this post was submitted on 14 Oct 2023
39 points (97.6% liked)

Personal Finance

3749 readers
1 users here now

Learn about budgeting, saving, getting out of debt, credit, investing, and retirement planning. Join our community, read the PF Wiki, and get on top of your finances!

Note: This community is not region centric, so if you are posting anything specific to a certain region, kindly specify that in the title (something like [USA], [EU], [AUS] etc.)

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

I'm almost 40 and according to the wisdom found everywhere on the internet, I don't have enough saved for retirement. Which worries me because I've been saving for as long as I've had a proper job with access to a retirement vehicle. But also because the internet wisdom doesn't make sense or sound feasible.

According to what I've read, you're supposed to have:

  • 1x your income when you're 30
  • 3x your income when you're 40
  • 6x at 50
  • 8x at 60
  • 10x when you retire

I'm almost 40 and I have just barely over 1x saved. So it feels like I'm 10 years behind. However, my income has grown substantially over the course of my 30s, more than doubling. So accounting for growth in income, I do have almost 3x my salary in my late 20s. But similarly, the above advice could be interpreted as needing 6x the income you had when you were 30 by they time you're 40. And by that metric, I'm doing even worse!

top 20 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 18 points 11 months ago (2 children)

I'm in a similar place to you, and I've resigned to it being an impossible feat. I'm pretty close to the number for 40, but the curve is flattening. There's no way I retire at 65 with enough to survive to 80.

Those numbers were established during boomer economy years and assume a few things that aren't true anymore:

  • infinite 7-9 percent stock market growth, but the modern market crashes every decade or so now.
  • linear year over year wage increases that outpace inflation. Really is either flat wages or OP situation of huge jumps. The former makes saving impossible, the latter throws the x percent by decade curve off.
  • you should count your home equity in that number, but fewer people own homes, or are underwater on them for far longer.
  • the x/decade number assumes a certain amount of income from social security, but that's likely to be stolen by the time we retire.
  • those numbers were made before the entire American population was crushed with debt. Student loans and medical, even just modern insurance premiums dig deep into the ability to hit retirement goals.

Basically, good luck OP. We're all going to work till we die.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, boomer math was my #1 theory for why this isn't working. This sounds like post WWII advice in a post 9/11, post financial-crisis, post-pandemic world.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

You omitted post-college affordability and post housing affordability.

The housing issue is actually so bad it's making things simpler; people will just save for retirement instead as housing isn't even in the same galaxy as most people's wages.

"Higher ed" will probably go the same direction and just be reserved for a few elites. Since degrees don't guarantee you much over experience the equation of self/vocational education will become the model (my nightmare is public education disappears and you have to go to your corporate "college" program.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The people I know who've given up on housing affordability unfortunately are not shifting in to retirement. They're so hopeless they blow their money on hobbies because they don't foresee any possible path to homeownership or retirement and value a few bucks here and there on discretionary spending more.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

Totally agree with the nihilistic take, that is happening for folks too.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

infinite 7-9 percent stock market growth, but the modern market crashes every decade or so now.

My savings into index funds has seen an average growth of 9% a year for the past three years. 11% since the start of this year. Granted I jumped in at the bottom of the corona dip.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, and you'll lose a shitload when the next crisis pops off in a few years, taking a few more years to recover that loss. The 401k management firms only ever seem to rebalance quarterly or semi annually, so there's no way to react to those downturns in time to mitigate.

I got hit by 9/11, 2008, and Covid, plus I've seen my SS benefits reduced a couple times.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 11 months ago (1 children)

React? You're not supposed to react, that's how you lose money. When the next crisis hits it just means I get more for the same price.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

You know, that's what they say, and it makes sense. You can't play the market. But I'm not saying play the market. I'm saying that when crises come up, the indexes should rebalance before those crises flush our savings, rather than 3 months later.

Send to me that's what the rich people with big portfolios seem to do. The market tanks, they all move somewhere safer.

Meanwhile, us chumps absorb the losses.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

I'm saying that when crises come up, the indexes should rebalance before those crises flush our savings, rather than 3 months later.

I don't even know what that means. Market crashes don't flush anyone's savings. You only lose money if you start selling when they're going down. You don't. You just hold and wait untill it comes back up again. It has always came back up again no matter how deep it dips.

When you hear stories about people losing their savings during market crashes it's either people who got nervous watching the value of their investments going down and they started selling at a loss or they were invested into individual companies that went bankrupt.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

Or they lost their job and their emergency fund wasn't enough to tide them over. A lot of people were out of work for YEARS after 08.

But yes, your overall point is correct, can't lose if you don't sell.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

The FIRE way is 25x the salary you want to have in retirement. If you're in the US, make an account with the SSA to check your estimated social security benefits. Take the number with a large grain of salt.

Truth be told, it's all pretty bleak. I save and invest 50% of my income but when I do the numbers for retirement I'll still be retiring ~65. Personally I'm a skeptic and don't factor in social security, though. The depressing reality is if you're saving for retirement then you're already better off than most.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

I think that talking about the "salary" you want in retirement is misleading. When you're working, you have a top-line salary that's really easy to access and pin your concepts of lifestyle to, but actually has very little to do with your lifestyle. Example: if you've got $100k salary, you're probably paying something like $30k between federal, state, and SS taxes. If you're maxing your retirement contributions, there goes another $20k, and you're only taking home $50k.

If you're saving 50% of a $100k top-line, including that 401k contribution, then you're probably living on something more like $30k after taxes, and it's a lot easier to save enough to pay yourself $30k than $100k. If you're living on $30k/year withdrawals from savings, you're not going to pay taxes. You're not going to need to save $50k/year. You only need to replace that $30k, and 25*$30k is just $750k.

The 25x rule includes $0 social security. Reasonable for FIRE people, who may aim not to work enough to qualify for SS, but if you will, then you can calculate the savings equivalent to your estimated income. eg, if they say you'll probably qualify for $1500/month = $18k/year, that's equivalent to 18k*25 = $450k savings.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (2 children)

How is that possible? Savings rate is the only variable that matters and 50% should be well into early retirement range. Normal retirement is more like 20-25%.

Try this calculator https://networthify.com/calculator/earlyretirement

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

I made a very lengthy reply here using the example of $30k/year actual salary. Ultimately it hinges on this assumption from the calculator you linked: "Your current annual expenses equal your annual expenses in retirement". I think I will need higher annual expenses than what I have now.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

Normal retirement is like 10-15%, depending on lifestyle in retirement and whatnot.

Really retirement is pretty much anything above that.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

This advice is kinda strange in my opinion .The easiest way for me to think of it is that 4% withdrawals are considered safe and you could do them forever. So take the income you want in retirement and multiply by 25. That's what you'd ideally have saved. You probably need less considering you don't live forever and you'll likely collect social security or some other pension.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

You can't do 4% withdrawals forever, especially not inflation adjusted. That number is intended to have a 95% chance of success in a 30 year retirement. If that fits your situation, then it's a good number to use.

I personally use about 3.5% because I want some longevity insurance. My mom's parents lived into their 90s, so a 30 year retirement is cutting it a bit close, and I want the option to retire early.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago

I’ve never got any of those milestones and I think I’m on track with my career/retirement planning. Every situation is personal. You might be doing other things that are not showing up on that score card, but never the less has a huge impact on your ability to retire.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago

I think this depends on your lifestyle. These calculations contain an assumption that your lifestyle lines up with your income and that you will want to continue spending at the same rates when you retire.

Many people (especially in the US) will get a raise and buy bigger houses, cars, etc. If you're disciplined about living beneath your means then a raise just means you can save more.

I bought a house at 23 and paid it off in 10years. (Maybe not the best financial decision given what happened in the stock market over that same period). When I retire I plan to have another paid off property and rental income from the first. I won't have a mortgage, and should have rental income instead. Things like that change the picture in ways that these targets likely don't account for.