Is the once great NYT now going the way of Newsweek? Just getting more and more dumbed down? Sad.
32
I think many profiles here might benefit from financial counseling on retirement.
Everyone wants to own homes in nice places, be educated and travel. Not unreasonable but didn't seem like they were on track. So, the article was pointless.
Everyone wants to own homes in nice places, be educated and travel. Not unreasonable but didn't seem like they were on track. So, the article was pointless.
25
Was this "article" approved before publishing? I want to be compensated for wasting my time reading it. Terrible. This is something I would expect to see in the Daily News or Post, not the NYT.
34
Possibly the worst, most absurd/useless article I've ever read from NY Times.
64
What's the point of this article ? Stupidity.
20
The editors who assigned and approved publication of this article should rethink. A disaster for the Times.
34
I get it -- REVERIE
Wishes and dreams, stuff that wastes our time. Don't write any of these articles aimed at the young, who need to learn job skills, save earnestly while earning a modest living wage, and invest wisely in spite of strong headwinds like this article and a government composed of corporate shills and do-nothings.
Wishes and dreams, stuff that wastes our time. Don't write any of these articles aimed at the young, who need to learn job skills, save earnestly while earning a modest living wage, and invest wisely in spite of strong headwinds like this article and a government composed of corporate shills and do-nothings.
24
C'mon NY Times. Just a terrible article. I was waiting for the punchline, or some sort of insight. Instead, just a bunch of idiots who need ridiculous amounts of money to make their lives fulfilled and satisfied. I guess the joke is on me.
51
Nobody says they would get advice. Most would purchase multiple homes. Very dumb.
16
How big do I want my nest egg to be? As big as an ostrich egg which is 10 times bigger than a regular nest egg. The goal is not to live high on the hog or have a private jet but to live frugally and have some spare change for the rainy days to cover unanticipated medical expenses and to try to travel comfortably but not necessarily in luxury. Health is wealth and the best nest egg would be to stay healthy lose excess weight and be physically and mentally active and fit but also to have a good social life with a few good friends.
25
Um, is this just a bunch of people saying "I wish I had a million dollars"? Though obv. a million is chump change in a lot of eyes. Isn't it obvious that many people would like a whole lot of money? My assumption, though, is that most of the people profiled here do not and will not ever have the amounts they desire. So, what's the point of this piece?
29
Well, this is a "reverie" article as indicated over the title so people are giving daydream answers here instead of hard cold reality. And retirement reality is not so real since no one knows when they will die. Some will live to 90 in reasonably good health, others will die at 70 and some may die at 40, there are no guarantees. Of course people should save for short-term and long-term purposes but not knowing when the end will come keeps a lot of balls in the air.
8
I retired in 2013. The date was based on when the combination of pension benefits, Social Security, and savings would generate enough income to sustain our (wife and my) lifestyle-based on a pension option that gives my wife the identical benefit if I die first (a bit less income, but we're a team).
How much did we need? Preretirement income less deductions that don't apply post-retirement (pension, social security, medicare, union dues, and a few other items). It was easy to determine how much the pension and Social Security would contribute. We anticipate a 6% annual income from our savings--it's okay if the principal shrinks over time; we won't live forever; so, our savings don't have to either.
So far, we're ahead--returns on investments have been greater than required. We are saving the surplus for possible future lean years. Our lives are not extravagant. We travel some--about as much as we did before retirement, and we thoroughly enjoy our grandchildren. In short, we're maintaining our lifestyle, and happy to be doing so.
Really, isn't what we have how much our nest egg needed to be?
How much did we need? Preretirement income less deductions that don't apply post-retirement (pension, social security, medicare, union dues, and a few other items). It was easy to determine how much the pension and Social Security would contribute. We anticipate a 6% annual income from our savings--it's okay if the principal shrinks over time; we won't live forever; so, our savings don't have to either.
So far, we're ahead--returns on investments have been greater than required. We are saving the surplus for possible future lean years. Our lives are not extravagant. We travel some--about as much as we did before retirement, and we thoroughly enjoy our grandchildren. In short, we're maintaining our lifestyle, and happy to be doing so.
Really, isn't what we have how much our nest egg needed to be?
17
This was an embarrassing article. Who approved this? It's more shallow than a top ten article in men's health. Good job?
37
This is a perfect example of NYT limousine liberal reporting. The median US household net worth at retirement is 106k. Regaling us with stories about "regular people" who expect 8 figure nest eggs is tone deaf, elitist, and of zero interest to real American people.
67
What a sad story and so much empty reporting. Rather than the fantasies of the author's all-too-well-to-do cronies could we not have some actual facts (the "science of happier spending" was a step in that direction) and serious consideration of what a "nest egg" means and how big it needs to be?
17
Really don't know a magic number but for starters probably $10M for selected charities/endownments. Next I would like a house where we could live out our days having the help necessary to insure comfort. Something like assisted/nursing home living at home. Another $10M for the house and "staff"? As for the rest until we get to the previous, let's add $5M. So much for my shot in the dark.
"Democracy dies in the darkness" (WaPo) "Support the mission of the Times" (NYT) So much highfalutin talk, and then you give us this drivel.
69
I recommend this book that is very relivant to this article: Joe Dominguez and his partner, Vicki Robin, wrote ''Your Money or Your Life'' (Viking, 1992), a blueprint for personal finances that has touted frugality to more than 600,000 readers. https:/www.nytimes.com/1997/01/27/us/joe-dominguez-58-championed-a-simple-and-frugal-life-style.html
9
Sounds to me this was wide-open question and people just fantasized. Yes, there are more millionaires now, but some of them will die penniless. Growing a nest egg and keeping it isn't for sissies. You'll find as you get older your expectations get more realistic and more family, friends and travel are the real goals. And you can do that deliciously, savoring every moment, on a lot less than an nest egg of 1 million dollars.
18
I lieu of sounding PC, heaven forbid, would you consider dropping "sissies" from your vocabulary?
5
I was going to say what GTM said... It seems irresponsible to print these random fantasies tied to speculative passive income amounts when the interviewees were so off-base with reality. As GTM stated, a few million would be sufficient for the super-modest yearly income goals of these people. If you have $65 million in the bank, you could easily spend a few million dollars a year.
8
This article (well, I wouldn't call it that after reading it...) made me think of Dr. Evil, pinky to mouth "1 million dollars!!!???" while "Number 2" coughs...
10
I wish I could meet Susan Sosnow!
7
For the many commenters complaining about the article: don't blame the messenger.
7
The article well makes just one (unstated) point: People in general do not understand retirement finance.
48
Right. It's clear from many of these profiles that the people don't know how much (or little) the things they would want would actually cost them, how much they would need to reliably generate a given amount of post-retirement income, or how to realistically achieve their goal. Many of these "pie-in-the-sky" goals, particularly for the younger ones, may be a lot more achievable then they realize, provided they can find a good investment strategy and a good way to bind themselves to the mast of forced or automatic savings. Like everything, this is a task that seems a lot more daunting before you educate yourself (and I don't mean at get rich seminars, Trump University and its ilk). Both the profiles in the article and many of the comments here show how shockingly little people know about long-term wealth. Here's a hint: over long periods of time, it is a lot more correlated with savings discipline than it is with average yearly income.
4
Good lord, so much negativity. And so much preaching. Jeeze. Y'all need to chill. Loved the article - its just one article - and the variety of answers. Made me think.
9
I do think about the sums mentioned, but I am a regular lottery player. True, I will likely never win, but I can afford the amount that I spend. Tip, the minimum bet is all you need. Adding more dollars is insignificant in increasing your odds. I have never heard of a winner that didn't buy a ticket. Open the door to a positive Black Swan event.
5
A majority of US citizens would be happy with owing their housing and enough income for basic living expenses but that is a dream for a majority of Americans. As to us, we are very comfortable in the top 10% for retirement savings from 40 years of saving and have no debts We have enough retirement income to meet our annual expenses of roughly 30k per year. We don't need anymore than that to be happy. We won't be touching the retirement savings and a majority of our retirement savings is going to non profits and some relatives get the rest.
14
Good for you, Tom. I hope to be where you are in 20 years (and think I'm on my way). If you're thinking about where to donate your money, I hope you'll look into Give Directly, coincidentally profiled in the Times this week. I just found out that the annual global "poverty gap" is only 66 billion dollars, which means even a modestly sizable donation would have a real, more than drop-in-the-bucket effect on ending global extreme poverty. By contrast, domestic donations don't necessarily have the same outsize effect. I also learned this week that the New York City schools annual budget is 22 billion, or about 1/3 of the annual amount that could end extreme poverty if distributed directly. Certainly puts things in perspective.
2
Sounds like most people are thinking 'lottery' rather than 'work and save'. But there's no harm in dreaming as long as you prepare for reality.
10
Here is the bad news. I think these people are for real. My father also wanted 65 million to retire and he died chasing that last hope for one more big payout. He might still be around and living well on 50 million. These monetary goals are a sign of entitlement that should be ended by our tax code. We are moving in the opposite direction. People need to live on less, consume less, and leave some food at the table for other people. Two people who live to 90 may need 6 millionor certainly NOT 65 million. That is unless you are entitled jerks.
27
This kind of nonsensical story plays into a popular American mantra that politicians have spouted in past elections, and which helped give us a guy like Mr. Trump, which is: "every American can be a millionaire!" Really, folks, two houses and a Netjet on standby? Give me a break.
19
It not some so much of being able to enjoy my retirement but rather being able to survive it. I am a cancer survivor and my spouse is diabetic. Health care costs are giving me sleepless nights.
22
This has to be one of the least helpful articles I've ever read in the Times. It's a given that most people fantasize about what they would do with more money. As the saying goes, "If wishes were horse, beggars would ride." Sure, I'd like a pied a terre in Paris, my own foundation to support struggling artists, and while we're at it, a castle in Scotland. But the facts are that about half of Americans can't afford to replace the tires on their car without going further into debt. Retirements are threatened, and precious few have a serious plan just to cover rent, food and medical expenses when they stop working. This is the true story of wealth and inequality in the US, and I'd like to know why, and how to remedy the situation.
39
Thank you, NYT, for reminding me of what foolish, money-grubbing pigs so many people are.
30
This article seems to me to be so pointless that I can't even tell if it's really as bad as I think. But I think it's very bad. I see the dateline is a week old. Why is it occupying space on my page today? Is the point just to show how rich some people are, how simple-minded some people are, etc. etc. ? Is it intended to be humorous? I really tried to make sense of it, but it doesn't work for me on any level. NY Times, please be your old grey lady self again. We don't need one more dumb rag.
39
it is
3
So, um, how do you get the amounts mentioned here, given the typical respondent in the article and the ages stated for them. Are the amounts mentioned just pipe dreams for the respondents? If not, this article has failed miserably by not mentioning how someone in similar circumstances could achieve the mentioned amounts of money.
Blech!
Blech!
14
is this the stupidest article yet?? i have never seen anything soooo ridiculous.
i am living a beautiful life in Ipanema, heading to the beach every day. all for $25K a year.
i am living a beautiful life in Ipanema, heading to the beach every day. all for $25K a year.
40
Cops, firefighters, teachers. Tough jobs, often underpaid. But these folks and others fortunate enough to participate in structured employee/employer funded retirement plans receive pensions equivalent to those generated by substantial personal savings and investments. I know that many of these systems have actuarial problems, but it would seem that the development of sound opportunities - even if quite costly - for employees to participate voluntarily in a portable defined benefit program would provide a structured vehicle.
16
All I'll need is a bottle of whiskey and a revolver.
12
This is a badly written article in NY Times. The author should ask all the retired people the same question. This is because they have gone through life along with all the hassles, taxes, family, and expenses. They should know the best.
20
This makes me want to cancel my subscription. Whom does the NYTimes want to impress with this ridiculous piece? Why not address the retirement needs of normal Americans? Normal Americans can retire if they have no debt, a $500,000 portfolio, and Social Security. There are very nice places where one would not need even that much.
67
absolutely... i'm living in Ipanema, belong to the yacht club and buying a 34' sailboat as well. all on my Social Security and portfolio. great comment Richard,
these people wishing for millions $$, are better off buying lottery tickets.
these people wishing for millions $$, are better off buying lottery tickets.
10
The dumbest article NYT has ever published. How silly!
68
Are you kidding or what with this story? Exactly who are you writing for - obviously not me. Makes me want to stop reading the NYTimes.
28
You are right Rose. It is part of the Times dichotomy: blast the wealthy while subtly or in this case, no so much, extolling the life of the wealthy.
Hypocrisy writ large, in Georgia font.
Hypocrisy writ large, in Georgia font.
16
Considering that more than half of all Americans have less than $1,000 in TOTAL savings this article seems ridiculous.
58
This article is ridiculous and out of reach for the majority of the population. Get down to earth NYT.
46
Ummm......Uhhhh....This is just filler. It's not a slow news day. Why is the NYT running an article that has to do more with lottery fantasies than financial planning. You can do better.
49
How does an article like this make it into the New York Times? At a time when an entire segment of the populace is in fear and despair that the American Dream is lost to them and their children forever, and the Times itself is under attack for elitism and distortions of the truth in its reporting, you dare to publish something like this, without so much as a single word that places these notions of $20 million nest-eggs into any kind of realistic context? You think labeling the piece "Reverie" gets you off the hook as to journalistic standards and practices? Why pussyfoot around? Instead of "Reverie" why not have labeled it "'Let Them Eat Cake' Department?" The historical response to that exhortation is exactly the response that the Times, with articles like this, in the current time and place, is begging for.
47
What a click-bait article. I thought it would be some financial advice. Silly waste of space.
107
Most of the people profiled in this piece need a good financial advisor. I realize that they were asked for a number that would make them "feel" secure, which is psychological not actual but it would beehoove them to learn about what it would really take to meet their needs and desires. Most of them could get what they want in some semblance of what they stated with far less money and a solid plan. In fact, an interesting follow up story would be to hook them up with expert advisers (who have a fiduciary responsibility to them) to have them learn what they really would need and how they could get there on where they are now.
7
I get it. This is meant to be be funny! A subtle satire; a roasting of the interviewees. HaHa ...
16
I agree with previous comments. I'm not sure I get the point of this article other than to point out the differences of what people would "like to have." We would all like to have a lot of things. I was hoping for some better information or what a recommended amount is. I guess I could Google that.
23
I wish all featured people the money they want. But more importantly, I wish them good health, sound sleep, regularity, and zero visits to dentists. Then they would truly be rich. If they found love on top of that, then they would be stinking rich. For everyone else, I wish the latter two even if they don't get the extent of the first they are wishing for. Cheers. Kalidan
12
None of the people interviewed mentioned health care. Especially being self employed or unemployed. To have enough money right now to fully pay for you and your family's health care takes a pretty penny. And if you are unlucky enough to have any significant illnesses...How about making this part of the equation.
16
I would say that the journalist of this article is completely out of touch -- I can't help but think "what is the take-home pay of a NY Times writer?" Were all the interviewees from Fantasy Island?
47
$1.5 million in a developing economy buys the lifestyle equal to $10 million in LA. Food for thought.
11
travel is expensive. so is a good car. other than that, I get by. watched two old friends get consumed by cancer over the last few years, so, you know, life is short.
17
Are you kidding? Did the election not sink in yet? Have you completely missed the national dialogue? Do you have any sense of priority? Are you a reporter?
61
Perhaps the Russians have hacked the NYT and posted this fake story?
18
So long as Governor Andy doesn't open the Constitution and kill my teacher's pension (one of the best-funded pension funds in the whole country) and the GOP leaves my Social Security and Medicare alone, I will be fine with modest savings. Then again, I live modestly, with no debts, so that helps. I may never be a millionaire but I enjoy each day as the gift it is. Time is what makes us wealthy, time, if you can afford it, is the most precious thing there is. Time to just LIVE and enjoy this amazing world we live in. People who have to work multiple jobs to make ends meet are even more poor with regard to time than they are with regard for money and that is a crime. We get one life, no one should be forced to live it little better than a slave.
17
Nice letter.
3
$20 million isn't that hard to accumulate over a lifetime if you have a high income, save prudently, invest wisely and get lucky.
7
So, considering that most people do not have a high income and aren't lucky (if everyone was lucky, it wouldn't be called luck), $20 million is pretty hard to accumulate.
32
yeah but I do not see what people are doing to get to 60 million. I wanted to retire well. At 22 after engineering school, I got a good job, lived with my parents and put away 80% of my money till I moved out at 29. That is a lot of sacrifice.
11
Compared to many in this Country in the 1930's----e.g.,---take a historical perspective of your sacrifices....
3
Yeah, I would like to have $65 million when I retire. But how much do I need to be able to live the life I live now? $3M in today's dollars is enough and quite easy to achieve by just maxing the 401k every year and putting the money into SP500 index fund.
9
Yes, you should always live below your means and save as much as you can and give away as much as you can. But more importantly, you should never lose sight of the real treasures - family, neighbors, community. When something horrible happens money isn't much comfort.
26
But money definitely makes it easier to deal with!
9
I don't understand the point of this story. I guess the challenge these days is to write an article that doesn't mention Trump. Oops, I said it.
44
In reply to P in New York
Your comment made me laugh out loud. Thanks!
Your comment made me laugh out loud. Thanks!
11
LOL. Who wouldn't want 65 million for the rest of their lives?!
This article is really out of touch with what is happening with the average American and what their finances really are. Come on NY Times, you need to get real.
This article is really out of touch with what is happening with the average American and what their finances really are. Come on NY Times, you need to get real.
74
Most of the people asked seem very much out of touch with how most of the world lives. I find that a telling perspective. I don't think the staff of the paper is to blame for any self-centeredness and grotesque greed on display here.
11
This article really missed the mark.
How much money would I like to have as a nest egg? $2 billion.
How much have I saved as I enter my 60s? Not quite $2 million, which took a great deal of planning and sacrifice, while raising three children. I was the ant in the parable, and said no to my wife and kids and led a less than extravagant life to make sure I could pay for college educations and that at a minimum my wife and children were as secure as I could make them.
Is that enough, along with a couple small pensions and maxed out Social Security to meet my post-retirement ambitions?
I'll ave to get back to you, but I hope so, as I have big plans to travel the world with my wife, do some good for others, and help my children as they need it.
I was hoping this piece would document how much other people were able to squirrel away -- not fantasize about falling from the heavens -- and whether it proved adequate. Alas, no.
How much money would I like to have as a nest egg? $2 billion.
How much have I saved as I enter my 60s? Not quite $2 million, which took a great deal of planning and sacrifice, while raising three children. I was the ant in the parable, and said no to my wife and kids and led a less than extravagant life to make sure I could pay for college educations and that at a minimum my wife and children were as secure as I could make them.
Is that enough, along with a couple small pensions and maxed out Social Security to meet my post-retirement ambitions?
I'll ave to get back to you, but I hope so, as I have big plans to travel the world with my wife, do some good for others, and help my children as they need it.
I was hoping this piece would document how much other people were able to squirrel away -- not fantasize about falling from the heavens -- and whether it proved adequate. Alas, no.
86
Susan Sosnow's comment below spells out the question asked of interviewees. They were not asked what nest egg they realistically could obtain. They were asked what they would need to feel happy and secure.
12
My advice to young people is to "bank your raises." That means that if you are currently meeting your expenses and retirement savings goals, then when a raise comes along, just put it on automatic deposit in your savings account, not your checking account. If you see fit to splurge later on, the money will be in your savings account and it will be more painful to take it out and spend it unwisely. Don't compare yourself and your lifestyle to your neighbors; they may be slowly going further and further into big debt.
27
Many people say they are "going to work forever", but their bodies may say differently. My advice to my children: Live under your means, plan to be kicked out of your job by age 55 and set your savings goal accordingly.
94
Especially if you are in the software engineering field!
10
It really doesn't matter how big people want their nest eggs to be today if they put their hard-earned treasure into a 401K or other stocks because the supposed "expansion" of the dow jones and other markets are only benefiting the Top 1% Global Financial Elite Robber Baron/ Radical Religion Good Old Boys' Party. According to one report Goldman Sachs got 25% of the profits from the run-up early on. Think about that. The same Goldman Sachs men The Con Don has installed in OUR top government positions.
This is "market exuberance" without any basis. My bet is they will run the markets up again and "crash" it, make off with TRILLIONS of OUR $$$ with the new "bank bailout" theyengineer and, once again, leave average Americans trying to survive. That is market HIStory. That is what The Con Don supporters - and those who didn't vote - gave us.
Please, Good People of The United States of America, get your money out of the "markets" and put it in your local bank/ credit union. Do not let the Robber Barons put the world into economic chaos again.
This is "market exuberance" without any basis. My bet is they will run the markets up again and "crash" it, make off with TRILLIONS of OUR $$$ with the new "bank bailout" theyengineer and, once again, leave average Americans trying to survive. That is market HIStory. That is what The Con Don supporters - and those who didn't vote - gave us.
Please, Good People of The United States of America, get your money out of the "markets" and put it in your local bank/ credit union. Do not let the Robber Barons put the world into economic chaos again.
11
Insanity. Long term investing in the US stock market via a low cost fund (SP500 is a very good one) is the key to getting and growing wealth. Unfortunately your misguided opinion is a very good reason that most of those that follow that idea will have a difficult retirement.
The 500 biggest companies in the US continue to thrive and raise their prices and earnings year in and year out. Hence many of them increase the dividends they pay to their owners (aka stockholders). It really is that simple. Keeping you money in the bank many make you feel better but you are fooling yourself and anyone who reads your comment.
The 500 biggest companies in the US continue to thrive and raise their prices and earnings year in and year out. Hence many of them increase the dividends they pay to their owners (aka stockholders). It really is that simple. Keeping you money in the bank many make you feel better but you are fooling yourself and anyone who reads your comment.
11
That's funny. I didn't lose one dime in the 2008 crash because I had all my money in treasuries. My friends all lost half their 401K money and half the value of their homes. I feel pretty smart.
1
@nglea. But then the market went from Dow 6500 in March 2009 to Dow 20,000 plus, where it is today. So the smart ones are those of us who knew the 2008/2009 drop was meaningless in the big picture and have since seen their money ride its way back up to more than triple where it was at that 2008/2009 low point. Your money in treasuries may have gone up 1-3% at most.
9
Manhattan dollars apparently don't go that far or else the numbers people put out would be closer to reality.
4
The exact question asked by the author was: "how much money would you need to be 'happy?' By happy I mean to live the kind of lifestyle you want and to feel secure. To not have to worry about money. What's your number?"
12
Good for you in knowing your priorities and sticking with them. I am familiar with Gainesville and think it is a very livable city.
3
Reading this, I thought you were the only sensible one of the bunch. We Americans seem to have forgotten Thoreau's observation that one is rich in proportion to the number of things he or she can afford to live without. It's appalling that so many adults don't know that their appetite for luxury only impoverishes them.
11
As noted in Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, "it's OK to be young and poor, but do not be old and poor." My wife and I have achieved that goal so I guess we are satisfied.
8
This article seems pretty pointless because it seems to be asking the participants, "What would you do if you won the lottery." The real question should be, "What have you saved to realize a secure retirement?" As a single person, I have worked diligently to save nearly a million dollars in my 401K, will retire at age 62 (in two more years) and will have a pension that pays me $48,000 a year. The pension alone should take care of my needs because I have lived well below my means and will continue to do so in my retirement. Living below your means is the real key to having an adequate Nest Egg.
132
Living below your means is the real key to having an adequate Nest Egg.
and not having health problems or bouts of unemployment.
and not having health problems or bouts of unemployment.
30
You don't need millions! I get less than $2,500 per month from SSA and use about $500 from savings to supplement that. I own a house in the Bay Area with a low mortgage. I was fortunate to have a steady job and took full advantage of the 401k savings plan. I'm not rich but my life is. Live below your means during your earning years! You will not regret it.
64
Donna, Yoda and Petaltown are spot on. Living below one's needs and family planning (now there's an idea worth keeping and fighting for) are the keys to financial success in my mind.
Unfortunately, I found the article as a wish list of something unattainable for the respondents.
Unfortunately, I found the article as a wish list of something unattainable for the respondents.
16
This article would have been more realistic if the writer has asked the people how big do you want your nest egg to be & what are your chances to achieve it. Most of the people in this article have no chance of reaching their goal unless they win the lottery.
12
even if they win it unlikely. Who wins a lottery in the tens of millions? the typical lottery today is about $1 mn and most of that is paid out not in one lump sum but over many years. Even then, $1mn cannot even buy a house in high cost area (i.e, ny, sf, etc.).
1
I'll be 71 years old this year and at this age I will probably say that health is wealth. I still have the mental edge I had when I worked as a computer programmer and I am a rated expert chess player.
When I retired I had around 520 thousand dollars in my 401k and plunked down 300 thousand of that into a lifetime annuity giving me 1800
dollars for the rest of my life. The remaining 220 thousand I invested in a 10-yr deferred annuity giving me 500 dollars a month. Including my SS pension, after taxes I have an annual income of around 50,000.00 dollars. I live in San Antonio Texas where I live in a house worth 180,000 USD (probably 1.5 to 2 million dollar in San Francisco where I once lived for 15 years). I started to work in the US when I was 33 years old from Southeast Asia where I have a sister, whom I still support by sending her money monthly and also helping three kids of one of my cousins go through college.
Having tasted the harsh reality of life in a poor Southeast Asian country,
the money I have is good enough for me and the little things I can do to help others go through their lives even in a small way.
When I retired I had around 520 thousand dollars in my 401k and plunked down 300 thousand of that into a lifetime annuity giving me 1800
dollars for the rest of my life. The remaining 220 thousand I invested in a 10-yr deferred annuity giving me 500 dollars a month. Including my SS pension, after taxes I have an annual income of around 50,000.00 dollars. I live in San Antonio Texas where I live in a house worth 180,000 USD (probably 1.5 to 2 million dollar in San Francisco where I once lived for 15 years). I started to work in the US when I was 33 years old from Southeast Asia where I have a sister, whom I still support by sending her money monthly and also helping three kids of one of my cousins go through college.
Having tasted the harsh reality of life in a poor Southeast Asian country,
the money I have is good enough for me and the little things I can do to help others go through their lives even in a small way.
112
I just started looking into income annuities to pay out a monthly income for life... Thrilled to read it is working well for someone.
Article seems to be titled wrong - folks who seemed to be in jobs below $100k anticipating minimum of $6M for retirement... Magical thinking.
Article seems to be titled wrong - folks who seemed to be in jobs below $100k anticipating minimum of $6M for retirement... Magical thinking.
6
Annuities are almost always a terrible investment
4
This is the type of information I would have liked to see in the article---just exactly how people were handling their money to have enough for retirement. Only one interviewee gave us that.
6
Wow. What planet are these folks from? Perhaps they have the secret sauce and ambition to achieve their goals, but the nagging reality is that the vast majority of people haven't saved any $ for retirement--let alone an unforeseen or random financial emergency.
I read very little about how these dreams will actually become reality.
Why don't you interview real people?
I read very little about how these dreams will actually become reality.
Why don't you interview real people?
15
maybe these delusions are representative of "real " people?
5
Those little Escort wagons were great cars. We bought a used '83 for $900. When the engine gave out at 140K, my wife just couldn't let go so we had it rebuilt for about $2K. Give us $20 mil and we'd still be driving it. I hope it outlasts me, and it just might.
12
This seems like a dubious article, the headline should read, "How much fantasy money do people wish for". Not much substance or useful information.
112
The higher numbers mentioned in this article would place these individuals in the top 1%. I know the point of the question was the goal but looking at that real world survey results, it tells me 99% of Americans never make it.
4
"...live off interest income from the $4 million we’d have left...." Anybody at NYT do any fact-checking?? At current interest rates, that's about $40,000 a year.
2
It depends on what you buy:
1. Ladder of 1-year CDs: $45K
2. 10-year treasuries: $97K
3. Portfolio of dividend-paying common: $140K
4. Portfolio of 80% dividend-paying common, 20% preferred and REITS: $160K
5. Portfolio for maximum income, investment grade credits: $225K
6. Portfolio for maximum income, junk credits, unleveraged: $265K
7. Portfolio for maximum income, junk credits, with leverage: $320K
My portfolio is option 4, but it would pretty easy to design a suitable portfolio in each of the seven options. I wouldn't recommoend options 6 and 7 unless you're prepared to lose a lot of your principal in the next crash.
1. Ladder of 1-year CDs: $45K
2. 10-year treasuries: $97K
3. Portfolio of dividend-paying common: $140K
4. Portfolio of 80% dividend-paying common, 20% preferred and REITS: $160K
5. Portfolio for maximum income, investment grade credits: $225K
6. Portfolio for maximum income, junk credits, unleveraged: $265K
7. Portfolio for maximum income, junk credits, with leverage: $320K
My portfolio is option 4, but it would pretty easy to design a suitable portfolio in each of the seven options. I wouldn't recommoend options 6 and 7 unless you're prepared to lose a lot of your principal in the next crash.
22
No it's not. Properly invested it would be about $200,000.
12
Dream on but aim for a reasonable, doable retirement. If you exceed what's reasonable put it away for future unknowns. Happiness is freedom from worry. Freedom from worry is a major component of a healthy life. Trite but true, it's not how much, it's how healthy and happy.
5
It is way past time for the old to care about the young more than themselves. I would like an additional $1 billion to make a better country for all of our kids. I would use every penny to fight for the educational, artistic, and medical needs of our kids, their rights to their sexual orientation, to control when and how many kids they eventually have, the right to not live downstream of a polluting mine, the right to a stable sea level, the right to not see their school friends deported, and on and on. Forget us old people. We need to fix the ghastly legacy we are leaving for future generations.
2
Where on earth did the author dig up the people interviewed for this article? These people throw around figures like $65 million and $20 million nest eggs, yet statistics show that nearly half of all Americans have no savings at all. What I really want to know is how much money these people who are hoping for $65 million or $20 million ACTUALLY have, because they seem to have no grasp of how money and investments work. A really interesting article would have posed the question: how much money do you want, how much do you have and how do you intend to bridge the gap. Everything else is just fairy tales.
13
What this article shows is the low level of numeracy and investment knowledge in the general population. For someone 65 and above in the U.S., a net worth of $5M would put them in the 97th percentile. Depending on how well paid their occupations are, with median incomes, savings and income growth, the vast majority of people will not be worth $5M which seems to be the low end of people's expectations in this article. As others have pointed out they also show little understanding of the concept of return on investment. There is an urgent need for financial literacy in our country.
23
Since there are no reporting requirements for assets, the experts are very uncertain where the top percentiles start.
The general consensus is that $3.5 million in household assets puts your household in the top 1% in assets, but nobody is really too sure. The IRS guess is $2 million, but that seems much to low to most analysts.
It is widely believed that about 7% of US households have financial assets greater than $1 million, but again this is a guess based on surveys.
The general consensus is that $3.5 million in household assets puts your household in the top 1% in assets, but nobody is really too sure. The IRS guess is $2 million, but that seems much to low to most analysts.
It is widely believed that about 7% of US households have financial assets greater than $1 million, but again this is a guess based on surveys.
4
Uh, beg to differ.
2013 Federal Reserve Survey of Consumer Finances analyzed.
https://dqydj.com/net-worth-by-age-calculator-for-the-united-states/
(look at the stats for those in pre-retiree and retiree age groups)
The survey has a formal methodology so the results can be tracked over time going back decades: The 2016 results are not due out until later this year.
2013 Federal Reserve Survey of Consumer Finances analyzed.
https://dqydj.com/net-worth-by-age-calculator-for-the-united-states/
(look at the stats for those in pre-retiree and retiree age groups)
The survey has a formal methodology so the results can be tracked over time going back decades: The 2016 results are not due out until later this year.
5
Most grossly exaggerate the amount of money they REALLY need to live comfortably. I'm an early retiree. I track all of my spending. In 2016 I spent $22,460. Subtract my $3000 Obamacare tax rebate that I will soon receive, and I spent a net of $19460. I am able to live just fine on that and that includes $225 monthly for medications and $645 monthly for rent; both expenses many may not have.
You don't need a fortune to retire. Why kill yourself working into you twilight years when you can sit back, relax, and enjoy life.
You don't need a fortune to retire. Why kill yourself working into you twilight years when you can sit back, relax, and enjoy life.
8
How in the world can you find a place in Los Angeles to rent for $645 per month?? Most people here are paying close to three times that much for a two bedroom apt. (if not more).
2
I caution everyone thinking about retirement to be very vigilant about health care costs, in particular, during the Medicare years.
For people under 65, a few years ago, in almost all states. insurers could refuse to cover you, or charge a huge amount, if you had a pre-existing-condition. There were state-run high-risk pools, which besides being unreliable in most states, had rates up to about $25,000 a year per person for people 60 to 64. (The problem was not just that you might need $25,000 a year--the problem was that even if you had the $25,000 a year, the pool might be closed, have a waiting list, you might be ineligible, it might cap medical bill payout at $50,000. Kaboom to your finances.)
This changed under ObamaCare, and you don't have to worry about
pre-existing conditions or high-risk-pool ineligibility catastrophes.
If you've been following NY Times articles in the last few weeks, you'll note that we're going back to pre-existing-condition screened insurance with state-run high risk pools. Grossly underfunded, as before, despite a small amount of Federal funding.
Now, about Medicare: people over 65. Pre-existing conditions aren't an issue NOW. But, if Republicans are insisting on going back to the old system for people under 65, they want to, in time, bring us to the same system for people over 65.
And of course, if you don't have a complete eligibility failure for the high-risk-pool, perhaps it will cost $50,000 or $75,000 a year per person.
Oh boy!
For people under 65, a few years ago, in almost all states. insurers could refuse to cover you, or charge a huge amount, if you had a pre-existing-condition. There were state-run high-risk pools, which besides being unreliable in most states, had rates up to about $25,000 a year per person for people 60 to 64. (The problem was not just that you might need $25,000 a year--the problem was that even if you had the $25,000 a year, the pool might be closed, have a waiting list, you might be ineligible, it might cap medical bill payout at $50,000. Kaboom to your finances.)
This changed under ObamaCare, and you don't have to worry about
pre-existing conditions or high-risk-pool ineligibility catastrophes.
If you've been following NY Times articles in the last few weeks, you'll note that we're going back to pre-existing-condition screened insurance with state-run high risk pools. Grossly underfunded, as before, despite a small amount of Federal funding.
Now, about Medicare: people over 65. Pre-existing conditions aren't an issue NOW. But, if Republicans are insisting on going back to the old system for people under 65, they want to, in time, bring us to the same system for people over 65.
And of course, if you don't have a complete eligibility failure for the high-risk-pool, perhaps it will cost $50,000 or $75,000 a year per person.
Oh boy!
7
I am saddened this article did not take the time to talk to people of different income levels more. This article was like asking people if you had three wishes what would they be. How about some data on what the average retirement amount is and how what state you live in can stretch that money or make it disappear faster. Don't just ask people their wish is if they don't have a plan to back that up that we can learn from. What is a realistic amount needed in different parts of the country for an average person? How can paying off your home and debt before you retire help you out? This article should be in the opinion section and not the money section. This article has no value except in showing how shallow many people can be. I would expect to find this article in The Onion with the headline, "The Tooth Fairy is being asked to pay too more in order to help with people's retirement dream".
12
$36,000 after taxes sounds just fine.
2
Wild and wooly people with big dreams of serious wealth in mind. Keeping the wolf from the door might be the first objective notwithstanding a penthouse on the Park. Obviously wealth is a state of mind influenced by the really wealthy people who all feel poor because of upkeep on the villa in Anguilla.
Calculating the "magic number" needed for retirement is a major step towards a realistic retirement, and this article is totally useless and a big disappointment. I also could bore you with my retirement fantasies. A better article would have taken a few of these folks from their fantasy world and tried to help them understand how to actually plan a retirement and make a road-map to get there. This article should have been titled "Fantasy Retirements of the Rich and Not Famous". Asking people to fantasize about the ultimate retirement lifestyle is not useful and publishing it in the NYT makes me wonder how many people actually take this article seriously and think this way.
Most of the people in the article seem like they could, with help, plan a good solid retirement. No one is going to give it to you. There is no substitute for living within your means, paying off debt, figuring out your annual expenses, and using the 4% rule to arrive at the magic number. If that includes vacation homes, expensive vacations, luxury cars, and a jet-set lifestyle, then good for you!
Most of the people in the article seem like they could, with help, plan a good solid retirement. No one is going to give it to you. There is no substitute for living within your means, paying off debt, figuring out your annual expenses, and using the 4% rule to arrive at the magic number. If that includes vacation homes, expensive vacations, luxury cars, and a jet-set lifestyle, then good for you!
8
Terrible article, sad its title seemed to convey an educational article. Zero value. Show be in entertainment comedy section of paper. Embarrassed the NYT allow this to rum.
Col M
Col M
47
I (single, 43) can survive on $1000/month or $12k/year.
With a few luxuries (beer, a movie once/twice a month, dinner out once/twice a month) I can live quite comfortably on $15k/year.
Throw in my annual month-long overseas holiday, plus a few other unnecessary but nice things (sushi, sake) and I'm up to $20k/year for a lavish lifestyle.
Reduce, reuse; Use it up, wear it out, make it do or do without!
Enjoy life's simple pleasures, don't buy stuff you don't need, and even if you never made much money, you can retire by age 40.
With a few luxuries (beer, a movie once/twice a month, dinner out once/twice a month) I can live quite comfortably on $15k/year.
Throw in my annual month-long overseas holiday, plus a few other unnecessary but nice things (sushi, sake) and I'm up to $20k/year for a lavish lifestyle.
Reduce, reuse; Use it up, wear it out, make it do or do without!
Enjoy life's simple pleasures, don't buy stuff you don't need, and even if you never made much money, you can retire by age 40.
17
Ha, you're in Japan. What if you were in the US, paying $800 month for medical insurance and $600 a month in property tax?
9
until health problems set in.
7
Also, you seem to be unmarried and with no kids. Of course, children are a lifestyle choice I assume, but most people still have children I suppose, and hence $12K of post tax income isn't going to cut it. Plus when you've been married as long as I have, then you have to figure in the cost of date-night, which I think is critical to marriages, post-kids.
That said, I do applaud your outlook and the way you've slimmed down your needs/wants/lifestyle. We could all learn from you.
That said, I do applaud your outlook and the way you've slimmed down your needs/wants/lifestyle. We could all learn from you.
5
The editor thought this article was newsworthy? Sorry I happen to be one of the people that thinks it would be nice to know a rational reason for "enough is enough"
13
May I suggest that these people with their delusional life goals take any money they have now and immediately enroll in two classes: Finance 101 and Reality 101.
58
Pretty empty article. The headline leads one to expect this to be an article about saving. There is no connection between the wished for amount and reality for these people.
31
Not one person thinks they will get sick and need long term care or advanced medical services. Sadly 70% of us will. I gave up thinking I would retire. I save now for illness that feel inevitable. I eat well and try to keep active etc., but there is too much illness in my family to ignore reality. I figure I will work until I am too sick to continue, or no one will pay me anymore. I don't see social safety nets growing anytime soon, so at 47 anything could happen between now and then in that regard. I never had the dream of retirement, so this is not a big shock. The American Dream has left me long ago.
6
it left many people too. Even many who had decent pensions have been cheated out of them.
8
New reporter? Harmless assignment to teeth on? More like a brief escape into fantasy.
Half of Americans don't know where they'd get $2000 for an emergency, let alone $65 million. Millions of Americans will enter retirement with no savings (which has always been true) and lots of debt (more so than in the past).
Half of Americans don't know where they'd get $2000 for an emergency, let alone $65 million. Millions of Americans will enter retirement with no savings (which has always been true) and lots of debt (more so than in the past).
27
What a depressing read and emblematic of the out-of-touch elites. Most of these people must not understand the meaning of the word "comfortable." If this is what we've come to, God help us. A better title would be, "What Would Do if You Won the Lottery?" I thought I was a liberal but articles like this remind me just why we are now enjoying Pres Twit.
6
These people are certainly out-of-touch, but they are not elites. Why are you calling them that?
2
All I can say to the vast majority of individuals profiled in this article? Good luck with that....
5
What a ridiculous article! It would help if the author or an expert had explained that you can safely draw 3-5% of your nest egg and never run out. Therefore, a nest egg of $20 million would generate something approaching a $1 million a year--not $100,000 as one person interviewed mistakenly stated.
If your math is off by a factor of ten, who wants to read about your thoughts or plans?
Usually, these articles make this math seem so complicated, when the basic outlines of the math can be done in your head.
If your math is off by a factor of ten, who wants to read about your thoughts or plans?
Usually, these articles make this math seem so complicated, when the basic outlines of the math can be done in your head.
17
This is why lotteries bring in so much money. A lottery ticket is a ticket to dream. Dreams are not realities, and most don't win lotteries. A retirement based on dreams is unlikely to make a retiree happy. Planning for retirement, meeting your expectations head on is a happier approach.
3
A lottery ticket is a ticket to dream.
30 years ago maybe. Today, considering that most have a payout of about $1 mn (and that over 20 years - much lower in one lump sum), that is not much $1 mn does not even buy a house in a high cost city such as NY or SF.
30 years ago maybe. Today, considering that most have a payout of about $1 mn (and that over 20 years - much lower in one lump sum), that is not much $1 mn does not even buy a house in a high cost city such as NY or SF.
I was disappointed by what I DID NOT find in this article. Anyone can report on people's fantasies; I was expecting to hear what folks my age actually have saved. In this upside down society it's hard to gage how well prepared one is compared to one's peers. And no, I'm not looking for solicitations from financial planners.
13
A little bit of Googling will yield charts on how much Americans have saved.
1
Leaving aside the mteaningless numbers for a moment, an obvious common trend here is that none of those people have even a remotest chance of amassing that kind of wealth over their lifetimes. Why all the pipedreams then? Because they have been watching and reading way too much wealth porn, with NYT being one of the major purveyor of that genre. That is an essential element of manufacturing consent in a the US - imagining themselves among the 1% makes people more tolerant of the system generating such outrageousi inequality. Kepp dreaming, loosers. And keep working those dead-end low wage jobs to get youe masters a new yacht.
5
Several of the people interviewed in this article seem to have an unrealistic idea of the returns available (now and for the foreseeable future) on fixed income investments. E.g., Ms. McBurney, who works for a financial services company, says she would "live off the interest income" from $4 million, while maintaining homes in northern NJ, Maine and Paris. If she invested the $4 million today in 10 year US Treasuries, currently paying 2.4% annually, she would receive pre-tax interest income of $96K. After taxes, there is very little chance she would be able to afford the lifestyle she's envisioning. She might be able to maintain one of those properties (assuming it's fully paid for) and her other fixed living expenses, but not a whole lot beyond that.
4
Even if you did what I do, and invest in a balanced portfolio of common stock, preferreds, and REITs, you could only safely get about $160K in income from $4 million. I'd ditch the house in NJ, taxes are too high there.
4
Agree about the NJ house, and another one of the three would need to go as well. I guess you and I may have different definitions of "safe" from a retirement perspective. IMO, if one is a retiree and doesn't have real prospects for accumulating $$ through labor in the future, the only "safe" way to generate income is via assets like Treasuries with guaranteed principal. Common stocks, preferreds and REIT shares are subject to reduction in value, sometime precipitous reductions, and for some retirees there's insufficient time horizon to wait around for the correction back to prior levels. Certainly a portfolio of equities and REITs and the like represents, for many, a reasonable (and necessary) degree of risk in exchange for the higher return over fixed income securities, but it's not really "safe" in the same sense. Cheers!
1
@A Reader - But a guy who had $4 million, and can live entirely on the income of $160K, would not have to worry too much. Assuming you were diversified into 50 names, you would not feel much pain if a couple of them stopped paying or cut the dividend. Moreover, most dividends do increase every year, so you would eventually make up the loss if you were patient. Of course, if there was a catastrophic collapse of the economy, then you might be in trouble, but so would everyone else.
If you have $4 million, you can always keep a couple hundred thousand in cash, just in case.
If you have $4 million, you can always keep a couple hundred thousand in cash, just in case.
all the comments bring me back to Kurt Vonnegut teasing Joseph Heller at a social gathering with major financial folks. Vonnegut pointed to their host and said he had earned in one day more than Heller collected in a lifetime from "Catch 22". Heller's response was that he had the one thing that the billionaire obviously did not, ENOUGH.
save, invest in total market index funds (if they burst, so does the world economy), buy what you need and can afford, splurge when you have it, ignore financial porn. enjoy life.
save, invest in total market index funds (if they burst, so does the world economy), buy what you need and can afford, splurge when you have it, ignore financial porn. enjoy life.
10
yo0u forgot to mention saving for a rainy day too.
1
It's astounding the wealth that is accumulated by a small group of individuals that vastly exceeds their capacity to utilize in this lifetime or that of multiple future generations.
With that in mind, I asked you to compare how we look at those that excessively accumulate items other than money (such as newspapers, magazines, cats, rusted out cars, etc.).
Isn't it fascinating, if you excessively gather money you’re a genius and accumulate anything other than money you're diagnosed with the mental disorder of hoarding.
I would argue they are one and the same, and have a hard time appreciating the continuous crying for tax relief by those at the very top of the pyramid. Maybe some bright and hopefully excessively wealthy psychologist or psychiatrist can explain this dichotomy.
I do appreciate those that recognize their hoarding of wealth and take the courageous steps to solve problems facing the World that only their accumulated assets can address.
With that in mind, I asked you to compare how we look at those that excessively accumulate items other than money (such as newspapers, magazines, cats, rusted out cars, etc.).
Isn't it fascinating, if you excessively gather money you’re a genius and accumulate anything other than money you're diagnosed with the mental disorder of hoarding.
I would argue they are one and the same, and have a hard time appreciating the continuous crying for tax relief by those at the very top of the pyramid. Maybe some bright and hopefully excessively wealthy psychologist or psychiatrist can explain this dichotomy.
I do appreciate those that recognize their hoarding of wealth and take the courageous steps to solve problems facing the World that only their accumulated assets can address.
5
It depends. If you have hundreds of attractive vases and figurines displayed in fancy display cabinets, you're not a hoarder. If, like me, you have thousands of valuable records in protective plastic sleeves stored on shelves in catalog number order, you're not a hoarder.
Most people who manage to accumulate large sums of money are very well-organized and tightly disciplined. They have spreadsheets detailing the return on every asset, and know exactly how and why they are invested.
Most people who manage to accumulate large sums of money are very well-organized and tightly disciplined. They have spreadsheets detailing the return on every asset, and know exactly how and why they are invested.
3
I recently returned from Vienna while there I toured the palace. All those thousands of dishes, silverware, goldware in fancy displays, highly catalog and very tightly disciplined. If I understand you, being OCD about objects or money makes hoarding acceptable, is that correct?
2
Exactly what I have is what I can be happy with. I'm 63, plan to retire at 65 and claim social security at 66. I will have about $1 million in retirement savings in a few months, after raising a daughter as a single parent since the age of 35. I currently earn $115,000 a year, but years ago I did the smart thing. I maxed out both my employer's retirement plan and my Roth IRA, so my actual take-home pay is about $66,000 a year, and I can still take several vacation trips per year. What the others have said is true - as you age, you realize that "stuff" is meaningless and that life experiences and giving back are so much more valuable.
26
For the record: Valerie Smaldone is 58, not that anyone cares.
The woman who has figured out how to thrive whilst living on $36,000 per year is destined to be happy. The others, in contrast, will always be wanting. Sure, it's dressed up with desires to give to charity and pay off debts for loved ones. But the amounts are ridiculously large and out of reach.
Thirty six grand is attainable.
Blessed is she who knows it is enough.
Thirty six grand is attainable.
Blessed is she who knows it is enough.
75
I was unclear on how Ms. Smaldone's $250,000 in "retirement income" related to the $10,000 "stipend." Is the retirement income her retirement fund, or the amount of interest her fund generates in a given year? If the latter, that's a sizable retirement fund, but 250K in annual dividends is equivalent to more than a 10K stipend per month.
7
I would have liked to see a photo of Ms. Sosnow, the one person who understood that you can be happy with "enough". 3 years ago I was making 100k, putting work before my health, and living an exhausted, unhappy life. I made a change when forced to have a major surgery. Now I work reasonable hours, get every weekend off, have much less responsibility, and make 48k benefits. At almost 60 years old, I would love to work less, but it's hard to find professional 30 hr/week jobs with benefits. Although I'll work to 65 to make sure I have "enough" for retirement, money is definitely NOT everything. What I need more of is time that's my own, not my employer's.
9
What planet do these folks live on?
Slow down and smell the flowers-jeez.
Slow down and smell the flowers-jeez.
4
Years ago my kids went to a local Dentist while I stayed with my old Dentist at a different office. My kids' Dentist Son is now worth over 50 BILLION. I often dream that if I had gone to the same Dentist I would have been offered a chance to invest in his Son's startup when it was being developed in a dorm room in Cambridge. C'est La Vie!
2
Er, he has stock that is nominally valued at $50 billion, all in a company that he founded. But if he, as the founder, tried to sell all his stock, he would soon find out what it is really worth. It's only worth $50 billion as long as he doesn't try to sell it!
6
None of these people seem to have a true financial plan, as opposed to dreams. Spending 4% of one's total principal per year is reasonably safe (that is $40,000 per million), but one's primary residence is probably best excluded from that total. The financial prognosis for most of these folks is not good. Not that the NYTimes hasn't tried to educate. Very few have the financial discipline.
7
The NY Times is always moaning about the huge gap between the ultra-rich and everyone else. This is the reason why - 'everyone else' is clueless about money, which makes it easy for those who are highly knowledgeable and tightly focused to accumulate large sums.
You guys out there who blow $150 a month in smartphone bills - your former money is now in the brokerage accounts of people who own huge blocks of Verizon and AT&T. Every quarter, they get richer!
You guys out there who blow $150 a month in smartphone bills - your former money is now in the brokerage accounts of people who own huge blocks of Verizon and AT&T. Every quarter, they get richer!
8
don't forget the families with each member owning a $700 apple phone!
3
This is a trick question, right? Many people are truly getting into the Trumpflation Rally. But, when today's 60 years old is ready to retire, he/she will suffer the consequences.:
1. All od the money will be owned by the 0.0001%.
2. No nation will trade with us, since they'll all be bound by various regional trade pacts.
3. The stock market will be covered over, like Lady Liberty at the end of Planet of the Apes. All of the businesses will corporations will be history, because nobody will have actual cash--or even electronic--money.
4. Make America a Barter System Again!
https://thetruthoncommonsense.com
1. All od the money will be owned by the 0.0001%.
2. No nation will trade with us, since they'll all be bound by various regional trade pacts.
3. The stock market will be covered over, like Lady Liberty at the end of Planet of the Apes. All of the businesses will corporations will be history, because nobody will have actual cash--or even electronic--money.
4. Make America a Barter System Again!
https://thetruthoncommonsense.com
OK darlings we all love to fantasize about what we'd do when our ship comes in, and to what charities we newly-minted philanthropists would love to contribute, but the fact remains that most of us live paycheck to paycheck. So know that the "number" at which many of you will feel comfortable is laughable and insulting; most of us who are educated and employed have far humbler means and aspirations, and those of us who are less fortunate struggle to make do daily. So while it's tempting to engage in make believe, I would implore you, with all due respect, to get over your preciousness, trim your sails, and dive into reality. I live firmly in the world where I am terrified by this new administration, but this version of privilege and/or entitlement may be the sort of untethered reality that fuels those I oppose. Please, let's be careful.
17
$1.5 million in 2016 dollars. Assuming the 4% rule holds, I can safely withdraw about $60,000 a year off of that. My current expenses are around $45k per year and I expect them to go up a bit due to things like healthcare. I have about 10% of what I need invested at this point (age 26). I'm looking to retire by 40.
6
remember to work in health problems, kids, unemployment and other potential disasters.
3
I like your plan except for such an early retirement. You'll just be hitting your stride in competence at that age. Maybe consulting or as a part-time outsourced employee.
1
This is patently silly - a better question would be:
"A - What are your savings right now?"
"B - What do you want your nest egg to be?"
"How are you going from A to B?"
People that are daydreaming about a multi-million dollar nest egg while saving absolutely nothing are more than a bit sad or regular lottery players - or probably both.
"A - What are your savings right now?"
"B - What do you want your nest egg to be?"
"How are you going from A to B?"
People that are daydreaming about a multi-million dollar nest egg while saving absolutely nothing are more than a bit sad or regular lottery players - or probably both.
50
This article reminds me of a cartoon caption that, clearly, stuck with me: "Money can't buy happiness, but it can buy a lot of solid comfort."
8
Maybe I'm missing something, but I found this article shallow. Random people are throwing out large amounts of money that they'd like to have as their 'nest egg'?
What this article doesn't get into: are these people actually routinely setting aside the money to fund these retirement dreams? Are they on a timeline to achieve their lofty goals of amassing between $6 million and $65 million? I suspect the majority are not setting aside nearly enough, so what is the point of this? Future disappointment?
With the exception of Ms. Sosnow, who seems to have her feet planted firmly on the ground, there seems to be little basis in reality here. I'd rather read about what various people are actually saving, and not merely their projected pipe dreams. It would also be helpful to read about people who have retired within the last 5-10 years, how much they planned on, and how it is working out for them so far. Especially if they are having to get by on less than they imagined they would, for example if they experienced a job loss sooner than they'd planned, or a health issue, etc. What trade-offs have they made?
What this article doesn't get into: are these people actually routinely setting aside the money to fund these retirement dreams? Are they on a timeline to achieve their lofty goals of amassing between $6 million and $65 million? I suspect the majority are not setting aside nearly enough, so what is the point of this? Future disappointment?
With the exception of Ms. Sosnow, who seems to have her feet planted firmly on the ground, there seems to be little basis in reality here. I'd rather read about what various people are actually saving, and not merely their projected pipe dreams. It would also be helpful to read about people who have retired within the last 5-10 years, how much they planned on, and how it is working out for them so far. Especially if they are having to get by on less than they imagined they would, for example if they experienced a job loss sooner than they'd planned, or a health issue, etc. What trade-offs have they made?
215
I do pretty well, certainly not a 1% but secure. I have several retirement annuities already paying out and low 7 digit savings and still working full time and guaranteed military health care for life. I read this and thought it would be educational but all it was was random pipe dreams.
Col M
Col M
3
During our working year we put 15% of our gross income into our 403b TIAA-CREF retirement accounts (50% bonds and 50% stocks). I retired early to pursue volunteer work. My spouse will retire at age 70. Our TIAA-CREF plus Social Security will provide an income LARGER than during our working years. We also saved 10% of each paycheck so we could pay cash for a modest car every 7-10 years.
4
99 out of 100 people will retire with less than $5 million to their name in current dollars (actual statistic).
For almost all people, the numbers bandied about in this article are totally unrealistic.
I've told my students to start saving as soon as they can, just put the maximum that they can legally put into a Roth IRA invested in index funds. If started as soon as they have earned income to invest and followed faithfully, by the time they are of retirement age 40 or so years later they will have a nest egg of approximately $1-2 million in current dollars. This should be adequate for a comfortable retirement. It is also a realistic goal.
I recommend that the contributions be made automatically by the index fund debiting their bank account so that they never see the money and never miss it in their daily lives. "Insure, invest, and spend the rest" is a mantra that works well (the theme of a book I've used in my classes, "How to Get Rich Slowly, But Almost $urely").
For almost all people, the numbers bandied about in this article are totally unrealistic.
I've told my students to start saving as soon as they can, just put the maximum that they can legally put into a Roth IRA invested in index funds. If started as soon as they have earned income to invest and followed faithfully, by the time they are of retirement age 40 or so years later they will have a nest egg of approximately $1-2 million in current dollars. This should be adequate for a comfortable retirement. It is also a realistic goal.
I recommend that the contributions be made automatically by the index fund debiting their bank account so that they never see the money and never miss it in their daily lives. "Insure, invest, and spend the rest" is a mantra that works well (the theme of a book I've used in my classes, "How to Get Rich Slowly, But Almost $urely").
2
I thought there might be some real insights here. But most of these people seemed to pluck a number out of the air. Why stop at the oddball amount of $65 million? Why not shoot for the moon and bust your fantasy into the billions?
While there were some nods to charity, I mostly learned how shallow some people can be about a topic that I thought would induce deeper reflection.
I’m 62, married, with two daughters in high school. We’ve got most of their college costs covered, leaving us with a bit north of a million. And I just entered semi-retirement. We’ve carefully saved and planned. We are usually pretty frugal. With Social Security, we’re looking at a comfortable lifetime annual income of $90,000, which is plenty, even allowing for occasional trips abroad.
Most importantly, we have calculated what we need to be happy. Right now, it means devoting more time volunteering and with my family, before my girls jump the nest. It’s not cheap but it’s hardly absurdly exorbitant.
While there were some nods to charity, I mostly learned how shallow some people can be about a topic that I thought would induce deeper reflection.
I’m 62, married, with two daughters in high school. We’ve got most of their college costs covered, leaving us with a bit north of a million. And I just entered semi-retirement. We’ve carefully saved and planned. We are usually pretty frugal. With Social Security, we’re looking at a comfortable lifetime annual income of $90,000, which is plenty, even allowing for occasional trips abroad.
Most importantly, we have calculated what we need to be happy. Right now, it means devoting more time volunteering and with my family, before my girls jump the nest. It’s not cheap but it’s hardly absurdly exorbitant.
47
These amounts for nest eggs seem insanely high! What my spouse and I need to live "comfortably" means doing exactly as we are doing: aiming for a nest egg between $2 and a half to 3 million and taking a 3-4% annual draw from the total (depending on returns) .... plus social security.
My spouse and I live on significantly less now and want for nothing, partly because we live in a decent sized city with a low cost of living and partly because we've learned to live contentedly within our means.
We're frugal but still eat out with friends several times a month, live in a nice home ( although by no means a McMansion) in a safe neighborhood with a strong community network.
We take long walks, enjoy cooking, reading, and hanging out with friends. We volunteer for our favorite charities and are more active in political activities than ever.
We don't plan to change much when we retire. Maybe we'll downsize, spend more time pursuing new interests, take longer walks, volunteer more, dance more and....knock wood..avoid spending all the money we've planned to use for future medical costs.
That's all we need to be comfortable. I could certainly list plenty more that would be " icing on the cake": having enough extra to put the grandkids through college or help others in need, give to our favorite causes, etc...but as for being comfortable, we'll be happy abd feel blessed to maintain the lifestyle we have.
My spouse and I live on significantly less now and want for nothing, partly because we live in a decent sized city with a low cost of living and partly because we've learned to live contentedly within our means.
We're frugal but still eat out with friends several times a month, live in a nice home ( although by no means a McMansion) in a safe neighborhood with a strong community network.
We take long walks, enjoy cooking, reading, and hanging out with friends. We volunteer for our favorite charities and are more active in political activities than ever.
We don't plan to change much when we retire. Maybe we'll downsize, spend more time pursuing new interests, take longer walks, volunteer more, dance more and....knock wood..avoid spending all the money we've planned to use for future medical costs.
That's all we need to be comfortable. I could certainly list plenty more that would be " icing on the cake": having enough extra to put the grandkids through college or help others in need, give to our favorite causes, etc...but as for being comfortable, we'll be happy abd feel blessed to maintain the lifestyle we have.
13
interesting world these people live in...
2
Hmm.. based on the headline, I thought the article would give some guidelines about how to judge when enough is enough in savings to support retirement. Instead, it was a series of anecdotes some from people who have no idea how much they need or why.
192
Surprising how universally high their estimates are. That, coupled with the fact that they then talk about the things they might do if they had the desired pile lead me to believe the following:
1. they are envisioning an unrealistically high number - perhaps to avoid figuring out how to do the things they say they'd do if they had the money.
2. they are completely out of touch with financial modeling, and seeing how far money goes when invested properly.
"Pigs get fed; hogs get slaughtered." Might want to keep that in mind as you plan your retirement, and the nest egg you need to realize your dreams. Keep it real and you just might make it. $20 million? $10 million? For the majority of people that simply is not going to happen - hoping it will is a sure path to disappointment; and an excuse not to live your dreams. Get real!
1. they are envisioning an unrealistically high number - perhaps to avoid figuring out how to do the things they say they'd do if they had the money.
2. they are completely out of touch with financial modeling, and seeing how far money goes when invested properly.
"Pigs get fed; hogs get slaughtered." Might want to keep that in mind as you plan your retirement, and the nest egg you need to realize your dreams. Keep it real and you just might make it. $20 million? $10 million? For the majority of people that simply is not going to happen - hoping it will is a sure path to disappointment; and an excuse not to live your dreams. Get real!
6
Unfortunately, money does not make you a better person or intrinsically happy. Nor should net worth define a person's life. The people that I know who are the happiest, volunteer their time and energy for causes greater than themselves. However, money can make a big difference in lifestyle, if you experience health problems as you age. I estimate that $50,000 a year with a $100,000 emergency fund should enable most Americans to lead a fulfilling life in retirement with the exception of those who choose to live in the most expensive cities.
5
With most Americans unable to come up with $400 (not million or thousand, hundred) this article is wildly out of touch with the reality that Americans face. Nobody needs $5 million or $10 million or $20 million to retire and the fact that the New York Times is publishing such a piece is depressing. Regular financial advice states that you should have about 10 times your current salary available at retirement. This would be about $500,000 for a middle class person and probably out of reach for most people regardless.
More people than just the super-rich read your newspaper and you may wish to take that into consideration prior to publishing such pieces in the future.
More people than just the super-rich read your newspaper and you may wish to take that into consideration prior to publishing such pieces in the future.
98
Well said.
4
More people than just the super-rich read your newspaper and you may wish to take that into consideration prior to publishing such pieces in the future.
have you seen the NY Time's real estate section recently?
have you seen the NY Time's real estate section recently?
My wife and I are financially independent, she has her own accounts, the house is paid off, cars are also, we are healthy. So, our medical needs are modest. I had a shoulder replacement last year, total cost came to about $500 including Xrays, lab tests and therapy.
Funds are a suckers game, you pay someone to buy equities and manage them. Median fund charge is .095%. I have a return on investment of 4.2% by buying and holding what we used to call widows stocks, old solid good paying dividend equities. So $3m would give an income of $120K minus taxes. We were able to spend a month in Spain last fall, flew sardine class, may go for better seats next time. I drive a 91 F150 in good condition, and wife has a 93 Buick Le Sabre, that will have to be replaced. We do not need a big fancy house, have a pool, just remodeled the kitchen. Don't need Viking appliances, did buy a top of the line Bosch oven though.
If I had $10M I would donate a few $k a year to the SF Opera, it is deductible. We stayed in 4* hotels in Spain and Portugal, one on Calle Mayor in Madrid just a walk from the major attractions. We don't have to be pampered. You can get by fine on $1.5M-$2M in investment. And at our age, if we sell an equity or two, it will not matter.
I lost equity in 2008, but still had the shares, and bought more on the cheap, I am back to 08 level, even after taking income from them. The market is overpriced at the moment, funds looking for return. Trump scares me.
Funds are a suckers game, you pay someone to buy equities and manage them. Median fund charge is .095%. I have a return on investment of 4.2% by buying and holding what we used to call widows stocks, old solid good paying dividend equities. So $3m would give an income of $120K minus taxes. We were able to spend a month in Spain last fall, flew sardine class, may go for better seats next time. I drive a 91 F150 in good condition, and wife has a 93 Buick Le Sabre, that will have to be replaced. We do not need a big fancy house, have a pool, just remodeled the kitchen. Don't need Viking appliances, did buy a top of the line Bosch oven though.
If I had $10M I would donate a few $k a year to the SF Opera, it is deductible. We stayed in 4* hotels in Spain and Portugal, one on Calle Mayor in Madrid just a walk from the major attractions. We don't have to be pampered. You can get by fine on $1.5M-$2M in investment. And at our age, if we sell an equity or two, it will not matter.
I lost equity in 2008, but still had the shares, and bought more on the cheap, I am back to 08 level, even after taking income from them. The market is overpriced at the moment, funds looking for return. Trump scares me.
42
Gee, great minds must think alike! I checked the dividend return on my stock portfolio, and it is 4.21%. I am 83% common, 10% preferred, and 7% REIT.
I also have a lot of money uninvested, but there is nothing worth buying right at the moment. I have a lot of faith in the stock market to screw up and crash, so I'm not going to worry about it.
I also have a lot of money uninvested, but there is nothing worth buying right at the moment. I have a lot of faith in the stock market to screw up and crash, so I'm not going to worry about it.
1
Since I'm retired, I'm pretty much stuck with what I've got. Most people would say I'm pretty well-off, but I continue to live modestly. Because I live below my income in retirement, I'm still a net saver, which is how you become well-off in the first place.
However, if I had known what I know today about investing 35 years ago, I would be really rich. Unfortunately, you have to learn from experience, and it takes a while for all the lessons to sink in. But you can't go too far wrong by avoiding debt, saving money, and investing in good companies at low valuations.
However, if I had known what I know today about investing 35 years ago, I would be really rich. Unfortunately, you have to learn from experience, and it takes a while for all the lessons to sink in. But you can't go too far wrong by avoiding debt, saving money, and investing in good companies at low valuations.
34
What I have noticed about nest eggs is that once you have achieved your number you start to set a new goal. This may be what is called, "hedonic adaptation." I think you have to start with an achievable figure in mind to have the motivation to save money consistently. It sounds like some of the people interviewed have an ideal number without a realistic path to achieve it except for getting that proverbial windfall.
For most people buying depreciating assets, such as cars, to impress others will make it much harder for them to save even a modest nest egg. Just do the math.
For most people buying depreciating assets, such as cars, to impress others will make it much harder for them to save even a modest nest egg. Just do the math.
16
Here's my favorite story about hedonic adaptation, as told by the late great actor Richard Burton who married the beautiful actress, Elizabeth Taylor.
Burton was know for giving Taylor the most expensive and gorgeous fine jewelry. One was a famous, knuckle-sized yellow diamond. He said that when Elizabeth received a new fabulous diamond present from him, she was wildly ecstatic. But after about three days, things went back to the usual. I'm not criticizing either of these terrific people. Just pointing out human nature.
Burton was know for giving Taylor the most expensive and gorgeous fine jewelry. One was a famous, knuckle-sized yellow diamond. He said that when Elizabeth received a new fabulous diamond present from him, she was wildly ecstatic. But after about three days, things went back to the usual. I'm not criticizing either of these terrific people. Just pointing out human nature.
4
The best thing you can “buy” with millions of dollars is not having to worry about money.
Put those millions in Vanguard/Fidelity index funds, let it sit there for decades and decades, passing it down to generation after generation. Ignore day-to-day and year-to-year ups and downs as they are meaningless. If you have financial discipline (but most, unfortunately do not), the dividends/growth should pay for your day-to-day needs and still continue to grow immensely.
Spend time doing things you like—exercise, time with family, reading books, etc. Note that most of these things do not carry a price tag.
And don’t show off by buying “stuff.” If you do that, pretty soon, people will have their hands out asking for you to buy “stuff” for them too.
Live modestly. Don’t “live like a ‘millionaire.’” Instead, live like a “regular person” but know that you got big bucks tucked away if you ever need it. That, in my opinion, is how to “live rich.”
Put those millions in Vanguard/Fidelity index funds, let it sit there for decades and decades, passing it down to generation after generation. Ignore day-to-day and year-to-year ups and downs as they are meaningless. If you have financial discipline (but most, unfortunately do not), the dividends/growth should pay for your day-to-day needs and still continue to grow immensely.
Spend time doing things you like—exercise, time with family, reading books, etc. Note that most of these things do not carry a price tag.
And don’t show off by buying “stuff.” If you do that, pretty soon, people will have their hands out asking for you to buy “stuff” for them too.
Live modestly. Don’t “live like a ‘millionaire.’” Instead, live like a “regular person” but know that you got big bucks tucked away if you ever need it. That, in my opinion, is how to “live rich.”
227
Most of this advice is pretty good, but index funds have become a fad. Index investing worked pretty well in the past, when only a few people are doing it. However, if everyone does it, then it will turn into a bubble just like every other investing fad.
Everyone is looking for a sure thing, but if everyone finds it, then it's not sure any more!
Everyone is looking for a sure thing, but if everyone finds it, then it's not sure any more!
4
@Jonathan… That’s like saying… “Eating fruits and vegetables is good. So, if you change your diet to eat more fruits and vegetables, you’ll probably be among the healthier people in the population. But if everyone does it, then you won’t be among the healthier people in the population because everyone is getting healthier so you shouldn’t do it.”
Buying into one or more stock indexes means you’re buying into the whole entire market that a particular index represents (ex- S&P 500, Total U.S., Europe, Pacific, Emerging Markets, Total World, etc.). It’s not a “fad.” The market isn’t going anywhere. And, the indexes do change based on the market. Much research has been done over several decades to conclude that over the long term, buying and holding in low-cost index funds over long periods of time (10, 20, 30 or more years), about 90% of the time, will beat out pretty much all other strategies. Indexing is no more a “fad” than “eating healthy” is a fad. Both have ALWAYS been good advice and both ALWAYS will be good advice.
Buying into one or more stock indexes means you’re buying into the whole entire market that a particular index represents (ex- S&P 500, Total U.S., Europe, Pacific, Emerging Markets, Total World, etc.). It’s not a “fad.” The market isn’t going anywhere. And, the indexes do change based on the market. Much research has been done over several decades to conclude that over the long term, buying and holding in low-cost index funds over long periods of time (10, 20, 30 or more years), about 90% of the time, will beat out pretty much all other strategies. Indexing is no more a “fad” than “eating healthy” is a fad. Both have ALWAYS been good advice and both ALWAYS will be good advice.
50
You have to understand how the market does price discovery for individual stocks, and how ETF prices are arbitraged by authorized partners, to understand how index funds could lead to serious market distortions if they came to dominate the market. I believe the widespread use of index funds is already starting to distort the price-discovery mechanism for certain large-cap stocks. As the liquidity pool outside the index funds shrinks for these stocks, their outsized valuations are propped up primarily by index-fund buying. This creates a potentially dangerous situation.
I am not saying we have reached this point yet, but it could happen. If it did, the potential downturn could be very sudden and very severe.
I am not saying we have reached this point yet, but it could happen. If it did, the potential downturn could be very sudden and very severe.
7
The people interviewed herein are either wildly out-of-touch ($65 Million) or fail to grasp basic household economics. A nest egg of $2 Million, if invested in balanced low-cost mutual fund, will spin off dividends and appreciated values of approx. $120K per year. Thats $10K per month, without touching the principal. Of course, some years will be better than others, but if you can't live on $10K per month, plus whatever SSI benefits you have earned, you need to reassess your lifestyle!!
319
I was about to post the same basic statement. The article says: "At a time when the ranks of the ultrawealthy — millionaires and even billionaires — are on the rise, the magic number for many people is surprisingly modest."
The numbers spouted in this article hardly seem "modest." How do they intend on accruing these "modest" amounts of money to retire?
The numbers spouted in this article hardly seem "modest." How do they intend on accruing these "modest" amounts of money to retire?
32
I prefer slightly more conservative math than you, but your larger point about failure to grasp household economics is right on! The cheaper (and simpler) you live, the sooner you are free of the requirement to work. The biggest question these days is the future of SSI and health care costs.
You have it right. Add one thing more. Pay off your mortgage and all other debt first, and then start working on that nest egg. At that point decide on a mix of funds: broad based equities, US treasury, and money market. Target no more than 60% in the equities fund and readjust annually so that any changes in those target percentages are adjusted back to your original targets. That you will sell high and buy low. Make those adjustments as much as possible inside tax deferred accounts, such as IRAs, so that you can make exchanges without any current tax consideration. My wife and I were given that advice quite some years ago and still live comfortably in our mid-80s, neither of us ever having earned huge salaries.
Seeing that the lifetime average earnings in the US are $1-2 million i have to say you did a fantastical job of finding, with the exception of Ms. Sosnow, a balanced group folks.
In addition I find it interesting that almost all the answers see money as a pile that gets spent over time. There seems to be no insight into the idea that a principal (modest pile of money) can generate a continuous stream of incremental income over any life expectancy.
In addition I find it interesting that almost all the answers see money as a pile that gets spent over time. There seems to be no insight into the idea that a principal (modest pile of money) can generate a continuous stream of incremental income over any life expectancy.
78
These people are destined to be disappointed in life because they have set unrealistically high goals for financial independence. If we assume the average person surveyed here is like most Americans who have less that $100k saved for retirement, their $20 million retirement target means they will work until they die. Be realistic. Make do with fewer toys. Live simply, live longer, and live better.
132
No matter how much these folks have they are doomed to ancient railways, run-down airports, potholes, subway decay, particulate-laden air, lead infused water supplies and stray bullets.
Money can buy the illusion of individual happiness and security.
Money can buy the illusion of individual happiness and security.
62
If I were younger, and knew what i know now. I would retire to Portugal, the Algarve Coast, or Valencia Spain on the Costa Blanca. Comfortable living there for E2000. The Algarve is like Santa Monica without the crowds. You drive a little car or motor scooter,and take the HSR to other cities.
And If I were single and in my 20s or 30s, I would go to Madrid, a whole city of gorgeous women. Sexist I know, but couldn't resist. In Spain and Portugal, the streets are clean, the beaches are clean, the food is fresh, the Mediterranean is warm. I is a Socialist country so taxes are high, but living looks easy to us. We are seeing if we can go for at least three months next time.
And If I were single and in my 20s or 30s, I would go to Madrid, a whole city of gorgeous women. Sexist I know, but couldn't resist. In Spain and Portugal, the streets are clean, the beaches are clean, the food is fresh, the Mediterranean is warm. I is a Socialist country so taxes are high, but living looks easy to us. We are seeing if we can go for at least three months next time.
3
Wonderful plan! But please no advertising the paradise that is the Algarve, soon it would be the Euro Santa Monica....shhhhhh!
1