A++ Trolling

[Deleted member 2897]

Sorry, but I am not into Koolaid. That number is patently ridiculous. Really. Every fifth grad is a millionaire but the mid-career average is only $112,000? As for the "average", then $90,000 starting and $30,000 starting will get you there. A whole bunch of graduates must be way below that so I am not sure that is a bragging right. Factor in every graduating class of the last 10 years or so where millionaires could be counted on one hand failing the miracle software program, and pretty soon you are at a tipping point that everybody already out has to be at that magic number. Pretty sure the 2,400 supposed to graduate this year won't be millionaires out of the gate, nor the class before them, or the one before that ... and the numbers get exponential. Sounds to me like a lot of alums are checking the big box.

Bro, do you even lift? Repeat after me: A salary is how much income you make per discrete period (like per year), your wealth is how much money you have in the bank. They are obviously related, but being a millionaire is just as much about how smart you are with your money as it is how much money you make. Georgia Tech grads excel at both.

 

[JacketFromUGA]

I always like these threads because my Tech Alum wife is reliant on my UGA alum salary.

Always makes me smile a little.

 

[Longestday]

I would bet that the 65k is not a starting salary but a ~5 year early career mark. Although, Chemical Engineers start out at 65k. I can easily see mid career engineers at 112k (15 year mark).

I can also see 1 in 5 are $MM in net worth. Millionaire means what it used to mean but does not hold the value or purchasing power it used to mean. I wonder if they get the data from alumni surveys.

Keep in mind this may not be present for every class current date and time. But you may find a larger portion of Millionare net worth for people in their 70s and 60s than 50s, 40s, 30s and so on.

 

[Milwaukee]

If 1 in 5 is a millionaire but the avg salary is 112K what am I missing? The math doesn't add up.

If we're stating that 1 in 5 are millionaires because they've earned that in salary over the course of their career then I'd like to look at my own alum at Jax St and compare, it would be close.

It's the offseason.

 

[Milwaukee]

Sorry, but I am not into Koolaid. That number is patently ridiculous. Really. Every fifth grad is a millionaire but the mid-career average is only $112,000? As for the "average", then $90,000 starting and $30,000 starting will get you there. A whole bunch of graduates must be way below that so I am not sure that is a bragging right. Factor in every graduating class of the last 10 years or so where millionaires could be counted on one hand failing the miracle software program, and pretty soon you are at a tipping point that everybody already out has to be at that magic number. Pretty sure the 2,400 supposed to graduate this year won't be millionaires out of the gate, nor the class before them, or the one before that ... and the numbers get exponential. Sounds to me like a lot of alums are checking the big box.

Disregard my post. You hit it.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

If 1 in 5 is a millionaire but the avg salary is 112K what am I missing? The math doesn't add up.

If we're stating that 1 in 5 are millionaires because they've earned that in salary over the course of their career then I'd like to look at my own alum at Jax St and compare, it would be close.

It's the offseason.

Because that average salary is at year 15 of a career. Lets say over a 35 year career (retire at age 65) you earned $135k as an average (assuming some growth from year 15 up through retirement at year 35). You earned $4.7M over your career just in salary ($130k avg * 35 years). What did you make in stock options? What did your savings and investments earn? If you saved 5% of what you earned each year and that investment yielded a 6% average return, you'd have another $579k. Now you're up to a total of $6.2M. Of course you have taxes that will have taken 15%-20% of this and you'll have expenses. But the point is just the 5% savings off your salary under these conservative estimates (only saving 5% and only getting a 6% return) would have gotten you halfway to a millionaire. Odds are you would have owned a home that would have probably tripled in value over 35 years, so that's another few hundred grand in equity in the house. So here you are with pretty easy math showing how a 65 year old would have been a millionaire several times over. Someone 40 years old would be well down that path, and so on. The math is really quite easy. I can tell you that I personally saved a lot more than 5% and I have no idea what my returns have been, but we crossed the millionaire mark somewhere around age 38 and probably a third of that was home equity and two-thirds of that was savings, investments, and retirement funds. Its not such much how much you make, but what you do with it. Of course its a lot easier if you make a ton of money, but you can retire a multi-millionaire on < $100k salary if you watch what you do.

 

[Milwaukee]

I wonder what other schools are ranked (as far as $$$) with looking at 30 to 40 yrs of an alum's net worth. If you're not worth a million dollars after that long then you're not doing it right, life that is.

It's misleading for sure. But hey, it's catchy for us so let's continue to roll with it.

 

[northgajacket]

Leave it to some people to over analyze a simple twitter post.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

I wonder what other schools are ranked (as far as $$$) with looking at 30 to 40 yrs of an alum's net worth. If you're not worth a million dollars after that long then you're not doing it right, life that is.

It's misleading for sure. But hey, it's catchy for us so let's continue to roll with it.

It's not misleading. It's a stat. It's a rare stat. But for some reason you appear to like complaining about anything for some reason. And you still can't understand it. It's not measuring net worth at 30 to 40 years. It's measuring the entire alumni population at all ages.

 

[Milwaukee]

Well that got weird.

 

[LibertyTurns]

You all really think $1M net worth is all that hard to amass? It's not & I'm guessing a fair share on here reached that plateau by the time they hit 50. Wouldn't surprise me to have a dozen or more in the $5M club and a few in the $10M. Now the odds rapidly decrease if you became ill during a stretch and/or got married & divorced. Odds go up if you married a fellow GT grad or some other professional that worked for a while before having kids, you stayed married, & lived within your means. Owning your own business if successful is huge.

I wasn't a highly paid GT civilian engineer just a regular old military guy drawing steady pay. Started stoking my IRA and wife's with every bit we could for last 25+ years. House(s) have contributed about 25% of current net worth, inheritance about 20%, IRA/401K/personal investments make up the remaining 55% or so. Monthly retirement check goes straight into investment account, maxing out my 401k and we live well off the rest.

Time & perseverance are the key as the compounding takes hold about a decade in and coupled with increases in contributions if you swing it properly makes your net worth swell. If you can keep from chasing the Joneses with new cars, expensive personal purchases, etc in the early years you can get there by 50 (or earlier) if that's your goal. Had a guy working for me that retired after 45yrs and he/wife never made more than $25/hr. These immigrants retired with a paid off house, cars and roughly $750k in the investments. Paid for son's bachelor degree and daughter's doctoral degree. They travel the world now, have a beautiful riverfront property, etc.

It's not as hard as you think, but some amount of luck with health & life's important choices (i.e. Marriage) also plays into it. If you look down the street chances are there are millionaires living nearby & you've got no idea they've got the money they do. Chances are they have older cars, live in moderate priced houses & don't dress in expensive clothes.

 

[AE 87]

Shut up everybody who didn't sink heavily into Enron.

 

[Skeptic]

Bro, do you even lift? Repeat after me: A salary is how much income you make per discrete period (like per year), your wealth is how much money you have in the bank. They are obviously related, but being a millionaire is just as much about how smart you are with your money as it is how much money you make. Georgia Tech grads excel at both.

It has been my considerable experience that in order to get wealth one must make wealth first. (Exceptions granted. We have a president who was handed $200 million and thinks he earned it, but that aside, it takes money to make money. In order to put your money in the bank, you must have the money to put in the bank. Rinse and repeat.)

 

[Deleted member 2897]

It has been my considerable experience that in order to get wealth one must make wealth first. (Exceptions granted. We have a president who was handed $200 million and thinks he earned it, but that aside, it takes money to make money. In order to put your money in the bank, you must have the money to put in the bank. Rinse and repeat.)

Good lord, I just did the basic math for you. Pull out a spreadsheet, do some work. Stop acting like one of those snowflakes who says oh life is hard, its unfair, I have no chance. Your entire disposition is the polar opposite of what Tech taught you. Remember when I took that average salary and said if you just saved 5% and earned 6% on that money you'd end up halfway to a millionaire just on that? I just updated the rate of return to 8% - that makes it $850k. So just saving 5% on an average salary plus some growth in equity in your house would make you a millionaire. One does not have to have wealth in order to create wealth. That is a big bunch of poppycock. This is absolutely insane.

 

[Skeptic]

Good lord, I just did the basic math for you. Pull out a spreadsheet, do some work. Stop acting like one of those snowflakes who says oh life is hard, its unfair, I have no chance. Your entire disposition is the polar opposite of what Tech taught you. Remember when I took that average salary and said if you just saved 5% and earned 6% on that money you'd end up halfway to a millionaire just on that? I just updated the rate of return to 8% - that makes it $850k. So just saving 5% on an average salary plus some growth in equity in your house would make you a millionaire. One does not have to have wealth in order to create wealth. That is a big bunch of poppycock. This is absolutely insane.

Huh?

 

[LibertyTurns]

Shut up everybody who didn't sink heavily into Enron.

The fact that I bought that Enron dog after it plummeted from $70's to $10 then rode it to zero was mind boggling. I broke every investing rule I had established up to that point & was sure I was going to make a mint with those 1000 shares. The rats were jumping off the sinking ship & I paid to play. Thank God I avoided Global Crossing because I nearly jumped off the cliff with that bugger as well. Man those dot com days were crazy and luckily I diversified with other investments. Returns of 50-70% per year were not uncommon and that was not an easy feat as friends and associates were all clamoring to double down, many even leveraging themselves heavily at their eventual peril once the bust hit.

 

[MWBATL]

Huh?

Have to agree with bwelbo. Since Net Worth is just a measure of your accumulated assets, most people have generated significant wealth in their home and retirement accounts (whether they be pensions, 401K's IRA's or whatever). If you have lived a flagrant lifestyle or lived in an exceptionally high cost area (NYC, SF) maybe this metric is lower, but if you bought a $250,000 home when you were 30 it has a worth of $1,011,442 by the time you are 65. If you haven't jacked up the mortgage, it's bene paid off right at 65. Voila, you're a millionaire!

 

[Buzztheirazz]

Holy off-season thread, Batman!

 

[Skeptic]

Have to agree with bwelbo. Since Net Worth is just a measure of your accumulated assets, most people have generated significant wealth in their home and retirement accounts (whether they be pensions, 401K's IRA's or whatever). If you have lived a flagrant lifestyle or lived in an exceptionally high cost area (NYC, SF) maybe this metric is lower, but if you bought a $250,000 home when you were 30 it has a worth of $1,011,442 by the time you are 65. If you haven't jacked up the mortgage, it's bene paid off right at 65. Voila, you're a millionaire!

Wasn't that which puzzled me. I was trying to get a grip on whining snowflakee or a hard an unfair life, or a whining life and unfair snowflake. Back in the day it would be rightly identified as leapfrog logic. And my original doubt was not that one might become a millionaire, but that 20% of all GT grads are. It doesn't pass the smell test. We need a game, bad.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Wasn't that which puzzled me. I was trying to get a grip on whining snowflakee or a hard an unfair life, or a whining life and unfair snowflake. Back in the day it would be rightly identified as leapfrog logic. And my original doubt was not that one might become a millionaire, but that 20% of all GT grads are. It doesn't pass the smell test. We need a game, bad.

Actually you said 2 things that I disagreed with.
1) How can 20% of GT grads be millionaires.
2) You need to be given money in order to become wealthy.

Both can easily be explained with simple math. All you have to do is not be the typical American that lives beyond your means. It helps even more to be a GT grad, because odds are you are making well into six figures every year. And, GT grads are known for being rational thinkers and reasonable people. It wasn't very long ago that the average value of a millionaire's home was $300,000...that stat reflects the fact that most millionaires got that way by working hard and saving their money. The only reason I suspect the GT number is not higher than 20% is because we just recently started expanding the school size, so I suspect a large number of grads are still under 35 years of age.

My complaint about #2 was because most of the people that I hear state that you can't make your own way in life think the way of the snowflakes. So if that doesn't apply to you, then just ignore it. But saying you can't get wealthy unless someone else gives you a lot of money to get started is defied by more data and evidence than is worth spending time replying to.