Is it worth investing if I can only contribute $50 a month? - eviltoast

Assuming I have a time horizon >10 years.

  • XIIIesq@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    edit-2
    14 hours ago

    $50 per month for thirty five years saved with no interest at all is $21k, so I can absolutely understand the point of view that it’s not worth it if you’re currently struggling to scrape by to wait 35 years for what might be just an extra $14k

    If that $50 has literally no other use to you, then great, if that $50 can provide fair value for you now, it’s a much tougher decision.

    • FireRetardant@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      8 hours ago

      I blew a lot of my money when i was younger, something I don’t regret spending lots of money on is decent tools, they can last a lifetime if taken care of and can save you money in the long run if you learn to do your own work. Sometimes stuff now is a better investment but it can be super specific depending on your situation.

      • XIIIesq@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        4 hours ago

        I absolutely agree. I used to have no choice but to buy budget and have to deal with it when stuff inevitably failed and broke. But now I’m much more financially stable, I made a commitment to buy quality when I can, the old “buy once, cry once” mantra.

        With clothes I’m in the best of both worlds. I’m a proper hawk for charity shops and if you’re patient you can get both budget and quality. I bought a £100 shirt for £3 the other day and it looked like it had never even been worn, there’s no reason it won’t last me decades if I look after it. Good riddance to TK MAXX and fast fashion. Charity shops are especially good for suits and smart shirts as a lot of men only get them out for interviews and weddings, meaning they are usually in great condition and can be bought at a tiny fraction of the original price, you just have to be patient waiting for ones that are the correct size for you.

    • JoshuaFalken@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      10 hours ago

      Taking a step further, if the last thirty five years are any indication, that future $21k would be worth less than today’s $10k.

      Besides, to overcome inflation, you’d need to average double digit returns on your investment every year for half a lifetime.

      Like you say, it’s a tough decision if there’s anything that can provide you value now. Not to argue against savings, but expecting it to grow exponentially with no effort is folly.

      • Hacksaw@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        9 hours ago

        To overcome inflation you need returns higher than inflation. That’s it. Historically the markets outperform inflation. You’re saying things out of fear and not reality.

        • JoshuaFalken@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 hours ago

          Funny how a mistake in a single sentence earns vitriol on the entire comment.

          Despite what I’d mistakenly wrote, I meant that to overcome inflation and see a return of double to quadruple your investment - which is what the comment starting this thread suggests as the outcome - you’d have to beat the market by around 10%.

          Regardless, my point was more to do with whether someone with only $50 to spare a month is truly in a position to invest in anything or whether they might be better off saving it for a rainy day or something like that.

          If someone has a few dollars to spare come month’s end, but has found themselves skipping the odd meal, that money would probably be better spent on a small grocery trip than putting it into an ETF that’ll take years to turn a profit.