Author Topic: The 4% Rule For Those In Their Mid-20's... Completely Unrealistic?  (Read 23309 times)

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5616
  • Location: la belle province
Re: The 4% Rule For Those In Their Mid-20's... Completely Unrealistic?
« Reply #300 on: February 27, 2017, 03:48:29 PM »
Why is it that people can be content working a salaried job that pays $xx,xxx/year with little room for advancement, year after year
Some of us have to pay back time off a commitment incurred from free training in our salaried jobs. I know that's my fault for committing, but take me back to age 20 and I think I'd make the same decision again. I'm a big fan of the FIRE concept, but I think one of its faults is that it assumes that all jobs are lame. A big part of the reason I don't have a higher savings rate is my job just isn't that bad and I don't feel a lot of pressure to get out of it.
not sure if you were intending to take my quote out of context, but I wasn't commenting about people being satisfied about working a salaried job so much as I was questioning why doing the same in ER seems such a mental block for some.
That said, it sounds like we are similar in many ways. It's taken me the better part of a decade in training to get where I am, and despite being active on this forum we're more SWARMIs than ER types.  Our plan is to continue working in our respective fields for the next couple of decades, but in a more limited fashion (i.e. part-time). 
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

Car Jack

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 141
Re: The 4% Rule For Those In Their Mid-20's... Completely Unrealistic?
« Reply #301 on: February 28, 2017, 01:36:25 PM »
There is more to this than pick 4% and nothing else matters and you're good forever.  Bogleheads wiki has a good condensed version of the Trinity Study which attempted to find a good number for a Sustainable Withdrawal Rate.

https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Safe_withdrawal_rates

Some things to note:  Your asset allocation changes things.
The 4% number is essentially a withdrawal rate that will sustain your income for 30 years with great probability.

Wait.....what did I just say?  So if you're 20, and have some disease that's going to kill you when you're 50, and you can keep enough stock funds, then you're good to go.  If not, that withdrawal rate has to be smaller.  Like 1%.  Whoops.  Read the link.  There are color glossy charts with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one to be used as evidence against me.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5616
  • Location: la belle province
Re: The 4% Rule For Those In Their Mid-20's... Completely Unrealistic?
« Reply #302 on: February 28, 2017, 01:59:25 PM »
Bogelheads is a great source for informatino, but they are often incredibly, almost maniacally conservative. 
1% WR is absurd unless you are convinced that the future will be a great deal worse than any period in the last 100+ years, which happens to include the great depression and two world wars.  Using a 4% WR the majority of portfolios have wound up with MORE money after 30 years.  With a 2.8% every scenario has seen the portfolio increase.

Going to 1% is a 'head for the hills and get your ammo" sort of scenario; by definition that's 100x your annual spending, which pretty much means if one simply keeps even with inflation his/her portfolio would last for 100 years.

As always, flexibility can be your greatest asset regardless of the WR you choose.
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

Retire-Canada

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3374
Re: The 4% Rule For Those In Their Mid-20's... Completely Unrealistic?
« Reply #303 on: February 28, 2017, 02:28:42 PM »
Going to 1% is a 'head for the hills and get your ammo" sort of scenario; by definition that's 100x your annual spending, which pretty much means if one simply keeps even with inflation his/her portfolio would last for 100 years.

It's actually pretty cunning. If you work long enough to save that much you might just die at your desk. Think how awesome that would be! Zero chance of running out of money under any circumstance! It doesn't get saferer than that folks. ;)

RangerOne

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 501
Re: The 4% Rule For Those In Their Mid-20's... Completely Unrealistic?
« Reply #304 on: March 01, 2017, 12:34:32 PM »
At least part of the 4% rule at least historically stems from the fact that returns at or above 4% have historically been achievable with less volatile investments like bonds, maybe even savings accounts, or annuities for people who are willing to give up some control for a guarantee.

That fact that all those investments have been rough on returns recently or at least the past couple years with bonds coming to a crawl too as interest rates trickle up puts some retires in a somewhat long term pickle since having most of their money in say a bond index is not going to sustain a 4% withdrawal through earnings.

The rules for someone who is traditionally retiring with at best 30 years of life left in them and an ER are a bit different to begin with. A 20 or 30 something ER isn't going to use an annuity.

Also someone this young in tough times could take up side jobs and let their investments sit untouched for a year. MMM, when he talks about 4%, it seems he is looking at a more sustaining withdrawal in a more equity based account, where as most traditional retirement calculations expect you to eventually deplete your investments and maintain a steady withdrawal rate.

The philosophy of ER doesn't seem to preach never work a day in your life again and never run out of money. It is more like, you don't have to work. So save enough money that you can live off investments most of the time, but be flexible enough to pick up some side work to keep your nest egg stable or growing.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: The 4% Rule For Those In Their Mid-20's... Completely Unrealistic?
« Reply #305 on: March 01, 2017, 01:03:45 PM »
Going to 1% is a 'head for the hills and get your ammo" sort of scenario; by definition that's 100x your annual spending, which pretty much means if one simply keeps even with inflation his/her portfolio would last for 100 years.

It's actually pretty cunning. If you work long enough to save that much you might just die at your desk. Think how awesome that would be! Zero chance of running out of money under any circumstance! It doesn't get saferer than that folks. ;)
Working until you die... 100% fool proof. Anything else is just too risky...
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Classical_Liberal

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 530
  • Age: 40
Re: The 4% Rule For Those In Their Mid-20's... Completely Unrealistic?
« Reply #306 on: March 01, 2017, 01:07:27 PM »
Going to 1% is a 'head for the hills and get your ammo" sort of scenario; by definition that's 100x your annual spending, which pretty much means if one simply keeps even with inflation his/her portfolio would last for 100 years.

It's actually pretty cunning. If you work long enough to save that much you might just die at your desk. Think how awesome that would be! Zero chance of running out of money under any circumstance! It doesn't get saferer than that folks. ;)
Working until you die... 100% fool proof. Anything else is just too risky...
Still too risky!  What if you lose your job?  Better have two.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: The 4% Rule For Those In Their Mid-20's... Completely Unrealistic?
« Reply #307 on: March 01, 2017, 01:16:07 PM »
Going to 1% is a 'head for the hills and get your ammo" sort of scenario; by definition that's 100x your annual spending, which pretty much means if one simply keeps even with inflation his/her portfolio would last for 100 years.

It's actually pretty cunning. If you work long enough to save that much you might just die at your desk. Think how awesome that would be! Zero chance of running out of money under any circumstance! It doesn't get saferer than that folks. ;)
Working until you die... 100% fool proof. Anything else is just too risky...
Still too risky!  What if you lose your job?  Better have two.
Good point. And what if one loses their job AND the market crashes? Happened in 2008. Best to keep cash in case this happens. Or maybe all gold?
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Retire-Canada

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3374
Re: The 4% Rule For Those In Their Mid-20's... Completely Unrealistic?
« Reply #308 on: March 01, 2017, 01:34:05 PM »
Still too risky!  What if you lose your job?  Better have two.

Fuck me! This is why I come to these forums! I thought I had every risk nailed and you showed me I had a Bigly League hole in my plan and I didn't even see it.

What do you think about 1 FT job and 2 PT jobs for greater redundancy?

Classical_Liberal

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 530
  • Age: 40
Re: The 4% Rule For Those In Their Mid-20's... Completely Unrealistic?
« Reply #309 on: March 01, 2017, 01:50:35 PM »
Still too risky!  What if you lose your job?  Better have two.

Fuck me! This is why I come to these forums! I thought I had every risk nailed and you showed me I had a Bigly League hole in my plan and I didn't even see it.

What do you think about 1 FT job and 2 PT jobs for greater redundancy?

As long as you have "job diversification"; the PT jobs must be in completely different fields.

steveo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1345
Re: The 4% Rule For Those In Their Mid-20's... Completely Unrealistic?
« Reply #310 on: March 01, 2017, 05:48:16 PM »
Still too risky!  What if you lose your job?  Better have two.

Fuck me! This is why I come to these forums! I thought I had every risk nailed and you showed me I had a Bigly League hole in my plan and I didn't even see it.

What do you think about 1 FT job and 2 PT jobs for greater redundancy?

As long as you have "job diversification"; the PT jobs must be in completely different fields.

I like this idea. You also need a job though that isn't susceptible to the standard economic cycle.

boarder42

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4541
Re: The 4% Rule For Those In Their Mid-20's... Completely Unrealistic?
« Reply #311 on: March 01, 2017, 05:54:11 PM »
Still too risky!  What if you lose your job?  Better have two.

Fuck me! This is why I come to these forums! I thought I had every risk nailed and you showed me I had a Bigly League hole in my plan and I didn't even see it.

What do you think about 1 FT job and 2 PT jobs for greater redundancy?

As long as you have "job diversification"; the PT jobs must be in completely different fields.

I like this idea. You also need a job though that isn't susceptible to the standard economic cycle.

So
Primary - bar tender
Secondary 1 - liquor store cashier
Secondary 2 - water delivery birl
PM me about how to save 6% on your annual grocery Bill!

There is a 35k starwood bonus right now as well. PM me for the info.

trollwithamustache

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 122
Re: The 4% Rule For Those In Their Mid-20's... Completely Unrealistic?
« Reply #312 on: March 17, 2017, 11:21:05 AM »
Going to 1% is a 'head for the hills and get your ammo" sort of scenario; by definition that's 100x your annual spending, which pretty much means if one simply keeps even with inflation his/her portfolio would last for 100 years.

It's actually pretty cunning. If you work long enough to save that much you might just die at your desk. Think how awesome that would be! Zero chance of running out of money under any circumstance! It doesn't get saferer than that folks. ;)
Working until you die... 100% fool proof. Anything else is just too risky...
Still too risky!  What if you lose your job?  Better have two.
Good point. And what if one loses their job AND the market crashes? Happened in 2008. Best to keep cash in case this happens. Or maybe all gold?

Bitcoin. MMM is nothing if not modern!

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: The 4% Rule For Those In Their Mid-20's... Completely Unrealistic?
« Reply #313 on: March 20, 2017, 08:02:41 AM »
Going to 1% is a 'head for the hills and get your ammo" sort of scenario; by definition that's 100x your annual spending, which pretty much means if one simply keeps even with inflation his/her portfolio would last for 100 years.

It's actually pretty cunning. If you work long enough to save that much you might just die at your desk. Think how awesome that would be! Zero chance of running out of money under any circumstance! It doesn't get saferer than that folks. ;)
Working until you die... 100% fool proof. Anything else is just too risky...
Still too risky!  What if you lose your job?  Better have two.
Good point. And what if one loses their job AND the market crashes? Happened in 2008. Best to keep cash in case this happens. Or maybe all gold?

Bitcoin. MMM is nothing if not modern!
Nice. :D
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM