Comment by bluGill

"My mom taught me the same thing about giving."

care to share what you learn???

> The earliest years of your earning life contribute overwhelmingly more to your final retirement figure than your later years.

for most the amount we earn before about 25 is so little that even everything saved at the best return is insignifitant inretirement. at 25 a small percentage of your income saved becomes meaningful, but you are likely to earn enough more at 35 that the amount you can save then totals to more

> One can lead a meaningful, enjoyable life while also considering their finances.

This is where I disagree. I think there's a certain amount of naivety required to pursue meaningful things. There's so much in life that makes no financial sense that creates meaning. The moment you start having to think sensibly from a financial perspective, is when so many of these things no longer make sense.

Once you're plugged into the system there's almost no turning back.

> You'll already retire at 56 with over 1.5M in the bank

That 1.5M isn't inflation adjusted. If there is 0 inflation between now and when you die 1.5M is plenty. However the more inflation there is between now and when you die the more money you will need, the later you need to retire, or the less spending money you have. (of course we need to asking how things like social security fits into your plans as well, but this is already complex enough).

If you 22 and used to a FAANG income even with saving $25k/year every year you need more than 3M to retire retire without losing quality of life (even though most of that is luxury).

Are you willing to live on less, or will you discover with your free time you want to spend more money (hobby supplies? Now you have time to travel - maybe first class). I can't answer this question for you, but you need to think about it. Worse, your answer is likely to change over time.

The root comment was talking about investing 5% of their earnings. If you're making any kind of income at 17 (which admittedly is not everybody) then learning to save+invest a small portion of that can have incredible positive snowball effects beyond the compounding itself.

I can't imagine a scenario where at 55 years old, you would miss the 5% of your summer income you invested back in high school. But I can totally see a scenario where investing those 5% led you to increasing it to 10% in college, 20% on your first job, and being financially independent way before you hit the age of 55.

> I believe most 17 year olds on this earth do not have the funds to invest in education AND in a retirement fond

There is also a huge overlap between "kids who have wealthy parents" and "kids who can afford to invest".

Im not claiming everyone can do it. Im saying they are not mutually exclusive. If they were mutually exclusive that would imply no one could do both. For those that have to chose one or the other I agree they should choose education, but thats a subset of cases.

You just replaced "buying a house" with "buying an apartment", proving my point about cultural bias :-)

I meant, for many people (especially young ones), taking that same deposit to purchase an investment property (which could be a house or apartment, but has a tenant who lives there rather than being for oneself) can be a better deal than buying for themselves.

In the end, buying a place to live in is very much an emotional choice, which is totally valid. But in some locales and for some lifestyles, being a landlord who pays rent elsewhere can be a better financial decision.

This kind of advice was gospel in the 90s.