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.
if your banking 200k a year then it wont be hard for some. but other then that, they are a investment firm and wants your money.
Not everyone makes that kind of money. Even if you are there's no guarantee one will save the amount they need if you not paying attention. And it's not what you make, it's how you save and where you save it at that counts.
I don't think its unreasonable if we can count investments beyond cash e.g. 401k, home equity, stocks, etc. I started a 401k when I was 23 and I have a year's worth of salary in there by 30. I don't contribute any more than my company matches. I don't think 23 is exactly young to start a 401k either, considering most people should graduate college around 21-22. I spent a whole year after college messing around.
I think it would be different if you are going to school for advanced degrees because you can't start working until almost 30 sometimes. Plus they have higher salaries, too.
This is not nonsense. The median household income is $56K. Let us say it is going to take $45K to maintain that standard of living in retirement. The median social security benefit is $16K leaving a gap of $29K. Using 4% as a safe withdrawal rate, the median amount of savings needed would be $750K. Anyone in their 50s who is planning for retirement better be looking to save at least $1 million in order to maintain a median level lifestyle.
Well I guess there is a whole lot of folks who seem to be able to retire somehow. I'm the last of my friends who is not retired. they are living quite nicely thank you very much. are they living la vida loca, hanging out on a greek island? no. do they take vacations, go places with their grandkids, enjoy life? yes. Now I get a retiree health care so that helps but I'm retiring next year without 1 million dollars and have not plans on eating cat food thank you very much. I'll be 59. yea baby.
Having some difficulty understanding the outrage expressed in the comments generated by the article. If that goal isn't within reach, then set a goal that is doable. Even if most people would have trouble reaching the goal of 2x salary by age 35, most people could save something. The important thing to do when one is young enough to realize the full benefit of the miracle of compounding over time is to get started with something, even if it is something small.
People seem to be reacting to the recommendation by deciding "I can't reach that goal, so I'm not going to try to save anything." Reaching any goal is absolutely impossible if one simply decides not to make the effort. If that goal doesn't fit your lifestyle, then make a goal that will and work on achieving that. Getting worked up over something that is simply a suggestion is a pointless waste of energy.
I think the outrage comes from frustration. every week we hear about how you should have millions of dollars saved or if you do you'll be working until you are 70.
Really?? and they don't write them as suggestions, they write them as scare tactics and studies have show that instead of motivating people to save it actually does the opposite and people do less.
They set these unobtainable targets so many people simply give up and say "why bother". We found that out at my job, when people were told you should be saving 15% of your salary in your 401k, our participation rate was abysmal. why? people could not afford to lose that much of their salary. When we told them to simply do the company match so as to not lose money, boom 72% participation.
We also found that if we explained the magic of compounding interest too them and how a "little" can do a lot, we got a much better reception.
Setting a ridiculous standard makes people naturally lose hope, then you "compare" them to some "other" 30 year old has a gabillion dollars saved it make most feel even worse. not all but a great many.
I ignore articles like this simply for the fact I see too many real life examples of folks who retired on substantially less (without pensions) and are not eating cat food, living under a bridge. now of course mileage will vary. what you consider middle class might be totally different than what I consider the basics.
I view them in the same bathroom toilet read as I do Dave Ramseys latest.
...when people were told you should be saving 15% of your salary in your 401k,
our participation rate was abysmal. why?
people (assert/claim they) could not afford to lose that much of their salary.
People would not be willing to make the OTHER changes in lifestyle required by that.
Quote:
When we told them to simply do the company match so as to not lose money, boom 72% participation.
Well I guess there is a whole lot of folks who seem to be able to retire somehow. I'm the last of my friends who is not retired. they are living quite nicely thank you very much. are they living la vida loca, hanging out on a greek island? no. do they take vacations, go places with their grandkids, enjoy life? yes. Now I get a retiree health care so that helps but I'm retiring next year without 1 million dollars and have not plans on eating cat food thank you very much. I'll be 59. yea baby.
A lot of people retire on less because they have to do so not necessarily because they make a choice to do so.
Last edited by Lowexpectations; 05-17-2018 at 01:15 PM..
A lot of people retire on less because they have to do so not necessarily because they make a choice to do so.
Of course. I didn't mean to imply otherwise. But a lot of folks do retire with much less than a million without living in the hood.
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.