together in new ways. The boom of the 1960s was mainframe computerization, and the boom of the 1990s was personal computers and Internet connectivity. All these permitted entrepreneurs and established businesses to gain ever larger leveraged multipliers of turning effort into impact and value and wealth.

No breakthrough technology means no boom. We won't have another until another such technology arises. The Internet has largely plateaued in terms of business value. We don't have anything obvious on the horizon that will create a 10x productivity multiplier over email or Excel or StackOverflow, in the way that computers replaced adding machines and email replaced snail mail. Judging by the history of industrialized society, something will arise eventually to spark another boom (my best bet is neural-computer integration), but we can't say what or when. The next 20-year quadrupling of the stock market may begin in 2015 or in 2060.

Yeah, it's not that simple and on top of that "historical performance is no guarantee of the future one".

The problem with that graph is that almost no one invests that way. People just don't dump their entire life savings into the market, wait x number of years, and then withdraw it all at once. Dollar cost averaging and changes in investment aggressiveness will likely smooth out those numbers.

That chart takes away inflation. When people say the expect 7%/year they are not including inflation. 7% a year pre inflation and taxes is likely roughtly 3.5-4%, which is grey on that chart.

Yes. This chart goes along perfectly with MMM's math.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com