An Example of How to Get Rich on an Average Salary

Here's another example of the fact that anyone can become wealthy with even an average salary -- as long as they spend less than they earn. This story comes to us from the Wall Street Journal. The summary:

Jimmie Dean (not to be confused with the sausage magnate) worked for 33 years as a technician at Phillips Petroleum. The most he ever earned was around $50,000 a year.

But he scrimped and saved and invested in mutual funds. When he died in 2008, he had more than $2 million in the bank. His bequest was to set up a scholarship fund.

“He did it through being frugal with his money,” said Mr. Dean’s nephew, Bob Boyd, who now runs the Jimmie Dean Foundation.

Let's forget the "he deprived himself just so he could give the money away" comments for now and focus on the facts:

• He didn't have a great income -- it was average at best. Remember that $50k was the MOST he ever earned in a year. I'm guessing many years were well below that amount.
• He lived frugally, had an excess, and saved/invested it.
• All this effort ended up generating a net worth of $2 million.

Not bad, huh? And if he can do it, so can the rest of us.

In fact, many, many people become wealthy this way. Check out these posts for details:

• Another Example of Getting Rich on a Low Salary 
• How to Live on $44k Per Year (Almost) Debt Free
• And Yet Another Millionaire Says the Same Thing 
• Wealth Doesn't Require a High Income

Comments

[Money Reasons]

Compounding interest, dollar cost averaging and consistency is a powerful thing! Perhaps with just a tinge of luck too...

It might even be a little easier today since ETFs usually charge a lower management fee vs. mutual funds.

[Anthony]

Based on my reverse calculations, contributing $800/month for 33 years, yielding 9% would result in $2m. Also, coincidentally, all of these numbers are the same as mine. A minimum of $800/month for 33 years (puts me at a retirement age of 58) with 9% yield.

I hope to hit $2m, and I'm sure that I will. I live frugally. My wife and I have nice incomes for our age, and we are able to save 3 or 4 times Jimmie Dean's monthly savings.

[Tyler]

A few weeks ago I visited a family member of mine who is in his 90s (a cousin to my grandmother). He never went to college and worked as a repairman of sorts- not a high level position. He spent 50 years working for a large US company and always took the maximum stock options he was allowed and saved like only a child of the Depression can. He lived cheaply, but still lived in a nice area of the country.

He paid 24k for the house he lives in now and he has lived there since a few years after WWII. He was able to take some very nice vacations around the world throughout his life. Paid for all 3 of his children to attend college. And from what I know, lived a nice but frugal lifestyle.

He gets two pensions and SS- one from the govt for his military service and one from the corp. (Good luck getting a corp pension these days, I know.) He spends less than half of his pension income.

Based on what he told me once about the number of shares he had from his options, he has between $4 and 6 mm in stock alone. I am going to guess his net worth exceeds $6mm. Not bad for a low level employee.

I wonder however, if what worked for his generation can and will work for mine. No pensions, less growth, multiple careers over a lifetime, guaranteed retirement, reduced benefits, etc.

The equations is easy in principle: spend less than your income + saving/investing + time = wealth. There are so many variables to that equation that it can make creating wealth far more difficult than it implies. What if there is a new equation for wealth building that offers better risk reward?

Spend every penny and borrow other people's money + take risk on business ventures (or bet it all on black) * as many times as you can = if you make any money, it will come in a large chunk at one time

With the world paying so little for taking risk (yields at historic lows) maybe the new way to build wealth is to take advantage of this cost of capital. Unlike the period of the last 50 years, the world does not reward savers. Under this scenario, will what worked in the past work in the future?

[whatever you choose to call me sir]

Just a quick note for impressiveness. Even if he were making 50k that entire time, he only made 1.65 million dollars. That is quite the argument for compounding.

[Tyler]

What is it about the world today, that makes some believe they will have an inflation adjust, average compounding yield over the next 10 years at 9%? Even at the far end of the risk curve, its hard to find that kind of return. Stocks have not provided 9%. Bond yields are not paying 9%. Everyone thinks they can earn 7-10% every single year... just like everyone thinks they are an above average driver.

[myfinancialobjectives]

I love reading about people like this. It gives me hope for my future retirement. I am saving smart right now, but stories like this always help to keep one motivated! Anothony, thanks for posting those numbers as I am only a few years off from your calculations. That too gives me hope!

[savvy]

That's great but who really wants to scrimp their whole lives? Plus, if I manage to save $2M, I'd rather enjoy it instead of giving it all away.

I prefer finding the balance between enjoying the present and saving for the future.

[Squirrelers]

Excellent article. This is another example of how people can make the best of a relatively modest salary and generate a nice nest egg.

Save early, and save often!

[Old Limey]

I worked for Lockheed/Martin for 32 years. I started at $173/week in 1960 as a stress engineer and ended at $1,394/week in 1992 when I retired as a senior staff engineer. Thanks to a "Golden Handshake" of 32 week's pay I was able to pay off the balances on our home and a condo. After a particularly great year in the market in 1999 I calculated that my total gross wages for my 32 year career were a shade below $1M and for the year 1999 my market gains for one year were also very close to $1M - that came as a big surprise and was unplanned. Of course the dot.com bubble was the reason and that was a once in a lifetime event for me. I have kept a daily record of my portfolio since 12/28/92 when I took charge of my 401K and transferred everything I had to Fidelity Investments.
During this period I never owned a market index fund or a stock, never used margin, and never sold short, made trades based upon my own investment decisions with the help of my own ranking software and a proprietary fund database with daily updates that I subscribe to that now contains over 10,000 funds and indexes.
1993... +32%
1994 ..... -9% ... My only losing year thanks to Alan Greenspan raising interest rates about 4 times.
1995 .. +35%
1996 .. +27%
1997 .. +28%
1998 . +27.0% ... Start of the dot.com bubble
1999 . +62.3% ... 100% in the most aggressive growth Hi-Tech funds
2000 . +34.7% ... Bailed out in the ensuing four market days after my personal high on 3/9/00
2001 .. +8.7%
2002 .. +2.4%
2003 . +31.6%
2004 . +13.0%
2005 .. +4.5%
2006 . +18.7%
2007 .. +4.9% .... Switched out of the stockmarket and into the bond market.
2008 .. +2.6% .... Switched into CDs, Municipal Bonds, and Bond funds for good.
2009 .. +4.4%
2010 .. Estimate about 4.9%

[Tyler]

So Old Limey, who is a savvy and active investor with years of experience and a unique investment strategy, has earned 9.51% over the last ten periods before inflation. If you assume a very low inflation rate of 2%, that rate of return drops to 7.51%.

This is an awesome return over a difficult period and way above average.

[kt]

it is stories like this that make me start thinking that being a multi millionaire is over rated. There seems to be a lot of freedom in being comtented with what you have and not envying the guys in the rich lists.

[Peter]

Old Limey,

How would you change your portfolio for 2010, 2011 and beyond?

[Tyler]

What if old Jimmy had spent some money on a nice suite or being social at bars/nice restaurants or join the country club? Maybe Jimmy would have not only enjoyed life some more but also had a larger income.

Being frugal can also have its costs.

"Let's not go out with Jimmy because I always get dinged for more of the tab."

"Why invite Jimmy, he never has us over."

"Jimmy doesnt have clubs and I dont want him to use mine."

"We cant take Jimmy to the meeting, he wears such cheap suits."

I can go on and on. People who are overly concerned with saving money, dont realize it can have other costs.

[jim]

Old Limey's return of 9.5% since 2000 would have beaten 90% of stock funds. Definitely way above average for an individual investor.

[FMF]

Tyler --

Who says he didn't have a great life? Is spending money always equal to "more fun"? If so, the people who are in massive amouts of debt are the ones having the most fun, right?

I understand what you're saying, but I also know that spending money doesn't bring happiness (though many people search for it that way.) In addition, what one person finds fun (i.e. a country club membership), another would hate (I, for one, have no interest in joining a country club.) So why assume that his life was dull, he hated it, he had no friends, etc.? Simply because he was a saver?

[MC]

Hmm, not impressive -- scrimping for years just so he could die with all that cash in the bank. Major Fail.

I'd rather make $2 million before I retire, spend it all during my retirement having a great time, and *then* die. Anyone want to tell me how to swing that?

[Tyler]

I never said he didnt have a great life. I said he might have enjoyed life more- more being the key word. Like most people in life, I am confident he made choices not to do something that he would have liked to do because of cost.

Spending more does not equate to more fun. This being said, doing something, often means spending something. Spending on stuff and spending on experiences tend to yield different emotions and length of joy.

Financial life is often a utility curve. Spending or saving has a trade off. Personal debt scares me, so for me, any debt is a weight I would rather not have hanging over me. For some, this extreme isnt true.

I am of the opinion, based on personal experiences, that those who obsess over saving at the expense of living, do not live a fulfilling life. Its about balance for me.

I hate country clubs and dont golf. That wasnt the point.

Again, I havent assumed anything, I am merely asking questions and providing a counter weight. Saving does have a very real cost. Just as not saving can have a cost. I am glad he died with $2mm net worth on a small lifetime earning. From that perspective its inspiring. If he had spent more, could he have made more or lived a better life? Maybe, maybe not, but its certainly worth asking and analyzing the consequences of those choices.

[FMF]

Tyler --

If we're looking at all possibilities, then we need to consider the option that if he had spent more, he could he have made less or lived a worse life.

[Tyler]

He had excess upon his death, by definition he had some wiggle room to increase spending. I find the argument that had Jimmy only died with $1mm, his life would have been worse than had he died with $2mm, to be rather weak. Go ahead and consider it all you want. Its such an unlikely probability that I am willing to dismiss it.

[FMF]

Tyler --

Well, then, I guess you know best...

[Tyler]

Unless it involves math I rarely speak on this blog in absolutes. Thus I would hardly argue that I know best. I will argue my point and be open to opinions that differ from mine. I will also question statements in order to continue to learn.

I believe your point about his life being worse had he spent some money (donating to college funds counts) during his lifetime was a low probability and a weak argument. If you disagree, tell me why. Don't throw a sarcastic temper tantrum.

[FMF]

Tyler --

You're not being clear.

From your first comment, you appear to be saying (not directly, but certainly implying) that his life would have been better if he had spent more/saved less. Then you backtracked with a "let's consider all the possibilities" sort of response. So, I was simply offering another possibility to consider. But then you dismiss that as not being worthwhile. So if you're going to be judge and jury of the discussion, I'll yield and let you know best.

But if you really want to explore the issue, why not simply say what you think and take a stand, rather than hiding it in "what are the possibilities" sort of terminology?

Personally, I'd rather deal with a specific point of view and discuss it rather than span the vast numbers of "could have" "may have" sort of conversations. Why, because the conversation is rather meaningless. The options:

*He could have spent more and been happier
*He could have spent less and been happier
*He could have been the happiest at his level of spending

Now that that's over, if you want to state a specific opinion that's fine. Otherwise, I'm not really interested in discussing "what ifs" in this particular situation. Maybe others are.

BTW, I didn't throw a temper tantrum. Sarcastic? Sure. But when I throw a temper tantrum it will be a lot worse than that...

[Stephan]

I just hope he enjoyed life and didnt live so cheaply that he missed out on some opportunities to enjoy the savigns he had.

[Money Obedience]

Here is another example. Woman who lived frugally donates $7 million to alma mater at http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-03-05/news/ct-met-lake-forest-donation-0304-20100304_1_donates-friend-lake-county

[Tyler]

I never knew the man so its hard to speak in specifics. There is a cost to saving. These costs are abstract- maybe this or maybe that.

If I had to guess our friend was a minor hoarder. He found it hard to throw anything out or give anything away during his lifetime. This is why he gave away the $2mm after his death. He had a small or no family at all. If he had any family, they died before him or dont talk to him anymore. That's why his brother/sister's son is heading the estate. Probably lacked social skills which is why he remained a low level engineer and never changed companies. Never took much risk and never got dinged. Probably never left the country or took a nice vacation on his own dime- these are a waste of money. The list of things he never did is likely very long. The simple math indicates there was a cost to his saving. I dont know what it was, but I believe it was there.

The traits that allowed him to save so much with so little were likely traits that are less than inspiring if you looked at his entire life. But this is nearly imposable to debate with so little information. So I am left with speculation.

We talk in 'what if's' all day long. What if we save, what if we earn x, what if we dont.

Do you disagree there is any cost to spending a live only focused on saving?

[FMF]

Tyler --

I agree that there's a cost to living a life focused only on one thing no matter what that thing is (saving, spending, football, cooking, etc.).

As for whether his life was better/worse because of what he spent/saved, we'll never know. That's kind of the issue I was getting at. Why debate it?

If the issue is whether it's better to save or spend, if there's a cost to saving/spending, etc., that's a more worthwhile conversation IMO because it's actionable -- we all can learn from it and take steps we feel are appropriate. Maybe it's a subtle difference.

In addition, I will admit that I'm sensitive to the "yeah, but he probably lived a terrible life" sort of comment on these types of posts. In general I think it's one made by people who want to feel better about themselves and that they spend way too much/don't save enough (not saying this is you, but there are others I have strong suspicion that have made this comment for those reasons on similar posts.) So I may have seemed a bit harsh and if so, I apologize for that.

But I'm NEVER going to admit to throwing a temper tantrum... :-)

[Sarah]

If his nephew is the one who is administering the fund, does that mean he didn't have a family? The only reason I ask is because I would have a lot more money in the bank if it wasn't supporting my family...

[Budgeting in the Fun Stuff]

I like stories like these since it gives me hope that hubby and I indeed have a big chance for early financial independence if we continue living well below our means.

[cm]

For those declaring "FAIL" on this guy because he died with $2 million in the bank, think of it this way...

If he had that much when he died, that means that for the last third of his life, when illness, the death of loved ones, and the ravages of old age were upon him, what was *not* upon him was any objective reason to think he would wind up indigent and desperate. Even drawing just 4% a year, he would have an annual income of $80,000 from interest alone--not to mention a house paid off and Social Security checks. This situation could have pertained from 55--85. He essentially made his money and then his money made him.

If that's the "FAIL" of dying with money in the bank (knowing for many years that you would have a major posthumous "WIN" when you willed it to a charity), I'll take it.

[Old Limey]

@Peter
Our annual cash flow of around $300K is hardly touched because our pensions and SS checks take care of the bulk of our needs, thus our IRA and Trust accounts continue to grow every year. The mandatory distributions on our IRAs simply move money from the IRAs into the Trust account. When you're in a situation like this there isn't the slightest motivation to stick your neck out, get back into the stockmarket, own volatile mutual funds, subject yourself to stress for the sole purpose of leaving more and more money to your heirs and paying more on inheritance taxes. Many of our CDs go out another 3-5 years and our Muni bonds go out another 5-15 years so the only changes I make to our portfolio is to reinvest interest every month and a CD or a Bond whenever they mature. I call it "Life in the Slow Lane".

We don't buy much these days so even if inflation returned it wouldn't hurt us very much. Currently our healthcare costs us $222.74/month for the two of us and we go to the most modern, and I think the best, clinic in the S.F. Bay Area so I am not too worried about it. Even if food costs went up a lot it also wouldn't matter because there's just the two of us and I grow lots of our own vegetables and have quite a few fruit trees. As for cars, I put 500 miles/year on mine and the other Mercedes which we use most of the time gets about 3,000 miles/year so automobile costs are very low. Our biggest expense is our annual vacation, this year it's about $18K because we no longer fly coach on 11 hour flights to Europe, and on river trips, like this year down the Rhine and Moselle, we like the best deck and at the most expensive time of the year.

[Tyler]

FMF- to set you at ease, I am a saver. I bet my average savings rate over my career has exceeded 70% after tax. I'm not even half way through my working life. But this is easy for me because so far I've been blessed to be a high earner. I no longer work for money to live, I work to be the best at what I do and to win.

A close person to me was a postman. He died with over $2mm in cash equivalents. He used to make statements along the lines of, "I would have liked to do X, but I cant now." There was zero financial reason he couldnt have done X. Over focus on saving can come at the cost of living.

[Troy]

I find the story admirable, but not impressive.

Admirable because it is always nice to save money and accumulate a nice nest egg.

Not impressed because nothing unaverage or out of the ordinary was done.

The guy had an average income and alot of time. He should have saved a bundle.

What impresses me is a self made 35 or 40 year old with 2M in cash. That accomplshment takes extraordinary effort of some type. Risk, skills, deftness, whatever.

Anyone can use time to get wealthy. That is why it doesn't really impress me. Anyone can finance a new BMW too. I am impressed by those that accomplish despite time, not becasue of it.

[BD]

I dunno, $50,000 a year sounds like a fortune to me. I'm middle-aged, and I've never made anywhere near that much a year in my entire life, and I still manage to save a bit. :/
I should HOPE he was able to save a lot!

[Old Limey]

Tyler and FMF:
From a 75 year old's perspective I have found that your best laid plans don't always work out the way you thought they would. Totally unplanned and unforseen events can come along and change the trajectory of the remainder of your life. How about "A Divorce", "Winning the lottery", "A diagnosis of Cancer", "A terrible car accident", "A stockmarket Bubble at just the right time", "Being out of work a long time".

Things were getting slow at work during the months prior to my planned retirement so I wrote some software that took in all the variables I could think of and calculated the range of possible growth of our net worth during retirement. After giving each variable a plus or minus range and running combinations of all the variables in a Monte Carlo analysis it was obvious that retirement was going to be a safe bet. I used a maximum estimated annual return of 9% on my investments, and yet in November 2007 after 15 years of being retired my annual return worked out to be 21.43% - totally beyond all expectations. The other big unknown is Health, particularly a problem that isn't easily fixed and that drastically affects your lifestyle - fortunately even though my wife has had three major surgeries since retiring she has made full recoveries from each, and new medical advances have given her an enjoyable life that was not even remotely possible in our parent's days. Life has actually never been any more satisfying for us than right now, though it's very much slower and quieter.

In retrospect we overdid the saving but if I had been laid off at a very inopportune time and been forced to sell up and move out of state everything could have turned out very differently.

The bottom line is "Prepare for the worst but hope for the best" while still realizing that you only have one shot at life. Our travelling is limited to one overseas vacation/year now but our home is full of memories of all the wonderful trips we made all over the world after the children moved out. If you prepare for the worst but everything turns out nicely people may accuse you of not spending enough, however the only people you really have to please are yourselves.

[BillV]

As always Old Limey, very insightful: "Prepare for the worst but hope for the best" . And pretty much my view point. Divorce will set your plans back, even if there are no alimony payments (first hand knowledge) and health issues are always an unpleasant surprise.

I'm glad to hear your wife's issues have turned out well. But they don't always turn out that way as in my current wife's condition (limited mobility). We were "lucky" to have good health insurance, though.
This past year we were able to take two nice vacations --one was very nice, a 10 day cruise with extra days inport before and after. made possible because both my birde and me save more than we spend. I am fortunate to have a defined benefit pension but I saved beyond that in a 457. I stayed mostly in index funds and am now moving to bond type funds. As you say"how much do you need?"

I don't quite get what Tyler is trying to say though. I guess I disagree that savings is a 'cost'. Does it,saving that is, involve choices, yes. If he means by savings at a high rate you forgo other purchases, pleasures, aquisitions, or travel, well okay. I can buy that. (Pun intended)

[Old Limey]

BillV:
Saving as well as living below your means is NOT a cost in my opinion it is demonstrating common sense and responsibility particularly when you have a family to support. I realized where my abilities lay and what my deficiencies were also and looking back 54 years to when I started my first real job am convinced that I did as well as my capabilities allowed. I had one opportunity to move from the technical into the managerial career path and was offered a position in the Space Systems division of the corporation but my division manager refused to allow me to leave the Missile Systems division, as was his perogative at the time. In retrospect it was for the best as I much prefer dealing with computers and technical challenges than I do with people.

My wife also has impaired mobility as the result of two hip replacements, that and an impaired breathing ability caused by constant secondhand smoke during her childhood has eliminated the hiking and backpacking that we used to enjoy together however two new hips and two great new inhalers enable her to have a painfree and enjoyable life nevertheless.
Life is full of "What if's" but you have to look forward rather than backwards and play the cards that you are dealt.

[jim]

The article title refers to him as an engineer but then later calls him a technician. It also says he was divorced and had a son.
I found his foundation website which has a little more info on him:

"The Jimmie L. Dean Scholarship Foundation, Inc. was established in 2008 from the generous gift of Jimmie L. Dean. Jimmie was a lifelong resident of Washington County, Oklahoma who believed that through hard work, individual responsibility and education, a person can achieve their highest goals and dreams. Jimmie’s life was an example of following those beliefs as he came from a working class family in Bartlesville, Oklahoma. Jimmie attended and graduated from Bartlesville High School in 1960 and then went on to serve in the United States Navy as an aircraft mechanic from 1961-1966. After being honorably discharged from the Navy, he began a 33 year career with Phillips Petroleum Company, retiring in 1999. While working at Phillips Jimmie's work received recognition from his peers and he innovated and developed solutions, even receiving a patent in 1992. During his lifetime Jimmie prudently managed his financial affairs and upon his death in 2008, directed his estate to organize a not-for-profit charitable corporation; and through a testamentary gift, his estate is the original contributor to the Jimmie L. Dean Scholarship Foundation, Inc. "

Doesn't sound like he went to college at all. If he graduated high school in 1960 then he was likely born in 1942. He would have been about 66 when he passed.

[Tyler]

Billv-
"Penny smart, dollar dumb."

The saying has merit and can be applied to a business or one's life.

Choosing to buy the suit from Sears and save the money can change your life. You'll never know that cost. Choosing to drive the BMW to visit a client vs the old pickup truck can change your life (and I'm not arguing that you should drive the BMW). Choosing to stay at the nicer hotel causes you to run into your future business partner who funds the entire venture, or not. Choosing to pay for Old Limey's software, or not. Not living in the better neighborhood where your neighbor is the future CEO of XOM.

Saving money can have a cost. Just like spending money can have a cost. Spending can make your life better- utility curve. This blog is all about personal finance, and many have a spending problem, but spending can be of personal value.

[Tyler]

A small personal example:

I spend $175 per seat, per game, to sit in awesome seats for an NBA team. $350 per game. I dont care at all about the NBA. I dont have clients so there is zero direct benefit to spending this money. This costs me about $4k per year for tickets alone (at least another $1k in other related expenses).

Most and certainly most on this blog, would say that is in incredible waste of money. And on the surface it is.

But one day, I ran into someone who was sitting a few rows up who I had once interviewed with and runs a business similar to mine. We talked at half and grabbed a drink a few days later. That drink with him gave me an idea that has made over $1mm since then.

Another person that sits near me is retired and their daughter lives in a state where my girlfriend is from. Her flight was canceled one day and she wasnt going to get home for a holiday. Called him up to see if he was heading there, he was, she got to jump on his jet and made it home.

If you want more examples I can continue.

Jimmie didnt spend that money. Most are unable to see the 2nd level of things.

[Troy]

I am going to side with Tyler on this.

Money is completely worthless when not spent.

Either now, or in the future, it's only value is in being used at some point in time. And those who compulsively save will only find it more difficult to spend when the accumulation of savings increases.

And I also agree that spending now is many times smarter than saving for the unknown future. The now is known. The future is not, nor guaranteed to even exist for many.

While is is certainly wise to plan for the future, doing so at the expense of the present, which I believe is what Tyler's argument is is foolish.

We could all wear speedos, eat bread and oatmeal, drink only water, and walk to work everyday, and sing for entertainment in out dark colapsable tents and save alot of money. But frugality only goes so far.

It's chic now to be frugal. Like it was chic 5 years ago to be highly leveraged. It is a cycle that will repeat itself over and over like bell-bottoms. I am neither frugal or leveraged.

When I was 25 I bought a convertible sports car. I couldn't afford squat, much less a convertible, but I did it. And I am so glad. The memories of my now wife, sans children, driving around that summer are priceless.

If I would have taken that money and invested it at the average return for the past 10 years it would now be a considerable sum. Six figures. Still not worth it. I wouldn't trade those memories, or the ones I create today using money for anything.

I think what my point is...is dying with 2 million isn't impressive. Living with 2M is.

[BillV]

@Tyler;
Penny smart, dollar dumb. good one.
A penny saved is a penny earned.

You are right that a number of folks here would consider the Bulls, I mean NBA tickets a waste--but not me. I have a vice or two (friends down at the local pub and a couple of cocktails)that some would is wasteful. I don't need more examples because I agree money should be used to enjoy oneself. I just prefer to say that spending or not spending it has consequences, good, bad, neutral.
I just don't see saving as a cost. (Sound too University of Chicago to me.) ;->

I do agree in consequences as I said above. There is a difference between frugal and miserly. As you said two or three posts above you are a saver too. You aren''t afraid to spend but doesn't sound like you are a spendthrift.

If you want to get across the idea that sometimes it you have to spend money to make money, well I don't think anyone here would disagree. I don't at least.

But you are ahead of the curve compared to many, it sounds like, and good for you. Seriously. Others need some guidance and help. For them the idea spending less than you make, investing in the market,managing their careers and relying on time and compound interest is a new concept.

@Old Limey: "Life is full of "What if's" but you have to look forward rather than backwards and play the cards that you are dealt." Right you are. We gave golfing and walking tours but have not given up fun. we still enjoy the beach and are learning to appreciate cruises. I really have my sights set on a river cruise in europe and down the Nile one day. (not on the same trip of course)

[Old Limey]

It must be unfathomable to young people full of energy and vitality and still with a long list of "Wants" to comprehend that older retired people, like my wife and I, have millions of dollars but can honestly tell you that they have everything they need and if they come across something that they really want, they buy it for cash without the slightest hesitation. We don't just buy stuff because it's newer and we have the money. We also don't like fancy restaurants with high prices, snooty waiters, and elaborately contrived dishes. We prefer little family owned ethnic restaurants that serve home cooked dishes at great prices and treat us like old friends when we walk in, even though we aren't big tippers.

We have just given our daughter and her niece (our 21 year old granddaughter) an all expenses paid trip to the British Isles to visit relatives neither of them have never met - it has given us a lot of pleasure to do that and they are thrilled to bits.

If we had a lot more money than we do we still wouldn't spend it, we would set up a charitable foundation to do some of the good work that we believe in very strongly.

[FMF]

Old Limey --

You're singing my song!!!!!!!

[BillV]

Old Limey

I still think you should write a book--autobiography.
and not for the cash. Those who have been reading here know you have a good tale to tell. I am particularly like how you chanced to come to this country.

[Old Limey]

BillV
I'll tell you what brings us both a great deal of enjoyment and is priceless.
Relaxing in our beautiful family room, watching an old BBC production from Netflix on our TV, then following it with a candlelight dinner with one of my beautiful wife's superb home cooked meals accompanied by a very inexpensive bottle of Australian Chardonnay that we both thoroughly enjoy.
Thank goodness for the BBC as well as the joy of being in a wonderful relationship!

[moneymonk]

I have a love hate with these "he lived frugal and scrimped and died with x amount of dollars to give to charity

Almost all of these people did not have children, spouse or a life. I know middleage men that save alot and claim they do not want children (they do not want to share their money) they do not attract women because they don't have a life.

I admire the savings part but the price they had to pay arrrgh