Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But we already save in the 30% range. Sometimes closer to 40% when we can swing it. I put off things like home repairs, tell my wife we can't buy new curtains, then she feels guilty when she buys a new pair of jeans to replace the pair with holes in them or something like that. Etc.. etc.. all because I think we need to save for retirement and it's seemingly never enough.
The problem is we're not making enough money, and I don't think we ever will. At least not me... my wife maybe.
We could save 100% and it would never be enough for these blasted "retirement guidelines." It's always, "you need to save $800,000... no wait... $1M, no wait... $1.7M... no wait...$3M" and on and on. We would need to be making deep-6 figures to reach those kinds of sums. In our lines of work we are never going to achieve that except maybe when we are both very late-career.
Neither my parents nor my maternal grandparents had these kinds of outrageous sums in their elder years, even adjusted for inflation. They were working people. They paid off their houses by their 50s./early 60s and lived off their social security/pensions/small nest egg. Somehow they were able to afford a family and they were in the same line of work I am!
It's why I hate these articles... they set these arbitrary figures that are far beyond what the average American can or possibly will achieve.
So saving 30-40% of your income are you unable to hit the multiples outlined in the OP?
So saving 30-40% of your income are you unable to hit the multiples outlined in the OP?
Not by the age brackets identified. We're about 10 years behind. We didn't have career-type jobs throughout most of our 20s. Also to hit it we'd have to keep up the current, stringent savings rate & not let up. Our incomes are not going to grow enough to reduce the percentage significantly. The only way we're saving that much in the first place is because my mortgage is WAY under-market, so much that I'm able to comfortably pay 25% extra down on principal most months that doesn't affect the savings rate. I'm literally paying about half of what a house in our neighborhood would cost, because it was small and a fixer.
I'm concerned it will end the marriage. We're getting closer to the point of no return age for kids, and to have kids we will have to move into a better house. There are no more deals like what I got a few years ago... we'll pay full freight to move into a 3/2 unless there's a housing market collapse anytime soon which I doubt.
Last edited by redguard57; 02-28-2017 at 05:31 PM..
The problem with these recommended-savings-charts is that they give false confidence to those who have exceeded the guidelines, and false hopelessness to those who have fallen behind. In reality, even persons with an enormous ratio of assets-to-income, in good health and so forth, might find themselves facing a devastating crisis. And persons skirting on the edge of bankruptcy might find a windfall or other unforeseeable boon.
In my view, no amount of savings is truly enough, and no lack of savings is truly disastrous. It's great to feel smugly superior upon hitting some number that's clearly an outlier and clearly a commendable improvement over even the most ambitious guidelines. But we can never be sure. We can never truly rest.
I love these charts because they have you saving at essentially the same rate from 20-60, though in your 20s, you had to pay for continuing education and have only been working for a few years, and in the early 30s might have bought property or had children.
It's like dips and ebbs and then periods of excess saving is too much to model, so make it a straight line.
I love these charts because they have you saving at essentially the same rate from 20-60, though in your 20s, you had to pay for continuing education and have only been working for a few years, and in the early 30s might have bought property or had children.
It's like dips and ebbs and then periods of excess saving is too much to model, so make it a straight line.
That's exactly the problem with these simplistic models. Very few people have such straight-line career paths. And while I understand they are trying to be motivational, if they cause people like redguard57 to throw their hands up in despair because they aren't where they "should" be based on an overly-simplistic savings model, they may actually do more harm than good.
I'd say no, and the article itself states: Again, this includes any retirement account contributions, matching funds from your company, cash savings, or money you have invested elsewhere, in index funds or robo-advisers.
The equity in your house (relative to debt) would impact your net worth but not your savings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by reneeh63
...but your house is paid off, so no prob.
Does anyone else see an inconsistency? Home equity doesn't count....but it does count.
But we already save in the 30% range. Sometimes closer to 40% when we can swing it. I put off things like home repairs, tell my wife we can't buy new curtains, then she feels guilty when she buys a new pair of jeans to replace the pair with holes in them or something like that. Etc.. etc.. all because I think we need to save for retirement and it's seemingly never enough.
The problem is we're not making enough money, and I don't think we ever will. At least not me... my wife maybe.
We could save 100% and it would never be enough for these blasted "retirement guidelines." It's always, "you need to save $800,000... no wait... $1M, no wait... $1.7M... no wait...$3M" and on and on. We would need to be making deep-6 figures to reach those kinds of sums. In our lines of work we are never going to achieve that except maybe when we are both very late-career.
Neither my parents nor my maternal grandparents had these kinds of outrageous sums in their elder years, even adjusted for inflation. They were working people. They paid off their houses by their 50s./early 60s and lived off their social security/pensions/small nest egg. Somehow they were able to afford a family and they were in the same line of work I am!
It's why I hate these articles... they set these arbitrary figures that are far beyond what the average American can or possibly will achieve.
For goodness sake, don't take extreme measures to the point where your wife feels guilty for buying a new pair of jeans.
If it's any consolation, I am currently making a lot more in my mid-40s than I expected to make.
Don't let worrying about tomorrow ruin today. Certainly don't let it ruin your marriage.
Also, if the rate environment improves in the next 5-10 years, that could give you a boost. In fact, a lot of things could change.
You may want to consider a lower COL area. We moved to a lower COL area (involuntarily) and it did a lot to help our savings.
But we already save in the 30% range. Sometimes closer to 40% when we can swing it. I put off things like home repairs, tell my wife we can't buy new curtains, then she feels guilty when she buys a new pair of jeans to replace the pair with holes in them or something like that. Etc.. etc.. all because I think we need to save for retirement and it's seemingly never enough.
The problem is we're not making enough money, and I don't think we ever will. At least not me... my wife maybe.
We could save 100% and it would never be enough for these blasted "retirement guidelines." It's always, "you need to save $800,000... no wait... $1M, no wait... $1.7M... no wait...$3M" and on and on. We would need to be making deep-6 figures to reach those kinds of sums. In our lines of work we are never going to achieve that except maybe when we are both very late-career.
Neither my parents nor my maternal grandparents had these kinds of outrageous sums in their elder years, even adjusted for inflation. They were working people. They paid off their houses by their 50s./early 60s and lived off their social security/pensions/small nest egg. Somehow they were able to afford a family and they were in the same line of work I am!
It's why I hate these articles... they set these arbitrary figures that are far beyond what the average American can or possibly will achieve.
So, if you know all this, why do you continue to be so stressed over it? Why do you feel the need to say 30-40% of your salary? You're married....how does her income play into this? If her income is halfway close to yours then what is the overall % you're saving? You need to get some perspective and some balance - you're already bitter. I can't imagine your attitude in another 20 years after you've given up on kids because you wouldn't be able to retire but even so you STILL don't think you can retire! You've set things up so you don't think you can win - very sad for your age.
I'd say no, and the article itself states: Again, this includes any retirement account contributions, matching funds from your company, cash savings, or money you have invested elsewhere, in index funds or robo-advisers.
The equity in your house (relative to debt) would impact your net worth but not your savings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by reneeh63
...but your house is paid off, so no prob.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ncole1
Does anyone else see an inconsistency? Home equity doesn't count....but it does count.
No - it's not inconsistent at all. It just means that home equity is not "savings". But because you have a paid off house and thus no mortgage to pay then that should allow your future savings rate to be higher. So you can from that point on accumulate savings faster. It's just a different "line item", that's all.
the bad thing is while you can save more later on in life after the house is paid your biggest friend when investing is time . compounding over time is what takes the bits of money we manage to save and turns it in to meaningful amounts .
the later you start the less effective it can be
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
