I find it interesting to see things like this. With my wife and a household income of under $55,000 per year GROSS, we raised 2 boys to ages 18 and 21. We were under $55,000 a year with us both working full time. If I had 5K a month coming in, I'd have been ecstatic. And this wasn't that long ago. The youngest turned 18 in January 2010. Of course in Oklahoma, my cost of living is lower than NYC. But we also were feeding many animals, repairing a home, building fencing and more. All those things cost money too.
I see what you're saying: if you're resourceful, you can raise 2 children no problem; and you're right. Resourcefulness trumps a good deal of the time. But, what you touched on is more important than you realize. The person you're responding to would not be able, ever, to raise a child on 55k a year. When I lived in South Carolina, anyone could live like a king on $55k. A 2 br, 2 bath apartment cost $500 a month. However in DC, you're effectively under the poverty line with $55k. This is because a 1 br 1 bath costs about $1300. Lunch costs $10 no matter what you do. To live in DC like you could in SC for 55k, would mean you would have to earn about $110k/yr So being in OK, let's assume conditions are sorta like South Carolina. With your income you can live comfortably. But halve your income, and that's what OP means by "try raising a family on 55k"
I fully understand, but my point was simply that not everyones needs are the same. I never said that we were comfortable, but that we did raise 2 teenage boys (also known as eating machines) on significantly less than the $5,000 per month mentioned in that previous conversation. For example, I realized how detached from the congregation's reality the ministers in my church were, when the youth minister stood in front of the congregation at a business meeting and said, "You don't understand how difficult it is to provide for a wife and a child on only $100,000 a year." Meanwhile, my family of four at that point had NEVER had an annual income exceeding $40,000 per year. But making a blanket comment like "try starting a family on only $5,000 a month" like the person I was replying to said, is very shortsighted and assumed that the person who first mentioned $5,000 a month couldn't possibly be able to support a family on that 'little' money.
I trade with 500k for last few yrs,made between 20-35% a year.I need 200k a year to live on,2 kids in ivy league college.
I would say if you have a small to moderate account, you need to make sure that the horse is in front of the cart. Don't let the "trading for a living" bug guide you into a situation that is almost a guaranteed-fail situation. By that I mean, I think the best bet is to focus on producing returns, reinvesting profits, and bulking up your overall wealth, NOT trading for a living. Trading for a living, at least in my opinion, is really a pretty LOUSY way to make a "living". Now if you want to trade to get rich (However you define that), that is much more realistic goal, in my opinion. Once you have a net worth that makes your living expenses seem like almost nothing, you realize you don't even need to think about, "making a living" anymore. If you do it right, you never really need to, "trade for a living" in my opinion. That is such a limiting, "worker bee" attitude which makes the whole game harder than it needs to be. You CAN trade and substantially grow your account while you are working and earning a steady income at a job. The best thing about doing this that for most people, the regular income makes it easier to maintain the "risk taker" attitude that is needed to add a zero or two to your account balance. Trade to get yourself to a good place financially: Having enough so that if you wanted, you could just chill and not worry about trading or anything else. No debt, no mortgage, No pressure to trade unless the opportunity is really good... Then you can try to hit those slam dunks (while still limiting risk) and just grow your wealth. This to me is a better approach.
Exactly Prometheus, trading should be done in order to exponentially increase your capital. The nature of trading doesn't even allow for "making a living" as it's not a business where incremental and steady returns are to be expected. What you can expect as a trader is to make outsized returns a few times a year that determine the bulk of your return. If you increase your position size after each of these and prudentially manage your risk during the rest of the year then you can built alot of capital relatively quickly. If on the other hand your focus is on eking out a steady income, removing capital on a monthly basis to meet expenses and maintaining the same position size then you'd be better off with a normal job. In my view you'd be taking all of the downside risk that comes from an irregular income and the potential for losses yet none of the upside of building wealth through the compounding of your capital.
Irregular income is not the issue. Take for example nearly every salesperson. While most may have some sort of base, sales positions largely pay on commission. If you don't sell, you don't get paid. This is no different than trading - if you don't perform you don't get paid.