6 ms·

Not just in America. I don't have any saving at all, and a lot of people around me neither, and I'm in France. Now theoretically, we all pay regularly to the s

Not just in America. I don't have any saving at all, and a lot of people around me neither, and I'm in France. Now theoretically, we all pay regularly to the state for that. But in practice, none of us believe we will see the color of it when we grow old. Last week a dear and poor friend of us said she wanted to go to school again, but that the one she wanted in cost 5000€/year and she didn't have the money. We secretly discussed to create a common money pot to pay the tuition for her. I suggested that we all put 500 € each and solve the problem. All the participants were all above 30, none of them had children, all of them were working. Half of them don't even own a car, as in my city it's a useless expense. Yet it was a rude awakening: most of the people at the table could not afford such an amount. Even once in their life for a very old friend. So we discussed a bit, and it turns out most of us don't have any saving and just live by the day. Comfortably, granted. They are not poor, they eat well, they have clothes and can afford pleasures. But if anything happen to any of us, we are screwed. We have no buffer of any kind. The cost of life is, of course, part of the cause of this. But also the fact that our lives are very instable : breakups, job changes, moving in/out, make it hard to save. It's also a cultural problem: enjoying ourself have been more important that savings. But there is also another issue: individualism. The thing is, most of us could probably find 500 € to give away. But the solidarity is not strong enough for this effort. So if friends won't get out of their way to do that, I have little hope that society will solve the retirement puzzle. People care about _their_ retirement, not about everybody's retirement, not how society will find a balance or how their neighbor is going to survive.

oskarth 9y ago
> So we discussed a bit, and it turns out most of us don't have any saving and just live by the day. Comfortably, granted. They are not poor, they eat well, they have clothes and can afford pleasures. But if anything happen to any of us, we are screwed. We have no buffer of any kind. The solution to this largely a matter of a shift in attitude. Start saving 10% of your salary right now and stop buying new clothes, eating out etc. Having a buffer is way more important. There are plenty of resources for learning how to live frugally. The benefits of having a cushion, however small, are enormous. Of course, that doesn't take away from the other points you mention. But it's by no means an unsolvable problem for the average comfortably-living individual.
- codebeaker 9y ago
  I can second this, I started putting just €100/month away and was pleasantly surprised to see it tick over into the €1000 mark very quickly. It's a standing-order at my bank, triggered when any large deposit is made (e.g it fires when my salary is paid). Now that I reached a milestone (even if I did kill the account from 300->0, 250->0 a couple of times in emergencies) I intend to increase how much I put in there. 10% of my salary is a lot to do without, my wife doesn't work, we have two kids and a mortgage and a (useless expensive) car. But the €100 I simply didn't miss, and the €200, that will get me to the next milestone, when I'll jump to €300, and so on and so on will all soon arrive.
- cjsuk 9y ago
  I worry about savings. The inflation vs interest makes it a bad proposition for long term. Short term 6 month buffer zone is good. Does anyone have any advice in this area? How can I keep the value of my 10% savings in 30 years time with low risk? I don't want to go to an IFA. They sell me a product.
  - pjc50 9y ago
    Which country are you in, UK? The standard default here would be to put it in some combination of a stocks ISA and a high-interest savings account. If you really want to keep it for 30 years the tax advantages of a pension are unbeatable and your employer is obliged to try to default you into one.
    - cjsuk 9y ago
      Yes. I looked at diverse investments but I'm still looking at losing at least 30% of value compared to inflation. I have opted out of the mandatory pensions as I had debt to pay off and it makes more sense to invest in that. I'm not happy with the risk profiles of the investments they offer as well as even the low risk one has a shit return. I'm looking for something different. TBH I'm making a reliable £300/month clear profit for a few hours effort on ebay buying and selling crap which over time has a better investment return sticking it in a low interest account that sticking a portion of salary in high interest. That's working for now but I want something that requires less effort :)
cjsuk 9y ago
I'm in the same situation. I'd give 500€ away to someone. I have done before on numerous occasions. The problem is not solidarity, it is trust and the human condition. If I give that money to someone, it'll turn into an iPhone or be smoked before something productive is done with it even if it is mandated for education or essentials to get someone out of a hole they are in. People are stupid and irresponsible.
intAligned 9y ago
Me neither, and I'm Italian. I'll also add that minimum age for retirement is being pushed farther and farther (I probably won't be able to retire until I'm 67 or something like that).
patrickaljord 9y ago
French here. > It's also a cultural problem: enjoying ourself have been more important that savings. It looks like the reason you have 0 saving is because you... simply refuse to save money and spend it all on leisure instead? (after necessities are met). > But there is also another issue: individualism. The thing is, most of us could probably find 500 € to give away. But the solidarity is not strong enough for this effort. What do you mean by individualism? That one should value individual rights such as freedom of speech, respect of individual property etc? Sounds to me like many freedoms are going away in France and civil liberties are always at risk. On the other hand, collective rights keep expending and these are extremely costly. When it comes to coerced solidarity, France sure is one of the world's champion. It seems to me that the reason you and your friends refuse to give to your friend is not because of too much individualism but because of too much collectivism, you are already paying so much in tax to support these solidarity policies that you are left with little money for your own leisure, let alone for your friends and you feel like you've already paid "your fair share" by outsourcing charity and solidarity to the State. But of course, as usual all problems in France are blamed on individualism and capitalism instead of the elephant in the room: the unfettered collectivism going on.
- sametmax 9y ago
  > simply refuse to save money and spend it all on leisure instead Yes, I clearly said it's part of the problem. Now "all" is exaggerated, as it's I don't see my friends living a wasteful life. They do get out a little, but no more than my parents did. > What do you mean by individualism? I mean that everybody is cool to do fun things together, but grouping efforts to help one-another does not come easily. As for the rest, it's a very different debate I'm not in the mood to have.
icu 9y ago
Your situation is extremely scary but not uncommon. Please see a financial adviser as soon as you can, it can make a world of difference (disclaimer, I am a financial adviser). If you can't, I humbly suggest: 1. Save up a 1000 € in an 'Extreme Emergency Fund' LIKE YOUR LIFE DEPENDED ON IT 2. Work out exactly where each euro goes each month and start cutting down your unnecessary expenses and keep to a strict budget 3. Pay off all debts (except your home mortgage) LIKE YOUR LIFE DEPENDED ON IT using the money you would have frivolously spent 4. Fully fund a 'Proper Emergency Fund' to the value of between 3 to 6 months worth of expenses (depending on how much sick pay/unemployment insurance you have from your employer/country) 5: Invest at least 15% of your household income into retirement 6: Start paying off your home mortgage early 7: Use the excess money to build wealth Do not skip over a step. If you need help let me know.
- sametmax 9y ago
  I would not make it extremely scary. As you said, we know enough causes, consequences and solution to act. It's just interesting to have a picture of what's going on. The thing is, most of the things you describe, I already do, in France, through taxes for health care, social aid and retirements. Then also insurances (for cars, flat, etc). Doing it myself would mean paying twice. And since education is free and I don't have a car, I don't have a mortgage. So my situation is not that bad. It can become bad if: - the system fails. It will for retirements. It does for some health care / insurance / social aid situation. - your issue arise outside of what the system takes in consideration. Knowing that, setting up an automatic emergency saving wire is a good thing to do. I don't believe saving for my retirement will help in anyway. I'll have to find something better, which I'm working on. But again, remember than most people don't read HN or anything else than FB streams. They live their life as-is. Like my parents did. The question is, why could they afford children, pleasures, and saving, while my friend can't. Neither my parents nor my friends are very good planners, but clearly their situation is vastly different.
  - icu 9y ago
    To address your comment about the situation not being scary... I think it would feel very scary to find yourself in a situation where you don't have an emergency fund. No one ever thinks that they will be hit with an emergency situation but I've found that 8/10 people within a 10 year period will be hit with an unexpected event where they need to use emergency funds (disclaimer: this is based on anecdotal evidence as observed over my life). If you or your friends couldn't spare 500 € to help a friend out I really wonder what savings you or your friends have. The most powerful tool anyone has to build wealth (and help others) is: * The discipline to live below your means (and avoid debt), and * Your income. If you are unencumbered with debt, and live as far below your means as you feel comfortable with, you can build a substantial amount of wealth if you have enough time. As to affording children, and I can only speak from personal experience, but I've found that a dedicated parent will always find a way. You're right that previous generations had things differently, but only with regards to globalisation... current economic disparity started to occur post 23 December 1913 with the Federal Reserve Act and post 15 August 1971 when Nixon unilaterally terminated the convertibility of the US dollar to gold. If you really want to know why you will need to learn how money is created and the economic ramifications of a fiat currency (and inflation) combined with a fractional reserve system.
kamaal 9y ago
>>enjoying ourself have been more important that savings. This is the main thing. People seem to always have money for gadgets, eating out, vacations and garden variety never-to-return expenditure. Yet savings are always dwindling and in many cases most people are in debt. Marketing has done a good job of convincing people to spend money in the present. Even the money they don't have. >>People care about _their_ retirement, not about everybody's retirement, not how society will find a balance or how their neighbor is going to survive. There have to be consequence for bad habits. Free money hasn't done well to anybody around. Also expecting some one hardworking to part their savings to pay for somebody who has partied all life is not just unfair, its theft.
- sametmax 9y ago
  I agree, as mentioned in all my other comments.
- hkmurakami 9y ago
  Put that way, the recent dogma of spending on experiences, not things is a great trope. You can literally never have too many experiences and the consumption shall be limitless.
  - kamaal 9y ago
    It is. Some colleagues I have, take 10 vacation trips an year. Apparently its all about spending time chasing some hobby like photography. Apart from the fact that they spend insane money on camera and lens gear, you also have to spend money to travel, accommodation, food etc. The funniest thing is most people don't use some lenses more than a couple of times. And they don't even see their photographs more than once. What's more, no other human will ever see their work. All of this is fine and dandy during a phase when you are young, have energy and a job that pays well. All this money could go into a retirement fund. Someday its all going to end, and these people will blame government and societies for not doing enough about the 'free money' they think they are entitled too.
  - sametmax 9y ago
    As usual, there is a balance.
knorker 9y ago
> they eat well, they have clothes and can afford pleasures. Then they/you can save. Don't blame external things on your lack of savings. Say after me: If you are in the position you describe and aren't saving then you are choosing to live beyond your means.
- sametmax 9y ago
  I don't blame anything, I'm just describing. I clearly mentioned there is a cultural/educational problem.
  - knorker 9y ago
    I was overly harsh because of this that you said: > But also the fact that our lives are very instable : breakups, job changes, moving in/out, make it hard to save. It's not hard to save because of those reasons (for people in the situation your describe). Like, at all. It's like people living paycheck to paycheck. Unless you're already so poor you're eating noodles and free store samples for nurishment, you can do this for just a while, and save enough to have one month's salary in the bank. (though probably you specifically don't need to be as drastic as this) One month's salary in the bank means that when the car breaks (though you don't have one), or when you get fired, or have to move, you can have the means to "just fix the problem". And often being able to pay to fix the problem makes it much cheaper to fix the problem, in a virtuous cycle. But you can't spend that on a vacation. Yes I agree it's a cultural and educational issue in the end. This should be taught in schools. I think it also hurts that in the US it's common to be paid weekly, or fortnightly. That means people never have even a full month's worth of rent and groceries, and they therefore never learn how to even informally have a budget. And you get things like people being able to afford eating out right after being paid, but not right before (which makes no logical sense). But you know this, so why don't you do this already? You can save, you understand that it would be in your best interests, and you know how. So why don't you?
    - sametmax 9y ago
      Essentially, I dont because i used to live with a lot less and now i like my life the way it is, so i gamgle comfort againts security. A lot of peoe have valid reasons for not saving. I don't have excuses, i take a risk in echange for a life style.
seszett 9y ago
> Not just in America. I don't have any saving at all, and a lot of people around me neither, and I'm in France. The situation is fundamentally different though. Unlike what happens in America, in France you are already paying the pensions of currently retired people. Which means you aren't supposed to save yourself, as future workers will (in theory) pay for your pension once you retire. In practice, we know that it might not happen this way, which is why you might want to have savings, of course. But the current system means saving for your own retirement ends up representing twice what an American would need to save, since you have to 1. fund current pensioners 2. fund your own future pension. Americans only have to take point 2 into account. In theory, according to the French system's design, not having any retirement savings is completely fine and is even the intended situation. Transitioning from our general contribution system to a personal savings system might be good in our period of stagnating population growth, but the transition itself is hard precisely because it means one generation will have to both contribute for others and save for itself. And it looks like it might be going to be ours. But it's a very different situation from what happens in the US where people just can't save, but they have no other way of getting a pension anyway.
- ryanwaggoner 9y ago
  Unlike what happens in America, in France you are already paying the pensions of currently retired people. Actually, that's exactly how Social Security works in the US. You and your employer collectively pay 12.4% on your first ~$130k of salary, which goes to support all the current recipients of Social Security.
  - seszett 9y ago
    Weird, the article made it seem like it was some kind of last-resort thing, saying that people with no savings will have to keep working. Why is there a need to save for retirement then, if there's already a national contribution system?
    - trackone 9y ago
      I think it just depends if you are okay with what the social security benefits pay out. Currently if you retire it is $2,687 a month. This is the max though. Most may get less. [1] https://faq.ssa.gov/link/portal/34011/34019/article/3735/what-is-the-maximum-social-security-retirement-benefit-payable https://faq.ssa.gov/link/portal/34011/34019/article/3735/wha...
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

oskarth 9y ago

> So we discussed a bit, and it turns out most of us don't have any saving and just live by the day. Comfortably, granted. They are not poor, they eat well, they have clothes and can afford pleasures. But if anything happen to any of us, we are screwed. We have no buffer of any kind. The solution to this largely a matter of a shift in attitude. Start saving 10% of your salary right now and stop buying new clothes, eating out etc. Having a buffer is way more important. There are plenty of resources for learning how to live frugally. The benefits of having a cushion, however small, are enormous. Of course, that doesn't take away from the other points you mention. But it's by no means an unsolvable problem for the average comfortably-living individual.

codebeaker 9y ago
I can second this, I started putting just €100/month away and was pleasantly surprised to see it tick over into the €1000 mark very quickly. It's a standing-order at my bank, triggered when any large deposit is made (e.g it fires when my salary is paid). Now that I reached a milestone (even if I did kill the account from 300->0, 250->0 a couple of times in emergencies) I intend to increase how much I put in there. 10% of my salary is a lot to do without, my wife doesn't work, we have two kids and a mortgage and a (useless expensive) car. But the €100 I simply didn't miss, and the €200, that will get me to the next milestone, when I'll jump to €300, and so on and so on will all soon arrive.
cjsuk 9y ago
I worry about savings. The inflation vs interest makes it a bad proposition for long term. Short term 6 month buffer zone is good. Does anyone have any advice in this area? How can I keep the value of my 10% savings in 30 years time with low risk? I don't want to go to an IFA. They sell me a product.
- pjc50 9y ago
  Which country are you in, UK? The standard default here would be to put it in some combination of a stocks ISA and a high-interest savings account. If you really want to keep it for 30 years the tax advantages of a pension are unbeatable and your employer is obliged to try to default you into one.
  - cjsuk 9y ago
    Yes. I looked at diverse investments but I'm still looking at losing at least 30% of value compared to inflation. I have opted out of the mandatory pensions as I had debt to pay off and it makes more sense to invest in that. I'm not happy with the risk profiles of the investments they offer as well as even the low risk one has a shit return. I'm looking for something different. TBH I'm making a reliable £300/month clear profit for a few hours effort on ebay buying and selling crap which over time has a better investment return sticking it in a low interest account that sticking a portion of salary in high interest. That's working for now but I want something that requires less effort :)

cjsuk 9y ago

I'm in the same situation. I'd give 500€ away to someone. I have done before on numerous occasions. The problem is not solidarity, it is trust and the human condition. If I give that money to someone, it'll turn into an iPhone or be smoked before something productive is done with it even if it is mandated for education or essentials to get someone out of a hole they are in. People are stupid and irresponsible.

intAligned 9y ago

Me neither, and I'm Italian. I'll also add that minimum age for retirement is being pushed farther and farther (I probably won't be able to retire until I'm 67 or something like that).

patrickaljord 9y ago

French here. > It's also a cultural problem: enjoying ourself have been more important that savings. It looks like the reason you have 0 saving is because you... simply refuse to save money and spend it all on leisure instead? (after necessities are met). > But there is also another issue: individualism. The thing is, most of us could probably find 500 € to give away. But the solidarity is not strong enough for this effort. What do you mean by individualism? That one should value individual rights such as freedom of speech, respect of individual property etc? Sounds to me like many freedoms are going away in France and civil liberties are always at risk. On the other hand, collective rights keep expending and these are extremely costly. When it comes to coerced solidarity, France sure is one of the world's champion. It seems to me that the reason you and your friends refuse to give to your friend is not because of too much individualism but because of too much collectivism, you are already paying so much in tax to support these solidarity policies that you are left with little money for your own leisure, let alone for your friends and you feel like you've already paid "your fair share" by outsourcing charity and solidarity to the State. But of course, as usual all problems in France are blamed on individualism and capitalism instead of the elephant in the room: the unfettered collectivism going on.

sametmax 9y ago
> simply refuse to save money and spend it all on leisure instead Yes, I clearly said it's part of the problem. Now "all" is exaggerated, as it's I don't see my friends living a wasteful life. They do get out a little, but no more than my parents did. > What do you mean by individualism? I mean that everybody is cool to do fun things together, but grouping efforts to help one-another does not come easily. As for the rest, it's a very different debate I'm not in the mood to have.

icu 9y ago

Your situation is extremely scary but not uncommon. Please see a financial adviser as soon as you can, it can make a world of difference (disclaimer, I am a financial adviser). If you can't, I humbly suggest: 1. Save up a 1000 € in an 'Extreme Emergency Fund' LIKE YOUR LIFE DEPENDED ON IT 2. Work out exactly where each euro goes each month and start cutting down your unnecessary expenses and keep to a strict budget 3. Pay off all debts (except your home mortgage) LIKE YOUR LIFE DEPENDED ON IT using the money you would have frivolously spent 4. Fully fund a 'Proper Emergency Fund' to the value of between 3 to 6 months worth of expenses (depending on how much sick pay/unemployment insurance you have from your employer/country) 5: Invest at least 15% of your household income into retirement 6: Start paying off your home mortgage early 7: Use the excess money to build wealth Do not skip over a step. If you need help let me know.

sametmax 9y ago
I would not make it extremely scary. As you said, we know enough causes, consequences and solution to act. It's just interesting to have a picture of what's going on. The thing is, most of the things you describe, I already do, in France, through taxes for health care, social aid and retirements. Then also insurances (for cars, flat, etc). Doing it myself would mean paying twice. And since education is free and I don't have a car, I don't have a mortgage. So my situation is not that bad. It can become bad if: - the system fails. It will for retirements. It does for some health care / insurance / social aid situation. - your issue arise outside of what the system takes in consideration. Knowing that, setting up an automatic emergency saving wire is a good thing to do. I don't believe saving for my retirement will help in anyway. I'll have to find something better, which I'm working on. But again, remember than most people don't read HN or anything else than FB streams. They live their life as-is. Like my parents did. The question is, why could they afford children, pleasures, and saving, while my friend can't. Neither my parents nor my friends are very good planners, but clearly their situation is vastly different.
- icu 9y ago
  To address your comment about the situation not being scary... I think it would feel very scary to find yourself in a situation where you don't have an emergency fund. No one ever thinks that they will be hit with an emergency situation but I've found that 8/10 people within a 10 year period will be hit with an unexpected event where they need to use emergency funds (disclaimer: this is based on anecdotal evidence as observed over my life). If you or your friends couldn't spare 500 € to help a friend out I really wonder what savings you or your friends have. The most powerful tool anyone has to build wealth (and help others) is: * The discipline to live below your means (and avoid debt), and * Your income. If you are unencumbered with debt, and live as far below your means as you feel comfortable with, you can build a substantial amount of wealth if you have enough time. As to affording children, and I can only speak from personal experience, but I've found that a dedicated parent will always find a way. You're right that previous generations had things differently, but only with regards to globalisation... current economic disparity started to occur post 23 December 1913 with the Federal Reserve Act and post 15 August 1971 when Nixon unilaterally terminated the convertibility of the US dollar to gold. If you really want to know why you will need to learn how money is created and the economic ramifications of a fiat currency (and inflation) combined with a fractional reserve system.

kamaal 9y ago

>>enjoying ourself have been more important that savings. This is the main thing. People seem to always have money for gadgets, eating out, vacations and garden variety never-to-return expenditure. Yet savings are always dwindling and in many cases most people are in debt. Marketing has done a good job of convincing people to spend money in the present. Even the money they don't have. >>People care about _their_ retirement, not about everybody's retirement, not how society will find a balance or how their neighbor is going to survive. There have to be consequence for bad habits. Free money hasn't done well to anybody around. Also expecting some one hardworking to part their savings to pay for somebody who has partied all life is not just unfair, its theft.

sametmax 9y ago
I agree, as mentioned in all my other comments.
hkmurakami 9y ago
Put that way, the recent dogma of spending on experiences, not things is a great trope. You can literally never have too many experiences and the consumption shall be limitless.
- kamaal 9y ago
  It is. Some colleagues I have, take 10 vacation trips an year. Apparently its all about spending time chasing some hobby like photography. Apart from the fact that they spend insane money on camera and lens gear, you also have to spend money to travel, accommodation, food etc. The funniest thing is most people don't use some lenses more than a couple of times. And they don't even see their photographs more than once. What's more, no other human will ever see their work. All of this is fine and dandy during a phase when you are young, have energy and a job that pays well. All this money could go into a retirement fund. Someday its all going to end, and these people will blame government and societies for not doing enough about the 'free money' they think they are entitled too.
- sametmax 9y ago
  As usual, there is a balance.

knorker 9y ago

> they eat well, they have clothes and can afford pleasures. Then they/you can save. Don't blame external things on your lack of savings. Say after me: If you are in the position you describe and aren't saving then you are choosing to live beyond your means.

sametmax 9y ago
I don't blame anything, I'm just describing. I clearly mentioned there is a cultural/educational problem.
- knorker 9y ago
  I was overly harsh because of this that you said: > But also the fact that our lives are very instable : breakups, job changes, moving in/out, make it hard to save. It's not hard to save because of those reasons (for people in the situation your describe). Like, at all. It's like people living paycheck to paycheck. Unless you're already so poor you're eating noodles and free store samples for nurishment, you can do this for just a while, and save enough to have one month's salary in the bank. (though probably you specifically don't need to be as drastic as this) One month's salary in the bank means that when the car breaks (though you don't have one), or when you get fired, or have to move, you can have the means to "just fix the problem". And often being able to pay to fix the problem makes it much cheaper to fix the problem, in a virtuous cycle. But you can't spend that on a vacation. Yes I agree it's a cultural and educational issue in the end. This should be taught in schools. I think it also hurts that in the US it's common to be paid weekly, or fortnightly. That means people never have even a full month's worth of rent and groceries, and they therefore never learn how to even informally have a budget. And you get things like people being able to afford eating out right after being paid, but not right before (which makes no logical sense). But you know this, so why don't you do this already? You can save, you understand that it would be in your best interests, and you know how. So why don't you?
  - sametmax 9y ago
    Essentially, I dont because i used to live with a lot less and now i like my life the way it is, so i gamgle comfort againts security. A lot of peoe have valid reasons for not saving. I don't have excuses, i take a risk in echange for a life style.

seszett 9y ago

> Not just in America. I don't have any saving at all, and a lot of people around me neither, and I'm in France. The situation is fundamentally different though. Unlike what happens in America, in France you are already paying the pensions of currently retired people. Which means you aren't supposed to save yourself, as future workers will (in theory) pay for your pension once you retire. In practice, we know that it might not happen this way, which is why you might want to have savings, of course. But the current system means saving for your own retirement ends up representing twice what an American would need to save, since you have to 1. fund current pensioners 2. fund your own future pension. Americans only have to take point 2 into account. In theory, according to the French system's design, not having any retirement savings is completely fine and is even the intended situation. Transitioning from our general contribution system to a personal savings system might be good in our period of stagnating population growth, but the transition itself is hard precisely because it means one generation will have to both contribute for others and save for itself. And it looks like it might be going to be ours. But it's a very different situation from what happens in the US where people just can't save, but they have no other way of getting a pension anyway.

ryanwaggoner 9y ago
Unlike what happens in America, in France you are already paying the pensions of currently retired people. Actually, that's exactly how Social Security works in the US. You and your employer collectively pay 12.4% on your first ~$130k of salary, which goes to support all the current recipients of Social Security.
- seszett 9y ago
  Weird, the article made it seem like it was some kind of last-resort thing, saying that people with no savings will have to keep working. Why is there a need to save for retirement then, if there's already a national contribution system?
  - trackone 9y ago
    I think it just depends if you are okay with what the social security benefits pay out. Currently if you retire it is $2,687 a month. This is the max though. Most may get less. [1] https://faq.ssa.gov/link/portal/34011/34019/article/3735/what-is-the-maximum-social-security-retirement-benefit-payable https://faq.ssa.gov/link/portal/34011/34019/article/3735/wha...

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]