6 ms·
I'll revise my position, but only slightly. Using the data that you pointed me at, if you had retired in 1929, you would have had to wait until 1944 before the
by alejohausner 10y ago
I'll revise my position, but only slightly. Using the data that you pointed me at, if you had retired in 1929, you would have had to wait until 1944 before the market broke through permanently above the 1929 level, with dividends reinvested. So you would only have starved for 15 years, not 25.
- loeg 10y agoJust because the market's down doesn't mean you can't spend retirement savings. You wouldn't need to starve (as someone wealthy enough to retire in 1929). Ideally you scale back your spending and look for work. Social security was signed into law in 1935 (6 years later). The problem isn't lasting the first 6-15 years (4% rule of thumb = 25x yearly spending; in very low risk cash/bonds obviously that lasts around 25 years), it's having any money left over to last the rest. And keep in mind, 1929 and ~1965 are the two worst years to retire in in US history.