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.
Keep in mind this is for individual investors and ignores all other investments (rollovers, multiple 401ks, roth IRAs, brokerage accounts, etc.). That would have been pretty close for my wife's 401k a year ago and she is in her early 30s. But it ignores everything else including the other spouse's 401ks.
Like many polls, these "Americans are waaay short on retirement savings" articles seem to be all over the map. They often seem to be skewed to match the hyperbole of a 'sky is falling' headline. That's because it's easier to use vague sources and metrics, than do real statistical research. Another factor is that the major contributors to these articles are often selling retirement plans.
For example, the referenced article could just as truthfully said: "Fidelity reports that some people of different ages have differing amounts in their Fidelity 401K accounts." Granted, the article does say that 168,000 of Fidelity 401K accounts are over $1 million, but, that's less interesting than inferring that "Americans 60-70-years old have as little as $192K saved for retirement."
One doesn't have to look far to find a widely varied range of retirement savings articles:
One reports the average and median savings of retirees 65-74 are $174K and $120K respectively. https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/t...-you-need-more
Gallup Polls conclude that only 47-percent of pre-retirees expect 401K accounts to be their major source of retirement income, while only 23-percent of retirees find that is actually the case: https://news.gallup.com/poll/191297/...young-old.aspx
Of course, there are a plethora of articles from financial services warning that no one with retirement savings of less than $##million should even think about retiring in this lifetime.
The point is that there is more published 'expert retirement savings' articles available than any retiree can possibly assimilate, but, few that provide real critical thinking and conclusive evidence.
The ONLY way for a middle class person to get ahead, is to live below your means -- especially with the big items - housing, cars, etc. You don't have much control over some areas - healthcare, insurance, daycare. So the items you can control -- you must! Otherwise you will work many more years than you really would want to.
The biggest of those items that you can control being ... children!
"times your salary" is essentially meaningless. For instance I live only on 20% of my gross income, the rest I save and in retirement I would need even less than my current expenses, so why the heck would I need 10 times my current salary?
I hate these calculators who assume I need 80% of my salary etc. totally bogus.
I actually thought the 10X figure was a bit low when I read that article.
Maybe you’re right. So Floyd Mayweather, who according to Forbes made $275 million last year, would need to have AT LEAST $2.75 billion in order to be able to retire. Poor guy will be fighting until he’s 80!
"times your salary" is essentially meaningless. For instance I live only on 20% of my gross income, the rest I save and in retirement I would need even less than my current expenses, so why the heck would I need 10 times my current salary?
I hate these calculators who assume I need 80% of my salary etc. totally bogus.
It's calculated by Fidelity Investments.
They can't say "Oh, you'll be good on social security. Just live frugally." It's their job to tell you to build as big of a nest egg as possible.
Which ... I think says something about the figures they present.
I've calc'ed that I'll need half of my current living expenses and SS will cover the rest.
I currently live on approx 40K a year cash, so I figure if I retire at 67 and live another 20 years, I'll need roughly $400,000.
The biggest of those items that you can control being ... children!
That’s exactly right. Way too many dumb people saying they don’t make enough money to save anything and then they go on to mention how expensive their 3 kids are. There was a recent article locally like that, talking about this guy who works at two Subways full time, 80 hours a week, and it’s barely enough to make ends meet. Ok, at first you’re thinking, well at least he’s a hard worker. But then the article mentions he smokes a pack of cigarettes a day, “my little enjoyment,” which not only causes minor health issues in the short term (colds and flu likelihood increase, respiratory issues, etc.) but major ones in the long term, and of course at $5-6 or more per pack that’s $150-180/month on just cancer sticks. THEN it mentions his 3 kids.
I could not believe the absolutely idiotic comments on this article like, “Poor guy, this is why the minimum wage is too low!” “Capitalism is broken!” Uhh no, capitalism is working perfectly - it punishes stupidity and lack of industriousness and poor personal decision making harshly and rewards intelligence, planning, and making good decisions. The only takeaway from the article was don’t be so stupid you can only work fast food, don’t be so stupid you have 3 kids on 2 McJobs, and don’t smoke a pack of cigarettes daily.
People are just too impulsive and you see it constantly with their lousy decision making skills. They try to keep up with everyone else even though half of those people are also making bad decisions. You don’t deserve the newest smart phone or any smart phone just because your friends have one or your neighbor does. You deserve what you can afford and nothing more than that. If you’re saving for retirement, or in general, it requires sacrifices. I didn’t enjoy fighting crowds to see movies on discount Tuesday but I enjoyed spending $5 instead of $10 at the movie theater. If I couldn’t have afforded that, I’d have stayed home and watched Netflix for $10/month. Even local libraries have really nice DVD selections for free! My one poor friend constantly uses the library and has seen more movies than anyone I know (he’s a filmmaker too). You can still save money and enjoy life but it’s about compromises.
It just really doesn't concern me - there are too many data issues in terms of people having multiple accounts, couples versus single people, averages versus medians, some people have pensions who may have therefore saved less, etc. etc. I know how much I want to have saved and I'm on track - THAT'S what counts. I don't compare myself to imaginary average people who don't exist.
This^^^
Charts and graphs and statistics can show any thing.
I don't have a 401k, so does that mean I have no $$$???
That I don't count?
No because i have other money saved.
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.
