I went back to my very first comment in the thread. I quoted this:
> > At $1mm you really are independently wealthy in most cases.
Firstly, my working definition of "independently wealthy" is when you can stop working and keep living. I think this is the common definition, but it's possible you're using a different one.
So from that quote and that definition, what I have been saying is that I don't think it is true that "in most cases" people with $1m are independently wealthy. I think that in most cases, those people have most of that $1m net worth tied up in their house and in illiquid traditional retirement accounts, and could not actually live off of just the remaining liquid wealth once those are subtracted. That's really all I've been saying. It's based on just that one quote that hinges on "independently wealthy" and "in most cases".
> Firstly, my working definition of "independently wealthy" is when you can stop working and keep living. I think this is the common definition, but it's possible you're using a different one.
You are independently wealthy in America at $1mm and do not need to work. It takes very little time to see that hit is the general case. You can buy a cheap house, and buy groceries and probably actually grow the principle amount.
Now from here you can say like it’s not enough money for you, or you don’t want to leave California (or wherever) but you can easily live off of that amount of money in the vast majority of America. You can also say that people accumulated that money in some distribution and all of that too. But even if you had that amount in a house + retirement you can sell the house and move to a different location or downsize or something. If you have a million in assets you’re making a choice to work. Period. There might be some thing you don’t want to give up, or some place you want to live. That’s fine, but you’re making a choice after you’ve become independently wealthy.
At this point you are willfully failing to understand my point. It's extremely simple, many mid career people with $1M dollars in net worth are not able to retire, because their net worth is not liquid, and liquidity is necessary to pay for things. If you do not understand the concept of liquidity, then I really can't help you out. Cheers.
> many mid career people with $1M dollars in net worth are not able to retire, because their net worth is not liquid
It really depends on the assets and the choices you want to make. Generally speaking, if you have $1mm worth of assets, you do not need to work. That's it. Period.
If you find that you need to work, you're making some other choice to work because of some factor that's overriding your desire to not work.
The liquidity of the assets is only relevant if you want to talk about specific cases, and even then it's likely not an issue. You can sell your house. You can withdraw from an IRA or 401k. Etc.
> > At $1mm you really are independently wealthy in most cases.
Firstly, my working definition of "independently wealthy" is when you can stop working and keep living. I think this is the common definition, but it's possible you're using a different one.
So from that quote and that definition, what I have been saying is that I don't think it is true that "in most cases" people with $1m are independently wealthy. I think that in most cases, those people have most of that $1m net worth tied up in their house and in illiquid traditional retirement accounts, and could not actually live off of just the remaining liquid wealth once those are subtracted. That's really all I've been saying. It's based on just that one quote that hinges on "independently wealthy" and "in most cases".