What are the Mustachian milestones for saving?

[T-Rex]

Various advice I have seen around the web:

A year’s salary saved in retirement by age 35

1x your annual salary saved in your retirement account by age 30

"by the time you are 31, you need to have at least one year’s worth of living expenses covered.”

What is your take on this?

[Charlotte]

"You should be worth $500k by the time you are 50."

Just another one for your list....

[arebelspy]

Okay, this isn't a cut and dried milestone, but I don't think I've ever shared my net worth formula, and this seems as good of a topic as any.

Here's the PAW/UAW formula for net worth from The Millionaire Next Door:
(Age)*(Salary)/10 - if you're at that, you're an average accumulator of wealth (AAW).  If you have 2x or more, you're a Prodigious Accumulator of Wealth (PAW).  If you have half or less, you're an Under Accumulator of Wealth (UAW).

I think it's mostly crap, because it doesn't work for people in their 20s (just out of college, no time to save/get out of college debt.. example, someone graduated at 22, earning 50k, age 24 now, says they should have 120k - not possible even if they saved 100% of their salary the last 2 years and had no college debt - they've only earned 100k total!), nor does it work for someone in in their late 50s-60s (let's say that same worker gets steady raises throughout his life and is earning 80k in real dollars by age 65, it says they should have 520k, much too low for someone age 65, in general - Mustachian or ERE spending aside).

And, of course, it doesn't work if you just had a big raise or whatever (but that's a minor issue, as you can use an average salary of what you've earned).

Here's the formula I like better (for an average person):
(Annual Salary)*((e^(.075*(your age - 20))) - 1)

If you want it in Excel, the formula is =(EXP(0.075*(Age-20))-1)*(Salary) . (I have age and salary reference cells in other spreadsheets, personally).

It takes into account age (and the fact that before ~20 you can't have done much in regards to net worth), it's exponential, so it shows your net worth should be growing over time (due to compound interest), and thus it works for the young and old.

Our theoretical 25 year-old earning 50k should have 22,750.  Much more reasonable.  Our 65 year-old earning 80k should have 2.2MM.  Again, reasonable for most people, who shoot to have a nest egg in retirement of a couple of million, and if they've been saving for 45 years, should easily get there (in reality, they don't, but that's because they don't save).  Most Mustachians don't need that much, so they'll FIRE far earlier than that, but I'd bet they'd all get there if they chose to keep working.

Okay, so that formula works pretty well for a normal person.

My Mustachian net worth formula is much higher expectations, and only works for someone who has always been a Mustachian naturally and/or discovers Mustachianism at a young age (in their 20s or sooner).  It changes the 0.75 to 0.15

(Annual Salary)*((e^(0.15*(your age - 20))) - 1) or =(EXP(0.15*(Age-20))-1)*(Salary)

Our 25 year-old making 50k should have about 55k (high, but doable) and our 65 year-old should have about 68 million.

This is obviously a much more aggressive formula, but it's one to shoot for, IMO, and I think most Mustachians who have always been so and/or discover it at a young age can hit those numbers if they keep working and don't FIRE, and invest wisely (think of someone like this.)

Tinker with it, if you'd like, and set some goals around it.

Enjoy!

EDIT: Fixed some typos, biggest one being changing the .075 to .15 in the second formula.  See posts below.

[arebelspy]

• zero debt, saving excess with index mutual funds
• portfolio size grows large enough to warrant switch to index ETFs (i.e cost of rebalancing commissions is more than compensated for by MER/TER savings)
• monthly savings contributions are dwarfed by the average growth rate of the investments
• savings growth vastly exceeds a safe withdrawal rate (SWR)

Those would be my milestones.

I think OP was asking for certain ages/timeframes you'd hit those at.

I.e. milestones to measure your progress against, not just lists of milestones you will hit at some point...

[starguru]

Here is one I found

http://www.financialsamurai.com/2012/05/14/the-average-net-worth-for-the-above-average-person/

of course it's just one guy's opinion but it seems to be an aggressive but reasonable set of guide posts.

However, I think according to the MMM the question is misleading.  Its all about your savings rate, now how much you have saved at any particular instance.  If you could save 50% of your income, you should have 25x your salary in 12.5 years and could theoretically FIRE then (with maybe an extra year or 2 for buffer).  The higher the savings rate, the earlier the FIRE. 

[T-Rex]

Yes, I am looking for age vs. savings. Obviously rate of saving will be different for everyone, since we may have started at different ages and may need to play catch up for a period of time.

[ender]

The specific goals I personally am shooting for are goals for the time I turn 30.

• $100k net worth in tax advantaged accounts (401k, HSA, Roth IRA)
• A completely paid off home

That will put my net worth about 3x my current salary, give or take a fair bit. I started working FT just before I turned 25 and after grad school, though at that time my net worth was positive.

[Jamesqf]

Trying to set those sorts of milestones is overlooking the unpredictability of life.  As for instance "A year’s salary saved in retirement by age 35."  At one point in my mid-30s, my entire net worth consisted of an old motorcycle, some clothes, and something less than $10.

Really, the only 'milestones' I ever set were of the "If everything goes down the tubes, how long can I keep eating? sort.

[arebelspy]

Trying to set those sorts of milestones is overlooking the unpredictability of life.

No, it's not.  One can acknowledge there will be randomness but still set goals and track progress.

Or should we throw our hands up in the air and give up on planning for the future because unexpected life events happen?

Really, the only 'milestones' I ever set were of the "If everything goes down the tubes, how long can I keep eating? sort.

Okay.  Can you see why others might want to set milestones to monitor progress and/or have something to shoot for?

[ichangedmyname]

If you want it in Excel, the formula is =(EXP(0.075*(Age-20))-1)*(Salary) . (I have age and salary reference cells in other spreadsheets, personally).

Thanks for this formula, it really puts things in perspective for me. I do believe I started way too late, (August this year) and I'm already 33. I would have to get a job that pays better so I can catch up. Gonna be working on that promotion next year then.

[Nudelkopf]

My Mustachian net worth formula is much higher expectations, and only works for someone who has always been a Mustachian naturally and/or discovers Mustachianism at a young age (in their 20s or sooner).  It changes the 0.75 to 0.15

(Annual Salary)*((e^(.075*(your age - 20))) - 1) or =(EXP(0.15*((AVERAGE(F2,G2))-20))-1)*(F3)

I like this formula! I'm totally on track!

[TorontoDeveloper]

(Annual Salary)*((e^(.15*(your age - 20))) - 1) or =(EXP(0.15*((AVERAGE(F2,G2))-20))-1)*(F3)

Thanks for that formula, I like it!

It puts me at almost exactly on track right now. I'll have to stay the course!

[chasesfish]

A million dollars in net worth, as quickly as possible.  That's been my goal for a long time,

On a side note, the MND formula also doesn't really work for those who can get to a high income at an early age. 

[T-Rex]

For the record, I like arebelspy's formula.

[arebelspy]

Cool, glad so many of you found it useful.  I've been meaning forever to create a post around it, but finally decided to at least post it here once the question arose.  Thanks for the inspiration OP.

[anastrophe]

Cool, glad so many of you found it useful.  I've been meaning forever to create a post around it, but finally decided to at least post it here once the question arose.  Thanks for the inspiration OP.

I am liking your formula as well:)

I'm way behind even by the conservative formula, but if the debt I've repaid were savings I'd be right on track. Which gives me hope that I can catch up to a reasonable level at some point soon.

[ZiziPB]

I would have been on track just fine if it wasn't for an expensive divorce and paying for an expensive college education for a DD.  Now I have some catching up to do in the next 4 years....

[ender]

Trying to set those sorts of milestones is overlooking the unpredictability of life.  As for instance "A year’s salary saved in retirement by age 35."  At one point in my mid-30s, my entire net worth consisted of an old motorcycle, some clothes, and something less than $10.

Really, the only 'milestones' I ever set were of the "If everything goes down the tubes, how long can I keep eating? sort.

An attitude of "screw setting goals" seems fairly incompatible with the idea of trying to be FI before the "normal" 65 year age.

[CommonCents]

It changes the 0.75 to 0.15

(Annual Salary)*((e^(.075*(your age - 20))) - 1) or =(EXP(0.15*((AVERAGE(F2,G2))-20))-1)*(F3)

Like your formula.  I'm not too far off, despite paying back over $200k in graduate and undergraduate student loans.  Husband is well above his marker.  Good tracker.

Just a quick note, but I think you mean 0.075 above though.

[Apocalyptica602]

Okay, so that formula works pretty well for a normal person.

My Mustachian net worth formula is much higher expectations, and only works for someone who has always been a Mustachian naturally and/or discovers Mustachianism at a young age (in their 20s or sooner).  It changes the 0.75 to 0.15

(Annual Salary)*((e^(.075*(your age - 20))) - 1) or =(EXP(0.15*((AVERAGE(F2,G2))-20))-1)*(F3)

Our 25 year-old making 50k should have about 55k (high, but doable) and our 65 year-old should have about 68 million.

Enjoy!

Thanks Arebelspy (every time I type your name it takes me a second to realize it's not pronounced 'Arr-bell-spee'... oy.)

I needed ~74k Net Worth by your mustachian version of the formula, and according to Mint I'm at ~80k. *whew*

Now that I have more than a year's salary invested, and debt free, I'm starting to see the beginnings of 'your money can work harder than you can' on the horizon.

[mrigney]

@Arebelspy Why the "AVERAGE(F2,G2)" term in your excel formula for age? I like the formula...just not understanding that part of the translation to Excel. Was expecting that term to just reference a cell giving current age. I'm way behind per the formula regardless...well, not so much the "regular" one, but the Mustachian one. Do you think it is possible to make it catch up to the Mustachian formula or is that more of an upper limit scenario?

[jrs]

Wow, I'll be spending some quality time with this formula later this week. 
Doing some off the cuff rough estimates, I can cautiously say the following:

one year ago, I hadn't found the blog and had ZERO savings and DID NOT SAVE.  I was living check to check in my early thirties.  Looks like I'll catch up the the average saver (i.e. arebelspy's formula using 0.075) around age 36-37 if I continue at my current savings rate until then. 
 
That's some powerful perspective that I didn't have before. 
Thank you, thank you.

[mushroom]

My Mustachian net worth formula is much higher expectations, and only works for someone who has always been a Mustachian naturally and/or discovers Mustachianism at a young age (in their 20s or sooner).  It changes the 0.75 to 0.15

(Annual Salary)*((e^(.075*(your age - 20))) - 1) or =(EXP(0.15*((AVERAGE(F2,G2))-20))-1)*(F3)

I think in editing your comment you accidentally put .075 where you meant it to be 0.15 in the Mustachian formula. Interesting formula and thanks for sharing! I would also add that it works best for people who started working right after college. I consider myself naturally Mustachian, but I went through undergrad, med school (where I took out a bunch of loans), 3 years of residency, and it's only my first year earning six figures at the ripe ol' age of 31. It may be worth considering changing 20 to "age when entered workforce," unless you feel like it makes more obvious the opportunity cost of getting more schooling vs. working and makes us 23rd graders realize how much it puts us behind, at least to start :).

[Heart of Tin]

@Arebelspy Why the "AVERAGE(F2,G2)" term in your excel formula for age? I like the formula...just not understanding that part of the translation to Excel. Was expecting that term to just reference a cell giving current age. I'm way behind per the formula regardless...well, not so much the "regular" one, but the Mustachian one. Do you think it is possible to make it catch up to the Mustachian formula or is that more of an upper limit scenario?

Here's a trick you can use to adjust the Mustachian formula to your situation if you started saving late. Do the following calculation in Excel with a recent year's data (don't use 2013): =Age - LN(Net Worth/Salary+1)/0.15 substituting in your age, net worth, and annual salary at that time where appropriate in the formula. Then use the result in place of the 20 in Arebelspy's formula. You can round if you'd like.
 
For example: If I were 35 years old in 2010 with a net worth of $70,000 and an annual salary of $50,000, then I would find that 35-LN(70000/50000+1)/.15 = 29.16354. I would then use the formula =(EXP(0.15*((Age)-29.2))-1)*(Salary) to track where I should be over the next few years. Because of the way my formula is derived you will always be "on track" for the year whose numbers you used to determine the factor. That is why you should use a year other than 2013. You can then verify whether you continued on track during the following years. For example using the above numbers, I would be 38 in 2013. Let's assume my salary has risen to $55,000. Therefore I should have (EXP(0.15*((38)-29.2))-1)*(55000) = $150,900 net worth.
 
Using my formula for the age factor works best when you have been saving for at least two years. You cannot use a negative net worth in the formula unless you're debt is at about a 15.1% APR.
 
The Mustachian formula gets a bit funky after about year 15 (age 35 for the original formula). For example, from year 20 (age 40) to year 21 (age 41) the benchmark net worth goes from 19.09 times salary to 22.34 time salary. About 1.53 times salary of that growth is the exponential growth of the 19.09 times salary already invested at 8% annual growth, but that leaves 1.72 times salary of growth that must be accomplished by contribution. That doesn't make any sense as you would need to contribute more than you made to keep up. So use this formula with caution past year 15, and don't be discouraged when the benchmark grows faster than your portfolio at that point in time!

Furthermore, the Mustachian formula assumes either above average annual growth for your portfolio or 50% - 75% savings rate over the next 15 years. If you anticipate a 30% - 50% savings rate instead, try using arebelspy's "normal" formula with .075, then multiplying the result by 2.5.

[CommonCents]

My Mustachian net worth formula is much higher expectations, and only works for someone who has always been a Mustachian naturally and/or discovers Mustachianism at a young age (in their 20s or sooner).  It changes the 0.75 to 0.15

(Annual Salary)*((e^(.075*(your age - 20))) - 1) or =(EXP(0.15*((AVERAGE(F2,G2))-20))-1)*(F3)

I think in editing your comment you accidentally put .075 where you meant it to be 0.15 in the Mustachian formula. Interesting formula and thanks for sharing! I would also add that it works best for people who started working right after college. I consider myself naturally Mustachian, but I went through undergrad, med school (where I took out a bunch of loans), 3 years of residency, and it's only my first year earning six figures at the ripe ol' age of 31. It may be worth considering changing 20 to "age when entered workforce," unless you feel like it makes more obvious the opportunity cost of getting more schooling vs. working and makes us 23rd graders realize how much it puts us behind, at least to start :).

Well, you do get paid in residency/fellowship.  (And not completely miserably either, if you ignore the rate per hour factor.  My friend in her first year of fellowship made only $9K less than I did at my new job when I started, after 3 years of legal experience, same as her 3 years of residency experience.)  I bet if you weren't in your first year of a high salary (throwing it off a little) it'd make more sense.  Pretend it's last year and see how you stack up.  I did 3 years of grad school and I'm only behind by a bit.  DH did 7.5 years of grad school, and is ahead by quite a bit.  It's doable.

ETA: Nevermind.  I was running numbers off the "normal" saving not mustachian saving.  We're both woefully behind mustachian saving rates, although DH less than me.  Paying back $200k in student loan debt probably had something to do with that.

[mushroom]

Actually, I'm doing ok, but I think it has more to do with my husband helping me out with loans and earning a decent salary.

[arebelspy]

It changes the 0.75 to 0.15

(Annual Salary)*((e^(.075*(your age - 20))) - 1) or =(EXP(0.15*((AVERAGE(F2,G2))-20))-1)*(F3)

Like your formula.  I'm not too far off, despite paying back over $200k in graduate and undergraduate student loans.  Husband is well above his marker.  Good tracker.

Just a quick note, but I think you mean 0.075 above though.

Indeed, that should have said .075 instead of .75, for the average one.  Thanks for catching that.  You also made me notice that in my Mustachian version of the formula I said it should be .15, and I changed it in the excel version, but I didn't change it in the actual version (you quoted, right before the excel version).

So the Mustachian Version should say .15, not .075.

Hope that didn't mess anyone up.  :)

Thanks Arebelspy (every time I type your name it takes me a second to realize it's not pronounced 'Arr-bell-spee'... oy.)

I needed ~74k Net Worth by your mustachian version of the formula, and according to Mint I'm at ~80k. *whew*

Haha, you aren't the first to think that.  :)  Hopefully my typo in the Mustachian version (above) didn't throw you off!

@Arebelspy Why the "AVERAGE(F2,G2)" term in your excel formula for age? I like the formula...just not understanding that part of the translation to Excel. Was expecting that term to just reference a cell giving current age. I'm way behind per the formula regardless...well, not so much the "regular" one, but the Mustachian one. Do you think it is possible to make it catch up to the Mustachian formula or is that more of an upper limit scenario?

Oh geez, another typo.  Thanks for catching it.  :)

It should reference a cell for age, it's just that my age is calculated in F2 (based on the current date and my date of birth) and my wife's age is in cell G2, so that averages them.  If you are single, no need for that.

I think in editing your comment you accidentally put .075 where you meant it to be 0.15 in the Mustachian formula.

Interesting formula and thanks for sharing! I would also add that it works best for people who started working right after college. I consider myself naturally Mustachian, but I went through undergrad, med school (where I took out a bunch of loans), 3 years of residency, and it's only my first year earning six figures at the ripe ol' age of 31. It may be worth considering changing 20 to "age when entered workforce," unless you feel like it makes more obvious the opportunity cost of getting more schooling vs. working and makes us 23rd graders realize how much it puts us behind, at least to start :).

Interesting.  I'll have to think about that.  20 is used, despite the fact that many of us don't start for a few years after that (and some start with student loans, etc.) and, as you say, the opportunity cost may be taken into account due to that.  Hopefully you'll have a higher salary to catch up quickly (and you will indeed be behind, but it will pay off, in theory).

Furthermore, the Mustachian formula assumes either above average annual growth for your portfolio or 50% - 75% savings rate over the next 15 years.

I'm glad you chimed in; I've enjoyed your math on several other posts.  Indeed, the Mustachian savings works best for a 50-75% savings rate (normal for most Mustachians) and works best for the initial 15 years. 

If you anticipate a 30% - 50% savings rate instead, try using arebelspy's "normal" formula with .075, then multiplying the result by 2.5.

Interesting thought, I'll have to play around with that.  Sort of in-between Mustachian and normal.

Thanks for all the proof reading everyone, I edited the post, think it's correct now.

[oldtoyota]

Using my formula for the age factor works best when you have been saving for at least two years. You cannot use a negative net worth in the formula unless you're debt is at about a 15.1% APR.
 

Interesting. Thank you. My numbers are so much higher than what I have saved. However, I am thinking it's due to the fact that my salary has gone up a lot over the past 2 or so years--and the spouse got a big raise. That might be throwing things off.

[Roses]

Great formulas, Arebelspy - thanks!  Just a clarification, in your view is the number you end up with supposed to be just the cash/investments you have or does it include everything in your net worth?  Home value, specifically.  Like if I'm supposed to have 1.3M and I only have 1M, but my home equity is 300K, does that mean I'm on track or should I have 300K more besides?  I've always been confused about that.

[Zaga]

I like Arebelspy's formula as well.  I decided to use the Mustachian formula with the start date of when our net worth crossed the zero line.  We had an average age of 37.6 then, so that sort of starts us where we really are, and leaves out the young ages when we didn't save and had large debts.

At least that way makes it look like we are doing well, where using age 20 as a starting point it says we should have something like $2 million.  Yeah...we don't!

[arebelspy]

Great formulas, Arebelspy - thanks!  Just a clarification, in your view is the number you end up with supposed to be just the cash/investments you have or does it include everything in your net worth?  Home value, specifically.  Like if I'm supposed to have 1.3M and I only have 1M, but my home equity is 300K, does that mean I'm on track or should I have 300K more besides?  I've always been confused about that.

Total.  Equity is part of your net worth.

[oldtoyota]

I love these formulas and think they are fun to use.

With all sincerity, what is the main point of using these? Curiosity? I am wondering if I am missing anything.

I ask because I know how much I need to retire, and I know about how long it'll take to get there. If I know those data points, then why would I need/want these formulas even though I have enjoyed using them?

[matchewed]

I love these formulas and think they are fun to use.

With all sincerity, what is the main point of using these? Curiosity? I am wondering if I am missing anything.

I ask because I know how much I need to retire, and I know about how long it'll take to get there. If I know those data points, then why would I need/want these formulas even though I have enjoyed using them?

Numbers like these are useful to know if you're on track, a savings version of keeping up with the Joneses. If you're already comfortable with your current metrics and how you track your progress I guess it might not be more than the curiosity you've mentioned.

[gecko10x]

I like Arebelspy's formula as well.  I decided to use the Mustachian formula with the start date of when our net worth crossed the zero line.  We had an average age of 37.6 then, so that sort of starts us where we really are, and leaves out the young ages when we didn't save and had large debts.

At least that way makes it look like we are doing well, where using age 20 as a starting point it says we should have something like $2 million.  Yeah...we don't!

That's a fairly clean way of doing it; I like it.

[oldtoyota]

I love these formulas and think they are fun to use.

With all sincerity, what is the main point of using these? Curiosity? I am wondering if I am missing anything.

I ask because I know how much I need to retire, and I know about how long it'll take to get there. If I know those data points, then why would I need/want these formulas even though I have enjoyed using them?

Numbers like these are useful to know if you're on track, a savings version of keeping up with the Joneses. If you're already comfortable with your current metrics and how you track your progress I guess it might not be more than the curiosity you've mentioned.

Okay. Thank you. =-D

It's been fun to play with them while I'm not at work.

[CommonCents]

I like Arebelspy's formula as well.  I decided to use the Mustachian formula with the start date of when our net worth crossed the zero line.  We had an average age of 37.6 then, so that sort of starts us where we really are, and leaves out the young ages when we didn't save and had large debts.

At least that way makes it look like we are doing well, where using age 20 as a starting point it says we should have something like $2 million.  Yeah...we don't!

That's a fairly clean way of doing it; I like it.

Interesting to me is if I plug the years we graduated from grad school into the mustachian equation instead of 20.  By those standards, I'm right on target and DH is well ahead.  (And that makes sense, since I paid off undergrad and grad debt he didn't have - in addition to a time period of unemployment.)

[NinetyFour]

Regarding the formulas, if I enter my present salary, the formula assumes that this has been my salary since age 20, right? (Ha--my first salary was about 13,000.)

So that's why Arebelspy's more aggressive formula says I should have a ridiculous NW of over $9million.  Hmmph.

Even the formula for a "normal" person says my NW should be $781K, when in reality it is $341K.  But then I have known for a while now that I am not normal.  ;-)

[sol]

Interesting.  I'll have to think about that.  20 is used, despite the fact that many of us don't start for a few years after that (and some start with student loans, etc.) and, as you say, the opportunity cost may be taken into account due to that.  Hopefully you'll have a higher salary to catch up quickly (and you will indeed be behind, but it will pay off, in theory).

My application of this formula has the same problem.  By virtue of getting a PhD I didn't get a real job until I was 31, so I look waaay behind despite maintaining a high savings rate.

Your second sentence above, about the hopefully higher salary catching up, is hard to implement/check without knowing what my salary would have been had I decided against going to graduate school.  Lower, certainly, but lower by 9 years of professional raises?  Kind of depends on how upwardly mobile I would have been without a graduate degree. 

Despite that, the formula with the .15 coefficient accurately predicts our net worth to within 2% if I use as a starting age our average age of starting work and our current combined income.  Coincidence?  Largely attributed to a good market year?

[T-Rex]

I love these formulas and think they are fun to use.

With all sincerity, what is the main point of using these? Curiosity? I am wondering if I am missing anything.

I ask because I know how much I need to retire, and I know about how long it'll take to get there. If I know those data points, then why would I need/want these formulas even though I have enjoyed using them?

I requested it as a way to find money milestones as I get older, and especially to find where I am supposed to be right now. It sets a yearly benchmark, so you don't wake up one day and realize you'd have to suddenly save 5x your annual salary to catch up to your goal at the target date, and also shows you where you will be each year if you meet your savings goals.

[Ovid]

Is it correct to assume if you started work after the age of 20 you would adjust up the (Age - 20) to be (Age -23)?

Since I started working at 23, (Age-23) in my case. 

[arebelspy]

It gets tricky.

I use age-20, although I didn't start my job until 22.  I also wouldn't penalize someone who started at 16 to use age - 16.

Any theoretically if you start later it's because you were doing something that will earn you more, so then adjusting it to start later doesn't offset that benefit.  20 was chosen as a good balance number for that purpose.  As noted, one may start with student loans, and that could be tweaked as well, and you could start it at the point that you hit net worth zero, as some did.

So idk, I probably wouldn't, as it just bends it to your favor, but it doesn't matter.. tweak it to whatever gives you warm fuzzies. :)

[sol]

Any theoretically if you start later it's because you were doing something that will earn you more, so then adjusting it to start later doesn't offset that benefit.

Right, but in that case you'd have to use the formula with age 20 and the income you would have had at age 20, not the much increased income that results from spending 10 extra years in school. 

If you're going to use your current income, I think it only makes sense to use the age at which you actually started working.  Otherwise, the more rapid increase in wages blows the savings curve out of the water.  And I assure you that wage discrepancy between graduate student and PhD is a dramatic one.  I currently pay more in taxes than I had in income when I was a grad student.

[CommonCents]

So idk, I probably wouldn't, as it just bends it to your favor, but it doesn't matter.. tweak it to whatever gives you warm fuzzies. :)

lol, so true, it's meaningless in a sense particularly as you tweak it to fit yourself

Any theoretically if you start later it's because you were doing something that will earn you more, so then adjusting it to start later doesn't offset that benefit.  20 was chosen as a good balance number for that purpose.  As noted, one may start with student loans, and that could be tweaked as well, and you could start it at the point that you hit net worth zero, as some did.

Although the equation already takes into consideration the higher income.  In fact as it stands, if you get a sudden boost in pay you're penalized in the equation, as noted earlier.  I'd be curious to see what equation would look like if it were tweaked to use an average instead.  (And of course, not everyone starts later because they were doing something that earns them more.  A friend is fond of saying his wife managed to pick one of the few medical specialties that cost her money to specialize, rather than just being a GP, for just one example.)

[Jon_Snow]

I judge my milestones in terms of passive income I generate. Right now, pulling in about $2500 monthly in dividends (mostly Canadian dividends, thus taking advantage of favourable tax treatment). Once I hit $3000+ later this year, I am pulling the ER ripcord.

[sol]

I think the best mustachian milestones are based on what percentage of your expenses are covered by your current savings, so that income disparity between people doesn't skew the milestone.  A system like that rewards both earning more and spending less.  Say, 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% of your expenses covered by a 4% SWR at 6.25 years, 12.5 years, 18.75 years, and 25 years of your projected spending in invested assets, respectively.

I think zero net worth is an important goal for a lot of people here.

I think big round numbers are fun to celebrate, though they are different for everyone.  For some people, half a million means they are set for life, while for others it's just getting started.  It all depends on what you spend.

[Accountess]

New to MMM so cannot comment on the title.

arebelspy- you just made my day. For our household income we are at not quite twice what the formula said!

[NinetyFour]

Sol, I like your suggestion.

Here's how it looks for me:

Current stash (in retirement funds and Roth IRA):  $276,632.94
Assuming $1400 monthly expenses in retirement, times 12 is $16,800 per year.
Drum roll....multiply stash by .04 and see if it covers expenses.....
$276,632.94 * .04 is $11,065.32, which is 66% of expenses.

So I'm not there yet, but will get there soon!

Thanks, sol!

[Reue]

My Mustachian net worth formula is much higher expectations, and only works for someone who has always been a Mustachian naturally and/or discovers Mustachianism at a young age (in their 20s or sooner).  It changes the 0.75 to 0.15

(Annual Salary)*((e^(0.15*(your age - 20))) - 1) or =(EXP(0.15*(Age-20))-1)*(Salary)

Our 25 year-old making 50k should have about 55k (high, but doable) and our 65 year-old should have about 68 million.
EDIT: Fixed some typos, biggest one being changing the .075 to .15 in the second formula.  See posts below.

Do most people graduate when they are 20 in America?

I've edited to -22 for myself (As I took a gap year after uni to go travelling). Gave a figure of ~28k which im pleased to have reached :)

[arebelspy]

Do most people graduate when they are 20 in America?

No.  22-23 is typical.

[T-Rex]

Here is an interesting calculator.

http://networthify.com/calculator/earlyretirement?income=50000&initialBalance=0&expenses=20000&annualPct=5&withdrawalRate=4