| |
| ▲ | abraxas 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Most people who have significant savings in the stock market don't have the lifespan to ride out a 25 year recovery cycle. And those young enough to have the time usually don't have much in savings yet. | | |
| ▲ | bigstrat2003 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | I guess it depends what you call "significant". I am 40 and have over 200k in my 401k, which I think is significant. And I could most likely expect to live 25 more years. If there's a crash tomorrow, my money wouldn't grow the way I am hoping it will over that time, but I should come out ok considering that I will be getting discount stocks while the market recovers. | | |
| ▲ | bxparks 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | It is significant if you remain healthy and employed with income. But it is basically nothing if you get laid off at age 56, and you can't find another job due to age discrimination, your COBRA runs out after 18 months, but you are not 65 years old yet for Medicare . Obamacare may be completely neutered by then, so private health insurance may cost $30k/year for a 57 year-old. You still have a mortgage, you can't afford health insurance, so you take a risk and decide to skip it, because you are healthy. Then you get pancreatic cancer, and without health insurance, your chemotherapy completely depletes your 401k in one year. Then you die of cancer at age 59, because you cannot pay for the treatments anymore. | | |
| ▲ | tossandthrow 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Which is likely what happens. It would not really be a great depression of there was not mass layoffs and immense job insecurity. | |
| ▲ | p1esk 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | In this scenario I would take that 200k (or whatever there would be), and move to some low COL country. | | |
| ▲ | 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | Terr_ 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Doesn't that imply magical foreknowledge about exactly how lengthy the bad-period will be? | |
| ▲ | komali2 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > move to some low COL country. So you are now alone in a foreign country, no family nearby, trying to adapt to a new lifestyle at nearly 60 lol. | |
| ▲ | tossandthrow an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Ah yes, a great migration! Going to ~America~ a low COL area! |
| |
| ▲ | twisterius 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | minkeymaniac 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It went down 89% Between 1929 And 1932, it took 25 years to close above 400 again. https://denisgobo.blogspot.com/2008/12/how-long-did-it-take-...
Of course with Dollar-Cost Averaging you will be buying at the low until as well | | |
| ▲ | patrickdavey 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | If you're lucky enough to have a job. Which you probably won't in a Great Depression II |
| |
| ▲ | boelboel 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | A 29 style crash would be accompanied by a 29 crash in other countries. Besides most countries (besides Argentine) suffered, some more some less. The US market wouldn't necessarily be a bigger bargain than others. | |
| ▲ | altmanaltman 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | A 1929-style crash was accompanied by mass unemployment (~25%), meaning people were often forced to sell at the bottom precisely because they had no income. You can't "hold" if you're selling assets to eat. Also just because it recovered in the past doesn't mean it'll follow the same trajectory in the future. | | |
| ▲ | vjvjvjvjghv 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | "A 1929-style crash was accompanied by mass unemployment (~25%), meaning people were often forced to sell at the bottom precisely because they had no income. You can't "hold" if you're selling assets to eat." That's the evil thing about economic crises. People with enough capital usually can sit them out and often even benefit. People with less capital often lose everything and when the recovery comes, they have nothing that could benefit from it. I am close to retirement and I often think how quickly your reserves can be wiped out in a long enough crisis. | |
| ▲ | bombcar 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Because we know of the '29 crash, the next one will always be different. Arguably the GFC was way worse, but way different. | | |
| ▲ | MyHonestOpinon 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | right. And because we know of the crashes of 2022, 2008, 2001, etc. the market is showing a lot more resiliency. Which is good, but it will take longer to have a correction. Which may be bad by itself. | | |
| ▲ | Spooky23 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Stabilizing from those crashes were all about the injecting liquidity and faith and credit in the US Treasury. Hoover didn’t handle the events subsequent to 1929 well, but more out of ignorance than malice. In 2026, the POTUS, his family and friends are looting the treasury with brazen acts of fraud. The government is buying losing futures contracts to manipulate oil and other markets, and “mysterious people” are buying securities before scheduled, secret events to profit from it. The US assassinated the leaders of a hostile power after they essentially gave in to our demands. We eliminated the governments experts in a variety of strategic topics including oil, and installed toadies to run the fiscal service that disburses government funds. People are working on undermining the FDIC and decapitating social security. So a crash now is really disturbing. Nobody can have the level of confidence in the faith and credit of the United States as we did in 2008. The people who understand the complex issues have been purged by the government, and the rest of the leadership is complicit in criminality and is counting on loyalty to secure pardons for later. So you should be anxious. | |
| ▲ | weakened_malloc 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I definitely don't think it's a case of more market resiliency but rather a case of central banks willing to act much more aggressively to respond to these things. This is often what Ben Bernanke argues, given he wrote his thesis on the '29 crash, and how he handled the '08 crisis. | |
| ▲ | actionfromafar 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yes, Trump knows about the crashes of 2022, 2008, 2001, he will make good choices. :) |
| |
| ▲ | AnimalMuppet 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | How was the GFC worse? Not in unemployment rate. Not in losses to bank depositors, either. (As a kid, my mother lost money in a bank that went down in the Great Depression.) Not in business bankruptcies. In what sense was the GFC worse? | | |
| ▲ | fragmede 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | It was worse because we bailed out the banks, because they were too big to fail, teaching them the lesson that they can do stupid shit and not really pay and consequences. There's no number on that to compare to a different situation, but thems the breaks. | | |
| ▲ | AnimalMuppet 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | In at least some of those cases, the shareholders got nothing. We bailed out the depositors. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | Spooky23 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] |
|
