I like the Fanny Farmer cookbook too but it’s more advanced. They go through vegetable by vegetable and have 3-4 recipes for each one. I can always find a healthy recipe I want to try.

We started saving $10 a month 43 years ago. Some people told us we was silly to save that little bit and that it wasn’t worth while. I TOTALLY disagreed and continued. When I retired early, 2 years ago, we were saving over $2500 a month. It starts small, and a person develops a habit. Little steps and saving in small ways is productive.

I don’t have cable either (VERY bad reception, or none at all, when it rains); however, we have saved enough to vacation pretty much where we want about twice a year. It depends on what YOU want to do and what goals you have for yourself.

The same does go for exercise. How did I lose the weight? How about a lot of sweat and a focus on fueling my body. It’s not glamorous, which is why some of the “extreme” shows are popular I guess. sigh…

Oh and earning more, believe me, I’m looking

Save money. Advance your career. Exercise. Eat Healthy. These gems of advice are not going to change, just because we have heard them already.

Thank you again for writing an article to snap me back to reality. I’ll stop obsessing over my healthy bank account and healthy lifestyle and go pick up a new instrument or new language or something

Sometimes I feel like those authors think we all stupid (lol).

Good rant, made me shake my head agreeingly.

I’m suggesting that there might be something new to say to the college graduate. How much we save v. spend now is a perennially complex problem, and it seems close to the heart of personal finance. For example, saving is my single largest “expense,” so I’m interested in doing it right and saving as much money on it as possible.

If the reporter refuses to go beyond income(t) – spending(t) > 0, then discussing savings and projected income and expenses is hopeless. But I don’t think it will always be like this. It’s now normal to read about compound interest, interest rates, and index funds, for example–these concepts were all esoteric at some point. I didn’t realize until recently how much people hated index funds when they came out in the 1970s. This crazy idea is now considered “basic” investing to most people.

“These articles aren’t intended to offer advanced, complex approaches such as the one you describe.” Sigh! “Advanced” and “complex” are subjective… I hope we can try. It’s clear from some of the comments below that options (which I have no particular feelings about and am not trying to endorse) are not well understood, but is that a reason to dismiss or ignore them? Do the “basics” have to be so basic? That’s the part I’m questioning. Otherwise, I agree with you.

You’re right that the strategy I referenced isn’t appropriate for everyone.

The argument that this strategy can’t be trusted because it has only worked in the past doesn’t hold water. That the future might be different is a problem for every piece of financial advice, popular or not; the tapered leveraging approach at least outperforms other strategies based on what we’ve seen and reasonable simulations of what the future might look like.

Could you let me know what parts of my original post seemed contradictory to you?

Answering this question is not easy or straightforward. For example, many of us are investing some fraction of our savings in index funds, which means we’re taking on some risk in the hope that we have a higher probability of being able to support ourselves when we’re 85.

Please also see my response to JD.

p.s. I’m not a MrAnon, I’m a Ms(/Dr)Anon. I’m also sorry if this gets posted twice.

(Sorry if this gets posted twice.)

I’m a Ms(/Dr)Anon.