People here confused with owning a house and not having so much savings... oh jesus just count the house in, how much did you invest in that? It's not like it's money lost if it didnt somehow go down in value a lot. How hard can this be?
like "I put a 50k down payment on my house so I got nowhere near 2x my salary in savings lul"
Yes, people that meet these metrics will have most of the money invested in 401k/IRA/Roth IRA/brokrage etc. Not savings. It is supposed to be savings invested. If it is sitting in cash/low interest savings, it is losing purchasing power over the years.So I've got a year to save up $100k.
Well I'm on the right track. I have like $5k in the bank.
Does my 401k count?
What kind of fucking medical school is this that you were that desperate to apply to? Average debt for a 2017 grad is expected to be right around $200K.
Even if rent = mortgage, the argument is that the gains you get by investing the down payment, property tax, and maintenance costs will be the better investment in the long run, but yeah, the area you live in is a very important factor along with interest rates. But a mortgage investment should not be made based on wanting to own a home as soon as possible.Don't forget that if you don't own, you still have to pay rent money to live somewhere, which is entirely lost money. While you aren't paying much towards the principal when a mortgage is initiated, the amount added to the principle each month grows over time and adds up.
There's a NYT calculator that does a good job of telling you whether renting or owning is better. It mostly comes down to the cost of owning versus renting in the area you live in.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/upshot/buy-rent-calculator.html
I turned 30 in March and I have about 3.3x my annual salary saved between my 401k, Roth 401k, savings, checking, and money market.
No home equity since I rent. No debt, either .
Yay?
I live in La. I didn't have any student debt though coming out of college so that helped a ton. That and rent was cheaper.
Even if rent = mortgage, the argument is that the gains you get by investing the down payment, property tax, and maintenance costs will be the better investment in the long run, but yeah, the area you live in is a very important factor along with interest rates. But a mortgage investment should not be made based on wanting to own a home as soon as possible.
Even if a couple is planning ahead and gets a mortgage for a 3 bedroom house, it's unnecessary early in life. That's investment money that should be making you more money, not making your mortgage bank money.
When you rent, it's easier to upsize when you have to and easier to relocate when want or have to without being at the mercy of the real estate market at the time. Renting also provides a better opportunity to save and invest because in most cases it's going to be cheaper to rent than own + mortgage.
Everybody wants to own a home, I get that, but in my experience it's much better to wait. Rent and compound invest early in life so you can save up a huge down payment for a short term mortgage. You have the movement flexibility that renting provides, and you are avoiding the long term mortgage debt, which are incredible rip offs IMO.
Ultimately the best plan would be to save and invest enough to buy a house outright and avoid interest payments entirely, but that's obviously not going to work for most people. Although it happens a lot more than people think. Smart and diligent investing adds up fast when you start investing early and often.
Banks want you to go into debt. They want you to get a long term mortgage. They want you to do this because it makes them an incredible amount of money. That's interest money that you should be investing for your future, not theirs.
Totally understand the emotional thing. There are family pressures and societal expectations that everybody should have the 3 kids and the white picket fence and it's OK to want that, but you don't need to have all that before the age of 25.Third, the best I've seen of this is to NOT think of housing as an investment but a lifestyle choice. Especially with two persons involved it's really hard to make it a numbers game. And it's often an emotional thing. I've been there.
Don't get me wrong, based on pure numbers investing is the way to go. I just don't like the way the argument is presented as 4% interest vs 7+% as some kind of no-brainer. There are legitimate reasons why someone would want to pay off their home early instead.
This seems to be primarily aimed at Americans, for whom I guess private retirement saving is kind of all there is?
Here in Sweden we have a public pension system, which is paid into every month by you and your employer. The total is 18% of your salary I believe, but only a few percent of that comes out of your salary through taxes. The largest part is paid by the employer as part of the employer fee. Is America's Social Security kind of this, or...?
Including our work pensions, my husband has the 2x saved. I only have about 1x. lol
Anyway, if you're poor, you're poor and won't have money to save so this advice doesn't really count for you.
I think this advice is more for middle+ class working professionals who don't know what they are doing with their money.
That said, my husband and I are not professionals but we're trying our best and also wasting a bunch of money on the side, but maybe the healthcare situation in the US makes this even more difficult.
Plus bachelors, plus masters, plus interest compounded per annum at 6%
And all said debt in a large, expensive city:
https://www.usnews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-medical-schools/debt-rankings
You're in the top 3% of debtors.
Average pre-med debt is $25,000. You blew by that by over $100,000. The standard 10-year repayment is $2,200 a month for a $200,000 debt at 6% interest rates. You yourself are looking at $5,200 a month, with post-tax money that you cannot deduct on the tax return. Using a generous effective income tax rate of 20%, you're using up $78,000 of your annual salary to be on the standard repayment plan. That's one-third of your total yearly compensation if you decide to become a pediatrician. Your debt will influence your field of choice and where you choose to practice. I hope you have a plan. Taking home less than $80,000 a year, less repayments, to slave away as a pediatrician is rough, as an example. Sounds entitled, but it will suck when looking at your peers. Don't bother with becoming a psychiatrist; you'll need one instead. I wish you good luck.
Yeah! Me and husband both just stock groceries on shelves! :DYou don't get paid for your work? That's what being a professional means, or...?
EDIT: I guess it can be used to describe the opposite of unskilled labor?
The $80,000 refers to take-home pay, not total salary. Which is what you'll be taking in if you decide to become a pediatrician and after paying off your monthly debt. If $80,000 sounds like enough for you to live near Georgetown or any other HCOL area, go for it. I just think it's very sad that high debt burden influences something that should be a vocation.On your thoughts regarding specialty, pediatricians are among the lowest paid physicians but even they make considerably more than $80k, unless they're working part time. Actually, psychiatrist pay has increased drastically in the last several years and it was one of the highest
The bank owns my house for the next 25 years. ;)Like "I put a 50k down payment on my house so I got nowhere near 2x my salary in savings lul"
This whole thing has been amusing to me. With 401K added it's definitely in the realm of possibility for me and I have years to go. Even so, the headline is pretty shit and my wife's friend is the author of the article. She hadn't no control over the headline they picked up, and it's been hell of a thing to see how this has spread. She's going on tv to talk about the article tomorrow even. Small world.
It has been fidelity's guidance for years. I wonder why it is blowing up now?
![]()
Interesting. Had if a late start due to grad school, but my calculations tell me I should have 24x the salary we have by 60. That's just by maxing a 401k each year.