The 14% was the only data I could find regarding teachers. You didn't believe that number but cited the "half inherited it" and others are due to a second earner. You pick and choose the numbers you reject and those you believe even when from the same source.
Again with this 14% number.
I don't know why you keep going back to that when you're not even confident in what that 14% entails.
This is what I mean when I say you're lazy; you just don't want to do the work to make your argument whole, choosing instead to rely on sophistry and others to do that work for you.
Nothing you're doing here is defensible. It's all scatterbrained chum. And you continue to negotiate with your own position, continually redefining the parameters and moving the goalposts.
So that 14%...that's just teachers? And of that 14%, half already inherited millions, and you don't know anything about the remainder. But what we do know is that many of them didn't save $1M on their own; they had help because of dual-income households where the
combined savings tops $1M. But because you have no standards for anything, you just dumbly say that teacher, who is married to a higher earner, saved $1M for retirement, and you leave it at that because, as I said, you're lazy and you hold yourself to no standards for anything.
Hence the apples/oranges thing I said earlier, about how you would argue they're the same because they're both fruit. But we both know they're not the same, and that boiling them down to that low a level is intellectually dishonest and exactly what sophistry is.
So Fidelity alone has 348,000 401(k) and IRA accounts worth over $1 million. You don't think a few of these could be teachers?
So this is the grand design of what you do here; you rely on faulty assumptions to paper over the factual deficits that exist in your argument.
Now, could a few be teachers? Maybe. But their retirement accounts could be padded with inheritance, or contributions outsized because of a dual-income household where their partner makes significantly more than them, so they can contribute more of their paycheck to their retirement plan.
Of course, these are all questions
you should have asked yourself before bringing this shit into the thread. Now, what happens is that you throw an assumption out there, disguised as conventional wisdom, despite no evidence, research, or support of your assumption. It's basically, "I want this assumption to be the standard because it's the only way my argument makes sense". It's fucking bullshit accommodation. I reject that.
You need to come armed
with facts, not assumptions, and not "conventional wisdom" that are really just your piss-poor instincts and judgment.
