WaPo: Dying at your desk is not a retirement plan

[hail2skins]

Interesting article over the weekend on retirement and just wanted to get ES-ers take on it:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/dying-at-your-desk-is-not-a-retirement-plan/2018/06/15/63944026-6dc2-11e8-bd50-b80389a4e569_story.html?utm_term=.a5697fe8bbf9
 

[AsburySkinsFan]

This is where it lost me...."Of course, timing is everything: Retire too early, and you risk outliving your money. Stay at the desk too long, and you might miss out on life."

Sooooo...your life begins AFTER you retire? This article is obviously written for the 9-5-M/F cubicle crowd and doesn't address entrepreneurs who build their companies and live off the generated incomes. I can't imagine dreaming of the day a 401k matures or the nightmare of a pension fund managed badly.

But then I don't plan on retiring and going off to live a life I can't stand around people I don't like.

I like my job and my wife and I are building a business that can sustain us when we're no longer at it every day at 9am.

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

I’m retired. I highly recommend.

[tshile]

Retirement looks awesome

 

if you plan it

 

i want to retire at 54/55

 

lots of golf and drinking and living on a lake half the year and some beach town the other half

 

we wanted a yatch to travel on at one point but the operating costs are too much

[zoony]

I feel like there is a lot of fear mongering about retirement that is coming from the financial industry.  Its is a huge profit driver for them

 

I love the question `is $3 million enough?`  Good grief.  Yes, thats enough.  In my opinion you should goal to have your mortgage paid and your kids thru college by the time you retire.

 

What sucks is everyone leaving the northeast and moving south.  Thats a real problem

23 hours ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

This is where it lost me...."Of course, timing is everything: Retire too early, and you risk outliving your money. Stay at the desk too long, and you might miss out on life."

Sooooo...your life begins AFTER you retire? This article is obviously written for the 9-5-M/F cubicle crowd and doesn't address entrepreneurs who build their companies and live off the generated incomes. I can't imagine dreaming of the day a 401k matures or the nightmare of a pension fund managed badly.

But then I don't plan on retiring and going off to live a life I can't stand around people I don't like.

I like my job and my wife and I are building a business that can sustain us when we're no longer at it every day at 9am.

 

Thats a pretty condescending and ****ty attitude towards a lot of people who work very hard.  And a very small segment of Americans are successful entrepreneurs, so yah, crazy that a national newspaper wouldnt target them with an article.

 

But congratulations on your success you are clearly the smartest man in the room.

[Elessar78]

1 hour ago, zoony said:

I feel like there is a lot of fear mongering about retirement that is coming from the financial industry.  Its is a huge profit driver for them

 

I love the question `is $3 million enough?`  Good grief.  Yes, thats enough.  In my opinion you should goal to have your mortgage paid and your kids thru college by the time you retire.

 

What sucks is everyone leaving the northeast and moving south.  Thats a real problem

Completely agree about the fear mongering bit. Fear is a poor motivator anyway. 

My workplace has done some great things in regards to 401k. We have matching and the default is that new employees are automatically enrolled up to the match. They can opt out if they want. Plus, they now do auto-escalation where your contribution ticks up 1% annually (but you have to sign up for it). 

I think the one-size fits all dream of golfing your day away is an awful thing to sell to people. There are many ways to live during your golden years. For example, my mom is 75 she works 150 days a year (contractual limit) and spends the rest of her year as a retiree (traveling, seeing friends, etc). She has rental property income, she has her work income, a pension, retirement accounts, and lifetime private health coverage—it's a pretty good deal. 

I do think the article makes a great point about annuities and asset allocation. People seem to think that when you retire/hit 65 you shift 20/80 to bonds but you still (should) have a lot of life left and time for that $$ to grow. Annuities guarantee income in retirement which is what this whole game is about—so it may not be a bad idea for a lot of people. 

The concept of retirement didn't really exist until 4-5 decades(?) ago. Plus you were supposed to have the tripod effect of SS, savings, and a pension. Life expectancy was also shorter. And to your point—it was a scam/pitch by southern developers in the Sun Belt to get people to move to their new builds. There wasn't a lot of work there, but why did that matter if you were retired?

[AsburySkinsFan]

1 hour ago, zoony said:

 

Thats a pretty condescending and ****ty attitude towards a lot of people who work very hard.  And a very small segment of Americans are successful entrepreneurs, so yah, crazy that a national newspaper wouldnt target them with an article.

 

But congratulations on your success you are clearly the smartest man in the room.

It wasn’t condescending, I was simply speaking for myself. I cannot imagine a career in a cubicle, I can’t imagine relying on a 401k...so what. Others can, and do it every day with success. I can’t.

Is it then condescending to explain my “retirement” plan as being different than what’s described in the article? Why should it be? Some 401k retirees will probably retire better off than me, is it condescending for them to say so? No.

I can’t imagine a career like that, it would kill me. I wasn’t ****ting on anyone who does, many of them couldn’t imagine the seeming uncertainty of my life. That’s fine too, but not condescending.

Now, planning to live my life for the time AFTER I retire...that’s nuts IMO. That’s what the song Cats In the Cradle is about, and Adam Sandler’s “Click” and 100 other cautionary tales. No thanks, I’ll

live my life while I’m upright.

[thebluefood]

Great advice, WaPo think piece! Lemme get right on that.

 

[Bank account is basically wiped out when I pay for my basic living expenses]

[Wages, by and large, are not keeping up with the cost of living]

[One emergency accident = thousands of dollars of debt, even with most insurance policies]

[Chances are there will be no Social Security waiting for me when I reach my 60s]

[Pensions? lol]

 

But hey! The good news is I probably won't die at my desk since the average workers only stays at their job for about 4 years on average. I'm probably gonna get priced out of/let go from whatever job I'm doing at "retirement age."

 

At this point, my only "retirement plans" are:

1.) Hitting the Powerball (something I don't even play)

2.) Being a sad, old greeter at whatever all consuming box store is around in the 2050s or 2060s (if retail apocalypse isn't as bad as they say it might be)

3.) (and most likely) what I like to call the "Old Yeller Plan" (which I won't really go into right now but I'm sure you get the picture) 

 

"Nest eggs?" "401ks?" Saving"20 to 25 percent of my income?" Are you ****ting me here?!

[The Evil Genius]

Zoony calling someone condescending with a ****ty attitude. ?

 

Most of us are going with the other ol' yeller plan..where we bump our parents off early and take over their nest egg. ? ?

 

Not to derail..but this is what happens when the controlling party makes the rules against the common worker. Management has the table turned 99% in their favor and you end up working until your death. 

[purbeast]

I started my 401k and Roth IRA when I was 26.  I do regret not starting it when I was 23 and entered the full time work force but hey what can you do now.  I'm already well ahead of what the average baby boomer has though, and I'm only 36 now so I am on track to doing alright I think.  I am thinking about going in on a rental property with my one buddy who already owns one, so he knows how to manage them.

[thebluefood]

22 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

Zoony calling someone condescending with a ****ty attitude. ?

 

Most of us are going with the other ol' yeller plan..where we bump our parents off early and take over their nest egg. ? ?

 

Not to derail..but this is what happens when the controlling party makes the rules against the common worker. Management has the table turned 99% in their favor and you end up working until your death. 

I was going in a more "self-serving" direction there but hey, you do you, dawg.  

 

There's a long, long list of reasons why I pay my Union dues every month. We probably won't get what we want in my lifetime but it's sure as hell better than passively letting this happen to me and my peers. 

[tshile]

1 hour ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

Now, planning to live my life for the time AFTER I retire...that’s nuts IMO.

 

Yeah that would terrible. About as terrible as never planning for your retirement.

[zoony]

56 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

Yeah that would terrible. About as terrible as never planning for your retirement.

 

Absolutely.  I am weary of a lot of models that show dedicated save at all costs living from 25 to 65.  You should be saving, absolutely, but not at the expense of living.  People have a hard time with balance though, so it seems we end up with Dave Ramsey and Suze Orman as the go to for all of our financial advice.  They deal in absolutes, which always makes the message digestible.  However most people dont see eating hamburger helper and driving a ****box for 40 straight years so you can retire and throw parties everyday as an appealing lifestyle, so they dont do ANY of it, which is just as bad

 

I would really love to see a common sense financial spokesperson offering help and advice that wasnt either trying to make money off you or proposing an absurd lifestyle.

 

There are no guarantees.  The `save at all costs` guy could get hit by a bus tomorrow and his wife will remarry a gigolo.  That makes the save at all costs guy a  dumbass.  

[Riggo-toni]

I think you need a million and to have debts paid off to retire, but who knows. My father just turned 92, but in a wierd twist he's probably making more money now than he did when he was younger. My mother is 5 years younger, but in optimal health and will likely approach 100 barring some unforeseen event. So I might outlive my savings if I'm not careful...then again, I am diabetic, so there's an equal chance I may die around retirement age (or sooner).

[mcsluggo]

i don't consider it a failure of oversaving,  if my wife and kids have some savings if i unexpectedly die suddenly.   

[tshile]

25 minutes ago, zoony said:

Absolutely.  I am weary of a lot of models that show dedicated save at all costs living from 25 to 65. 

 

Make smart decisions around the important stuff. Education/training, what type of debt to accumulate and how much, invest as much as possible as early as possible as wisely as possible (like owning a house)

 

its not hard and the earlier you start the easier it is. My friends are all starting now, my wife and I started 10 years ago. We have significant advantages over them financially, and we’ve done plenty (travel the world, have nice things, have fun hobbies, etc) and it’s not because we’ve made more money than them. In fact, they’ve made more than us. We just have a lot more to show for it. 

 

 

[tshile]

@zoony also i am going to be thrilled when all of my "but i want to have a life now" friends make it to their mid-late 50's and start telling me how tax money needs to be given to them so they can retire because the world is "unfair" and it's what they're owed.

 

the idea that they failed to plan and its their fault will be lost on them. I'll have 30+ years of evidence to show them they're wrong because they've made terrible decisions and suck at money, but they won't listen/care.

 

[NoCalMike]

I can see both sides of the coin.  For some, traveling in their 20's when they are young, vibrant, more adept to participate in the physical activity aspect of going to foreign countries for extended time.  It is a great experience you can't necessarily do in your "retirement years."  the downside is it costs a lot and it makes it hard to save money if you live that life in your 20's.

 

There are also a growing number of young folks who are simply not getting married, starting families, buying homes.  They aren't saddling themselves down with the same debt & obligations as others, so it could mean by the time they get to retirement age, the money they do have set aside will stretch further.

[tshile]

6 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

There are also a growing number of young folks who are simply not getting married, starting families, buying homes.  They aren't saddling themselves down with the same debt & obligations as others, so it could mean by the time they get to retirement age, the money they do have set aside will stretch further.

 

It could be different for today's 20's but generally speaking a home is considered the biggest/best investment a middle class person can make, and the research shows the earlier one does it the better one tends to be over the long haul (which, can be read different ways...)

 

in my opinion, barring a drastic change in how this economy/country works (always possible...), not buying or prolonging the purchase of their first home is going to hurt them. They're delaying/losing access to what has traditionally been their best/biggest investment opportunity.

 

[NoCalMike]

2 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

in my opinion, barring a drastic change in how this economy/country works (always possible...), not buying or prolonging the purchase of their first home is going to hurt them. They're delaying/losing access to what has traditionally been their best/biggest investment opportunity.

 

 

That is probably true for previous generations, but I could see the way the real estate market is so volatile now, bubbles constantly inflated, then pop.  Home values rising so fast then tanking.  There is risk in that too. 

[tshile]

1 minute ago, NoCalMike said:

 

That is probably true for previous generations, but I could see the way the real estate market is so volatile now, bubbles constantly inflated, then pop.  Home values rising so fast then tanking.  There is risk in that too. 

Right, but a long term ownership of that (should, or at least used to) ought to put you in a good spot.  You have to make good decisions (which is not always easy) about what to purchase where and when

[NoCalMike]

1 minute ago, tshile said:

Right, but a long term ownership of that (should, or at least used to) ought to put you in a good spot.  You have to make good decisions (which is not always easy) about what to purchase where and when

 

Yeah my wife & I bought our home after the last bubble popped.  The value has been climbing steadily since. (Just over 2 years as home owners).  We didn't necessarily buy the house with investment in mind, but it sure doesn't hurt.

[purbeast]

18 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

I can see both sides of the coin.  For some, traveling in their 20's when they are young, vibrant, more adept to participate in the physical activity aspect of going to foreign countries for extended time.  It is a great experience you can't necessarily do in your "retirement years."  the downside is it costs a lot and it makes it hard to save money if you live that life in your 20's.

 

There are also a growing number of young folks who are simply not getting married, starting families, buying homes.  They aren't saddling themselves down with the same debt & obligations as others, so it could mean by the time they get to retirement age, the money they do have set aside will stretch further.

My wife (even well before we were married) have always made traveling a priority of ours and continue to do so.  The first time I ever went out of the country was with her when I was 23.  It was the first time I ever saw white sand beaches and clear water and was mesmerized.  Now that's all I want to do and where the majority of our travels revolve around.

 

Even once we had our son we continue to make it a priority.  We have gone both with him and without him to various places, luckily because my mother in law can watch him for extended time when we have traveled a couple times.  But he's already been to more countries in his 3 years than the rest of my immediately family combined lol.

 

And on top of that I'm still saving pretty decently for retirement.  We make pretty good money and are both working, but if my wife was to become a stay at home mom we would definitely have to cut back on the travel a bit.  IMO it is all about having balance.  Going one way or the other to the extreme isn't a good thing.

[tshile]

3 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

 

Yeah my wife & I bought our home after the last bubble popped.  The value has been climbing steadily since. (Just over 2 years as home owners).  We didn't necessarily buy the house with investment in mind, but it sure doesn't hurt.

Same here. We just sold ours. It almost 2x in value. 

I have friends that bought before the pop. The responsible ones have gotten out from it, moved on to their nice second houses, some are renting their first for income/increased investment. The irresponsible ones are *shocker* still struggling (they also blame it all on the market popping, and are oblivious to the fact that there are plenty who navigated that situation just fine)

 

As things go up and down one of the constants is that the irresponsible people continue to be irresponsible and the responsible people continue to be responsible. 

 

Some people have bad luck or misfortune. Not nearly as many that think they do, actually do.

 

[zoony]

It doesnt have to be either or.  Just saving 6% of your income before tax, and starting young.

1.  You will never miss that money

2.  You will retire a millionaire