The headline today from MSN:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/these-numbers-show-suze-orman-is-right-about-needing-dollar5-million-to-retire/ar-BBOq6Ie"These numbers show Suze Orman is right about needing $5 million to retire"
The article quotes Financial Samurai with nuggets of wisdom such as these:
"Retiring at 50 with $3,000,000 in after-tax investments is closer. “Not bad!” he says. “But you’ve got to
live in a cheaper part of the country and stay frugal if you have kids and parents to care for. At this age,
you might as well keep on working until you’re 60 to eliminate the risk of financial shortfalls.” [emphasis mine]
Live in a cheap part of the country and stay frugal, because you've only got $120K / year to live on! Practically cat food time. Better hope the car doesn't break down. </sarcasm>
Sure, what the hell, your life is almost over anyway, just keep working another decade. What have you got to lose?
and this:
"His takeaway is that $5,000,000 in after-tax income generates $200,000 a year in passive income, and
that’s about right if you have a family and want to live an urban existence, such as San Francisco, New York, Seattle, Boston, etc." [emphasis mine]
Ok, I've never lived in NYC or Boston or SF. I know it's expensive in those places. But living there is a choice. If you prioritize living someplace that requires that much spending, then go for it.
Wouldn't it have been more honest to just say, "If you want to spend lots more money in retirement, you'll need to save more." Duh.