Saving

It's hard to have wisdom without experience and i haven't seen you post much advice other than things that defend your choices.

I'm quite happy for others to make their own judgement as to who has presented a more balanced and realistic argument regarding affordability etc

your age is seventy-.......????

I'm not 70 but I can already see the pattern. Also not sure why we are cornered into travelling? The debate is really saving and comittment v living life and spending.

sabre is stuck on talking about travelling because he is vigorously defending his decisions (to himself)

Here is the problem with this debate. No one is suggesting that. It's just that Sabre has taken a tunnel visioned view

And has assumed anyone who opposes his narrow view have the opposite argument. Not the case.

FWIW, I'm 28 years old and have a foot in both camps. Have travelled a fair amount and also have a career and a mortgage. I could borrow more and buy a bigger house, save like a Jew and put all of my money into my mortgage, sell all my assets and travel like a gypsy for years etc. but I'm happy with the balance I've created.[/quote]

OK. We can put travelling aside (it's not for everyone anyway). The debate is really about deferred gratification.

You did say this:

From my POV, having money when you're old is absolutely not 'just as good' as having it when you're young. That's not a call you can make until you're in your 70s and can weigh up whether you'd trade any regrets you have for less of what you have now. Your tastes and needs definitely change, but there are things you simply cannot do once you go past certain ages, and the older you get the higher the risks of health concerns become. For mine it's not a case of 'doing things when you're young is better' but a case of striking a balance between living in the present and planning for the future.

It's not really about that either. That's only a small part of it.

A few primers first:

1. Not sure how you figure that is tunnel visioned. Being certain of something doesn't mean I'm not open to other ideas and variables.
2. Let's also not get stuck on the age group 70-79. There's also 60s, 50s, and 40s.
3. The whole pretence of your argument seems to be "let's have a balance" (correct me if I'm wrong). On one had my argument is "I don't have a problem with people who live their 20s and don't worry about saving, and don't have a problem with people who do (i.e. the OP)", on the other hand Sabre's argument is "saving in your 20s and having a mortgage is detrimental".

Question 1:

Which poster is being balanced and which is being narrow minded?

Question 2

So why the f*** are you arguing with me?


Please answer that last question.

I doubt you'll think that shit when you're in your 40s. It's not just as simple as saying "will I enjoy skiing in the Alps in my 20s more than travelling the Orient Express in my 50s". There's another important factor that you have yet to consider: Opportunity cost. Anyone can handle not being cashed up in the 20s and the difference between the haves and have nots is not that big a deal. But living on the bones of your arse in your 60s will not be comfortable. The difference is sizeable.

Q1 - neither and both
Q2 - see Q1, but I'm only really debating one point with you - that money in your 20s is not 'the same' as money in your 70s



sabre isn't right or wrong. He's expressed his opinion and you've got sand in your vagina about it. Yeah he's got tunnel vision but if your opinion is that you don't care if people save young or don't save young why are you bothering to argue with him?

Yes, my opinion is that creating a balance is the best approach and you raise a valid point about being poor in your 60s, but living it up in your 20s does not automatically equate to living on cat food in your 60s. I think your judgment is clouded by your penchant for real estate. You've possibly got friends who 'held out' that are in their 40s with huge mortgages, but bare in mind that had I bought a 'cheap' house 5 years ago I effectively would've paid around $150,000 over the last 5 years for mininal equity in an asset that's worth today what it was then. I've no doubt there are plenty of people in their 20s and 30s across Australia who have gone down the 'save and buy a house early' path that have not really benefited from it so far. Sure, they won't lose out in the long term but a few of your best years spent saving your arse off look a lot different when your asset rises substantially in value compared to when it doesn't.

IMO the most important time to save is before you have children, another life choice that you can't put off forever. Perhaps I should summarise my position as 'do what you want to do when you're young, work hard & save so you can provide for your children and invest to make sure you don't eat cat food in retirement'. You'd probably agree with that, but still be angry.

Just because something is an opinion doesn't mean it is exempt from being wrong.

It's not what I'm arguing with him about.

Not sure how you worked this out? Not sure what this has to do with anything?

Not sure what this has got to do with what I have said. Not sure if you've read so let me recap:

1. I didn't save anything in my 20s
2. I bought a house at 29 (i can explain why this doesn't contradict point 1)
3. I have no issue with living life in 20s. I did so myself
4. But I do disagree with some f***knuckle telling other people who want to save early that it's detrimental. It seems clear to me that Sabre is having a battle with his own insecuritues and taking it out on a guy who just wants some tips to save some bucks.

Furthermore

I've met people who bought porperty in their 20s (early 90s), nothing happened for 5 years, they became disillusioned and left the market. And I've met others who have started early, rented a couple of rooms to mates, and by 30s they are in an enviable position. I have yet to see what happens to the second group when they hit their 40s. I'm curious to see if they grow ponytails to make up for that misspent youth that they never experienced.

You probably should be telling that to Sabre.

Much simpler than that: just curious as to why someone who agrees with me decides to argue with me. Well actually, I know very well why, just thought I'd taunt Scotland by pointing out to him he's doing it.

Of course it would. But if you have done this I have to question why you are advising a young guy who wants saving advice to not save? Why are you so close minded on this?

Does that make my argument any less relevant? What is said, is what is said, but if you choose the "yeah, but your argument must be wrong because it's interwoven with some sledging" excuse then I feel sorry for you. Only the dumbest posters pull this one out.

A balanced argument including:

1. There's no harm in not saving in your 20s but if you do want to go down the saving route then good luck to you

2. The statistics over housing affordability are misleading because it doesn't take into account other important variables.

Do I really have to trawl through the thread to show where you clearly have said the opposite? Really?

sabre_ac do yourself a favour and stop replying.

Bunsen Burner has his opinion and if you don’t agree then you are 100% wrong, and need to explain yourself to him with a full set of facts, while also providing your personal history to him, so he can decide if the opinion that he considers wrong is valid or not.

Don't reply to him, you will find yourself going around and around in circles.

He is 42 with 31,079 posts on a football forum, he has a world of experience on everything and the right to question everyone else on their opinion.

One of my past victims who hasn't been able to let it go no doubt. FTR, I have no idea who you and what past engagement we had that has made you hang onto the grudge this long. Looks like I messed with your tiny mind.

On a positive note, I'm sure Sabre appreciates your moral support. You go girl.

What a big hero you are BB. Do you keep count of all your "victims", do you tell your "friends" on other chat rooms about them? Perhaps counting them has kept you from having any life outside of bigfooty and the internet in general, which is what your post count would suggest.

Continue to try and sound smart and impress people over the internet, I’m sure you have numerous other 42 year old friends that do the same. I mean I don’t hang around a heap of 42 year olds, but from the ones I know, none of them have the time with their families, work, and lives to post on an internet forum on average over 7 times per day. This either makes you in the extremely wealthy category, or the extremely lonely category. I know which one I and most of the others here would be betting on.

TLDR;

Not sure why you're whining at me anyway. Go tell a shrink or an Agony Aunt someone else who cares.

I bet you see TLDR a fair bit.

For someone with so much to say, you went quiet quickly.

Perhaps I have my first "victim" that is what you like to call them isn't it old man?

Or did you reality just kick in, that you really are lonely hence spending your days online arguing with people lots younger than you.

Just not interested in having a conversation with a peanut like you.

"Bunsen, why you so mean? Why you nasty? I just can't cope"

Either say something topical or **** off. I'm just not interested in hearing you whine about me. Go report me to the mods or call the police or something.

Who is the cry baby?

I see. So you're going to make me go through and find the posts.

Did you forget you said this:

My argument is the sacrifices to be made in your 20's for a house are too great for the average 20 something.Your far better of getting out there and seeing the world / meeting people.

Here's what I said in my initial post:

Saving in 20s helps but it isn't be all, end all. (post#55 if you want to check)

From post#61:

Each to their own but in my experience I have noticed most people enjoy 20s and in early 30s the penny drops and they nail down 3 years of hard saving to get that deposit. No issue with this whatsoever. But if people want to start early I have no problem with that.



Also from post#61
I spent my youth (20s) pretty well. There was no saving going on. Worked hard and played hard.

I don't have an issue with either savers or adventurers.

So let's recap:

Sabre's argument

Saving and having a mortgage in your 20s is a bad idea

Bunsen's argument

Each their own. If someone wants to start early then let them. There's no real upside to telling a guy who wants advice on saving and telling him he's doing the wrong thing.


That cleared up for you now? Congratulations on your owning.

And Scotland you massive pussy. You want some as well? Come at me pussy-boy.

If you wait to enjoy experiences when you're in your 70s and wind up dead at 60, what's the use?

At least someone gets what I was saying.

Yeah, nah. Carry on.