Whats the point of massive savings? (not a troll, I promise)

[mrmoneycleanshaven]

Had to qualify that as tone is awful on the net.

I'm not mmm frugal, but I'm no rampant consumer either. I live comfortably on less than I make, and my career track is both steady and has regular defined pay increases.

I have no desire to retire early, and am cliff vested in a pension that would give me nearly 50% more in retirement than I live on now, but that's a long ways away.

Between now and then I plan on putting 20% of my income into retirement accounts, and I am not sure why I am putting in that much.
20% for 20 years @ 7% (9% avg return - 2% inflation) gives me $2,000,000 in today's dollars at age 60. If I took 4% out a year that's $80,000 in todays dollars on top of my pension of $65,000 in todays dollars, giving me 3x my current expenses.

I can put much more into retirement/brokerage accounts, giving me $6,000,000 in todays dollars at age 60 (assuming I dont get hit heavily on captial gains in an index fund), but whats the point of having so much at a late age?

I'm not crazy for thinking even 20% will more than meet my goals right? And that more than 20% is  great for bragging rights, but might be better spent on experiences earlier in life?

Honestly I don't want for anything on 48k a year, in my family we go on great vacations, and eat awesome food, and have no need for stuff. I'm not sure what I'd spend the excess on now, but I definitely don't see a point in saving so much for later (again I cannot see spending my whole pension in retirement, let alone a 20% based retirement account).

Hopefully this makes sense, it was a long night.

[matchewed]

It's to save more so you can do what you want earlier. Saving more buys you options in life, offers resiliency via money as a tool for curveballs that life can throw you.

You also keep mentioning 60 years old as a point of reference for when you'd start your withdrawals. You seem to be forgetting the early portion of FIRE early.

[WildJager]

That makes perfect sense if your goal is to be FI by age 60.  If you want to be FI by age, say 30, then a higher savings rate is required to acquire the necessary assets to be completely financially independent.  If you're doing what you love, and plan to continue doing that until age 60, then no problem.  However, other people might prefer autonomy to pursue other less lucrative paths.  FI out of a well paying job frees up the necessity for more capital, thus opening the doors for different opportunity.

Personally, I plan to build a house and a small farm to live a life off the land after a relatively stressful career.  Perhaps raise a kid.  I would like to do that while young so I still have the strength to pursue all that I want to do without having to worry about cash flow.  There is no "right" way to live your life.  However, a high savings rate opens doors.  For many people, working their chosen career until old age is just fine.

[forummm]

Everyone is different. You can do what you want with your life. I want to accumulate a lot of savings so that I am financially independent, and can give to charity later in life. If you are happy with your job and prefer to spend more now and work longer as a trade-off, that is your choice. Maximize the savings function for your own happiness. For me, I haven't found a job yet that I want to keep doing for very long, so I'm looking to be FI ASAP and then RE if I still haven't found anything. If I keep making money, then there's more to do good with (charities) later.

[mrmoneycleanshaven]

It's to save more so you can do what you want earlier. Saving more buys you options in life, offers resiliency via money as a tool for curveballs that life can throw you.

You also keep mentioning 60 years old as a point of reference for when you'd start your withdrawals. You seem to be forgetting the early portion of FIRE early.

Sorry, forgot that part, again late night. I'm working until I'm 50 at the earliest (I vest at 50). I like working and will likely work for another decade or two after age 50; however, I can start collecting my pension at age 50.

I was using 60 as a reference because that's when I could start drawing on my 401(k) and IRA accounts w/o penalty, but I doubt I'll ever need to tap those.

I am under contract until I'm 40, and if I put away every excess dollar from now until then I could expect about $32,000/yr in todays dollars if I RE. But I don't see working for just seven years in a profession that took eleven tough years post highschool to learn, and if I'm going to keep on working, I might as well keep working for the military and grab a pension (even though the military compensation even with the pension is less than I can get on the outside).

[matchewed]

It's to save more so you can do what you want earlier. Saving more buys you options in life, offers resiliency via money as a tool for curveballs that life can throw you.

You also keep mentioning 60 years old as a point of reference for when you'd start your withdrawals. You seem to be forgetting the early portion of FIRE early.

Sorry, forgot that part, again late night. I'm working until I'm 50 at the earliest (I vest at 50). I like working and will likely work for another decade or two after age 50; however, I can start collecting my pension at age 50.

I was using 60 as a reference because that's when I could start drawing on my 401(k) and IRA accounts w/o penalty, but I doubt I'll ever need to tap those.

Cool, so you're in a different position. Your goals do not align with the goals of people who gather in this forum. So when you ask that question from your point of reference you're skipping over some important aspects of why we espouse what we do. Consider from our point of view; pensions are going the way of the Dodo bird, several of us have a goal of FIRE early in our lives, some don't want to work in their lives ever again, some are just looking for the funds to do something else...etc. There will be as many specific answers to your initial question as there are people participating and lurking on this forum. So instead of trying to ask "What's the point of massive savings?" you're asking "What's the point of massive savings for me?" and frankly that answer might be none. No point for you if you don't value the thing. But do you now see why others may value it?

Also you can start withdrawing from IRA's before 60 without penalty given Roth pipeline or SEPP.

[forummm]

It's to save more so you can do what you want earlier. Saving more buys you options in life, offers resiliency via money as a tool for curveballs that life can throw you.

You also keep mentioning 60 years old as a point of reference for when you'd start your withdrawals. You seem to be forgetting the early portion of FIRE early.

Sorry, forgot that part, again late night. I'm working until I'm 50 at the earliest (I vest at 50). I like working and will likely work for another decade or two after age 50; however, I can start collecting my pension at age 50.

I was using 60 as a reference because that's when I could start drawing on my 401(k) and IRA accounts w/o penalty, but I doubt I'll ever need to tap those.

You can tap retirement accounts any time without penalty. Checkout Roth IRA Pipeline and Substantially Equal Periodic Payments.

[mrmoneycleanshaven]

Thank you both for the info on the SEPP, I had no clue such a thing existed (I did have some idea of the ROTH pipeline, but I didn't fully understand that until now).

And I get where you are coming from, I'm kind of alone out here. I'm all on board on consumerism, but I do like working and feel I can do a lot more good working full time for the military than I could as RE or part time for civilians.

I do intend to save a large portion of my income, just not until I'm 50, let alone 60 and beyond

[Milizard]

Many because a job you love today could become torturous to you in a decade?  Or, the people you work for or with make an otherwise nice job hellish?


...just a couple reasons.  I'm sure I could come up with more.

[aschmidt2930]

Personally, I wouldn't rely too heavily on a pension.  It'll probably come through exactly as promised, but you wouldn't be the first person to get screwed.

[forummm]

Or you develop health problems that keep you from working, or where it would be better for you to not work. Or you need to take care of a family member. Or your preferences change. Etc

[iris lily]

Money is ALWAYS going to provide more options than no money.

I just went through a discussion with my spouse about nursing home care. We've got enough income and savings to put me up for ten years in nursing home care, even figuring inflation, and he would be ok financially. He wouldn't be rolling in it, but he would be ok.

I have Alzheimer's disease in my family, so it is a distinct possibility. I am assuming around $100,000 per year for care. But it's highly unlikely I would live 10 years, more like 2 - 3.

[fa]

Many because a job you love today could become torturous to you in a decade?  Or, the people you work for or with make an otherwise nice job hellish?


...just a couple reasons.  I'm sure I could come up with more.

+1. 

I liked work and saved a lot.  I would have sworn I wanted to work until age 70.  Then my work conditions changed and I am definitely not as excited about my career as I used to be.  The money we saved gives me the option to stop when I want.  I know many people who want to stop but are unable to quit. That alone is plenty of reason to secure your financial independence.

As another reply said:  don't rely too much on the promise of a pension.  Stranger things have happened.

[MidWestLove]

"As another reply said:  don't rely too much on the promise of a pension.  Stranger things have happened."

all the time... just ask IBM lifers, Ford retiree  or any other major corp - the promise could disappear at any time or be significantly reduced. My wife's first job out of college was a small non profit where she loved the mission, team, environment (all local assisting other non profits), with person that United Way helped managed. 15 years into it, founders left/pushed out, new management in, mission changes, culture becomes competitive and confrontational, and before you know old non profit is dissolved, pension not funded and PBGC steps in. Do not bank on pension until it is in the bank :) , even if it is in the bank it could stop too at any time.

[Nords]

I have no desire to retire early, and am cliff vested in a pension that would give me nearly 50% more in retirement than I live on now, but that's a long ways away.
Honestly I don't want for anything on 48k a year, in my family we go on great vacations, and eat awesome food, and have no need for stuff. I'm not sure what I'd spend the excess on now, but I definitely don't see a point in saving so much for later (again I cannot see spending my whole pension in retirement, let alone a 20% based retirement account).

Sorry, forgot that part, again late night. I'm working until I'm 50 at the earliest (I vest at 50). I like working and will likely work for another decade or two after age 50; however, I can start collecting my pension at age 50.

I was using 60 as a reference because that's when I could start drawing on my 401(k) and IRA accounts w/o penalty, but I doubt I'll ever need to tap those.

I am under contract until I'm 40, and if I put away every excess dollar from now until then I could expect about $32,000/yr in todays dollars if I RE. But I don't see working for just seven years in a profession that took eleven tough years post highschool to learn, and if I'm going to keep on working, I might as well keep working for the military and grab a pension (even though the military compensation even with the pension is less than I can get on the outside).

Are you enjoying those late nights?  As Dr. Phil would say, "How's that workin' for ya?"

You maintain a high savings rate because it's more important to you to reach financial independence than it is to live a consumerist or entertainment-oriented lifestyle.  There's a balance between frugality/deprivation and total hedonism, but it's probably wise to bias your savings toward financial independence.  You're the only person who can decide how much is "enough" and whether you're sleeping comfortably at night.

I agree that you have no reason to stop working, and if you like what you're doing with the military then you could do it as long as you're able.

The key phrase is "as long as you're able".  You may someday go through a shift in priorities where spending time with family is more important to you than spending time at work.  Or you (or someone in your family) may have a health crisis.  Or you (or family) may develop a medical condition or get injured.  I hear this from my readers all the time.

Sure, there's life insurance and disability insurance.  But when higher-priority demands are made on your time, or when your longevity is threatened, then what you really want is the flexibility to spend your time with your priorities. 

You are under contract to the military to the extent that you've surrendered your right to quit.  However the military can buy themselves out of your contract anytime they deem it necessary.  The only "guarantee" you have for vesting a pension is reaching 18 years of service or being given an earlier pension-- and that's in federal law, not just a DoD retention incentive.  So if life throws you a curve ball headshot and you end up out of uniform with a disability pension, you'll be a lot happier knowing that you've accumulated enough savings to be financially independent.

[Bracken_Joy]

Money gives freedom, simple as that. FI lends a lot of stability. Like when both my parents were diagnosed with cancer within a year of each other and both had to stop working. Disability doesn't care what your spending rate was before, you're getting the same amount no matter what. And disability takes a while to go through and kick in...

[OldPro]

Well I would answer your initial question of "Whats the point of massive savings?" in another way.

While you may not be interested in early retirement as most posting here are, you might still be interested in financial independence.   Here's why:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdfeXqHFmPI

You may be perfectly happy with things as they are now and that may continue for a long time, I hope it does.  HOWEVER, there is nothing like having the ability to say, 'FY' whenever you want.

What's more, you don't even have to say 'FY' at all.  Take for example some little thing at work that annoys you.  Every time you come across it it annoys you.  If you have FYM, guess what happens.  You look at that annoyance and you say to yourself, 'well, I could be annoyed or I could say 'FY' or I could just ignore it because I CAN say 'FY'. 

From my experience, having FYM puts you in a whole different place in regards to lots of things.  So that's why it makes sense for anyone who can to accumulate 'massive savings' (although they don't actually have to be that massive).

By the way.  As it is you say you vest at age 50.  What does that mean?  Does it mean if you're job turns sour tomorrow you will still have to stick it out till you are 50?  See what FYM does?  Jobs turns sour, 'FY'.

[mrmoneycleanshaven]

Well I would answer your initial question of "Whats the point of massive savings?" in another way.

While you may not be interested in early retirement as most posting here are, you might still be interested in financial independence.   Here's why:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdfeXqHFmPI

You may be perfectly happy with things as they are now and that may continue for a long time, I hope it does.  HOWEVER, there is nothing like having the ability to say, 'FY' whenever you want.

No saying FY whenever I want. They've got me for a while, and even when they don't I'd have to put in another 2 years to be able to live off a nest egg the way I am living now. But skills degrade so I'd have to be really sure that I wouldn't be coming back so I'd likely be at 15 before I could say FY if things got bad, and at 15 I'd only have 5 years left before I could collect a pension. You can see how it builds.

What's more, you don't even have to say 'FY' at all.  Take for example some little thing at work that annoys you.  Every time you come across it it annoys you.  If you have FYM, guess what happens.  You look at that annoyance and you say to yourself, 'well, I could be annoyed or I could say 'FY' or I could just ignore it because I CAN say 'FY'.

There are things that I'm not keen on with the military, but FY isn't in the lingo, nor are things that bad, infact I think in some ways its better than civilian medicine, but I get what you are saying. However, saying FY at 15 years would equal tossing out a small pension that more than covers my needs.  

From my experience, having FYM puts you in a whole different place in regards to lots of things.  So that's why it makes sense for anyone who can to accumulate 'massive savings' (although they don't actually have to be that massive).

You (and Nords) definitely encouraged me to sock away more than 20%, but I think I'll be doing it outside or retirement accounts once I get past the ROTH IRA limits

By the way.  As it is you say you vest at age 50.  What does that mean?  Does it mean if you're job turns sour tomorrow you will still have to stick it out till you are 50?  See what FYM does?  Jobs turns sour, 'FY'.

Yes. I'm in a somewhat unilateral contract thats pretty iron clad on my side, but at will on theirs with some token severance pay and a few months of healthcare coverage. If my job turns sour tomorrow I've got a decade to stick it out before I could say good bye, and another decade before I could collect a cent of the pension, but the pension pays out instantly upon retirement once I vest. At this point I'd like to do beyond 20 as I think there's a lot of good I could do for the military.

Are you enjoying those late nights?  As Dr. Phil would say, "How's that workin' for ya?"

Intern year is intern year, at least I never have to worry about what to wear.

You maintain a high savings rate because it's more important to you to reach financial independence than it is to live a consumerist or entertainment-oriented lifestyle.  There's a balance between frugality/deprivation and total hedonism, but it's probably wise to bias your savings toward financial independence.  You're the only person who can decide how much is "enough" and whether you're sleeping comfortably at night.

I think that's the real challenge, even if I maintain my resident-lifestyle, and I totally can, I won't have enough saved up to separate at 10 YOS. I'll be okay but with the way the continuation bonuses work out I'd likely go for 15 to shore up enough and then I might as well do 20 even if I hate it (and I totally love it, although I hear changes are coming to mil-med so who knows how I'll feel 10 years from now.

I agree that you have no reason to stop working, and if you like what you're doing with the military then you could do it as long as you're able.

The key phrase is "as long as you're able".  You may someday go through a shift in priorities where spending time with family is more important to you than spending time at work.  Or you (or someone in your family) may have a health crisis.  Or you (or family) may develop a medical condition or get injured.  I hear this from my readers all the time.

I'm already there Nords, if I could put a pin in this I would. That might just be residency talking but time away from family is hard. That being said, we only want the two kids and they'll be nearing middle school before I could get out, so I think I'm really just going to focus on maximizing the use of leave. There's a sabbatical program that I'd use if I could, and that would be a great reason to save as much as I can in residency and through my utilization tours, but I don't think that is open to docs.

If someone in my family got hurt or sick I'd almost think I'd be better off working to pay for care, but I get where you are coming from.

Sure, there's life insurance and disability insurance.  But when higher-priority demands are made on your time, or when your longevity is threatened, then what you really want is the flexibility to spend your time with your priorities. 

You are under contract to the military to the extent that you've surrendered your right to quit.  However the military can buy themselves out of your contract anytime they deem it necessary.  The only "guarantee" you have for vesting a pension is reaching 18 years of service or being given an earlier pension-- and that's in federal law, not just a DoD retention incentive.  So if life throws you a curve ball headshot and you end up out of uniform with a disability pension, you'll be a lot happier knowing that you've accumulated enough savings to be financially independent.

And there's something that's been on the back burner, a disability pension doesn't get near what my pension would be at 20, and no where close to my AD compensation at any point in my career, so that is something to account for. And they could walk away, hopefully I could jump services, but I think the competition would be pretty great as many others would certainly be cut and we'd all have the same idea. I think I need to do some more time in excel, luckily I have a few years to figure this out before I have discretionary income.

Thanks to you all so far for helping me through a thought process, even if I'm not as mmm as most.

[SailAway]

Everyone has stressed options, freedom and independence to you and I agree. Here's another thought: charity. If you end up with way more than you need due to living below your means, why not start a charitable foundation, support the arts, whatever your passion is. Think of the amazing things you could do with the money you don't need, irregardless of whether you do it now or later. :-)

[MrsPete]

I had answers ready, but I see they've been discussed:

- The job that's fulfilling and the center of your identity at 25 can become stale and tedious by the time you're 40. 
- The world is changing rapidly, and many jobs are morphing into something they weren't before; I'm in a job I would've declared to be immune to this -- but I was wrong.  You may or may not like what your job morphs into by the time you reach 50.
- That steady career path and those regular salary increases don't always remain so clear and predictable:  I sure didn't see a six-year salary freeze coming. 
- Technology may put you out of a job (don't say impossible), and you may be downsized against your will. 
- You don't know that you personally will remain healthy and able to continue in your job. 
- You can't guarantee that your pension won't shift in some way, and those changes are rarely positive for the employee.
- You don't know whether your family will need your time more than they need your money at some point.

The big theme here, of course, is that if you save from a young age -- meaning now, while you have the opportunity to work in a job that you like and that pays well -- you can use the power of compound interest to fill your coffers.  That gives you choices in the future.  If all continues to go well, GREAT!  If your savings increase AND you continue to love your job, you could potentially stop saving and do whatever you want with your income ... but if things don't go so well, GREAT!  If you've saved, you have the option to step away and make other options.  With money saved, you're in the driver's seat. 

In contrast, NOT saving pretty much means you're at the mercy of the world.  If any of those above things happen -- your job changes, you lose your job, you become sick -- without savings, you are sunk. 

[Bajadoc]

Massive savings = time, freedom and security.

[Travis]

As someone also pursuing a cliff vesting pension, it's entirely possible you won't make it that far.  As Nords and one or two others pointed out you could be burned out by the job, hurt and disabled, or the job could disappear before you get there.  I'm saving 50% in addition to being halfway to the pension just in case I don't make it.  If the Army says "no thanks" before I reach 20 I've got quite a nest egg built up and I can find some other work until I've got enough.  If I do make it to 20 I'll have a very comfortable retirement, but I'm saving as if it won't happen.

[wardkf]

Many because a job you love today could become torturous to you in a decade?  Or, the people you work for or with make an otherwise nice job hellish?

Or both.  And it doesn't necessarily take decades.  It could be just about overnight.

Two years ago, I finally achieved everything I'd worked so hard for for 15 years.  I'd realized my career dreams, making it to the top, bringing several close friends along with me.  I had a team of very dedicated supporters, all working towards the same goal.  We were going to do such great things.  Inside of a year, due to a tragic unexpected event, I was betrayed by several formerly very close and trusted colleagues, my team disintegrated, and work became utter hell.  I would love to get out, but a few years from now I can collect a substantial pension.  If I can make it.  I've saved quite a bit over the course of my working life, close to FI but not enough to walk away now.  Particularly because of the lure of the pension, which along with our savings will give my family virtually ironclad financial security.

If I knew way back when what I know now, I would have saved so much more.

Directly on point with your initial comments, mrmoneycleanshaven, after the events that precipitated the collapse but immediately before the final shoe fell, I was out at lunch (I know) with one of my three closest colleagues.  I recall as if it were yesterday telling him that the numbers at the bottom of my retirement spreadsheet were very, very large (I didn't tell him, but they approach eight figures, though, unfortunately, that relies on the pension that I have to work several more years for). 

It was on our walk back to the office, during a conversation with someone else on the street, that his betrayal became clear.

What's amazing is that almost everyone involved is a good person.  That's a different story, though.

Work conditions can change overnight.  Dream jobs can become soul-sucking anchors.  Trusted partners can become vengeful enemies. 

FU money is precious; having as much as possible is extremely valuable.

FIRE is even more so.

[2527]

The money you save and invest today is still your money.  You can always spend it later.

[Ricky]

If your household current lives on $48k a year and you're saving 20% already, that sounds great. If it's much more than that, then there are plenty of reasons to increase the rate at which you're saving.

To answer your question, define "massive". I immediately think "way more than one would possibly ever need". To that extent, I guess there isn't a point in a "massive" amount of savings. Yes, you need cushion, but nothing more. Define your number, get there, and either keep working or quit. The great thing is it's your choice. Options open up when you're truly FI.

[ltt]

Here is my take on it.  How old are you now?  I skimmed the posts, but didn't see your age listed.  By the time a person turns 50 years old, changes really start taking place in the body.  A person, for all intents and purposes, really starts to physically slow down.  Even though a person might be in great shape and active, aging really starts to kick in.  Eyesight starts to change, etc.  The nice thing is that the massive savings/investing will buy you freedom, not in the sense that you still don't have responsibilities, such as bills to pay, etc., but you just don't have to worry as much.  It won't be necessary to have to work until 60, 65, or 70 if you have the money saved up; it, instead, will be an option to work.     

[BuildingFrugalHabits]

Well I would answer your initial question of "Whats the point of massive savings?" in another way.

While you may not be interested in early retirement as most posting here are, you might still be interested in financial independence.   Here's why:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdfeXqHFmPI

Well said! Having money gives you options. I think the world would be a much better place if people weren't beholden to their jobs. 

[NICE!]

irregardless

http://www.nooooooooooooooo.com/

[forummm]

LMAO

[Nords]

irregardless

http://www.nooooooooooooooo.com/

While this Grammar Police report certainly encourages people to go back and read all of SailAway's post, I think you might be missing the excellent points that were made there.

[GetItRight]

The main point is to retire early. If that doesn't interest you I still believe there is value is massive savings early on. Become FI, meaning 4% SWR covers your $48k expenses. Get there ASAP, no debt, then cut back savings and spend on more luxury and keep working. The point is to never be chained to a job you don't like (a lot can change in a few years or a decade), and to have the flexibility to do what you want. 20% savings rate is great by the usual standards, do what works for you.

[WildJager]

irregardless

http://www.nooooooooooooooo.com/

While this Grammar Police report certainly encourages people to go back and read all of SailAway's post, I think you might be missing the excellent points that were made there.

My wife sometimes gets upset about my grammar. I usually proceed... irregardlessly.  I'm a rebel.

[fb132]

IF you are FI and you enjoy your job, it's a win-win situation. The FI part simply protects you just incase shit happens or if you hate your situation.

[forummm]

irregardless

http://www.nooooooooooooooo.com/

While this Grammar Police report certainly encourages people to go back and read all of SailAway's post, I think you might be missing the excellent points that were made there.

My wife sometimes gets upset about my grammar. I usually proceed... irregardlessly.  I'm a rebel.

Oh noes, the rebels strike back!

[amberfocus]

I think a pension, like Social Security, is a great insurance policy, especially for the many non-Mustachian folks who never managed to get all their ducks in a row. While I'm not exactly one of those doomsayers who don't (allow themselves to) believe that their pension/SS will be there when they retire, I do prefer to focus on aspects of retirement planning that I can actively control -- like my 401(k), IRA, and Vanguard portfolio.

Not that long ago, I, too, was supposed to have a pension at a terrific job five miles from home that I could have done forever… That is, until I lost my (wonderful) boss to one round of layoffs, and then got hit myself a few years later. My next job had no pension (it was also in a different state, so my quality-of-life re: commuting was much diminished), and when I got an offer to cash out my old pension, I took it, because frankly, the offer itself made me doubt the solvency of the pension, especially since this is private sector.

I know that here on the MMM forums, there is a strong undercurrent of competition -- who can get their expenses lower, and their savings rates higher (no doubt fueled by sub-forums such as "Share Your Badassity") -- so you are inviting pushback by asking this question. But not everyone has the inclination to go to the same extremes, and a 20% savings rate is perfectly respectable and totally fine if those are the numbers that work for you.

As for myself, the main reason why I have a "massive" savings rate is because I made the conscious decision to front-load my savings to take advantage of compounding. FIRE wasn't even on my radar until a year ago, when I discovered MMM and ERE, so I'd saved aggressively for many years before that without thinking that I could ER. I think if you're comfortable with your career track, job security, expected pension, and financial projections, and you genuinely have no interest in ER, then 20% is well within the realm of normal, and if that's your own personal set point, then go with it. :)

[wordnerd]

irregardless

http://www.nooooooooooooooo.com/

While this Grammar Police report certainly encourages people to go back and read all of SailAway's post, I think you might be missing the excellent points that were made there.

My wife sometimes gets upset about my grammar. I usually proceed... irregardlessly.  I'm a rebel.

Oh noes, the rebels strike back!

I hear that they have a spy on this board...

[forummm]

irregardless

http://www.nooooooooooooooo.com/

While this Grammar Police report certainly encourages people to go back and read all of SailAway's post, I think you might be missing the excellent points that were made there.

My wife sometimes gets upset about my grammar. I usually proceed... irregardlessly.  I'm a rebel.

Oh noes, the rebels strike back!

I hear that they have a spy on this board...

ARS has been outed!

[Nords]

Well, now you've done it.  Merriam-Webster's daily e-mail for 26 May has a link to their one-minute video opinion on "irregardless".

http://www.merriam-webster.com/video/index.php?id=0037-irregardless&pid=mw_video

Yes, it's a real no-foolin' word.  But it's considered "nonstandard", both irrespective of and regardless of its popularity...

[Daisy]

Well I would answer your initial question of "Whats the point of massive savings?" in another way.

While you may not be interested in early retirement as most posting here are, you might still be interested in financial independence.   Here's why:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdfeXqHFmPI

Well said! Having money gives you options. I think the world would be a much better place if people weren't beholden to their jobs.

Yep. I am seeing it now at work. There's a new department head that wants to institute rigid start and stop times, can't eat lunch at your desk, only 30 minutes for lunch...or so I've heard because it hasn't been told to me directly my my first line supervisor. I heard some of our lower level managers are resisting trying to push this.

We work in a software environment where this type of culture never existed. New guy comes in and tries to change this. So I mentioned to some colleagues at work that if they tried to institute it we don't have to comply. Others said nervously "but then you get a lot of grief about it". I said "what are they going to do?". We've had a lot of layoffs in the recent past, but now there is a lot of additional attrition so even HR is meeting with us concerned about the attrition.

So who's going to fire you over you eating lunch at your desk or not eating lunch at your desk or the exact time of you coming in? We are professionals and should be treated as such. It's bad enough that they expect people to call in at 10pm once or twice a week to accommodate our cheaper overseas co-workers. It's hard to get in at an early hour after putting in that effort.

People actually have options to take a stand, but they are afraid to do so. Not me...I'm going all Office Space on this one. The power of FU money.

[Daisy]

Well I would answer your initial question of "Whats the point of massive savings?" in another way.

While you may not be interested in early retirement as most posting here are, you might still be interested in financial independence.   Here's why:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdfeXqHFmPI

Well said! Having money gives you options. I think the world would be a much better place if people weren't beholden to their jobs.

Yep. I am seeing it now at work. There's a new department head that wants to institute rigid start and stop times, can't eat lunch at your desk, only 30 minutes for lunch...or so I've heard because it hasn't been told to me directly my my first line supervisor. I heard some of our lower level managers are resisting trying to push this.

We work in a software environment where this type of culture never existed. New guy comes in and tries to change this. So I mentioned to some colleagues at work that if they tried to institute it we don't have to comply. Others said nervously "but then you get a lot of grief about it". I said "what are they going to do?". We've had a lot of layoffs in the recent past, but now there is a lot of additional attrition so even HR is meeting with us concerned about the attrition.

So who's going to fire you over you eating lunch at your desk or not eating lunch at your desk or the exact time of you coming in? We are professionals and should be treated as such. It's bad enough that they expect people to call in at 10pm once or twice a week to accommodate our cheaper overseas co-workers. It's hard to get in at an early hour after putting in that effort.

People actually have options to take a stand, but they are afraid to do so. Not me...I'm going all Office Space on this one. The power of FU money.

What a great movie. I keep saying truthful things at work and it feels great to be unburdened by financial constraints to do so. In fact, it may keep me at work longer just due to the entertainment value it provides.

[G-dog]

This reflects what many others have said - for me it is freedom, flexibility, and reducing stress/anxiety/supporting resiliency.

More options when the shit hits the fan or conditions change.

[KBecks2]

Saving gives you a lot of security and a lot of options.  Should anything go wrong in your life, the money will give you more choices and flexibility.  It also gives you more opportunities to help people and do good in the world. 

[Left]

I save mostly because I have nothing else I rather spend on :S I'm not aiming for ER but I want FI at 40-45, if I work until 55, I'll have $3m, which is more than I need. But I'll likely part time when I hit FI at around 45 and travel half the year.

It isn't like I am neglecting my "young" self either, I just don't travel more than a month a year and yeah not MMM but I bought a new car (that I thoroughly enjoy and don't regret). Anyways, while I am working, it isn't like my "goals" align with long term travel. Sure I could be a travelling tech which was my plan but my current job is one where I am happy as well so I plan to do it until I hit FI (if I last 20 years). But even if I don't stay at same job, I still need to work 20 years before FI.

My "savings" are max 401k, max roth ira, and $10k taxable each year. More into taxable as I get more money to put into it. But I'm not really being aggressive with savings rate either. Maybe I make enough that I don't "feel" a lack of money from what I save now, but I really don't feel like I can't afford to do what I want NOW because I have to save for retirement. I just run out of things to spend on so I invest it instead (which was where I get the $10k for taxable, it's like "leftover" money)

[Matthew Olszewski]

In my opinion there are only two reasons. The first is to ensure financial security, and the other is gaining financial independence. I suspect that most people thinking about massive saving, strives to meet both of these needs.

[Much Fishing to Do]

I think one (related) thing I notice is what the level of savings that is normally thought of as massive is not so.

One thing I wonder is if one could normally guess within 20% what your neighbor/friend/family member makes (w/o knowing their job, just watching their lifestyle).  I think that would be pretty difficult.  And if that's the case, maybe spending 20% less (and thus saving 20% more) than you currently are wouldn't really call for the massive changes as it first appears within ones own life.

Another thing is that there are two factors to increasing savings, both increasing income and decreasing spending.  I think I've heard a median married household with kids makes about 60k/year.  Cutting expenses to 45k doesnt seem that extreme.  And raising income to 75k doesnt seem that impossible, and if you did both you;re already sitting at a "ridiculous" 40% savings rate, which means you're working till your early 40s, not your late 60s, which seems like a pretty good reason to make the attempts.

[Michread]

Several years ago we met with dh's work retirement company guy to "go over" our portfolio.  I thought it might be worth it because we may learn something.  After a brief overview of our portfolio and projecting that we would have 3M+ at retirement (65), he proceeded to try to sell us an annuity. TOTAL WASTE OF TIME!  We did nothing but continued saving and living our life.  (We didn't count our eggs before they hatched.)

My dh loved his job until about 5 yrs ago when he got a new boss (restructure).  He had NO plans to retire early. Now he wants OUT.  THANK GOODNESS we continued to save and live frugally even though we might have had 3M at 65 (yes, I think we really would and still could potentially have 3M).  He'll be retiring in 2 yrs at 55 (July 2017).  He will be at full retirement age and will be able to access his 401, and we will have the money for him to never have to work again IF he chooses.

The point is you never know - the job you LOVE for many, many years may turn sour because of ONE PERSON - your boss; and you may make too much money and/or are too old to effectively get another position and/or you do not want to move after living in the same area for 25+yrs and disrupt your family.

SAVE TO HAVE OPTIONS, SECURITY AND FREEDOM!

[brooklynmoney]

Well I don't know about the military, but in private sector, different industries go through major upheavals that leave many workers long-term unemployed. I work in tech and lived through the first dot.com disaster. Waiting to see what happens in the next few years . . . Nice to know I won't be desperate as I could pay off the mortgage with current savings, or not work for years and be OK.