Author Topic: Another Save 10%/Retire by 70 article -- NY Times  (Read 6443 times)


Joggernot

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 510
  • Age: 78
  • Location: Gulf Coast, TX
Re: Another Save 10%/Retire by 70 article -- NY Times
« Reply #1 on: May 16, 2014, 11:11:49 AM »
Aaaarrrrrggggghhhhh!!!!

dude: I like your signature!  So true, but so few understand/believe what that says.

Ftao93

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 231
Re: Another Save 10%/Retire by 70 article -- NY Times
« Reply #2 on: May 16, 2014, 12:16:14 PM »
If you're earning 100k and save 10%....

::implodes::

that would be at least a 40k increase for us.   It does at least hint on "do you need more crap?!", but doesn't go into detail enough to even get the thought process rolling.

A similar article on the same site suggests you just start collecting that SS at 70.

Times may change, and we may regularly live to 90.  On average right now, I should live to @ 76.  67 makes much more sense (we'll see in 30 years).  Of course if we don't need it whatsoever, I could wait until 70 so my wife could get the most benefit.

We don't have children, and aren't likely to, so that part of the equation is off the table.

At no point do most 'financial advice' sites say that maybe you could save 25% or more.  50%?!  MADNESS!

We aren't there yet, but 20% of my income goes into 401k/roth IRA before I even get my grubby, spendy hands on it.  My wife is 5%.  We expect her income to go up over the next few years, whereas our expenses will not.  Debt will be done by next year, so we'll put at least 10% more into savings.  I started a bit late....
« Last Edit: May 16, 2014, 12:23:06 PM by Ftao93 »

sirdoug007

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 585
  • Age: 43
  • Location: Houston, TX
Re: Another Save 10%/Retire by 70 article -- NY Times
« Reply #3 on: May 16, 2014, 12:27:48 PM »
Something tells me the average way behind on retirement person reading this will go for the "save more later" option.

It would be great if employers started your 401(k) at 10% automatically with 1% increases every year until you are maxing it out.  Not bloody likely but it would make a huge difference for many, many people.

On SS you actually really do want to wait until 70 to collect because they increase your benefit 8% per year you delay it after your full retirement age.  32% more for life is worth waiting for as long as your health is good.

Eric

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4057
  • Location: On my bike
Re: Another Save 10%/Retire by 70 article -- NY Times
« Reply #4 on: May 17, 2014, 11:32:46 AM »
dude, this is not Mustachianism Around the Web.  This is our concern dude.

But, this article is a gold mine:

Quote
Let’s assume you are 40 years old, earning $100,000, and you start squirreling away 10 percent annually. If you keep that up until you are 67, you could save nearly $582,000 on an inflation-adjusted basis or about $697,000 by age 70, according to calculations by Vanguard. (That assumes earnings grow by 1 percent annually, while savings return 4 percent each year, all after inflation.)

Okay, that seems like a good, albeit late, start.

Quote
Not everyone can set aside that much.

Oh.  So now let's backpedal to saving less than 10%.  Great idea!

Quote
SAVE MORE TOMORROW This approach, developed by two behavioral economists, is meant to help people without much willpower to save. The idea is to save half of future raises, bonuses or side-job money

Ah, so I'm making 100K and getting a 1% raise every year.  So I'll painlessly put half of that raise into savings.  Year 1, that's an extra $500.  I'm well on my way to retirement.  But wait!  In Year 2, I'm now making $101K so when I bank half of my raise for this year, it will be $505.  Woo Hoo!  Now I see how this works.  Getting hardcore!

But I'm worried it still may not be enough.  And after all, I only make $100K per year.  I think I could use some more income.  Should I get a side hustle?

Quote
DO SIDE HUSTLES That is what Alan Moore, also a co-founder of the XY Planning Network, calls jobs for extra income. Even a few hundred dollars each month can help you catch up, he added.

Now we're talking.  A few hundred dollars, let's say $300/mo for example, and of course I save half of that.  So now I'm making $103,600 per year and saving $2300.  With a savings rate of 2%, I should be retired in no time.  But, what if I try to really up my game and also cut some expenses.

Quote
other experts suggest tracking spending and eliminating things that you really don’t need or that don’t make you happy.

Now we're getting somewhere!  So I should eliminate wasteful spending and start saving and investing that money as well?

Quote
Then, you might start by putting aside half of those savings,

So I've eliminated spending on things that don't make me happy, and now I'm supposed to only SAVE HALF of that money!?!?  What should I do with the other half?  Why, spend it on different things that don't make me happy of course!

But really, I have no reason to worry.  After all, by banking half of my raises, cutting out a few dollars of expenses, and possibly bringing in even more income for which I can spend mindlessly, I'll be okay, right?

Quote
In catching up on retirement savings, perhaps the first place to start is to let go of the anxiety or shame over being behind — and then make some changes. “You do have time, and unless you have a big pile of debt,” Mr. Becker said, “you don’t need to do anything rash.”

Ahhh, seems I'm right on track!  No need to do anything rash.  Who wants to jump in the SUV and go to Starbucks?
« Last Edit: May 17, 2014, 11:34:33 AM by Eric »

ender

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7402
Re: Another Save 10%/Retire by 70 article -- NY Times
« Reply #5 on: May 17, 2014, 12:06:19 PM »
I think the worst part is how many people would be better off following that advice than otherwise.

Joggernot

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 510
  • Age: 78
  • Location: Gulf Coast, TX
Re: Another Save 10%/Retire by 70 article -- NY Times
« Reply #6 on: May 17, 2014, 12:09:40 PM »
Eric: Outstanding analysis!  This forum needs a "Thanks" button.

Suit

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 275
Re: Another Save 10%/Retire by 70 article -- NY Times
« Reply #7 on: May 17, 2014, 02:25:24 PM »
Eric: LOL, that was awesome.

ch12

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 592
Re: Another Save 10%/Retire by 70 article -- NY Times
« Reply #8 on: May 17, 2014, 03:33:49 PM »
I think the worst part is how many people would be better off following that advice than otherwise.

+1

Reminds me of the oft-quoted classic The Onion article: http://www.theonion.com/articles/chipmunks-plan-for-future-better-crafted-than-that,34172/

johnintaiwan

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 357
  • Location: Tainan, Taiwan
Re: Another Save 10%/Retire by 70 article -- NY Times
« Reply #9 on: May 17, 2014, 06:04:39 PM »
I think the worst part is how many people would be better off following that advice than otherwise.

+1

Reminds me of the oft-quoted classic The Onion article: http://www.theonion.com/articles/chipmunks-plan-for-future-better-crafted-than-that,34172/

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. It is almost too true to be funny.

Ftao93

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 231
Re: Another Save 10%/Retire by 70 article -- NY Times
« Reply #10 on: May 20, 2014, 09:28:21 AM »
I think the worst part is how many people would be better off following that advice than otherwise.

+1

Reminds me of the oft-quoted classic The Onion article: http://www.theonion.com/articles/chipmunks-plan-for-future-better-crafted-than-that,34172/

I love the Onion...:P

Mississippi Mudstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2174
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Danielsville, GA
    • A Riving Home - Ramblings of a Recusant Woodworker
Re: Another Save 10%/Retire by 70 article -- NY Times
« Reply #11 on: May 20, 2014, 09:38:56 AM »
Eric: Outstanding analysis!  This forum needs a "Thanks" button.

Seriously, that was a top-notch takedown. I think these things in my head but never take the time to write them out. I loved it!

Poorman

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 260
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Orange County, CA
Re: Another Save 10%/Retire by 70 article -- NY Times
« Reply #12 on: May 23, 2014, 03:40:04 PM »
On SS you actually really do want to wait until 70 to collect because they increase your benefit 8% per year you delay it after your full retirement age.  32% more for life is worth waiting for as long as your health is good.

I know it seems like a no-brainer, but you should also consider what those 8 years of paychecks from age 62 to 69 would earn in your investment allocation.  Even a low rate of return like 2% makes taking SS at age 62 better than any other option.  The reason is that by waiting until age 70 you've given up 8 years worth of paychecks and it will take 12 years to cumulatively catch up to where you would have been had you started collecting at age 62.  So you've got to live until age 82 for the delayed SS benefits to break even.  Now if you start investing the benefits at age 62 and get just a modest 2% return, it stretches the break even point out so far that it's no longer worthwhile to forgoe 8 years worth of benefits unless you plan to live well over 100.  Finally, I would just ask what if you don't live until age 70?  Sorry to say it could happen to any of us.  It's better to start collecting at age 62 because it hedges against an untimely death in which you would collect no benefits.

Dicey

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 22421
  • Age: 66
  • Location: NorCal
Re: Another Save 10%/Retire by 70 article -- NY Times
« Reply #13 on: May 23, 2014, 10:39:24 PM »
Thanks, Eric. I've been away from the forums for a while, but this article was the perfect welcome back. Awesome!