5 ms·

Everyone tosses around a 4% safe real withdrawal rate (SWR), but that number is just a starting point. The Trinity study was for a 30-year period where success

Everyone tosses around a 4% safe real withdrawal rate (SWR), but that number is just a starting point. The Trinity study was for a 30-year period where success was defined as ending with a non-negative account balance. If you're retiring at 30, you're probably looking at a 40-60 year time period and want to avoid sliding into the grave just as your account balance hits zero. Here is an in-depth analysis which seems to recommend a 3.25-3.5% SWR instead: https://earlyretirementnow.com/2016/12/07/the-ultimate-guide-to-safe-withdrawal-rates-part-1-intro/ https://earlyretirementnow.com/2016/12/07/the-ultimate-guide... Of course, many software engineers will continue to mess around with tech after retirement; if you follow your interest into extremely niche domains, the option of irregular highly-specialized consulting gigs becomes available. This income stream, while not consistent enough to live off by itself, proves formidable in conjunction with retirement-level investments and enables a much higher SWR.

FLUX-YOU 9y ago
Do consultants not get "You've not been working for the past X months/years, how should we trust you've been keeping pace in tech?"
- learc83 9y ago
  When you're a consultant no one really expects you to provide a resume with a complete accounting of what you've been doing. It's more of, I worked for clients x,y, and z on projects a, b, and c. Here are the results I got for them.
  - busterarm 9y ago
    Turns out, positioning yourself this way pays huge dividends when looking for full-time employment as well!
- ahelwer 9y ago
  When I say extremely niche, I mean extremely niche. Not the sort of thing you get by cold-calling some corporate entity. Maybe you become involved and well-known in an obscure technical field at the margins of economic feasibility. Eventually you run into someone who holds the purse strings at some organization who is interested in that field. You work together a bit, and eventually ask whether they'd want to pay you for a one-off trial project using the technology. Stuff like that.
busterarm 9y ago
> if you follow your interest into extremely niche domains, the option of irregular highly-specialized consulting gigs becomes available. This income stream, while not consistent enough to live off by itself, proves formidable in conjunction with retirement-level investments and enables a much higher SWR. I just had a weird moment this weekend where I calculated what my yearly cost of living would be at the house I'm inheriting. My mom bought her house in cash, in a low property tax state and it's amazing what not having a mortgage will save you -- and it's a _nice_ house. Yearly CoL, counting food, a small home emergency fund and estimated maintenance of the house and car came out to around 7k. Considering what I make from sporadic consulting, I realized that I could live off that for years just working a few weeks a year. And I only have to do that until Social Security payments kick in (though I'm probably going to try to maintain this level of income until 62). It drilled home the point that I need to save what I'm earning here so that when the time comes I will have a nice large, easy cushion.
- ams6110 9y ago
  There won't be any Social Security when you are 62. The system is a ponzi scheme that will collapse with the boomer retirements.
  - newfoundglory 9y ago
    This doesn't seem like an evidence-based opinion.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > There won't be any Social Security when you are 62. Unless political opponents use this exact kind of scaremongering to push a repeal, yes, there will. > The system is a ponzi scheme It's not, though it's failure mode is a sustainable analog of one. > that will collapse with the boomer retirements. No, it won't. The projection is that the Trust Fund would be exhausted, which would reduce SS to paying benefits exclusively out of current payroll tax revenues, this would reduce benefits below full benefits, but would not collapse the system.
  - AnimalMuppet 9y ago
justherefortart 9y ago
Social Security also averages over 35 years of work as well. It's a decent backup for extra income after 67-70 if you live that long, but it can also be a benefit for your spouse.
- Consultant32452 9y ago
  I think it's a pretty bad backup. It cost me 7.5% of my income for my entire working life and when I die I don't have anything to pass onto my children. If I die before retirement age I get negative 100% return on investment. Let's not forget that the poor and minorities tend to have hard labor jobs so they die early, before they get a decent return. This program has really harmed the ability of the poor to create and pass on generational wealth because it redistributes their wealth to wealthier demographics who live longer lifetimes in retirement.

FLUX-YOU 9y ago

Do consultants not get "You've not been working for the past X months/years, how should we trust you've been keeping pace in tech?"

learc83 9y ago
When you're a consultant no one really expects you to provide a resume with a complete accounting of what you've been doing. It's more of, I worked for clients x,y, and z on projects a, b, and c. Here are the results I got for them.
- busterarm 9y ago
  Turns out, positioning yourself this way pays huge dividends when looking for full-time employment as well!
ahelwer 9y ago
When I say extremely niche, I mean extremely niche. Not the sort of thing you get by cold-calling some corporate entity. Maybe you become involved and well-known in an obscure technical field at the margins of economic feasibility. Eventually you run into someone who holds the purse strings at some organization who is interested in that field. You work together a bit, and eventually ask whether they'd want to pay you for a one-off trial project using the technology. Stuff like that.

busterarm 9y ago

> if you follow your interest into extremely niche domains, the option of irregular highly-specialized consulting gigs becomes available. This income stream, while not consistent enough to live off by itself, proves formidable in conjunction with retirement-level investments and enables a much higher SWR. I just had a weird moment this weekend where I calculated what my yearly cost of living would be at the house I'm inheriting. My mom bought her house in cash, in a low property tax state and it's amazing what not having a mortgage will save you -- and it's a _nice_ house. Yearly CoL, counting food, a small home emergency fund and estimated maintenance of the house and car came out to around 7k. Considering what I make from sporadic consulting, I realized that I could live off that for years just working a few weeks a year. And I only have to do that until Social Security payments kick in (though I'm probably going to try to maintain this level of income until 62). It drilled home the point that I need to save what I'm earning here so that when the time comes I will have a nice large, easy cushion.

ams6110 9y ago
There won't be any Social Security when you are 62. The system is a ponzi scheme that will collapse with the boomer retirements.
- newfoundglory 9y ago
  This doesn't seem like an evidence-based opinion.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > There won't be any Social Security when you are 62. Unless political opponents use this exact kind of scaremongering to push a repeal, yes, there will. > The system is a ponzi scheme It's not, though it's failure mode is a sustainable analog of one. > that will collapse with the boomer retirements. No, it won't. The projection is that the Trust Fund would be exhausted, which would reduce SS to paying benefits exclusively out of current payroll tax revenues, this would reduce benefits below full benefits, but would not collapse the system.
- AnimalMuppet 9y ago

justherefortart 9y ago

Social Security also averages over 35 years of work as well. It's a decent backup for extra income after 67-70 if you live that long, but it can also be a benefit for your spouse.

Consultant32452 9y ago
I think it's a pretty bad backup. It cost me 7.5% of my income for my entire working life and when I die I don't have anything to pass onto my children. If I die before retirement age I get negative 100% return on investment. Let's not forget that the poor and minorities tend to have hard labor jobs so they die early, before they get a decent return. This program has really harmed the ability of the poor to create and pass on generational wealth because it redistributes their wealth to wealthier demographics who live longer lifetimes in retirement.