3 ms·

> But it is. It's as safe as anything you can name. Having $625,000 and hoping for an 8% return to sustain your retirement is not nearly as safe as, say, havin

by chadcf 14y ago

> But it is. It's as safe as anything you can name. Having $625,000 and hoping for an 8% return to sustain your retirement is not nearly as safe as, say, having $2 million dollars to sustain your retirement. If you've only got so much money, sure, trying to live off the interest is not a terrible strategy. If we're talking retirement planning (which I thought we were), then planning to live off 8% interest of a minimal amount of savings is NOT a good strategy to shoot for. It is far better to be conservative, plan to have a larger amount of savings and invest in safer options (such as bonds) and plan to have enough money to sustain you for 30 years. Now of course if it comes time to retire and you only have $500k to make last, you're obviously going to want to take some greater risks with your investments and live as minimally as possible and hope for the best. This is why I made my initial point, that I can see elderly suicides rising in the future. What's going to happen when the market doesn't go your way and at 80 years old you're out of money and your kids have their own problems? At that point you don't have a lot to look forward to other than living on welfare and watching your health decline...

lutusp 14y ago
> If you've only got so much money, sure, trying to live off the interest is not a terrible strategy. If we're talking retirement planning (which I thought we were), then planning to live off 8% interest of a minimal amount of savings is NOT a good strategy to shoot for. Of course it is. It's the most obvious and most reliable strategy to plan for, regardless of how much money you have. Do you suppose Warren Buffett has a cash slush fund stashed away in his mattress for his retirement? > This is why I made my initial point, that I can see elderly suicides rising in the future. That might happen. It might happen because people can't plan their lives very well. > Now of course if it comes time to retire and you only have $500k to make last, you're obviously going to want to take some greater risks with your investments and live as minimally as possible and hope for the best. How is that a problem, and how does it contradict the idea that one should plan a retirement based on investments? I think your objection is not to prudent investments but to the unfairness of life. If so, go ahead -- complain about how unfair life is, but in the meantime, save some money for your retirement.

by chadcf 14y ago

lutusp 14y ago

> If you've only got so much money, sure, trying to live off the interest is not a terrible strategy. If we're talking retirement planning (which I thought we were), then planning to live off 8% interest of a minimal amount of savings is NOT a good strategy to shoot for. Of course it is. It's the most obvious and most reliable strategy to plan for, regardless of how much money you have. Do you suppose Warren Buffett has a cash slush fund stashed away in his mattress for his retirement? > This is why I made my initial point, that I can see elderly suicides rising in the future. That might happen. It might happen because people can't plan their lives very well. > Now of course if it comes time to retire and you only have $500k to make last, you're obviously going to want to take some greater risks with your investments and live as minimally as possible and hope for the best. How is that a problem, and how does it contradict the idea that one should plan a retirement based on investments? I think your objection is not to prudent investments but to the unfairness of life. If so, go ahead -- complain about how unfair life is, but in the meantime, save some money for your retirement.