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.
Medical costs are the real bugger....none of us really know how that is going to play out and what each of us will end up paying not just for ourselves but ultimately for others.
Honestly 2.5 million would be cutting it too close for us.
Well, given the imminent collapse of the California housing market ('What?' you say, 'Housing prices have fallen so far!' Well, the shakeout is nowhere close to being done), I think another three years will pass by and you can get a very reasonable price in the Bay Area.
In short, we're in a depression, not a recession. Until housing prices in San Francisco drop another 30-40%, the market won't have hit bottom.
Well, given the imminent collapse of the California housing market ('What?' you say, 'Housing prices have fallen so far!' Well, the shakeout is nowhere close to being done), I think another three years will pass by and you can get a very reasonable price in the Bay Area.
In short, we're in a depression, not a recession. Until housing prices in San Francisco drop another 30-40%, the market won't have hit bottom.
California has always been expensive. The rent has always been high.
Recent articles have shown that the Average american less has then $50K for retirement.
thats far from true.. that 50k arrived at is because its skewed.. you have those that didnt attempt to save anything, those that just started saving and are young, those that saved little and they all are all diluting the figures for those who have saved.. if 50% of america saved 100k and 50% saved zero there is your 50k average but those who saved dont have 50k they have 100k. our kids are just entering the work force and saved little so far, they are diluting the numbers of folks saving decades.
as an example fidelity found that their average account balance for those over 55 and contributing 1/2 to full max into their 401k's for the last decade have an average of 207,000 in their account. thats a far cry from the 50k figure .
when they come up with that 50k number do they figure investment property or other assets outside of retirement plans as well??
our structure has more outside of retirement accounts than in them. in fact fidelitys number may be lower than reality. with many of us having changed or lost jobs we pulled our 401k and took it with us. my 401k was just restarted again and has a few grand in it from this year but doesnt reflect the fact i pulled a few hundred thousand out of my 401k and moved it under my control from my last job..
anyway dont believe most of this crap floating around out there. its skewed usually to reflect whatever point someone is looking to make.
Last edited by mathjak107; 07-07-2011 at 03:06 AM..
thats far from true..
anyway dont believe most of this crap floating around out there. its skewed usually to reflect whatever point someone is looking to make.
I completely agree with your last point - you can make statistics show just about anything you want them to show.
To answer your original question, probably not. But it depends. The "Bay Area" is a pretty big, very diverse place. If you're talking about the north side, Marin area, then your $2.5M won't even be enough to find a place to live. If you're talking East San Jose, maybe, (but I'm not sure you'll want to live there). There may well be another housing correction, but overall the bay area is just plain expensive. We lived there for 20+ years prior to retirement, and couldn't wait to move.
Here's a very basic example. Towards the end of our time / careers there we rented an apartment while we looked for retirement homes in Sparks, NV and Palm Desert, CA. We bought homes in both locations. Our two house payments TOGETHER are less than the rent we were paying on a 2 bedroom apartment in San Jose.
How much does an Average american now have in retirement? Considering they are retired now.
Ok, so $207K but having $2.5 million in the next 25-30 years should be far better then $207K in Today's dollar don't you think?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107
thats far from true.. that 50k arrived at is because its skewed.. you have those that didnt attempt to save anything, those that just started saving and are young, those that saved little and they all are all diluting the figures for those who have saved.. if 50% of america saved 100k and 50% saved zero there is your 50k average but those who saved dont have 50k they have 100k. our kids are just entering the work force and saved little so far, they are diluting the numbers of folks saving decades.
as an example fidelity found that their average account balance for those over 55 and contributing 1/2 to full max into their 401k's for the last decade have an average of 207,000 in their account. thats a far cry from the 50k figure .
when they come up with that 50k number do they figure investment property or other assets outside of retirement plans as well??
our structure has more outside of retirement accounts than in them. in fact fidelitys number may be lower than reality. with many of us having changed or lost jobs we pulled our 401k and took it with us. my 401k was just restarted again and has a few grand in it from this year but doesnt reflect the fact i pulled a few hundred thousand out of my 401k and moved it under my control from my last job..
anyway dont believe most of this crap floating around out there. its skewed usually to reflect whatever point someone is looking to make.
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.