>>541974218
I could solve most of my immediate problems with about 5 to 10 thousand dollars, most of my medium term problems with about 20 to 50 thousand and actually retire on a quarter million

Most would laugh at how poor thst is but Ilivef on goodwill and about 10k last year. I own a house, that's it. Now the govt wants that

>>541974218
Lol, no.

>>541974218
yes if you want to be an OLD BROKE BITCH who get NO ACTION

Easily. And comfortable too
Not even that hard

>>541974371
I hope things turn around for you, Bruce.

>>541974803
Just in case anons are curious
I would put all of it in a dividend ETF

1,000,000 dollars / 60 dollars per share = 16,667 shares
1 share pays out 70 cents per month
16,667*. 7 = 11,666.9 per month
11,667 per month is 140k a year by doing nothing.
And it compounds too if you don't use all of it and continue to invest.

If someone could give me a million, I'd appreciate it

>>541975481
> 14% on dividends
Yeah, good luck with that.

>>541974218
I'm NEET, motherfucker.
I can live on nothing.
I can survive by merely skimming off "productive " members of society and they hardly even realize it (hey, i "pull my weight", I bag the garbage, even if I never actually take it out, I cook, occasionally, I help with big decisions and etc and etc)
So yes, 1 million would be easy

Just live beneath your means.

File: Pepe Ape Shrug.png (15 KB, 112x112)

15 KB PNG

>>541974698
>be left alone
>live humbly
Yeah that's 1:1 what I want

>>541974698
Nigger detected.

BEGIN TRANSMISSION:
The "loser" has a diabolical function in a competitive society. It needs them around, publicly, in order to shame them and imprint the values of the group.
A hierarchy doesn't communicate its values merely through the people at the top.
It communicates them through the contrast between top and bottom.
The successful person is successful relative to somebody. The prestigious career is prestigious because other careers have less prestige. The wealthy person is “successful” because poverty exists as its counterexample.

What happens if the person "at the bottom" simply leaves the tournament and finds happiness away from endless competition?
They aren't status climbing.
They aren't overthrowing the hierarchy.
They aren't demanding equality.
They're saying:
“I don't need a position on your fucking totem pole."
But modern society has a peculiar way of making “losing” public
The old hierarchy could be fairly straightforward: your family, village, caste, occupation, etc. told you where you stood.
Modern societies ostensibly abolished a lot of those fixed rankings and replaced them with achievement-based status.
Which sounds liberating:
Anyone can rise!
But the flip side is:
If you haven't "risen", you've failed.
In times of global competition, (China v US, for example) you are continually expected to compete, internally, in preparation, and constantly compare:
income
career
education
appearance
romantic success
fitness
possessions
house
children
social life
popularity
productivity
political influence
etc
On, into tedious infinity, unto death
who has the biggest tombstone
how many people were at your funeral
did they even cry

>>541976224
And these comparisons are publicly visible.
Social media makes the phenomenon almost grotesquely literal. You're surrounded by people displaying their victories while you're implicitly expected to remain an audience member.
A hostage to demonic algorithms, weighted for obnoxiousness and "ambition".
There's something very peculiar about the cultural demand that the "unsuccessful" person remain visible, ambitious, socially engaged, humiliated and continually attempting to improve himself.
He can't simply say:
“I've decided I don't want this.”
Because that refusal itself gets interpreted as another kind of failure:
loser doesn't try mentally unhealthy needs intervention needs medication needs therapy needs reintegration.

───
Society deliberately keeps losers around to humiliate them.
Often, the system doesn't even have a culturally respectable category for voluntary nonparticipation. Because everyone would take it.
We have woefully elaborate categories for:
• winner
• loser
• worker
• entrepreneur
• retiree
• student
• activist
• artist
• consumer
• patient
• taxpayer
• influencer
But:
“Person who doesn't compete for status and wants to spend their life quietly reading”
is strangely difficult to classify positively without threatening the GDP.
And that's exactly why the recluse and society's reaction is such an interesting topic.

"You're a loser."
"You're lazy."
"You're worthless."
"You're a piece of trash."
...
"You probably think you're better than me."
LoL.
I'm not butting into you're life calling you names though, am I? Lol.

>>541974218
Maybe although I have higher tastes so I think 5 would be better. Enough I could put it into stocks and live off the gains

File: 29.2.Купец и смерть (1651).jpg (2.82 MB, 2316x3093)

2.82 MB JPG

>>541976224
All of which makes these lines even better:
Leave people alone.
Stop keeping score.
Remember we all die.

Those aren't three unrelated complaints.
They're a progression:
Leave people alone stop imposing participation.
Stop keeping score stop converting lives into rankings.
Remember we all die remember that the rankings ultimately have no permanent victor.

And that gives our original passage another layer:
The person sitting alone reading Victor Hugo isn't necessarily demonstrating that solitude is superior. (It is!)
He's demonstrating something much more unsettling:
The possibility that the competition isn't mandatory.
And that is the idea they fear the most.
Not “solitude is good.” (it is)
Not “society is bad.”(it is, read almost any religious text)
Not even “people should escape.”(100% should)
Rather:
What if a human being can simply decline the invitation to compete for a place in the hierarchy, and construct a life whose value isn't measured by where it stands on somebody else's scoreboard?
That's Counterculture 101.
The first sentence in the introduction to the textbook.
That is a hell of a thing to put quietly underneath a cookbook for building an interior life.(*on sale at all discerning bookstores soon!)
And importantly, the cookbook(*$9.99, while supplies last!) itself doesn't have to argue for it.
It can just be there.
(*But wait! That's not all!!)
A person opens it, closes the door, and starts furnishing the room.
.
.

File: KIKENOSEpng.png (48 KB, 151x199)

48 KB PNG

>>541976126
>I help with big decisions
Sure You Do Delusional KIKE....LMAO

>>541974218
No way, that’s like 4 years of work, after taxes, 401k, healthcare for the senpai, basic cars, more taxes, etc. More money just means more kids, $1 million id have 1 more kid, but wouldn’t be significant enough to change our lifestyle.

>>541975481
The best you could do is expect is maybe 5% dividends (so 50,000 pre-tax) and that would result in your principle failing to grow as all ROI is now captured by dividends.
But then inflation still occurs, so that 50k decreases in value each year.
You could still do it, but you'd be dumpster diving here and there eventually. Certainly you couldn't do it with a family.

>>541976916
Yeah, and since they lie about the inflation numbers, 5% is basically just keeping up with inflation and making you zero money.

>>541974218
Actually, OP, I want to change my answer. I could retire on a million dollars because I am retired and I did it for less. If you gave me one million dollars, I would buy some land and build something on it, sell it, and have closer to 2 million dollars. Rinse and repeat until you have whatever number in your bank account that you feel comfortable stopping at.

>>541974218
I looked into it a while ago and IIRC, the FIRE target I'd need for a rather frugal lifestyle was like 1.5 million in investments.

>>541976126
>I'm NEET, motherfucker.
>I can live on nothing
Doesn't every parasite need a host?

>>541974218
Im retired on welfare, no $1mil needed

>>541974218
Depends entirely on what you wanna live like, some retire on $0.