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.
Baloney. You could never, ever save that much unless you are extremely high income, have a high-paid spouse, AND own a house free and clear so you can sell it.
Blame the idiots in Washington beginning with the Reagan years for allowing policies which destroyed private sector pensions and replaced them with worthless 401(k)s. You can never, ever save the money to equal even a modest pension of a couple of hundred dollars a month.
Defined contribution plans are garbage, and we need a return of real pensions or something equal to them.
David Cay Johnston explains in plain English about the pension crisis:
In just 7 years bread (aside from Bimbo brand) has gone from $1.99 to $4.50 a loaf. A can of wax beans 89 cents to $1.79, a lb of 85% hamburger from $2.49 to $3.99. A dozen eggs $1.49 to $2.79.
Where are you shopping. I'm in the DC area, not exactly low cost of living…and your prices are higher than what I've seen around here….and I shop at regular supermarkets and health food stores….not discount places like Walmart and Aldis.
Quote:
If you are paying THOSE prices, you really should start doing some comparison shopping because those are so much higher than most families are paying for the same items.
The old fashion way of saving for retirement was to tell people to put X amount in every year investing it in Y and you will get Z return. Z use to be an average of 8% return a year. But in 2016, we can't have those kind of expectations of high returns in secure investments. I use to have them do a retirement plan for us calculated in the old fashion way. When I had them do another retirement plan recently they changed the report entirely.
The new report for retirement no longer has a simple X, Y and Z outcome. Instead they have a more realistic approach where it focuses on the probability of meeting your different investment goals for retirement.
Thinking about probability really helps to plan for retirement much better I believe. Because with the old fashion method it was either a yes or no answer for having enough money for retirement. Where in probability there can be several possible outcomes. Then you can decide what outcomes are acceptable to you. If your worse case situation isn't so bad to you, then you have a better idea of what to expect and be able to plan accordingly.
accumulating money is not about a year , five years or even 10- years . it is about the fact we save money over decades of working .
i don't think there are many of us who didn't get dumped out in a crappy stock market and crappy economy .
i got dumped in to the job market in the 1970's , we had 20 years of awful markets , high inflation and higher unemployent then now , my dad got dumped in to world war ii , his dad the great depression .
but despite the crappy starts we all had we managed to still do okay over the typical 30-40 year accumulation time frame .
Baloney. You could never, ever save that much unless you are extremely high income, have a high-paid spouse, AND own a house free and clear so you can sell it.
all our mileage will vary and of course the year you were born can matter a lot but to say no one can do it is false because i did do it the same as quite a few posters here and ended up with multiple 7 figures . ..
the paid off house is a result of being able to get the money to do it and not the cause of .
From the census record of historical median income, median household income increased a factor of 4.54 from 1975 to 2014. If a person who was in their 20s in 1975 needs $1M, I would expect a person in their 20s now, assuming the same income increase factor, would need more than $4M to retire. Of course, it is not gold that someone today really needs $1M and no one expects the wages to rise as much as in the 20th century but the census record does lend perspective. The main point is that, if the trend were to hold true, the wage increase would automatically accommodate the increased savings need. Historical Income Tables - Households - U.S Census Bureau
If the cite in the OP is saying that that $2M is needed for the constant dollars case, (twice as much without much income increase), then I assume future 65 year olds will be either be welcoming 50 years in retirement or dreading sky-high medical costs.
"Originally Posted by BellaDL
The article is aimed at millenials
Since millenials are not expected to retire until 30 years from now, this $2M amount in 30 years is pretty close to the $1M 'target' for near retirees today"
Wait, what? So, my generation is all going to retire at like 55? lol wow they must have a lot of faith in us, with my dad's generation still postponing retirement 10 years further out than that.
I should have written MORE THAN 30 years instead of until 30 year (of course using the age of the oldest millenials who were born in the early 80s ).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennials
Millennials (also known as the Millennial Generation[1] or Generation Y) are the demographic cohort following Generation X. Most researchers and commentators use birth years ranging from the early 1980s to the early 2000s.
Pensions are part of the problem......no employer can afford them! Cities/Govt are pretty much the only places you get a pension today and they are massively underfunded (projected returns didn't happen!)
Even some cities are broke. Philadelphia was on the news and it's broke. I don't want to rely on pension either.
I think pensions were in trouble before, that's why the evolved to 401k.
Well, what I've learned from this thread is that I'm really behind the 8 ball as all of my peers are apparently out driving their yachts around the south pacific planning on retiring in their early 50s. Well, great recession, student loan debt, and devaluing of a college degree be damned! **** I'm really behind on this. I can't even put away $20k a year on student loan debt as that's 2/3rd of my annual salary.
Do I get to do my Elmer Fudd "I am a millionaire. I have a mansion and a yacht" ?
A million doesn't go very far these days. The mansion is a very modest 992 square feet. The yacht is 22 feet.
Ain't no way I'm retiring until I break 65 unless something awful happens where I can't work. Unless you're a 1%er accumulating piles of wealth from that high income or you have a defined benefit pension from your public sector job, pretty much nobody is retiring in their 50's to a life of luxury unless they inherit a big pile of money. You'd have to be socking away a big chunk of your disposable income your entire work life and most people aren't willing to make that kind of personal sacrifice.
Let's leave politics out of the retirement forum. How has the current Democrat president work out for you? More poor house than ever, more income equality, more homeless, more riots, geez.
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.
