Author Topic: Barrons: The math won’t work  (Read 5581 times)

AdrianC

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 962
  • Location: Cincinnati
Barrons: The math won’t work
« on: April 29, 2019, 07:05:05 AM »
Stupid piece in Barron's:

Retire Early? Work Forever? Both Are Wildly Unrealistic

The person who says, “I want to retire early,” should probably talk to a therapist, because behind that is probably an uncertainty about what they want to do with their life, or they don’t like their job. But just financially, it doesn’t make sense unless you’re very, very rich, and if you’re very, very rich, you probably have expensive taste. For most people to quit work for 40 or 50 years, it’s just not a plan that can be sustained for anybody, except for people on TV. So that’s what I’d say to someone who wants to retire in their 40s and 50s. Did you hear what I said? And 50s! 50s is too young. The math won’t work.
...
By the time you’re 45, you should have two times your annual salary. By the time you’re 50, you should have three.


LOL
« Last Edit: May 30, 2019, 01:24:56 PM by AdrianC »

reeshau

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 491
  • Location: Dublin, Ireland
Re: Barrons: The math won’t work
« Reply #1 on: April 29, 2019, 07:26:42 AM »
There was a similar one in the WSJ last week.  So similar, I had to go back and check if it was the same one, or derived from it:  "The Case Against Early Retirement"

In fact, perhaps the biggest downside of retirement is financial. Social Security replaces only about 40% of a typical paycheck. Employer pensions are much less common today than in the past, and relatively few people have saved enough in 401(k)s or elsewhere to guarantee a financially secure old age.

By staying on the job, workers can redeem their retirement prospects. Workers who extend their careers can save part of their additional earnings for retirement, and they can accumulate more Social Security credits. What’s more, retirement savings don’t have to last as long when workers delay retirement.


It reminds me of a comment from the discussion on support from family and friends:  These comments say more about the speaker's beliefs on their own situation, than on your situation.
« Last Edit: April 29, 2019, 07:28:28 AM by reeshau »

Maenad

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 463
  • Location: Minneapolis 'burbs
Re: Barrons: The math won’t work
« Reply #2 on: April 29, 2019, 11:51:19 AM »
I'm sure people like Vicki Robin, the Terhorsts, and John Greaney will be astounded to hear that what they've been doing for 30+ years is impossible.

I'm a red panda

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8004
  • Location: United States
Re: Barrons: The math won’t work
« Reply #3 on: April 29, 2019, 12:08:25 PM »
This article again focuses on replacing a paycheck. If you only need 25% of your paycheck, replacing the full thing is irrelevant.

Much Fishing to Do

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 493
Re: Barrons: The math won’t work
« Reply #4 on: April 29, 2019, 01:49:12 PM »
Its obviously all "correct" based on mainstream assumptions.  Even though savings rates do go up with income for a few income levels it does seem to top out at 10%, with savings rates of 15-20% being "huge" no matter your income.  So basically the thought is you can only save a small percentage of whatever your income is.

No one ever looks at it from the perspective of absolute amount of spending irrespective of income.  This person will tell you no one, including a family who makes $150k/year can save two-thirds of their income...yet they'd admit the tons of families who make $50/year can get by on that (and in fact should save 10% of that $50k, so actually should be able to get by on $45k, etc)

I have no idea where the mathematical disconnect is.  Its like all the articles that come out every day that says one cant retire on social security alone, obviously ignoring the fact that most people literally do...

bwall

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 523
Re: Barrons: The math won’t work
« Reply #5 on: April 29, 2019, 01:59:22 PM »
No one ever looks at it from the perspective of absolute amount of spending irrespective of income.  This person will tell you no one, including a family who makes $150k/year can save two-thirds of their income...yet they'd admit the tons of families who make $50/year can get by on that (and in fact should save 10% of that $50k, so actually should be able to get by on $45k, etc)

+1.

It's like these people believe there's a law of nature that dictates a family earning $150k/yr. cannot live the same lifestyle of a family earning $50k/yr.

jim555

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1991
Re: Barrons: The math won’t work
« Reply #6 on: April 29, 2019, 03:09:52 PM »
I never understood this savings should be "times your annual salary" thinking.  It assumes you spend all your salary.  Dumb.

Buffalo Chip

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 292
  • Location: Tidewater Virginia
  • Politics DESTROYS kindness, decency, and community
Re: Barrons: The math won’t work
« Reply #7 on: April 29, 2019, 04:47:12 PM »
There seem to be a rash of these articles of late. One more reason not to read the “news”, but I digress.

I wonder why all the angst about RE? It’s a path much less followed.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4057
Re: Barrons: The math won’t work
« Reply #8 on: April 29, 2019, 04:54:46 PM »
As I have gone through my life, one thing that has frequently been a source of astonishment for me is how often I have seen people voluntarily enslave themselves to ideas, lifestyles, etc. that make them extremely unhappy, all because they are unwilling and/or unable to think "outside the box," for lack of a less clichéd term.

Marriages that don't make them happy, educations that don't lead to careers they like, pursuit of mortgages/cars/children, etc. that they think are what is expected of them, which they therefore think are the lives they want.

Hostility toward other choices/lifestyles, I have come to believe, is really just fear/regret turned outward toward the lifestyle not taken. Because when one has planted oneself firmly on one path, there's such a need to justify that path -- and such a need to avoid feeling regret at all costs -- that the mere thought that someone else might have figured out some other way of life that might be even better, seems like a direct affront to them.

I do not see other people's choices as an affront or insult to my own. I am convinced that lack of angst is probably an indicator that I've made the right choices for myself.

lhamo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9411
  • Location: Seattle
Re: Barrons: The math won’t work
« Reply #9 on: April 29, 2019, 05:08:56 PM »
Stupid piece in Barron's:

...
50s is too young. The math won’t work.
...
By the time you’re 45, you should have two times your annual salary. By the time you’re 50, you should have three. [/i]

LOL

LOL indeed.  I FIREd in 2015 when I was 46.  Our net worth is roughly 23x our last salaries.  So if I have more than 7x the amount they say I should have "the math won't work" and I should just plop my butt back in a cubicle? 

Buffalo Chip

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 292
  • Location: Tidewater Virginia
  • Politics DESTROYS kindness, decency, and community
Re: Barrons: The math won’t work
« Reply #10 on: April 29, 2019, 06:51:05 PM »
Stupid piece in Barron's:

...
50s is too young. The math won’t work.
...
By the time you’re 45, you should have two times your annual salary. By the time you’re 50, you should have three. [/i]

LOL

LOL indeed.  I FIREd in 2015 when I was 46.  Our net worth is roughly 23x our last salaries.  So if I have more than 7x the amount they say I should have "the math won't work" and I should just plop my butt back in a cubicle?

Yup. Get back to that cubicle, wage slave!

Buffalo Chip

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 292
  • Location: Tidewater Virginia
  • Politics DESTROYS kindness, decency, and community
Re: Barrons: The math won’t work
« Reply #11 on: April 29, 2019, 06:57:24 PM »
As I have gone through my life, one thing that has frequently been a source of astonishment for me is how often I have seen people voluntarily enslave themselves to ideas, lifestyles, etc. that make them extremely unhappy, all because they are unwilling and/or unable to think "outside the box," for lack of a less clichéd term.

I do not see other people's choices as an affront or insult to my own. I am convinced that lack of angst is probably an indicator that I've made the right choices for myself.

Maybe the independent thinking is the affront?  Or maybe it’s the outrageous optimism? Lord knows those are a dangerous combination, so maybe they’re right!

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4057
Re: Barrons: The math won’t work
« Reply #12 on: April 29, 2019, 07:45:25 PM »
As I have gone through my life, one thing that has frequently been a source of astonishment for me is how often I have seen people voluntarily enslave themselves to ideas, lifestyles, etc. that make them extremely unhappy, all because they are unwilling and/or unable to think "outside the box," for lack of a less clichéd term.

I do not see other people's choices as an affront or insult to my own. I am convinced that lack of angst is probably an indicator that I've made the right choices for myself.

Maybe the independent thinking is the affront?  Or maybe it’s the outrageous optimism? Lord knows those are a dangerous combination, so maybe they’re right!

I guess someone else’s lack of subscription to the beliefs they have enslaved themselves to is an uncomfortable mirror. Which I guess I can understand. I have cousins who used to mock me when we were little because I was a weirdo. Now that we are all past the probable midpoints of our lives, they almost always express that they are envious of me when we see each other... but their tones of voice are tinged with resentment.

Reader

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 391
Re: Barrons: The math won’t work
« Reply #13 on: April 29, 2019, 08:35:28 PM »
Going through the math in the article, they are assuming 30% savings which may be fair for lower wage earners at 30-40k annual wage.

The article also assumes that in retirement you spend 70% of working wage, or 21k out of 30k, social security provides 40% of this 70% and remaining coming from savings.

For a person earning 30k and saving 30%, he would take up to 58 years to reach 25x 21k expenditure.

ixtap

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1514
Re: Barrons: The math won’t work
« Reply #14 on: April 29, 2019, 08:41:50 PM »
Going through the math in the article, they are assuming 30% savings which may be fair for lower wage earners at 30-40k annual wage.

The article also assumes that in retirement you spend 70% of working wage, or 21k out of 30k, social security provides 40% of this 70% and remaining coming from savings.

For a person earning 30k and saving 30%, he would take up to 58 years to reach 25x 21k expenditure.

With 4% growth, they could get there in 30 years, though. Also, if someone consistently earns $30k throughout their lifetime, SS will replace slightly more than 50%. The 40% replacement is for those in the bracket around $60k.

Reader

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 391
Re: Barrons: The math won’t work
« Reply #15 on: April 29, 2019, 09:04:06 PM »
If this person starts work at 20 and reaches retirement sum after 30 years at 50, there is a 9.5 year gap til SS. This would require another six years of work to cover at 30% savings per year of work.

The math for early retirement requires that income increases over a person's lifetime for people with lower wages as I think spending 21k a year is fairly frugal..

Reducing retirement sum by 10% due to 50% from SS will cut about 3 years from working life.
« Last Edit: April 29, 2019, 09:09:00 PM by Reader »

spartana

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 286
  • Retired at 42
Re: Barrons: The math won’t work
« Reply #16 on: April 29, 2019, 11:57:33 PM »
I'm sure people like Vicki Robin, the Terhorsts, and John Greaney will be astounded to hear that what they've been doing for 30+ years is impossible.
Perhaps they are all in therapy. You know, on a tropical beach in a foreign exotic land drinking mimosas midday on a Wednesday instead of stuck in a cube or in a car for most of their adult lives. I mean RE is only for crazy and delusional. I think Ill join them ;-).

lhamo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9411
  • Location: Seattle
Re: Barrons: The math won’t work
« Reply #17 on: April 30, 2019, 08:25:25 AM »
Barrons does not target low income readers.  Their subscription base of 500k is primarily "wealthy, professional investors."

https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/325848/barrons-redesigns-site-to-grow-audience-focuses.html

I think they probably realize that one of the first things that would go once someone adopts a FIRE approach to things is a paid subscription to an investment magazine with advice that is worth less than you can get for free on line.  If you really want to read it, you can always bike to the library during your copious time off as a FIREd person.

Aelias

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 304
Re: Barrons: The math won’t work
« Reply #18 on: April 30, 2019, 10:34:03 AM »
But just financially, it doesn’t make sense unless you’re very, very rich, and if you’re very, very rich, you probably have expensive taste.

I mean, there's your problem right there.

Car Jack

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1101
Re: Barrons: The math won’t work
« Reply #19 on: April 30, 2019, 11:54:10 AM »
So we should adopt Suze Orman's advice and have, what?  50,000,000,000 times annual spending?  Okbye

spartana

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 286
  • Retired at 42
Re: Barrons: The math won’t work
« Reply #20 on: April 30, 2019, 12:25:16 PM »
So we should adopt Suze Orman's advice and have, what?  50,000,000,000 times annual spending?  Okbye
Well you need to be able to afford your private retirement island and helicopter to get there in order to have a fulfilling retirement. If you can't afford those then what's the point of RE anyways...or retiring ever?

Buffalo Chip

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 292
  • Location: Tidewater Virginia
  • Politics DESTROYS kindness, decency, and community
Re: Barrons: The math won’t work
« Reply #21 on: April 30, 2019, 01:47:31 PM »
So we should adopt Suze Orman's advice and have, what?  50,000,000,000 times annual spending?  Okbye
Whoa!!!  Living on the edge with ultra lean FIRE!!  I thought 100,000,000,000 times was the minimum.

#SuzeOrmanMath

FIREstache

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 395
Re: Barrons: The math won’t work
« Reply #22 on: April 30, 2019, 05:04:00 PM »
If this person starts work at 20 and reaches retirement sum after 30 years at 50, there is a 9.5 year gap til SS. This would require another six years of work to cover at 30% savings per year of work.

9.5 year gap?   Adding that to 50 would be age 59.5.   You can't draw early social security benefits until age 62, and that's with a big cut in benefits.  The SS full retirement age is 67 for people born in 1960 or later.

Mother Fussbudget

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 828
  • Age: 57
  • Location: Indianapolis, IN
Re: Barrons: The math won’t work
« Reply #23 on: April 30, 2019, 07:43:54 PM »
20 years ago, I was a regular subscriber to Barron's.  I liked the weekly roundup of stock market info better than the daily WSJ (which when I subscribed to the WSJ stacked up unread).  In the fall of 2017, I re-subscribed to Barron's on one of their $52 for 52 weeks offers, and cancelled in August 2018.  In that time, I regularly read the outside section of the news weekly - especially the "Up and Down Wall Street" column which usually contained interesting insights into what had happened in the past week, or interesting topics that were on-tap for the coming week. [aside:  the center section is titled 'Market Week', and lists stocks, their prices at start and end of week, and a few columns.  I almost always discarded this section un-read. In the 1990's, getting stock quotes from a newspaper / magazine was still reasonable, but today anyone can look up anything on-line, so the 'Market Week' section seems out of date, and out of touch]

They've added columns, and added an on-line edition that has more articles, and the ability to read 'latest print edition' articles on-line.
 But overall I realized the content was formatted as essentially the same stodgy old newsweekly from the 1990's.  I watched eagerly for articles on FIRE... didn't see any.  I looked for advice on increasing savings, and investing for the future... they didn't cover the saving aspect, but pounded the 'invest' drum quite a lot.  Of course they wanted to crow about the 'Barrons picks' for the year, and covered the returns of their portfolios if you had bought when they recommended it.  But on paper it would have involved a LOT of trading, and VTSAX seemed a safer and easier investment.  I watched eagerly for recommendations to invest in Vanguard funds... surprisingly many of their articles listed Vanguard funds in their winners categories.  But only their articles on Jack Bogle mentioned Vanguard's "owned by investors" aspect.

My final impression was that Barron's just don't "get" FIRE. And I'm convinced that readers under 60 are not their target demographic  audience.  They're targeting older retirees in their 60's, 70's and 80's who want to keep a 'finger on the pulse of the market' without having to drink from the CNBC or WSJ firehose of market data.  American Ex-Pats are highly represented among their readers, but I think many of THEM realize they can get good market analysis via other venues (such as Morningstar).

And since Barron's doesn't understand the principles of FIRE, they're not likely to report on it in any way shape or form that would seem reasonable to those of us who have tried the old stodgy investing methodologies, and found them wanting.  When I cancelled my subscription, I was tempted to write an email missive to their editor to give voice to these sentiments as a *long time subscriber*, but realized such a message would probably end up in the circular file, and so... I saved my comments for YOU, you fine mustachians!  All the best!  MFB
« Last Edit: April 30, 2019, 07:55:25 PM by Mother Fussbudget »

ol1970

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 122
Re: Barrons: The math won’t work
« Reply #24 on: May 01, 2019, 08:15:53 AM »
I am sort of thankful that there are people out there like this.  It honestly makes it a lot easier for the rest of us to be superstars in the financial independence/happiness realm. 

Keep in mind, everyone else is normal, it is those who sacrifice and plan that are the wierdos.  The young people in my life ask me how to get ahead in life and my answer is simple...don't be normal!  Normal is mediocre people complaining something is impossible, or too hard.  Be happy that the norm in our society sucks!

StockBeard

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 635
  • Age: 37
    • How To Retire Early?
Re: Barrons: The math won’t work
« Reply #25 on: May 30, 2019, 02:19:13 AM »
But just financially, it doesn’t make sense unless you’re very, very rich, and if you’re very, very rich, you probably have expensive taste.

I mean, there's your problem right there.
+1, exactly what I was going to say

SwordGuy

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5185
  • Location: Fayetteville, NC
Re: Barrons: The math won’t work
« Reply #26 on: May 30, 2019, 08:38:35 AM »
Sent the author of that piece an email telling them that the person they interviewed was clueless about the FIRE movement and inviting them to learn more.

I'm curious to see what happens.

================

Quote
"Ms. Carmichael,

I read your interview of Teresa Ghildarducci about the FIRE movement.   https://www.barrons.com/articles/retire-early-or-work-forever-51556397683

I have to tell you that Ghildarducci does not appear to have the slightest understanding of the FIRE movement at all.    That’s the politest way I can possibly make that statement.

Are you interested in learning something about it?   I personally know people it has worked for, this isn’t some mythical idea.

We ran across it in 2012 and the impact on our net worth and income after we started making changes was remarkable.    Sadly, we didn’t run across it until we were much older, but it still cut a dozen years off  my planned retirement date.   Had we had this information back in 1988 when I turned 30 and finally got out of poverty and into the middle class, I could have easily retired by 45.

If you are interested in learning more, I would suggest the following:

www.RootOfGood.com     Justin is a nice guy and imminently practical and pragmatic.   He easily demonstrates living a nice middle-class lifestyle without having to hold a job anymore.

www.MrMoneyMustache.com    Pete is very down-to-earth and a darn good writer and speaker.    He’s the heart and soul of the FIRE movement for many so I recommend checking out his blog.   There’s an attached forum where people who are working towards FIRE or who have already achieved it are very active in helping one another.   You’ll find lots of solid, pragmatic advice given to folks.    I’ll be glad to take the time to recommend specific articles if you would like.

I’m sure if you look you can find some people who didn’t pay attention to the details and made a piss-poor FIRE plan.   It’s not hard to find ignorant but energetic idiots in any field of human endeavor.   But the FIRE movement, by and large, is composed of people who really pay attention to the details. 

I’m taking the time to tell you this because your article has done harm to other people’s futures.   You’ve helped cast doubt on an idea that can truly improve people’s lives.   It would be good to learn more and correct that.

I’ve shared this info to many people I know.  Those that have actually given it a real try instead of dismissing it out of hand have all come back and thanked me with real gratitude.   100% of the people I know who have started down this path are glad they did.    Here’s the thing that’s really important.  Even if they don’t retire early, the financial lessons FIRE teaches will put them in a much more secure position in life than they otherwise would have had.   They won’t have to suck up to toxic bosses because they’ll have enough saved up.    Things that used to be financial emergencies become simple annoyances.    And the sense of personal agency and empowerment is life-changing for a lot of people."


sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8480
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Barrons: The math won’t work
« Reply #27 on: May 30, 2019, 08:58:50 AM »
Hooray for clickbait!  Hey, you know what would be awesome?  We should send a few thousand MMM readers to their website to view their ads, and leave outraged comments in the comment section.  Let's help them make enormous sums of money for posting bullshit articles.  Or maybe not.

Honestly, I'm not even upset when I see this kind of thing anymore.  By all means, convince the rest of the world to toil away in their cubicles so they can afford to buy meaningless crap.  My steady retirement income comes from the profitability of the companies that pay those cubicle workers' paychecks, and the the profitability of the companies that sell those workers all that meaningless crap.  I make money off of both ends of that horrible arrangement, and I will continue to make ever-increasing amounts of money if they can convince more and more people to play that stupid game.  So by all means, write some more shitty rationalizations that convince people to volunteer for wage slavery.  The investor class is the new aristocracy, and like all aristocracies it depends on the continued labor of the masses.

Nickel

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 19
  • Location: Portland
Re: Barrons: The math won’t work
« Reply #28 on: May 30, 2019, 11:08:24 AM »
Hooray for clickbait!  Hey, you know what would be awesome?  We should send a few thousand MMM readers to their website to view their ads, and leave outraged comments in the comment section.  Let's help them make enormous sums of money for posting bullshit articles.  Or maybe not.

Honestly, I'm not even upset when I see this kind of thing anymore.  By all means, convince the rest of the world to toil away in their cubicles so they can afford to buy meaningless crap.  My steady retirement income comes from the profitability of the companies that pay those cubicle workers' paychecks, and the the profitability of the companies that sell those workers all that meaningless crap.  I make money off of both ends of that horrible arrangement, and I will continue to make ever-increasing amounts of money if they can convince more and more people to play that stupid game.  So by all means, write some more shitty rationalizations that convince people to volunteer for wage slavery.  The investor class is the new aristocracy, and like all aristocracies it depends on the continued labor of the masses.

Most of us enjoy figuring out how things work so we can determine efficiencies, whether it be investments, taxes, energy, food, housing, education, banking, markets, careers, travel, etc.  Figuring out how our society and economy works is the same thing on a macro scale.  You nailed it.

Although many people could eventually grasp the bottom rung of the "investor class," they sabotage themselves by wasting time and money on things that don't provide happiness (lifestyle inflation), and/or not understanding how to make money work for them.  For most, early retirement (or entry into the "investor class") requires both.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10231
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Barrons: The math won’t work
« Reply #29 on: May 30, 2019, 11:20:17 AM »
Quote
The person who says, “I want to retire early,” should probably talk to a therapist, because behind that is probably an uncertainty about what they want to do with their life, or they don’t like their job.

To me, this is a reflection of the unhealthy, US-centric obsession with defining your self-worth to your occupation. You can love what you do for work and still want to retire early.

SwordGuy

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5185
  • Location: Fayetteville, NC
Re: Barrons: The math won’t work
« Reply #30 on: May 30, 2019, 11:37:52 AM »
Quote
The person who says, “I want to retire early,” should probably talk to a therapist, because behind that is probably an uncertainty about what they want to do with their life, or they don’t like their job.

To me, this is a reflection of the unhealthy, US-centric obsession with defining your self-worth to your occupation. You can love what you do for work and still want to retire early.

And only a moron would say that all jobs are worthy of being liked.   Some jobs are just awful.
That academic she interviewed was a piece of work.

Parizade

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 919
  • Location: Variable
  • Happily FIREd
Re: Barrons: The math won’t work
« Reply #31 on: May 30, 2019, 01:14:31 PM »
Social Security replaces only about 40% of a typical paycheck.

Excellent, my living expenses are only about 20% of my paycheck so I'll be living in luxury at 40%

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10231
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Barrons: The math won’t work
« Reply #32 on: May 30, 2019, 01:24:13 PM »
Social Security replaces only about 40% of a typical paycheck.

Excellent, my living expenses are only about 20% of my paycheck so I'll be living in luxury at 40%

Averages are irrelevant when you are talking about a specific individual - doubly so if that individual is you.

SS is designed to replace 90% of your income up to $926 averaged monthly earnings, then 32% up to $5,583 averaged monthly earnings.  Even less (15% after that).

The more you've earned, the less (percentage-wise) of your income it will replace.

If 20% of your paycheque is $850, you'll have no problem meeting your needs with SS.  If it's $3,000 - well then SS will never be enough, as the maximum SS payout is about $2850.

AdrianC

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 962
  • Location: Cincinnati
Re: Barrons: The math won’t work
« Reply #33 on: May 30, 2019, 01:26:30 PM »
Hooray for clickbait!  Hey, you know what would be awesome?  We should send a few thousand MMM readers to their website to view their ads, and leave outraged comments in the comment section.  Let's help them make enormous sums of money for posting bullshit articles.  Or maybe not.

I've taken the link out of the OP. No more clickbait.

Parizade

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 919
  • Location: Variable
  • Happily FIREd
Re: Barrons: The math won’t work
« Reply #34 on: May 30, 2019, 02:14:08 PM »
Social Security replaces only about 40% of a typical paycheck.

Excellent, my living expenses are only about 20% of my paycheck so I'll be living in luxury at 40%

Averages are irrelevant when you are talking about a specific individual - doubly so if that individual is you.

SS is designed to replace 90% of your income up to $926 averaged monthly earnings, then 32% up to $5,583 averaged monthly earnings.  Even less (15% after that).

The more you've earned, the less (percentage-wise) of your income it will replace.

If 20% of your paycheque is $850, you'll have no problem meeting your needs with SS.  If it's $3,000 - well then SS will never be enough, as the maximum SS payout is about $2850.

I was being sarcastic, I actually will start collecting SSI in August and it will cover my living expenses. Any withdrawals from my 'stache will be for optional luxuries.

TheWryLady

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 7
Re: Barrons: The math won’t work
« Reply #35 on: May 30, 2019, 04:44:10 PM »
I recently signed up for a super reduced cost trial subscription to Barron's (print and online).  The content was informative, and I enjoyed reading the actual newsprint paper magazine delivered each Saturday (didn't enjoy grey fingers).  The thing I miss most after not continuing the subscription is how well that newsprint worked when starting the charcoal. 

I don't mean for that to sound like a dig...that is what I actually miss.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10231
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Barrons: The math won’t work
« Reply #36 on: May 30, 2019, 05:06:55 PM »

I was being sarcastic, I actually will start collecting SSI in August and it will cover my living expenses. Any withdrawals from my 'stache will be for optional luxuries.
Fair enough - I wasn't sure.  Mostly I posed the above in the hopes that it would be informative to others.  For a topic that so many feel so strongly about, shockingly few understand how SS benefits are calculated (i.e. the 'bend points').

TomTX

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3366
  • Location: Texas
Re: Barrons: The math won’t work
« Reply #37 on: June 09, 2019, 11:47:54 AM »
Quote
The person who says, “I want to retire early,” should probably talk to a therapist, because behind that is probably an uncertainty about what they want to do with their life, or they don’t like their job.

To me, this is a reflection of the unhealthy, US-centric obsession with defining your self-worth to your occupation. You can love what you do for work and still want to retire early.

My job's great - it just takes up too much of my free time. If I could spend perhaps 20 hours a week on it, that would be great. Oh, and curtail these minimum notice overnight trips due to someone else's crisis. Then I would have more time for woodworking, biking, reading, camping, maybe get back into martial arts. Oh, and I need to do some minor shed repair, paint the whole thing, flush the transmission on the car, finish my attic catwalks...

John Galt incarnate!

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 423
Re: Barrons: The math won’t work
« Reply #38 on: June 09, 2019, 11:59:28 AM »

Hostility toward other choices/lifestyles, I have come to believe, is really just fear/regret turned outward toward the lifestyle not taken.

I do not see other people's choices as an affront or insult to my own. I am convinced that lack of angst is probably an indicator that I've made the right choices for myself.

"Lifestyle not taken" evoked "The Road Not Taken."

How apropos it is!



The Road Not Taken  by Robert Frost



Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,
 And sorry I could not travel both
 And be one traveler, long I stood
 And looked down one as far as I could
 To where it bent in the undergrowth;

 Then took the other, as just as fair,
 And having perhaps the better claim,
 Because it was grassy and wanted wear;
 Though as for that the passing there
 Had worn them really about the same,

 And both that morning equally lay
 In leaves no step had trodden black.
 Oh, I kept the first for another day!
 Yet knowing how way leads on to way,
 I doubted if I should ever come back.

 I shall be telling this with a sigh
 Somewhere ages and ages hence:
 Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
 And that has made all the difference
« Last Edit: June 09, 2019, 12:15:30 PM by John Galt incarnate! »

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10231
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Barrons: The math won’t work
« Reply #39 on: June 09, 2019, 12:03:47 PM »
Quote
The person who says, “I want to retire early,” should probably talk to a therapist, because behind that is probably an uncertainty about what they want to do with their life, or they don’t like their job.

To me, this is a reflection of the unhealthy, US-centric obsession with defining your self-worth to your occupation. You can love what you do for work and still want to retire early.

My job's great - it just takes up too much of my free time. If I could spend perhaps 20 hours a week on it, that would be great. Oh, and curtail these minimum notice overnight trips due to someone else's crisis. Then I would have more time for woodworking, biking, reading, camping, maybe get back into martial arts. Oh, and I need to do some minor shed repair, paint the whole thing, flush the transmission on the car, finish my attic catwalks...

Not far from what we are planning, and the reason why we are favoring a 'glide-path towards FI".  I genuinely like what I do (research science in academia) but want to stop the insane hours and career paths that require it to all-encompass your life.  Thankfully there are ways of working far less (e.g. part-time adjunct), provided you are ok with an acute reduction in your paycheck.  Now that we've got a healthy stache saved up additional savings means far less than market conditions... in other words each additional dollar saved matters far less than the ones we socked away several years ago.

Threshkin

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1020
  • Location: Colorado
    • My Journal
Re: Barrons: The math won’t work
« Reply #40 on: June 13, 2019, 11:37:57 AM »
The math won't work if you use unworkable math.

Expenses do not have to go up when income goes up.
Savings rates can exceed 10%
It is possible to live well on (way) less than $100K a year.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 13377
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Barrons: The math won’t work
« Reply #41 on: June 13, 2019, 11:45:26 AM »
But just financially, it doesn’t make sense unless you’re very, very rich, and if you’re very, very rich, you probably have expensive taste.

I mean, there's your problem right there.

I wonder if we can pinpoint the exact yearly income figure where fried chicken starts to suck and caviar becomes required at each meal . . .

Doug

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 1
Re: Barrons: The math won’t work
« Reply #42 on: June 15, 2019, 07:07:40 PM »
But just financially, it doesn’t make sense unless you’re very, very rich, and if you’re very, very rich, you probably have expensive taste.

I mean, there's your problem right there.

I wonder if we can pinpoint the exact yearly income figure where fried chicken starts to suck and caviar becomes required at each meal . . .

That’s the study that needs to happen.  It seems to be the major problem with the feasibility of FI.

Aelias

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 304
Re: Barrons: The math won’t work
« Reply #43 on: June 17, 2019, 09:23:55 AM »
But just financially, it doesn’t make sense unless you’re very, very rich, and if you’re very, very rich, you probably have expensive taste.

I mean, there's your problem right there.

I wonder if we can pinpoint the exact yearly income figure where fried chicken starts to suck and caviar becomes required at each meal . . .

That’s the study that needs to happen.  It seems to be the major problem with the feasibility of FI.

I volunteer as tribute! I hypothesize that fried chicken will never stop being delicious.  But I'm happy to test theory!

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 13377
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Barrons: The math won’t work
« Reply #44 on: June 17, 2019, 09:48:48 AM »
I'm unsure if a high income would be enough to offset the horrors of living in a world where fried chicken is no longer delicious to me.

A Fella from Stella

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 62
  • I love the MMM site!
Re: Barrons: The math won’t work
« Reply #45 on: June 23, 2019, 06:57:56 AM »
Barrons is for people who overspend on magazines. Enough said.