1.6m in 40 years probably won’t move the needle much more than 100k does today. Besides that, we’re not trying to solve peoples distant retirements we’re trying to solve peoples lives today , or that’s how I interpret the article

This probably seems very relevant to you if you're elderly and not so relevant if you don't have a home.

So for 44 years of their life it won't help them at all.

† Of course, that is assuming over the 40 years that politician and corporations don't try to screw people out of their investments.

This is exactly the wrong thing for a 20yr old to do with 100k. (Assuming they have no other assets) When I was 20 I needed a reliable car (having an unreliable car subjected me to periodic unplanned multi thousand dollar shocks), buying books for school (individual stem textbooks cost a couple hundred bucks) Yes I should have started an investment account but given my other finances I should have been putting in modest amounts every month, but frankly when daily life is costing more than you make it doesn’t make sense to earn 8% while incurring debt that costs 15%. I’d say the trick is stability. The uncertainties of young life with no money cause things to cost more than they should.

Think about what you're saying.

100k invested in the market - untouched - will decay a certain percentage a year in purchasing power due to inflation but will outpace it due to returns.

How many years until that cash windfall changes your life?

The answer is "indefinite" years, especially if you're actually using the funds to do anything, i.e. withdrawing them and preventing compound interest.

In 20 years you might be able to get into a home with the cash if you've absolutely touched not even a penny of it but A. you likely haven't and B. you probably still can't get into a home, 20 years later.

Of course, the number is fake, nobody is handing out 100k.

> Cash windfalls can absolutely build wealth.

Yes, but that's facile.

Do they, commonly? No.

> Also 100k invested in the market will yield you probably around 7k, which is a lot, especially you don't touch it and let it compound.

You came so close to getting the point, and then kept walking with your own predetermined idea! "Why don't these single-income, struggling mothers and unemployed homeless people just take this cash and invest it?" is the most privilege-laden, oblivious idea I've heard in a while.

It seems like the evidence falsifies this idea, though.

Just based on what I'm reading it's very likely that your idea of how people are railed or de-railed from life success might not comport entirely with reality, i.e. there aren't really small financial problems that people ride the razor's edge to insolvency.

My understanding of financial problems is that they can only be resolved through huge cash infusions (likely about enough to buy a home outright) or through long-term cash infusions (i.e. a guaranteed well-paying job).

We don't have any mechanisms to provide these things to people, the costs of living are too extreme. I can't suggest anything better, I'm just pointing out the issue.

It is stupid to fixate on the specific number $1000.

It's just a placeholder for wharever number makes sense in the clearly expressed context. Either substitute $5000 or $10000, or substitute whatever location or demographic you imagined (since none was specified) for some other location or demographic. You can't start in the US and vacation in Venice for $1000, but you absolutely can vacation somewhere else and/or somehow else.

Or, just pretend they said whatever other number you like, because the specific amount was not material to the point they were expressing.

Covers train tickets and hotel for a week if you don't choose an expensive hotel. For a poor person that is much better than nothing.

I honestly am not sure whether you think $1000 is way too much or way too little for a vacation, and am curious which you thought.

It's an example not to be taken literally.

Isn’t it pretty obvious that it’s possible to be a victim of more than specific financial circumstances or poor health?

The inheritance we (don’t) get is not just monetary, it is attitude, culture, expectations, education, network, class privilege, race privilege, and a host of other things that make it difficult to act “rationally”, or which change the parameters of what is rational for each individual.

Lack of money never helps, but it’s rarely the only problem.

Yes, in a way, but I think the person you replied to said it better!

Nah you gotta work for the rich or they WILL kill you by denying health care, shelter, and food.

There’s a Just World Fallacy if I ever saw one.

Totally on point.

I’m as free-market-laissez-faire as they come, but without guard rails, taking it to its logical conclusion then there should only be a single person in the world holding all the money!!