5 ms·
Finance news is for rich people and this article proves it, talking like it's a choice whether you retire with $1 million or not. If you're thinking you're not
by altacc 3y ago
Finance news is for rich people and this article proves it, talking like it's a choice whether you retire with $1 million or not. If you're thinking you're not rich but still interested in finance, then you're probably rich! ;)
The article breezes past that the median retirement saving is actually $164,000, which makes sense as the median salary is ~$60,000.
- alephnerd 3y ago> median retirement saving is actually $164,000, which makes sense as the median salary is ~$60,000 That includes ALL retirements accounts - ranging from those of people who are early career to those who are at retirement age. I haven't seen data about median retirement savings for those at retirement age. Edit: I'm wrong!
- altacc 3y agoThat number is retirement age and I gave the mid-late career median for salary. > The Federal Reserve data shows that 65 to 74-year-olds have a median of $164,000 in their retirement accounts while those 75 and older have $83,000 saved for retirement. Retirement age is not a fixed number. Quick search says about 10-19% of over 65s are still working. Some through choice, others not.
- alephnerd 3y agoThanks for the heads up! A bit pedantic but it looks like it's $204k now based on the Fed Reserve survey. But by and large I think your argument still holds. > Retirement age is not a fixed number. Quick search says about 10-19% of over 65s are still working. Some through choice, others not. Agree with ya on that!
- silverquiet 3y agoSpeaking as someone who's not there but can also see it (I recently learned that I'm in the "mass affluent" - those with $100K to $1M in net worth), I don't think it's "a" choice, but many of them. I've never made anything like some of the developer salaries I see bandied about on this site, but I do OK and live modestly; small house, beater car, only eat out on special occasions, etc... But I think the biggest thing is not having children. The estimates of their costs sans college is already in Lambo territory just for one. I often wonder how much that sort of thing has to do with the decline in fertility.
- snakeyjake 3y agoA McDonald’s worker who starts today aged 18 who makes $15/hr and joins the McDonald’s 401k plan and contributes 4% of their income to it and works at McDonald’s for 50 years never receiving a raise should expect to have very close to $1 million by the age of 68. And that’s just 4%. McDonald’s has a 6% match.
- foogazi 3y agoI’m not if they don’t take out any funds out of the 401k for health, housing, education because there’s not a lot left over on $15/hour
- peteradio 3y ago1M is the target today. What does that have to do with 50 years from now?
- snakeyjake 3y agoThat was just a silly little example of how if someone saves $24 per week over the course of a lifetime it can expand into great sums of money through the miracle of matching and compound interest. And that was at 7% returns. Over the last 50 years the market has averaged 11% so if half a century ago (let's pretend 401ks are that old they're only 46 years old) an 18-year-old entry level worker emptied trash cans at an amusement park that had a 401k with employer match for 50 years they would have a vast sum of money today. There are some people who cannot afford to save 4% of their income. There are so few people who can genuinely not afford to save 4% of their (pre-tax) income that they are irrelevant to discussions about retirement saving.
- DecentRecruiter 3y agoIn 50 years, $1 million will be worth around $225,000 (assuming 3% inflation).
- marcusverus 3y ago> The article breezes past that the median retirement saving is actually $164,000, which makes sense as the median salary is ~$60,000. Anyone who tells you that the middle class should expect a meager retirement is an ignoramus who should be ignored at all costs. The median household income is ~75K/year. If this household started saving (from zero!) at age 35, saved 10% per year and got a 6% return for 30 years, they would have ~$600K saved for retirement by 65. The simple truth is almost everyone can retire in reasonable comfort and with peace of mind if they follow a few simple rules: - Avoid high-interest debt like the plague. - Get in the habit of saving 10% as early as possible - Have an emergency fund in cash, but don't keep more than ~3 months expenses in cash. Invest! - Use tax-advantaged vehicles like 401K/IRA - Invest in broad-based funds with low fees (ex: VO, VOO) - Don't pick individual company stocks. If you must, never invest more than 5% of your portfolio. If you do, know that you're not "investing", you're gambling! - Don't try to time the market. Dollar cost average. Buy and hold. - When you hit 100K, meet with a financial advisor who is a fiduciary and who charges by the hour. Not a stock salesman, not a portfolio manager, an advisor. Heed their advice. Check in every 5 years.
- Fire-Dragon-DoL 3y ago10% before or after taxes? I'm in Canada, so the difference is enormous.
- Fire-Dragon-DoL 3y agoAlso, usually the problem I encounter is that people need all that money to live "middle class" level, and the expenses are all upfront. Don't get me wrong, I agree with you. They could pass onto the 50K wedding and repeated very expensive holidays.
- staticman2 3y agoWho exactly is projecting 6% returns? Vanguard is projecting 10 year returns of 5.2% U.S. returns before inflation and 8.1% international stocks before inflation. At 2% inflation that's 4.56% real returns if you assume 2% inflation and went 50/ 50 on U.S. and international stock. (Non inflation adjusted returns tell you nothing about readiness for retirement so should be avoided). And that's at 100% stock, which isn't recommended before retirement.