Author Topic: Gary's Economics  (Read 1834 times)

clarkfan1979

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3556
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Pueblo West, CO
Gary's Economics
« on: March 13, 2025, 12:29:44 PM »
I found this dude on youtube about one week ago and I love his content. His general argument is that the super wealthy (top .1%) become super savers (98% savings rate) because it's impossible to spend 100 million/year on consumption. This savings gets forced into assets, which makes asset prices rise. Over time, the rich own more assets and the poor own less assets.

On a simplistic level, his message is very similar to rich dad poor dad. Rich people buy assets and poor people buy liabilities. However, Gary takes it one step further. Because of lower wages for the middle class, it becomes more difficult for the middle class to buy assets (stocks, real estate and businesses). It's only a matter of time until they get pushed down from the middle class to poor.

Maybe it's just confirmation bias, but when I graduated from undergrad in 2003, I saw this trend. After graduation, my first priority was to put myself in a position to buy assets that would likely appreciate over time. I intentionally took lower paying jobs with more opportunity to buy assets. I avoided high paying jobs with less opportunity to buy assets. I considered them to be a trap.

Now 22 years later, I find someone on youtube that gives me validation stating that my unique path was the correct one. 

Anyone else familiar with his content or message? Yay or Nay?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwEVYlkopTY

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 25502
  • Age: 43
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Gary's Economics
« Reply #1 on: March 13, 2025, 12:37:28 PM »
I mean, the mechanism you're describing sounds reasonable . . . but there are many mechanisms that cause wealth concentration.  If you read Marx he describes this pretty well (although his view of an inexorable march towards an ideal communist society seems to be pretty well disproven by now).  That's just the nature of how capitalism works unless socialist policies are enacted to reign in the wealth concentration.  Historically, a middle class unnatural.  It's sort of an aberration and it must constantly be defended by social policies that work against wealth concentration in order to maintain and grow.

FIRE@50

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 579
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Maryland
Re: Gary's Economics
« Reply #2 on: March 13, 2025, 01:51:37 PM »
I also enjoy Gary's Economics. He made a video about government stimulus during covid that was really interesting. Basically, all of the money given out by governments was funneled to the wealthy. Government debt went up, the wealthy got wealthier, and the poor broke even. You now have to tax the wealthy to get that money back.

twinstudy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 587
Re: Gary's Economics
« Reply #3 on: March 13, 2025, 06:24:38 PM »
Quote
I intentionally took lower paying jobs with more opportunity to buy assets. I avoided high paying jobs with less opportunity to buy assets. I considered them to be a trap.

Why would a lower paying job give you more opportunities to buy assets? I guess if your lifestyle inflated due to a higher-paying job then you might have less opportunity, but that's hardly a given, and someone on $200k who spends $100k a year in total expenses still has more asset-buying power than someone on $70k a year whose total spending is $20k.

That aside, I think it's a given that all your savings should go into income-producing assets. Where else would they go? No point putting them into a savings account. I also think property is the best overall asset because good land is scarce and rent-seeking is the aim of the game.


Retire-Canada

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9833
Re: Gary's Economics
« Reply #4 on: March 13, 2025, 07:38:06 PM »
Why would a lower paying job give you more opportunities to buy assets?

I didn't understand that part of the OP.

Dicey

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23701
  • Age: 67
  • Location: NorCal
Re: Gary's Economics
« Reply #5 on: March 13, 2025, 10:02:04 PM »
Why would a lower paying job give you more opportunities to buy assets?

I didn't understand that part of the OP.
One example might be taking a job in a lower COLA, where Real Estate is more affordable and the rental market is strong.

Example: you can make a shitload of money in Silly Valley,  but a starter home can cost upwards of $2M.

jrhampt

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2407
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Connecticut
Re: Gary's Economics
« Reply #6 on: March 14, 2025, 04:57:50 AM »
Why would a lower paying job give you more opportunities to buy assets?

I didn't understand that part of the OP.
One example might be taking a job in a lower COLA, where Real Estate is more affordable and the rental market is strong.

Example: you can make a shitload of money in Silly Valley,  but a starter home can cost upwards of $2M.

Or maybe a job with a lower salary that has a great ESPP plan.

wageslave23

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1899
  • Location: Midwest
Re: Gary's Economics
« Reply #7 on: March 14, 2025, 06:05:09 AM »
It's unclear, but it sounds like Gary is saying rich people save more because they are rich. I would tweak that to say most rich people became rich because they are savers. I know that the case amongst me and my friends growing up and from books such as the millionaire next door.  I have rental tenants who make more money than I have ever made. But they will live paycheck to paycheck until they die while I keep getting richer.  And it's because if they have $500 left over it goes to restaurants, new car payment, clothes, vacation. If I have $500 left over it goes straight into the sp500 or down payment for another rental house. It's the classic marshmallow now or 10 marshmallows later.

clarkfan1979

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3556
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Pueblo West, CO
Re: Gary's Economics
« Reply #8 on: March 14, 2025, 07:14:55 AM »
"I intentionally took lower paying jobs with more opportunity to buy assets" Maybe I could adjust the language slightly to make more sense.

"I purposely took jobs with the best access to acquire assets. I rarely chased or accepted the highest paying job. In my opinion, those jobs were traps with less opportunity to buy assets. One job specifically was very low pay, which was the Florida job"

I applied to 10 different Ph.D. programs all over the country to work with professors that were doing the same research as me in my MA program. I was accepted to 4 different Ph.D. programs (Claremont University, Kansas State, Colorado State and Northern Illinois). Because they were all good picks academically, I then picked the school that I thought had the best chance to buy assets. The plan was to buy a 4-bedroom house close to campus and have 3 roommates. I chose Colorado State in Fort Collins, CO. I bought a 4 bed/2 bath close to campus for $182,000 in May 2007 with an interest rate of 6%. Original PITI was $1040/month and was later reduced to $950/month when I refinanced into a 4.75% mortgage.

I was scheduled to be done with my Ph.D. coursework in spring 2011. I applied to mostly college faculty jobs, but the economy wasn't great and I applied to a few research positions. One was a research position at a non-profit in D.C. on energy policy. The job ad asked for a minimum of Masters Degree and Ph.D. preferred. They offered me $65,00/year in late November 2010 and wanted me to start January 1, 2011. I ended up not accepting the job because in my opinion, it would be difficult to acquire assets with $65,000 in D.C.

There was a housing crisis in November 2010 across the entire country, except for D.C. The largest employer in D.C. continues to hire during recessions, so the housing rarely dips. If my fiance and I (now wife) were to rent a 1-bedroom (600 sq. ft.) it would cost $1900/month for a garden level basement unit. Normal price was $2200/month for a 1-bedroom with sunlight. I had a friend of a friend buy a 1-bedroom condo for $340,000 but I don't know exactly where it was in D.C.

I straight up told the hiring manager that the salary offer was not consistent with the cost of living for D.C. He said that if I was looking for something more affordable, he instructed me to rent a room in a 4-bedroom house about an hour away. I countered and said that I would work for $65,000 if I could work from Denver, CO. I told them that $65,000 is a fair salary for a medium cost of living like Denver, CO, but not for D.C. If they want me to live in D.C. I need at least $90,000, but I would be willing to accept $82,000/year, if they let me teach one class per semester at a local college for more money. I also asked for a $5,000 signing bonus for moving expenses. They countered at $67,500 with no signing bonus for moving. I rejected it and thanked them for their time. They were stunned. The economy wasn't good at the time and employers had leverage. However, I wasn't going to accept a job with an hour commute and little opportunity to buy assets. They offered a 4% 401K contribution, health insurance was $200/month and 4 weeks of vacation. 

I ended up accepting a full-time faculty job in Fort Myers, FL for $40,000/year in March 2011, starting in August 2011. I got $3,000 for moving expenses and used all of it. I also got the opportunity to teach a summer class for $5,000, which is abnormally high because it was a percentage of your salary. Most colleges paid full-time faculty the part-time flat rate to teach summer courses, which was around $2,000-$2500. The 401a contribution was 10.42%, health insurance was $50/month and no state income tax in Florida. I also got 20 weeks of vacation (not including the summer class). The first two summers, I taught a 6-week face to face summer class. The second two summers, I taught an 8-week on-line course. The summer class is about 100 hours worth of work.

The biggest reason for accepting the job in Fort Myers FL was the housing recession in Florida. My dad was also retiring in Fort Myers, FL at the same time. I could live at his house for free and have enough for a down payment within 6 months. I moved in July 2011 with no money. I got my first paycheck in September 2011 and bought a house in January 2012 for $95,000 with an interest rate of 4%. Original PITI was $685/month and dropped down to $650/month when property taxes reduced. This type of house sold for $250,000 in 2006.

After living in Fort Myers, FL for 4 years, I accepted a job to teach at Kauai Community College in Hawaii, on the island of Kauai. Housing was more expensive there, but in my opinion, housing in Hawaii was slower to recover from the housing recession than the rest of the country. I thought it was undervalued. We did a cash-out re-fi on the Fort Collins house to come up with the down payment and repairs for a 603K house on Kauai. After 50K of repairs, it was immediately worth 800K and now worth 1.3 million in 2025.

After that, we moved back to Colorado to be closer to my wife's family because we had a two-year old. I took a pay cut from 69K/year to 52K/year. However, we could afford to do it because of the rental income. Because we are 2 hours away from Denver, the cost of living is more affordable, but not cheap. We are at the national average for cost of living. We did a cash-out re-fi on the Fort Myers house to buy a 5 bed/3 bath (2450 sq. ft.) house in Pueblo West, CO in November 2019.

My currently salary is $61,799, but I get a 14% retirement contribution from my employer. I don't think my health insurance contribution from my employer is great. The total plan costs $2250/month for a family of 3. I pay $550/month and my employer pays $1700/month. Because our compensation is low, administration does not have very high expectations for faculty, which is fair. You might get asked to work on "extra projects" with no extra compensation at schools with higher salaries, which I think is also fair. 

My salary is about 25% lower than the national average. Some higher paying jobs would include Riverside CC in CA (125K), Maricopa Community College in Phoenix (115K/year) and Kalamazoo CC in Michigan (95K/year). I was a finalist at all 3 schools, but didn't get the job.

I'm slightly more optimistic about my salary in the next 3-5 years. I think I will be close to the national average in 5 years, instead of 25% below. If I'm wrong, I will be applying for faculty jobs that are 100% remote. We won't move, but we will spend more time traveling.

My wife is a substitute teacher at my sons elementary school twice a week. She also works part-time as a virtual assistant for a real estate agent. She makes around 25K/year. Our combined W-2 income is around 87K/year and our net worth is around 1.75 million. I work 1,000 hours and my wife works 500 hours. Rental management is about 200 hours/year. Among our peer group (college family and friends), they work twice as much and their W-2 income is twice as much. However, their net worth is probably half.

I attribute our higher net worth and lower employment obligations to focusing on acquiring assets and not chasing salary. This is the main part of the thesis for Gary's Economics. While it is very possible for someone to take the higher salary job in the HCOL area and save 50%, I haven't seen that much of it on this forum over the past 10 years. MMM himself admitted to taking a lower salary job in Boulder instead of silicon valley because he could buy a house in Longmont for an affordable price.   

 



 

 

« Last Edit: March 14, 2025, 07:22:22 AM by clarkfan1979 »

classicrando

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 113
Re: Gary's Economics
« Reply #9 on: March 14, 2025, 09:24:10 AM »
@clarkfan1979 Your explanation was exactly what I inferred from your original post, but I appreciate you elaborating on it further.  I've never felt that there was enough of a potential salary boost available to me to justify moving to a HCL area and paying HCL area prices for housing.  If someone is confident enough in their abilities, or somehow needs the motivation of a $4k monthly housing cost, more power to them; but that's never been me.

Retire-Canada

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9833
Re: Gary's Economics
« Reply #10 on: March 14, 2025, 09:39:35 AM »
Thanks for the explanation. Obviously the optimized hack would be to do a high paying job remotely in a LCOL area if your goal was to accumulate as many assets as possible as quickly as possible. I sort of did that, but I used the location flexibility of remote work to optimize for recreation activities I enjoyed not LCOL. If retiring as fast as possible was the only priority moving to a LCOL area would have been the smart move.

Scandium

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3134
  • Location: EastCoast
Re: Gary's Economics
« Reply #11 on: March 14, 2025, 09:41:25 AM »
He has a youtube channel saying that the rich get richer, and having money gets you more money?! How? Has he been featured in "Well, duh! monthly" yet? Sometimes I forget what kind of inane nonsense will get you views.
« Last Edit: March 14, 2025, 09:55:39 AM by Scandium »

Smokystache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 641
Re: Gary's Economics
« Reply #12 on: March 14, 2025, 10:33:44 AM »
It's always fascinating hear about different academic journeys. I think being a professor is one of the best jobs in the world to have a side-hustle --- in fact, I'm working on a self-published book about how professors can add a side-business. Wish I had your insights 20 years ago regarding the growth of the housing market and using leverage to acquire outsized returns.

A friend that went from teaching in a graduate program (professional masters) to teaching online has said that the money vs. time spent working is amazing ... the only down-side is that it doesn't really feel like teaching at all.

k290

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 187
  • Age: 34
Re: Gary's Economics
« Reply #13 on: March 16, 2025, 09:05:38 AM »
He has a youtube channel saying that the rich get richer, and having money gets you more money?! How? Has he been featured in "Well, duh! monthly" yet? Sometimes I forget what kind of inane nonsense will get you views.

After having watched the video in OPs post, what he talks about seems to be much more nuanced. It was quite interesting. Relates to how compound interest is insufficient to keep a middle class around, and how the lack of availability to expand into new assets implies each generation will have less and less wealth going forward.

Seems accurate when I see what millennials are currently dealing with, and thought-provoking with regards to whether I'll have enough money in old age
« Last Edit: March 16, 2025, 09:09:21 AM by k290 »

ROF Expat

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 522
Re: Gary's Economics
« Reply #14 on: March 16, 2025, 09:50:28 AM »
He has a youtube channel saying that the rich get richer, and having money gets you more money?! How? Has he been featured in "Well, duh! monthly" yet? Sometimes I forget what kind of inane nonsense will get you views.

After having watched the video in OPs post, what he talks about seems to be much more nuanced. It was quite interesting. Relates to how compound interest is insufficient to keep a middle class around, and how the lack of availability to expand into new assets implies each generation will have less and less wealth going forward.

Seems accurate when I see what millennials are currently dealing with, and thought-provoking with regards to whether I'll have enough money in old age

On one hand, I get it.  Simple math like median income to median house price ratio is very different for someone entering the workforce today than when I did and it is clear that social/economic mobility is more limited than it used to be.  On the other hand, although I accept that it is harder, especially for those on the lower end of the income scale, I don't think things are fundamentally different for the many people who do earn a decent wage.  I have very little sympathy for my acquaintances who complain about how hard it is to get ahead when I see them buy an expensive car on a seven year loan or put a vacation on a credit card. 

twinstudy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 587
Re: Gary's Economics
« Reply #15 on: March 16, 2025, 04:55:45 PM »
He has a youtube channel saying that the rich get richer, and having money gets you more money?! How? Has he been featured in "Well, duh! monthly" yet? Sometimes I forget what kind of inane nonsense will get you views.

After having watched the video in OPs post, what he talks about seems to be much more nuanced. It was quite interesting. Relates to how compound interest is insufficient to keep a middle class around, and how the lack of availability to expand into new assets implies each generation will have less and less wealth going forward.

Seems accurate when I see what millennials are currently dealing with, and thought-provoking with regards to whether I'll have enough money in old age

On one hand, I get it.  Simple math like median income to median house price ratio is very different for someone entering the workforce today than when I did and it is clear that social/economic mobility is more limited than it used to be.  On the other hand, although I accept that it is harder, especially for those on the lower end of the income scale, I don't think things are fundamentally different for the many people who do earn a decent wage.  I have very little sympathy for my acquaintances who complain about how hard it is to get ahead when I see them buy an expensive car on a seven year loan or put a vacation on a credit card.

My thoughts exactly. Also worth noting that one of the reasons that house prices have exceeded median incomes is due to assortative mating combined with the general effect of two-earner households. You can't expect women to have greater participation in the workforce and greater sexual freedom but also not expect house prices to rise in relative terms - one is the flip side of the other, and it's utopian to think otherwise.

In terms of social/economic mobility being more limited, I wonder how much of this is just because educated parents have the genes/habits that create educated children, not so much that there are any hard or soft barriers in place. The measure of mobility is whether the same child, educated between rich and poor parents of similar other traits, would have similar outcomes, but overall disparities in outcomes are confounded because you're not dealing with the same kid or same parenting techniques in the two scenarios.