2022 Real Estate Observations (Arlington, Woburn, Lexington: tenant, contractors, costs)

[id77]

Originally Posted by massnative71

Who said anything about FIRE??? While understood that this forum is quite skewed from reality, the overwhelming majority of folk retire at 65. Or 70. Sometimes in their 50s, although they tend to be public sector with pensions where this isn't applicable. Nobody has a "right" to retire at 40, nor is it remotely normal. It is an extreme outlier and not relevant to any discussion about typical retirement math.

When you are 65 and retired, your home should be paid off and not have any student loan costs or dependent kids. Medicare kicks in so you will not have to worry about that. Since you are retired, you will not have commuting costs either. $125K is more than PLENTY to maintain a good lifestyle in retirement, as most survive totally fine with much less. Now is it a "bad" idea to shoot for $2M-$3M, absolutely not! But only "if" it doesn't require one to stretch during your prime years and forgo pleasures while you can enjoy them. WE CAN ONLY LIVE ONCE, and ANY day could be our last. Your target should be to "maintain" your current lifestyle, while not "exceeding" it during retirement. Either/or is not a good thing.

You're saying that a 60+ year old couple should be fine on $2-3 million, then? It's almost like you're saying...

Originally Posted by id77

Age factors into it as well. A 60 year old today with 2-3 million (plus Social Security kicking in soon) can probably retire modestly but comfortably, but a 40 year old with 2-3 million who tried to retire would have to severely restrict their spending in order to make it, despite what the FIRE blogs would have us believe. Workers with 25+ working years remaining really should be aiming for 8-10 million before putting in their notice, with that number decreasing as they get older.

What exactly are you finding total nonsense?

[msRB311]

Originally Posted by matrix5k

That's what I'm saying. How can boomers be house poor when they had 3-4 decades to become wealthy? There are already millennial millionaires who didn't have the opportunities that boomers had.

People evolve I guess. I think for a while people had a hard time putting money from their paycheck in their 20s into an account they can't touch until theyre 65, especially when it's unclear what the result will be at times . I think people are just smarter financially these days.

[Threestep2]

Originally Posted by matrix5k

How are boomers house poor when houses cost nothing (compared to today) for them? Most millennials can't even buy a house today. The boomers we bought from paid under 200k for our house in the 90s. It was in turn key condition when they bought. Adjusted for inflation, that's around 400k when we bought. We paid nearly twice that and had to put in another 100k+ for repairs/maintenance. We also had a ton of student loans, boomers did not. Every boomer I know has at least one vacation home in NH, Maine, the Cape etc or multiple timeshares around the world. They are all multimillionaires from stocks or real estate.

Your everyday boomer had children, paid for his/her education not through loans and compensation-housing was in a similar ratio as it is today. That the boomers you know are a bit better off than the average gives an indication about your circle. New houses are generally turnkey. If you upgraded a 90s home for 100k (assuming 3 br 2 or 2/1 baths) - depends on your needs/wants.

Originally Posted by matrix5k

Maybe I'm totally ignorant or living in a bubble or something. It seems like if you don't have at least 1-2 million from investing from the 70s or 80s until now, then something went wrong assuming no major medical bills or anything like that.

It is called life. Unless you want the long version.

[msRB311]

I do think boomers had easier lives in many ways than people do today. It was easier to survive on one income, kids had less activities than they do today, there is so much more expected of parents to do today in addition to both parents often needing to work. Housing was more affordable. To me it seems like many things weren't as expensive as they are today. People didn't feel the need to have as many things as they do today. I don't recall parents being obsessed about where their kids went to elementary or even high school.

The one thing we have that they didn't have is technology which has made certain things easier...but probably made some other things more difficult.

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by id77

You're saying that a 60+ year old couple should be fine on $2-3 million, then? It's almost like you're saying...



What exactly are you finding total nonsense?

So we are talking about couples now??? I thought we were speaking individuals?


No what I am calling ridiculous is the idea that $2-3 million is "minimal". If I make $100K now, I'll be fine on $60K/yr + social security or even less as I can count on my expenses going down. You don't want to end up with more income in your retirement that you may never get to enjoy, than you had in your prime years. An extra cushion is good, but not so much to where you forgo life experiences that you will never have a 2nd opportunity to make up for. There is such a thing as overkill, and it seems like Americans don't do the balance thing very well. It's either "all" (put away 25% of your earnings while living off rice and beans), or "nothing" (the "average" person you hear about retiring with a $60K net worth as they lived "every day like it was their last").

[matrix5k]

Originally Posted by msRB311

I do think boomers had easier lives in many ways than people do today. It was easier to survive on one income, kids had less activities than they do today, there is so much more expected of parents to do today in addition to both parents often needing to work. Housing was more affordable. To me it seems like many things weren't as expensive as they are today. People didn't feel the need to have as many things as they do today. I don't recall parents being obsessed about where their kids went to elementary or even high school.

The one thing we have that they didn't have is technology which has made certain things easier...but probably made some other things more difficult.

One working parent was the norm in my childhood neighborhood. Every family on my street had a stay at home mom to raise 2-4 kids. This was a working class neighborhood in the Inland Empire in CA. Jobs didn't pay that much but everything was cheaper. A new 4 bed/2 bath house with garage and big yard was around 70k in the 70s. In 2022 dollars that's around 376k. Can you even buy a SFH in CA for under 400k anymore?

[msRB311]

I see some stay at home moms now but their husbands are bringing in like 500k to a million a year. Most families need a two working parents. I know of one mom who doesn't work and her husband makes less than 200k a year. They're very careful.

I also think people in their 60s who have 2 to 3 million saved should be fine. That also assuming they have some other income like social security or a pension. Not everyone lives a lavish lifestyle or travels extensively

[matrix5k]

Originally Posted by msRB311

I see some stay at home moms now but their husbands are bringing in like 500k to a million a year. Most families need a two working parents. I know of one mom who doesn't work and her husband makes less than 200k a year. They're very careful.

I also think people in their 60s who have 2 to 3 million saved should be fine. That also assuming they have some other income like social security or a pension. Not everyone lives a lavish lifestyle or travels extensively

Was daycare even a common expense in the 70s-90s, and if so was it as expensive as today?

[msRB311]

Originally Posted by matrix5k

Was daycare even a common expense in the 70s-90s, and if so was it as expensive as today?

I don't think daycare became a thing until the 80s really. I didn't know anyone who used it until the 2000s

[GeoffD]

Originally Posted by matrix5k

Was daycare even a common expense in the 70s-90s, and if so was it as expensive as today?

Everyone I know who had kids in the 1980s and 1990s was dual income with daycare. Inflation-adjusted, it was expensive.