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.
That might be of comfort to those who wish to retire to the middle of a cornfield or the side of a mountain. But such places would be considered highly undesirable places to retire for most people.
Are you seriously refuting that the majority of the land mass in the USA is rural? That is all he said, and it is true. The majority of people in the USA do NOT live in rural areas. Do you get out more often, or is your view of the USA only from the front porch?
It is a far different question to ask is it POSSIBLE to live on $32k a year (2016 dollars) than it is to ask can one retire with no worry on that amount. Being forced to live in the rural areas of Maine (and yes, I've been there more than a few times, and -40F in the winter on a regular basis is not what I, nor most people want) is fine for some, but not for most. Or guess what? The "most" would be living there. But they don't. Saying that "plenty of people are retired and living on $16k a year" is a half truth. If you are forced to use words like "forced", "no choice", "survive", "as long as" and "so far", while describing how under the right circumstances it is enough, then, as far as I'm concerned, it's not. It is not elitist or bigotry, it is reality. Some people absolutely can not be chicken farmers or landlords or ..wait..that is actually still working, not retirement then, is it? No, only I do fully understand that only a small percentage with high incomes can choose to live anywhere and how they wish. Thats not what this is about.
But I refute that most people do not WANT to live at least as well as they did while working, in retirement until they die. Simpler? Absolutely! Unencumbered? Yes. Want vs can is where this discussion has degraded to. Can one survive on $32k today? Sure! Easily, in many parts of the US. And not actually suffer or be forced to choose bad places to live. Sure! "As long as" you own your own home, or are "forced" to live where public transportation is easily available in a low COL area, and "as long as" your health is good, and "survive" fine living frugally & shopping at Goodwill and the Dollar store, etc, etc. No one disputes that, nor denigrates any one that either chooses to or is forced to live that way. If my life had turned out that way, I would be fine with it. It may still! I can't predict the future any better than anyone else. I would make it work. Because I had to. But it would not be my first, second, or third choice.
I can count the the number of wealthy people that I've ever met that had plenty of money and gave it all away to live an austere life of unknown and forced frugality on less than one hand. Admirable? sure! Possible? I'm positive some have done just that! In my repertoire? Not likely.
Why people that have/had lower income then, now, and forever feel that anyone with more than they have are always trying to embarrass, denigrate, demean, etc them is a reflection of how they see themselves, as far as I am concerned. Having enough saved is not about owning more new appliances, cars, TVs, or expensive homes. I had none of that much of my life, and was perfectly happy. I had negative net worth and lived fine. But it was not where I wanted to be by choice, nor was it truly sustainable. Had I died while broke in my 30s, I would not have cared. I'd be dead. But it would not be my first choice.
IMHO, it is very difficult to have had nothing, then get ahead, live a better lifestyle, then be forced to live with nothing because of bad circumstances, poor planning or short sighted choices. No regrets is fine. Until you have them.
people live on whatever they have . they have been doing that forever . but that does not mean it is a lifestyle they like ,want or would choose if they had options .
It's sad to see that there are some here, who, if their plans to retire with exact change should fail them, would probably rather jump off a cliff than make adjustments for an alternate way of living. If they didn't they would be forever miserable thinking about what might have been.
I would advise the OP to save for the retirement HE wants to have. Living without what others have isn't a hardship if you never wanted them in the first place. Just strive for whatever retirement savings you need to make you happy.
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.
