I take no issue with it at all. I think you and Villanelle are making valid points.
May I suggest that “… hell bent on arguing this“ is a rather uncharitable interpretation of someone who is just engaging in a discussion on an Internet forum? A discussion, by the way, that was started by something I stated. I’m being polite and not at all dismissive of what others are saying. If it frustrates you that I am still not apparently in full throated agreement with you, then such is the life we have chosen as anonymous posters on the internet, no?
The original question posed in this thread was “ do you think you will really spend less as they age?” Further, the original post stated “ I see people here say this a lot”.
The answer is that yes, I think I will spend less as I age because most people do spend less as they age. You rightly point out that perhaps the people in these forums are not as likely to behave the way most people behave in this regard. You have an entirely reasonable perspective.
I wonder whether this group is as different as you suggest. Certainly some are. But I think statistics show what they show and that if someone thinks that they will be the exception, that’s absolutely fine and they may be right, but… they probably aren’t.
Ironically, I think we have been somewhat talking past each other because we have tried to explain overmuch what our basic positions are.
My position is that most people spend less as they age (up to a point ). I think I will not be an exception to that and I am planning accordingly. Nothing to argue about there, right?
Your position (if I’ve understood) is that if someone’s spending is already based on a lot of do-it-yourself or less-than-luxurious lifestyle habits, as the idealized Mustashian might live, then this observed spending decline may not apply, and may even invert as one’s physical limitations make spending more necessary to achieve what was previously done without aid. Can’t argue with that either.
I guess we’ll leave it to the reader to decide which category they feel applies to them.
With that, I will sit down and say no more on the topic.
I apologize for my uncharitable phrasing, I was very confused by your responses and even though I acknowledged that your personal position sounds like it could very well result in less spending as you age, I thought I was very clear that I was talking about the many people in this community whose frugality is founded heavily on being able-bodied.
I never once argued that most people don't spend less as they age. That's what the data says. But this place is populated with A LOT statistical outliers who behave differently than the average. Which from the beginning has been my entire point.
And yes, the population here IS very different from average. It's extremely unusual for people to live well below their means. The very thing that makes this entire population statistical outliers is our spending habits.
If you *just* look at average American debt numbers, the explanation for reduced spending in senior years could actually be quite reasonably attributed to no longer servicing debt payments in later years and have very little to do with travel and restaurants.
The
average car payment per month in the US is $737, and the majority of households have 2 cars, 22% have 3 or more. So that's 18K of annual spending that could disappear with aging, as older people tend to keep their older cars longer than younger people.
Add in other debt payments like student loans, credit card balances, and mortgage payments, and if seniors are less likely to have these payments in later years, those could account for major populational reductions in spending with age.
Reductions that would not occur for an enormous number of people in this community. So yes, I think this population is tremendously exceptional when it comes to spending behaviours and I think, very reasonably, that the factors that impact a lot of the general populations' lifetime spending patterns are not applicable to the majority of early retirees.
It's also literally my whole job to work with statistical outliers. I spend entire days helping people who are not the statistical norm figure out how to optimize their lives within a system where the aggregate data doesn't capture their reality, so rejecting the concepts of what is "normal" and fully understanding the self is far more critical.
That has been my entire point all along, that just because something is a populational pattern of behaviour doesn't mean you should default to applying it to yourself, especially if you personally have a history of very much not following typical populational behavioural patterns.
And multiple times, I have agreed with you that YOU sound like you will follow that pattern. I never suggested otherwise.
The whole thread started with someone questioning if this pattern of behaviour is as universal as people and financial professionals make it out to be. And my point is that even if it is almost universal, what's missing from aggregate data is an understanding of *why* it's universal, and *why* someone might not fit the pattern.
And my position is strongly that in enough cases to be concerned, the reduction in spending is not a happy one, but one of necessity. Because the cost inflation of enjoying your more infirm years is not affordable to many. I've seen it first hand, over and over.
Talk to just about any senior about their teeth and you will know
exactly what I'm talking about. They will either complain about the amount they had to spend or they will complain far more bitterly about the amount they can't afford to spend.
Spend enough years hearing seniors complain about how they can't eat comfortably because of the sores in their mouths from their dentures and how they can't afford anything that works better, and you too will never assume that people are spending less because they're just so peacefully happy with taking fewer vacations.
It's also very strongly my position that if you live to 90+, you will probably be remarkably healthy compared to the average mid-70 year old. And that's not opinion, the data absolutely backs that up. So by definition, if you live that long, you are a major outlier, and infirmity is absolutely not the reason you are spending less.
Almost everyone you've ever known, including your spouse, being dead. That might be a solid reason to go to restaurants less, but probably not because you're too "slow" to go.
My WHOLE point is just to do what almost every single person does here in agonizing detail about everything: examine the assumption closely and challenge if it's a safe and reasonable thing to assume for yourself.
That's it.
