Maggie's Farm

I admit it, I've hired illegals to work for me. They've painted a fence, done yardwork, etc.
But here's why I did it. They do exactly what you talk about. These people do what Americans used to do. Work hard, live frugally, not complain.

The people I hired, I paid above minimum wage, gave them transport or fares to arrive and leave, and bought them lunch. In each case, I still saved significantly over what a local tradesman would charge. Why? Because (and I don't fault these people, they are businessmen) they want to live as well as anyone else. But they want to do it on their own terms, by increasing the cost of their services to a point that it's just too much for most middle-income people.

I respect the people I hired, because they are craftsmen/tradesmen in their own right. But they aren't allowed to compete here. The 'old days' of New York saw people living the way you describe because we had much more open immigration rules and laws. As a result, there was always competition to do a job.

I know I'll get some backlash on this one, because I hired an illegal, or because I'm undermining U.S. workers, or some other nationalistic/patriotic nonsense. Fact is, I am willing to accept whatever people have to say because it doesn't bother me one lick. We are a nation built on competition, and the only reason the competition isn't much of one anymore is because we've changed the rules and rigged the game.

I'm opposed to illegals coming into our country and using our services free of charge. But I don't see that as a problem of the illegals, I see that a problem of a system which gives things away willy-nilly. If I could move to a country that gave me free everything, I would, too (in fact, this is occurring in Belgium right now).

But I hired people who want to work, people who want to live here, people who want to pay taxes and people who want to compete. The only difference between them and the tradesmen in my area is one thing - they lack citizenship. I have no problem with my choice, I respect what these people are going through, and they do a damn good job. And I treated them more than fairly.

While retiring on $100,000 a year seems pretty good, there are clearly issues here.

First, and several people mentioned this, is the 7% figure. Interest rates vary. 7% is the assumed growth 'average' for stock investments. Lately, that's clearly been an outlandish notion. Since 2000, you're lucky if the average is much more than 2%. Still, it doesn't make the idea absurd, just not as lucrative. After all, SocSec isn't going to grow any faster, either.

Second, $100,000 a year sounds like quite a bit of money. But I'm reminded of a scene in the movie "Broadcast News", where Albert Brooks' character is a child and being bullied. His curse on the bullies is "None of you will earn more than $20,000 a year!" The bullies walk away laughing "$20,000 a year? Not bad."
"Broadcast News" came out in 1987. Assuming Brooks' character was 30 in 1987, and 12 at the time of the curse, $20,000 a year in 1969 was, indeed, quite a bit of money.
My father, in 1976, asked me what jobs I could think of that would pay me $20,000 a year. So at the time it was still a pretty good salary.
By 1985, when I entered the work force, $20,000 a year was merely OK. By 1990, $20,000 was an entry level wage. Today, entry level is about $40-45,000 in my industry.

$100,000 may seem like a good living wage. But in 30 years, it may be a pittance.

Inflation ravages income.