>>34166420
Wagemaxxing combined with indexmaxxing. I don't see the point of Youtubemaxxing because you're still taking on another job, only it pays less.

>>34166455
Yeah, this is pretty much my conclusion. Also tempted to preciousmetalsmax and travel more.
I tried making a few youtube channels, from personal finance to AI tutorials to history using AI for the scripts and video and honestly feel I just made slop while working it like a full time job barely making anything. It's tough doing anything without gambling years of time or going full on grifter mode. I guess with wagemaxxing I should at least be able to retire in 5 years or so if I wanted to.

>>34166420
I more or less have a remote job. I am trying Jobminimizing. I hate working and have no real use for my salary except for the basic stuff. Maybe I am saving for a house or some shit. I don't know.

>>34166620
I'm just bored out of my mind with a remote job. I've tried making music and hobbies but in the end I feel better just making more income and saving towards an early retirement. I also feel less bad about traveling or paying for family trips and whatnot.

>>34166719
Provide for ur family
What kind of dumb job is this anyway where you do nothing most of the day

>>34166420
I have a remote job and I bought a house recently in a LCOL area. I don't play early retirement or anything. I am still advancing in my career and being ambitious. Life without a job is pretty boring, I used to be a NEET so I know. I play vidya, work out, and watch anime more now than I did when I was a NEET.

If you're strictly looking for independence and don't mind the thought that it's going to take some years, pursue index funds, but be smart about it. A lot of people might like the idea of passive growth, but if you can afford the time to look at the markets and buy the dips, swinging is a lot more profitable than just holding forever.

Outside of that, you really don't have to choose. Investing as I've just described is simple to the point where you can still pursue things on the side that interest you and still end up financially independent regardless of whether those things succeed or not.

>>34169234
How do you recommend the swinging? I maxed my 401k, hsa, ira for index funds, but I still have around 50k in an emergency fund. I just add to it. Maybe using some of that? I'm just not sure what to get. I would think ai and robotics do well long term but thats already heavy in my index funds with VOO. For swings idk, maybe gold mining stocks?

>>34169281
Honestly, I just swing QQQ, SPY, and other funds like that. I'm no financial expert, but generally I've found that when there's a dip, the market recovers within the next few days. Obviously swinging on these tickers specifically is low-risk/low-reward, but even if you were able to, say, make 2-3 trades every month in which you gain an average of 1%, and assuming you use your $50k for those swings, that's $1,000-$1,500/mo for doing fucking nothing. Also, assuming you reinvest those funds back into that portfolio, that number will just grow with time.

IMO this is your quickest way to financial independence if you're not a retard about it. Hell, if it were me, I'd probably dump the 401(k) in favor of just doing that if the 401(k) is sizeable.

>>34170329
That is horrible advice. You are recommending he make 42% a year. Only the best traders on the planet can get that consistently.

>>34170356
I don't see how it's hard realistically. Even if he doesn't achieve 42%/yr, half that would still be respectable. I'm personally already up 4% for the year by doing exactly as I've described. Skill issue?

>>34170407
>I don't see how it's hard realistically. Even if he doesn't achieve 42%/yr, half that would still be respectable.
Very few traders can make 20% every year for 10-20 years without losing it all. You can look this stuff up, it's not like I'm making it up.
>I'm personally already up 4% for the year by doing exactly as I've described. Skill issue?
No, you're a beginner and you will either lose all your gains later or you will end up making 12% YoY at best.
You're like a guy who landed a 3-point-shot at a basketball court and now you think you can beat Michael Jordan.

>>34170423
I achieved a ~30% return rate last year. The only times I "lost my portfolio" was when I was young and dumb playing with options. I'm not proposing that to OP. Swinging tickers like QQQ and SPY is inherently low risk because even if you get fucked and the market has a significant recession (presuming you didn't set up a stop), within the year, you'll bounce back, and make that average 12% return rate like you had mentioned. Being that a long-term recession like that doesn't come incredibly frequently, having one "shitty" 12% year compared to 9 other years where you can pull a 20-30% return rate is hardly a loss. I don't really see where "losing it all" comes into this equation. Investing is a simple game if you're not trying to make 20-30% a trade.

>>34170466
>I achieved a ~30% return rate last year.
The fact that you made 30% one year does not indicate consistent performance. If you could do that for 5 years, that would make you an elite world-class trader.
>The only times I "lost my portfolio" was when I was young and dumb playing with options. I'm not proposing that to OP. Swinging tickers like QQQ and SPY is inherently low risk because even if you get fucked and the market has a significant recession (presuming you didn't set up a stop), within the year, you'll bounce back, and make that average 12% return rate like you had mentioned.
It guarantees low-reward because you have no idea when to buy and when to sell to actually get a faster return. It's just throwing darts at a dartboard.
The market has historically taken 5-10 years to recover from recessions (2000, 2008). So in the case of a recession, with your strategy that 30% average will quickly drop and become unimpressive. Most likely a waste of time.

>>34170536
Even if such a recession took 5-10 years to recover from (a bit exaggerated for 2000/2008, but whatever), a stop loss would mitigate a portfolio from bleeding out and sustaining that loss for a long period of time.

You could argue the strategy would be "unimpressive" if stops weren't a factor here, but even if that were the case, if all OP's money was in a 401(k) or similar, he'd still take the hit all the same, and still have to wait for the market to recover.

So, in what instance would swinging be less favorable to a "set and forget" strategy? If you take stop loss out of the swinging equation, you are still objectively ahead because your gains outside of such a recession scenario would be greater than that of the set and forget strategist's.

>>34170599
>Even if such a recession took 5-10 years to recover from (a bit exaggerated for 2000/2008, but whatever), a stop loss would mitigate a portfolio from bleeding out and sustaining that loss for a long period of time.
Now you're talking about stop losses, which means you're locking in losses. Where will you set your stop? This increases the complexity, since now you can lose money on your trades.
That would a different strategy from your previous recommendation to avoid stops and just hold through a recession.
>You could argue the strategy would be "unimpressive" if stops weren't a factor here, but even if that were the case, if all OP's money was in a 401(k) or similar, he'd still take the hit all the same, and still have to wait for the market to recover.
The opportunity cost of actively trading when he could've been using that time/energy to better himself in other ways, or to get a second job so he can double his salary.
>If you take stop loss out of the swinging equation, you are still objectively ahead because your gains outside of such a recession scenario would be greater than that of the set and forget strategist's.
One year, market conditions might change and your usual strategy will no longer yield as much. You might make 8% rather than 12%, so you just underperformed compared to DCA.