3 ms·

Well 120k for doing nothing is a pretty rent I would say... unless you have a nasty disease and no health insurance. (Unlikely)

• sokoloff 9y ago
  Most commonly, it's $120K/yr in income based on a lifetime of two earners carefully saving (deferring current consumption-this is the "doing") and investing for their self-managed retirement. Couple A with $3MM in liquid assets and self-funding their retirement is not particularly better off than couple B[0] who has zero liquid assets and $120K/yr in state-funded pensions, yet couple A is the target of multi-millionaire scorn and couple B is just "well, that's why we have unions and pensions..." [0] Couple B is probably far better off as most state pensions include healthcare coverage.
  • Jill_the_Pill 9y ago
    It's not scorn for Couple A, but rather for their cheerleaders. There is a real problem with setting an expectation for everyone to have had the financial skills and good luck of Couple A. I think that's more what people mean when they say "that's why there are unions and pensions . . . " -- to give security to large numbers of retirees regardless of their personal situations along the way.
    • closeparen 9y ago
      >"To give security" Missing an /s? The expected value of my Fidelity account is >$0, which is more than I can say for Social Security or public pensions in almost any state.
      • eecc 9y ago
        Thank Reagan, Thatcher, Third Way Neoliberals for that...
  • photojosh 9y ago
    Searching didn't help me out much; is $120k in state-funded pensions for a couple a typical amount? In Australia, it's A$35k (US$27k) a year for a couple. I would have thought the US amount to be less than ours off the top of my head.