• elrik@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    38
    ·
    8 days ago

    But if you made just 3% interest on your money as you deposit $1,825,000 annually, over 532 years, you’d end up having $410 trillion dollars or more than 2,000 bezos.

    • skibidi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      8 days ago

      2000 Bezos or about 4x the GDP of the planet.

      People just need to invest and stop blaming others for being broke SMH.

      Invest one penny at 3% per year, who can’t afford one penny? You’ll have $68 billion in just one thousand years. Poverty is a choice.

        • Rhaedas@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          8 days ago

          And in a position to be able to lose it. High interest are high because they are risky, so they have to pay well to attract investing. If you already have enough money to burn, you can put money into various high risk areas and win overall. If you only have enough to sink it into a single source, you could gain. Or not.

          • photonic_sorcerer@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            8 days ago

            As long as you keep that money in index funds like MSCI World, S&P500 or DAX, you can wait out the bad times. Never sell, keep holding. Over decades this leads to large net profits.

          • psud@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            7 days ago

            Index funds are pretty incredibly safe. Pick one of the big US indexes and look at the graph since before the global financial crisis

          • iii@mander.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            8 days ago

            If you already have enough money to burn, you can put money into various high risk areas and win overall.

            That’s the angel investor strategy.

            There’s also lower risk index funds, that simply invest in the biggest N companies.

      • bountygiver [any]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        8 days ago

        you just need to have unlimited time, at 3% annual interest, it takes 77.89 years to 10x your money. it just happens that 532 years is 6.8 times 77.89 years, therefore you would just put a 1 million multiplier on your money anyways. And putting 1 million multiplier on 1 million dollars is enough to become a trillionaire anyways

        At 3% interest, you double your money every 23.4 years, how many 23.4 years do you have?

      • Dudewitbow@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        8 days ago

        thats why investments are inportant for long term. the problem we face as a society is that the majority of people cant afford to make these investments, as they are living day to day with their paychecks.

    • foggianism@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      8 days ago

      yeah but 1.8 mil 532 years ago would have been valued like billions today. so you still need to be a billionaire to become that rich

      • elrik@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        8 days ago

        Not really with that amount of time. Suppose you put away $1,000 a year for 532 years, at 3% you still end up with $225 billion.

        The deposits are completely dwarfed by the compounding interest. If you only start with $1,000 and add nothing else but let that original $1,000 compound at 4% you’ll have over $1 trillion.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          8 days ago

          Where are you getting 4% annual compound returns, though? That’s faster than the historical growth in global GDP over the equivalent time period.

          • elrik@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 days ago

            Yes, it’s equally as unrealistic as leaving money idle for 532 yrs.

            The only point I was making was that multiplying $5,000 a day by so many years is a silly comparison as it ignores the dominating factors to building wealth.

            Billionaires shouldn’t exist but also they don’t exist because they stuff X dollars under their mattress every day.

            • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 days ago

              multiplying $5,000 a day by so many years is a silly comparison

              Sure.

              it ignores the dominating factors to building wealth

              It ignores the existence of wealth by focusing on income. And it neglects where income comes from.

              Billionaires shouldn’t exist but also they don’t exist because they stuff X dollars under their mattress every day.

              Something of a joke about the modern billionaire is how much debt they’re carrying around. You don’t become a billionaire by having a high salary. You become a billionaire by getting access to enormous volumes of low interest credit, in order to monopolize a limited stock of productive capital. It isn’t like being an employee with a sky-high salary so much as it is a member of an elite club with access to amenities nobody else is allowed to use.

      • iii@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        8 days ago

        Same. There’s no gold standard, money is a social construct.

        I wonder if the people who think like this, also assume “if bezos had less money, I’d have more”.