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.
Where we live, this is a valid figure for a couple. It all depends on how you want to live.
If you want to help your kids and grandkids and do exactly what you want when you want - and, have plenty left for ANY medical or assisted living situation (that means at least 500K or more), this is the type of money you might need.
Every situation is different for sure.
Money does not buy happiness....I can confirm that since I've been dirt poor (outhouse dirt poor) and wealthy (like nice vacation houses and not sweating it a drop) and there is not much of a difference.....
But, I shudder to rely on government or my family to bail me out and I sure don't want to be forced to work for money in my senior years (like now)......
We get SS but a good chunk of it goes to Medicare. Add in our Medicare supplement, deductibles, drugs, etc. and that's not money to live on!
Keep in mind - look at a map or at stats - most people do live in high cost urban or burb areas. It's not out of line to say that a couple needs at least 90K to be very comfortable. Basic math would show you'd need well over a million invested plus SS and Medicare to have that...and 90K is not rich!
It's too late for many of those commenting on this...but younger people should certainly try to use the power of investing and compounding to far exceed a million (plus their house!) by the time they retire.
money may not by happiness but it sure can buy choices in life ...that can be worth it's weight in gold
Some of this happens everywhere - high COL retirees moving to low COL areas and causing prices to rise is not new and not just CA to NV or NY to FL but many places. But some of the issues are really not due to this effect. New residents don't tear down motels for vacant lots, people don't lose tips or become homeless because of CA moving to NV.
I think the major problem with Californians moving to Nevada is not prices because they go up and down. It is some of them bringing some of the crazy liberal policies that others are trying to flee. My biggest hope is NV never becomes CA lite.
Too late in that aspect...the history of mankind...something cheaper is always over the horizon, right?
Younger people are almost always more diverse, tolerant, liberal...and bring new ideas and ideals. One may like it or not...that's why they build senior "Cloisters" so some can get away from the Real World.
It's not surprising that living 100's of miles into the desert and inland in places where it often exceeds 100F is cheaper than other places.
And it's not as if NV. has ever been a place of virtue and tradition...if anything, the people moving there are far more "moral" than the Mob and other criminal forces that financed the rise of the place.
But that's really a bit off-topic for this thread...the point is, one needs money in most places to live comfortably and the figure given in the article is close to "the number" for a couple (2) people who want to live well.
money may not by happiness but it sure can buy choices in life ...that can be worth it's weight in gold
No doubt.....when young we said "dope would get you thought time of no money (pot), but money could not get you through times of no dope".....
When old we say "better to be in pain and suffering and have no worries about $$$ than to be in pain and suffering and ALSO worry about money"....
Or "it's quite nice to help your kids and grandkids through school or with a down payment on their first house".....
Or "a car or two that does not break down"........
Or whatever......whether we like it or not, the USA is heavily weighted as a "money first" society...that is, it is not a place where egalitarianism is King. One needs to play the Game - to some extent - by the Master Rules which exist.
money may not by happiness but it sure can buy choices in life ...that can be worth it's weight in gold
This is how I feel.
Choices. Options.
No worries.
And also, "F-you money." Meaning, I don't have to do this job if treated bad or miserable doing it. From Donald T. Regan's biography, former Treasury secretary in the 80s).
While money can't buy happiness, it CAN buy season ski passes and frequent ski tune-ups. And sushi.
It bought me a sailboat - used, of course. And the time to sail it.....and the cost of storage, launching and the like.
I truly admit that myself and friends and family got a LOT of happiness and probably an extended life span from being out on the water!
I would be buying the ski tune-ups, but lately we've been in Florida during the winter....the benefit of understanding what early savings and investing can "buy".
Sure, it all goes away in an instant when the Grim Reaper or his underlings calls the score. But, until then, living well is definitely the best revenge.
I don't need the good coffee that we make.....I'd have no problem with 2 lbs of dunkin beans for $10 - but it's like....maybe 50% better. So dunkin is just fine, but my gourmet beans are sublime.
Every man and woman a King/Queen. We live in good times (as long as we have low debt).
This is of course correct, even if snide curmudgeons can't help with a snippy remark, on how this is obvious. But here's the thing. The sort of article that started this thread, seems to have overwhelmingly two audiences in mind:
1) Young people who are overwhelmed with the awful burden of trying to save for retirement. They have decades of potential earnings ahead, but next to zero (or maybe even negative) present net worth. And then they get bombarded with articles further sagging their spirits, as to how much money they'll need to retire, in 30 or 40 years.
2) Older people who are "behind" in savings. Their house might be paid off, and their children raised. But their net-worth is inadequate, by some measure. Such articles scare them into belt-tightening and trying to work forever.
There is also a third group: those who have their $1.7M, or whatever is the magic number, who are already in their 60s, or beyond. Can they "afford" to retire? Of course! For them, such articles are more about self-congratulation than advice.
And yet, and yet, there's a fourth group - a group that NEVER seems to receive attention. This is the group, to be only slightly facetious, that has twice as much money has Mathjak, but is half of his age. Should members of this group seriously consider retirement? Read such articles, and conclude... no. Why? Because there are too many unknowns, too many risks. Even if you have enough money to make a cash-offer for the stock of the company that built Craigiri's sailboat... even that might not be enough. No "one size fits all" indeed!
Last edited by ohio_peasant; 07-12-2019 at 12:08 PM..
While money can't buy happiness, it CAN buy season ski passes and frequent ski tune-ups. And sushi.
It can also buy you a season pass at a ski area where frequent ski tunes aren't necessary.
I have a season tune at the local shop. $139 and they tune my skis once per week if I want. Ski tuning is a loss leader to get people into the shop to spend money. Sadly, that weekly tune is often needed. I'm not at one of those resorts where sharp edges are unnecessary.
I also have a local's card for half price sushi before 6pm. The earlybird special. LOL
This is of course correct, even if snide curmudgeons can't help with a snippy remark, on how this is obvious. But here's the thing. The sort of article that started this thread, seems to have overwhelmingly two audiences in mind:
1) Young people who are overwhelmed with the awful burden of trying to save for retirement. They have decades of potential earnings ahead, but next to zero (or maybe even negative) present net worth. And then they get bombarded with articles further sagging their spirits, as to how much money they'll need to retire, in 30 or 40 years.
2) Older people who are "behind" in savings. Their house might be paid off, and their children raised. But their net-worth is inadequate, by some measure. Such articles scare them into belt-tightening and trying to work forever.
There is also a third group: those who have their $1.7M, or whatever is the magic number, who are already in their 60s, or beyond. Can they "afford" to retire? Of course! For them, such articles are more about-congratulation than advice.
And yet, and yet, there's a third group - a group that NEVER seems to receive attention. This is the group, to be only slightly facetious, that has twice as much money has Mathjak, but is half of his age. Should members of this group seriously consider retirement? Read such articles, and conclude... no. Why? Because there are too many unknowns, too many risks. Even if you have enough money to make a cash-offer for the stock of the company that built Craigiri's sailboat... even that might not be enough. No "one size fits all" indeed!
Just curious.....how much would you have to have to retire at 40? Today.
Just curious.....how much would you have to have to retire at 40? Today.
Assuming that you're genuinely interested in my opinion, and that I'm not about to be lured into some digital version of ignominious display in the pillory in the town-square, here are some subjective numbers:
1. 40 year old, single, no kids, good investor: >$10M
2. 40 year old, single, no kids, mediocre investor: >$30M
3. 40 year old, has children and/or spouse: I couldn't even begin to comment, but certainly more than the above.
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.
