3 ms·

I met with a fee-only fiduciary financial planner a while back. This was after several years of making income that I knew was above average, even somewhat above

I met with a fee-only fiduciary financial planner a while back. This was after several years of making income that I knew was above average, even somewhat above average in tech. We plotted out our expenses (which aren't exorbitant), plugged in our account balances, talked about wanting to retire maybe in our mid-late 50s rather than 65. Mind you, this is me maxing out 401k and Roth almost every year, and saving excess into a taxable "retirement" account as well. We answer a bunch more advanced questions, they press the button that runs all the Monte Carlo scenarios, and the result was... we were basically on target. We weren't on the road to fuck-you money, but we were on a road to be able to retire in the desired timeframe and meet our current expenses, maybe with a couple of vacations per year added on top. And I can't explain the emotional reaction I had. Like, I was relieved and proud that I had done a good job saving, but... I also knew that I was far above average in income and saving, and even with that was only "on target" rather than exceeding. I eventually spluttered out my words to the financial planner, asking about all the other people out there that make less and aren't in a position to see financial planners, and with a sad look on his face, he simply said: "It is going to change society."

trgn 3y ago
It's scary. But are families really now more poor than ever, that unlike today/before nobody will be able to retire? I think there's a huge difference in baseline cost. A lot of people on high incomes have huge spending jumps, that most just don't. e.g. the vacation is international, the house is twice as big, or in the "good" neighborhood, the car is big, the school is private, the kids have trusts, ... At all that up, and yeah, 350k is barely enough. Take all that away, and 80k is solid. > "It is going to change society." socialism (we'll take from thee) or fascism (don't you dare take from me). America is in for a rough ride if he's right.
- tunesmith 3y ago
  I think I'm also a bit sensitized because my partner is a medical social worker and regularly comes across the people that don't retire. People that can retire don't tend to hear about the experiences of the people that don't. It's a long slog of scrambling to survive and earn while physically able, cutting expenses, cutting them more, qualifying for aid, getting into medical difficulties, spending down, qualifying for medicaid, and then... well, it's a journey that a lot of people would wave off as a normal way to live and die. Big question: does that happen to people who made median income? More than before?
- ZephyrBlu 3y ago
  Exactly, with this topic it's impossible to have a calibrated discussion because everyone has a different baseline. Agree that "you need a lot more money" feels directionally correct, but at the same time complaining about $350k is dumb. At that level of income it's entirely down to your lifestyle choices. A lot of things people spending money on feels like status signalling. "I make $x, therefore I need to look like I made $x". Cars, private school, massive house, yearly international vacations, etc all feel over the top to me. If you want to have it all, yes it costs a shit ton.
  - closeparen 3y ago
    If the income is contingent on showing up to work in a high-cost region, I don't think we can explain away the payment/interest/taxes/insurance on a modest, reasonably located home in that region as "lifestyle choice."
    - ochoseis 3y ago
      Don't doctors make more money in low-cost rural areas?
  - benreesman 3y ago
    I never said 350k was low, I said it was very comfortable for someone without a family and doable for a comfortable middle-class life with raising a family and retiring. The fucking economist hit piece said that 350k was "lavishly" high for an absurdly educated and highly socially useful professional because it's connected to a bunch of think tanks that are part of a concerted and coordinated effort funded by Bond Villains to organize society around one goal and one goal only: to drive wealth inequality arbitrarily high as fast as possible no matter if all of mankind has to strain every sinew and destroy the planet to do so. No cost is too high to have people flying around daily in custom Gulfstream jets carrying a single passenger. Fuck that.
    - closeparen 3y ago
      Pretty much any political entity focused on reducing inequality or promoting egalitarianism has the outsized compensation of professionals like doctors and software engineers as its primary target.

trgn 3y ago

It's scary. But are families really now more poor than ever, that unlike today/before nobody will be able to retire? I think there's a huge difference in baseline cost. A lot of people on high incomes have huge spending jumps, that most just don't. e.g. the vacation is international, the house is twice as big, or in the "good" neighborhood, the car is big, the school is private, the kids have trusts, ... At all that up, and yeah, 350k is barely enough. Take all that away, and 80k is solid. > "It is going to change society." socialism (we'll take from thee) or fascism (don't you dare take from me). America is in for a rough ride if he's right.

tunesmith 3y ago
I think I'm also a bit sensitized because my partner is a medical social worker and regularly comes across the people that don't retire. People that can retire don't tend to hear about the experiences of the people that don't. It's a long slog of scrambling to survive and earn while physically able, cutting expenses, cutting them more, qualifying for aid, getting into medical difficulties, spending down, qualifying for medicaid, and then... well, it's a journey that a lot of people would wave off as a normal way to live and die. Big question: does that happen to people who made median income? More than before?
ZephyrBlu 3y ago
Exactly, with this topic it's impossible to have a calibrated discussion because everyone has a different baseline. Agree that "you need a lot more money" feels directionally correct, but at the same time complaining about $350k is dumb. At that level of income it's entirely down to your lifestyle choices. A lot of things people spending money on feels like status signalling. "I make $x, therefore I need to look like I made $x". Cars, private school, massive house, yearly international vacations, etc all feel over the top to me. If you want to have it all, yes it costs a shit ton.
- closeparen 3y ago
  If the income is contingent on showing up to work in a high-cost region, I don't think we can explain away the payment/interest/taxes/insurance on a modest, reasonably located home in that region as "lifestyle choice."
  - ochoseis 3y ago
    Don't doctors make more money in low-cost rural areas?
- benreesman 3y ago
  I never said 350k was low, I said it was very comfortable for someone without a family and doable for a comfortable middle-class life with raising a family and retiring. The fucking economist hit piece said that 350k was "lavishly" high for an absurdly educated and highly socially useful professional because it's connected to a bunch of think tanks that are part of a concerted and coordinated effort funded by Bond Villains to organize society around one goal and one goal only: to drive wealth inequality arbitrarily high as fast as possible no matter if all of mankind has to strain every sinew and destroy the planet to do so. No cost is too high to have people flying around daily in custom Gulfstream jets carrying a single passenger. Fuck that.
  - closeparen 3y ago
    Pretty much any political entity focused on reducing inequality or promoting egalitarianism has the outsized compensation of professionals like doctors and software engineers as its primary target.