Re: NYT Story on Importance of Working Just a Little Longer
Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2018 2:51 pm
Investing Advice Inspired by Jack Bogle
https://www.bogleheads.org/forum/
Appreciate your taking the time to run this example, Bob, however it repeats one of the problems I have with these "always defer Social Security schemes." Assuming both couples pass at 85, the couple that works an extra 6 months would need an actuarial life expectancy of 19.5 years from age 65.5 for your PV comparison to be fair, which gives $17,736.87. Additionally, you have to subtract the $27,000/2 = $13,500 that the earlybirds already collected from the $17,736.87, leaving a PV of NET added SS benefit of only $4,236.87. Any significant gain would have to come, as some posters above alluded to, from the wages during those 6 months making a material increase in the PIA.bobcat2 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 04, 2018 11:51 am By waiting an extra six months to age 65.5 to retire they will save an additional $3,000 and earn an extra $10,000 on their portfolio. Their portfolio will be $513,000. If their combined SS benefits were $27,000 at age 65, they will increase to about $28,100 if they wait six months (slightly more than a 4% increase). Assuming their life expectancy is 20 years and using a real discount rate of 2%, the present value of those additional SS benefits is about $18,000.
Recap (values at age 65.5 in both cases)
Wait 6 months from age 65 to retire
Portfolio adds $13,000 to $513,000
PV of added SS benefit $18,000
Total additional benefit $31,000
Save an additional $600/yr. for 30 years (saving an additional 1% per year), but retiring at age 65
Portfolio value less 6 months of spending brings portfolio value to about $533,500
Total additional benefit $33,500
You can play with the numbers, but for this couple working an additional six months vs. saving 1% more for thirty years is not that far apart.
I agree that I should have included the SS benefits of not waiting, but it seems to me what would be correct would be the find the PV of annual SS benefits of $28,100 for 20 yrs vs. the PV of $27,000 for 20.5 years. In other words, find the NPV of the two flows.Walkure wrote: ↑Mon Jun 04, 2018 4:36 pm Additionally, you have to subtract the $27,000/2 = $13,500 that the earlybirds already collected from the $17,736.87, leaving a PV of NET added SS benefit of only $4,236.87. Any significant gain would have to come, as some posters above alluded to, from the wages during those 6 months making a material increase in the PIA.
This doesn’t mean you shouldn’t save more, but rather working even slightly longer has a very powerful effect on retirement security.
I think several people on the thread have this about right. First, if you enjoy your job work longer. If you don't hate your job, then as you approach when you intended to retire (I'm thinking within 5 years of your expected date) you need to consider the benefit of working slightly longer, particularly if you are otherwise somewhat short of reaching your targeted retirement income goal. What it doesn't mean is I plan on working to 75, so I don't have to save much per year for the next 30 years. Finally, if you hate your job, quit when you planned or sooner.Miriam2 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 04, 2018 1:12 pmThank you for your helpful post Bobcat
Your blue conclusion is very important, but seems to me the "working longer" has to be hopeful thinking not set planning, since we don't know what life throws at us until we're there and can take advantage of it at that time.
I take this to mean that a good bull market or series of bull markets throughout that 30 years of saving that 1% would make it more beneficial to have saved that 1% than work the 3-6 months longer. Accurate?While I haven’t read this paper carefully, one of the co-authors, Sita Slavov, made the point during a presentation to DC Bogleheads that the lower the level of real interest rates, the more powerful is the effect of working longer - a valid point that is often overlooked. For one thing, low interest rates make SS benefits more valuable and thus delaying benefits more valuable. Currently, and for the last several years, real interest rates have been well below their long-run averages.
Of course, if the markets do well for many years you do well and if they perform poorly for many years you do not do well. But what I was referring to was real interest rates when you plan to retire. SS is set to deliver benefits at the long-term average of real bond returns of about 2.8%. When LT rates are well below 2.8%, as they are now at 0.90%, the benefit of working longer is greater, and conversely when LT rates are well above 2.8%, as they were around the turn of the century at about 4%, the benefit of working longer is less.I take this to mean that a good bull market or series of bull markets throughout that 30 years of saving that 1% would make it more beneficial to have saved that 1% than work the 3-6 months longer. Accurate?
I read some of the story and also thought the math was very bad. Are they assuming you keep your savings in a passbook account?CnC wrote: ↑Sun Jun 03, 2018 8:52 pm
What a useless and completely false story.
"Say you are 36 and plan on retiring in 30 years. You are already saving, but realize that you will need more money. You can increase your savings by 1 percent every year until you are 66, or extend your working life by three to six months. Those few extra months on the job are likely to raise your retirement income by the same amount as those 30 years of extra savings."
This is a bald faced lie that doesn't even come close to being factually correct. The math is so bad on that one I don't know how they could type it with a straight face.
Yep. Working until death is actually the perfect solution to the entire savings, investment, and retirement problem.CULater wrote: ↑Sun Jun 10, 2018 10:22 pm Death is probably the single best hedge against running out of money in retirement. Solves all your problems, such as figuring out safe withdrawal rates and all that. Another advantage of working longer is that you're closer to it when you give up your earnings income. Makes you wonder why everybody doesn't do it and why anybody thinks early retirement is a good idea, doesn't it? And if you hate your job, maybe you'll die even sooner.
I was reading those same predictions 5 years ago. The 5-year S&P 500 CAGR is 12.87%.zaboomafoozarg wrote: ↑Wed Jan 24, 2018 9:02 amAgreed, the future of normal stock/bonds returns looks very bleak. I save 50-60% of my income just to have a chance at retiring 10-15 years early. I expect that in 30 years, most people will be working until they die or cannot work anymore.Ron Scott wrote: ↑Wed Jan 24, 2018 6:09 am I believe we’re looking at a post heyday future with real returns on a balanced portfolio closer to 2%, so the article should be rewritten as The Necessity of Working Longer. The times when we spend a third of our lives preparing to work, a third working, and a third in retirement are over IMO.
This is actually the perfect solution. If one is disabled before death, disability insurance takes care of it.willthrill81 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 10, 2018 11:08 pmYep. Working until death is actually the perfect solution to the entire savings, investment, and retirement problem.CULater wrote: ↑Sun Jun 10, 2018 10:22 pm Death is probably the single best hedge against running out of money in retirement. Solves all your problems, such as figuring out safe withdrawal rates and all that. Another advantage of working longer is that you're closer to it when you give up your earnings income. Makes you wonder why everybody doesn't do it and why anybody thinks early retirement is a good idea, doesn't it? And if you hate your job, maybe you'll die even sooner.
Only thing I can figure out is
Some excellent food for thought, CULater! Especially the part about daily routine, brain power, socialization in the work place, etc... and being able to sidestep things you may not want to do using work as your out.CULater wrote: ↑Mon Jun 11, 2018 9:50 am Considering the news that SS has dipped into the Trust Fund for the first time, and Medicare is even shakier certainly gives pause about when to retire. I am long retired, but if I were coming up on retirement now, I'm pretty sure I would opt to keep working longer. Plus the fact that having the social contacts and the purpose of getting out of bed and going to a job each day can be healthier. After the first couple years of retirement, it started to become a bore. And because you don't have the obligation of a job, you become too available for other stuff you might prefer to sidestep but no longer have the job as an excuse. I'm really not into low-cog senior part time jobs or volunteer stuff. I had a job that required some brain power and that's what is most satisfying to me.
As I read it, the message was work one more year, then have one more year of expenses paid by salary. Still nothing new. But something worth thinking about IMO. It still amazes me what people get to paid to writeNoHeat wrote: ↑Mon Jun 11, 2018 11:50 am I read this paper. It is really nothing more than a statement about SS benefits, and how they are improved by starting them later. Nothing more. Nothing new.
To try to dress up their paper and make it look like something new, the authors added into their calculations a tiny amount of 401k proceeds. And tiny is the key word. Three key assumptions assured this tinyness: the 401k had no investment return, the worker never had a pay raise, and all proceeds were placed in a low-yielding annuity at retirement. That way, the 401k proceeds are assured to be dwarfed by the SS benefits.
So, basically, this is a trivial paper about how SS benefits improve by delaying their start. An obvious fact to anyone here. Everything else in the paper is merely noise.
I enjoyed the video presentation, the counterpoint, and then the Q&A session by participants at the forum with the authors of the paper.dknightd wrote: ↑Mon Jun 11, 2018 12:15 pmAs I read it, the message was work one more year, then have one more year of expenses paid by salary. Still nothing new. But something worth thinking about IMO. It still amazes me what people get to paid to writeNoHeat wrote: ↑Mon Jun 11, 2018 11:50 am I read this paper. It is really nothing more than a statement about SS benefits, and how they are improved by starting them later. Nothing more. Nothing new.
To try to dress up their paper and make it look like something new, the authors added into their calculations a tiny amount of 401k proceeds. And tiny is the key word. Three key assumptions assured this tinyness: the 401k had no investment return, the worker never had a pay raise, and all proceeds were placed in a low-yielding annuity at retirement. That way, the 401k proceeds are assured to be dwarfed by the SS benefits.
So, basically, this is a trivial paper about how SS benefits improve by delaying their start. An obvious fact to anyone here. Everything else in the paper is merely noise.
+1Shallowpockets wrote: ↑Mon Jan 22, 2018 7:42 am There might be power in this view, but not much sense unless you needed that money.
At some point it is not about the money anymore, it is about the time. You can never get that back or save it. A cliche, but true.
You make your choices, money or time. It is a frequent discussion here and one half believes in money and the other half believes in time.
flyingaway wrote: ↑Mon Jun 11, 2018 6:05 pm I prefer to save more so that I have options when I am old.
I could work longer if I want, I could retire earlier if I want or have to.
Waiting until old to realize that I have to work longer is not a good idea.
(There have been several similar threads recently, working vs. retiring.)
Thank you for digging so I didn't have to. It always comes down to this. Math is usually unarguable. At least the math in use by social scientists. Statistical analysis is relatively easy compared to getting your assumptions right. The failure point for most academic research is construct validity.ThriftyPhD wrote: ↑Mon Jan 22, 2018 7:51 am They're assuming your savings earns 0% real over the years you save.
So yes, if you are 100% in CDs, you're likely going to get a big benefit from simply working longer.Constant returns, 𝑟, assumed to be zero
Another big assumption is that the day you retire, you put 100% of your savings into an annuity. So the delay means you get more social security, and your annuity that you purchase is cheaper.
As a young person with a house a degree and a family I respectfully disagree.protagonist wrote: ↑Tue Jan 30, 2018 8:53 pmLadyGeek wrote: ↑Fri Jan 26, 2018 10:01 am You still need to have a baseline amount of money to be able to make this decision.
Here's how to get there: Importance of saving early
The authors' model is defined by differences to the life-cycle model. For those who may need a refresher, the wiki has some background info: Life-cycle finance
Saving early is not as easy as it might look through the retrospectoscope of a retiree.
Young people tend to make a lot less money, have a lot less of a security blanket, and are more likely to be saddled with the costs of raising children, student loans, and rents/mortgages. Necessities cost a much larger percentage of their income and nest egg. The more you make, the easier it is to save a fixed percentage of your salary. A person making $100K/yr can save 10% without putting much of a dent in their lifestyle. But for one making $10K/yr. to save at the same 10% rate ($1K/yr) could mean the difference between being able to put food on the table or pay the rent that month.
I agree. But would add it also matters how bad you want it. Paying off debt and maxing tax advantaged investment isn't mutually exclusive. You can do both and lead your life on the remainder. One doesn't have to let lifestyle drive savings.
Are they are saying that the 1% increase in performance is applied only to the additional 1% of savings?The authors show that, for each additional 1% you save in your retirement, increasing your investment performance by 1% for 30 years is equal to postponing your retirement by 0.4 months—not quite two weeks, in other words.
I have two thoughts.balbrec2 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 02, 2018 5:32 am https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/retirem ... li=BBnbfcN
Thoughts?
Think of it this way: why should I click a link that some random person on the internet didn't think was important enough to type a single sentence about? You saved yourself some work but generated work for hundreds or thousands of your potential readers. What's more, if you really want discussion, posts always get more discussion if the original poster offers some kind of framing or questions or something. After all, we know that the vast majority of people don't click links & read articles; they just reply to whatever excerpts the original poster provides. (That's probably unfortunate but it is the reality of life on the internet.) To show what I mean, you could have reframed your post as something like:We also require that you be considerate of our readers and:
refrain from posting naked links - all links should include an explanation or excerpt unless its meaning is clear from the context
My apologies, I shall refrain from this sort of post going forward.AlohaJoe wrote: ↑Mon Jul 02, 2018 6:23 amI have two thoughts.balbrec2 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 02, 2018 5:32 am https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/retirem ... li=BBnbfcN
Thoughts?
The first one is this post violates forum policies:
Think of it this way: why should I click a link that some random person on the internet didn't think was important enough to type a single sentence about? You saved yourself some work but generated work for hundreds or thousands of your potential readers. What's more, if you really want discussion, posts always get more discussion if the original poster offers some kind of framing or questions or something. After all, we know that the vast majority of people don't click links & read articles; they just reply to whatever excerpts the original poster provides. (That's probably unfortunate but it is the reality of life on the internet.) To show what I mean, you could have reframed your post as something like:We also require that you be considerate of our readers and:
refrain from posting naked links - all links should include an explanation or excerpt unless its meaning is clear from the context
"This article talks about the power of working longer. I've been thinking about working One More Year and this article has me half-convinced but I didn't really double check their math. Does the math hold up?"
My second thought is: the article has already been posted (twice) & discussed:
viewtopic.php?t=250878
viewtopic.php?t=238844
Bogleheads discussed the original paper back in January (98 posts) and then again in early June when the New York Times ran an article about it (28 more posts). I'm not saying we've exhausted all possible topics of conversation around the research but it might be worth digging through those other threads to see what interesting points were already made so they don't need to be made again.
Hopefully OP means she/he will continue to post, but will NOT post naked links.
Well, despite the naked link, I recognized a mainstream publication and clicked through to read the article. The real takeaway is the stunning stupidity of the author. Figures don't lie, but real dummies figure.
Thanks! I merged those discussions together and then merged balbrec2's thread into here. The combined thread is in the Investing - Theory, News & General forum.AlohaJoe wrote: ↑Mon Jul 02, 2018 6:23 am ...My second thought is: the article has already been posted (twice) & discussed:
viewtopic.php?t=250878
viewtopic.php?t=238844
Bogleheads discussed the original paper back in January (98 posts) and then again in early June when the New York Times ran an article about it (28 more posts). I'm not saying we've exhausted all possible topics of conversation around the research but it might be worth digging through those other threads to see what interesting points were already made so they don't need to be made again.
What I balance everyday is my concern that within 10-15 years of my retirement I won't be physically able to do many of the things I love to a level where I still enjoy them. And this is what drives me towards retirement, not my work. That said I am able to do these things now and in retirement in a much nicer way than I would have had I retired 4 years ago so net/net I am happy with my personal decision to date.willthrill81 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 02, 2018 4:10 pm It's surprising, but 20% of American men age 65 don't survive to age 74. Keep that in mind when you consider whether it's worthwhile to keep working in order to pad a '30 year' retirement. It may be, and it may not. It's a very personal decision.
It looks like my father will finally call it quits from work just before turning 70. He's still healthy, but my father-in-law was very energetic and appeared healthy when he was diagnosed with kidney cancer at age 62. By 65, he was gone. For me, I want to take full advantage of the time that I'm given, and if 'longevity risk' rears its head, we are planning to do our best to deal with that, but that's a lesser risk in my view that working until 65 and then dying in a few years, wishing I had had time to do more with my life than be stuck at a job, even one that I like but is still a job.TheTimeLord wrote: ↑Mon Jul 02, 2018 4:21 pmWhat I balance everyday is my concern that within 10-15 years of my retirement I won't be physically able to do many of the things I love to a level where I still enjoy them. And this is what drives me towards retirement, not my work. That said I am able to do these things now and in retirement in a much nicer way than I would have had I retired 4 years ago so net/net I am happy with my personal decision to date.willthrill81 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 02, 2018 4:10 pm It's surprising, but 20% of American men age 65 don't survive to age 74. Keep that in mind when you consider whether it's worthwhile to keep working in order to pad a '30 year' retirement. It may be, and it may not. It's a very personal decision.
I am far more fearful of a chronic debilitating condition than death, believing I will have more time for regret during the former than the latter.willthrill81 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 02, 2018 4:27 pmIt looks like my father will finally call it quits from work just before turning 70. He's still healthy, but my father-in-law was very energetic and appeared healthy when he was diagnosed with kidney cancer at age 62. By 65, he was gone. For me, I want to take full advantage of the time that I'm given, and if 'longevity risk' rears its head, we are planning to do our best to deal with that, but that's a lesser risk in my view that working until 65 and then dying in a few years, wishing I had had time to do more with my life than be stuck at a job, even one that I like but is still a job.TheTimeLord wrote: ↑Mon Jul 02, 2018 4:21 pmWhat I balance everyday is my concern that within 10-15 years of my retirement I won't be physically able to do many of the things I love to a level where I still enjoy them. And this is what drives me towards retirement, not my work. That said I am able to do these things now and in retirement in a much nicer way than I would have had I retired 4 years ago so net/net I am happy with my personal decision to date.willthrill81 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 02, 2018 4:10 pm It's surprising, but 20% of American men age 65 don't survive to age 74. Keep that in mind when you consider whether it's worthwhile to keep working in order to pad a '30 year' retirement. It may be, and it may not. It's a very personal decision.
Thanks for this.willthrill81 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 02, 2018 4:10 pm It's surprising, but 20% of American men age 65 don't survive to age 74. Keep that in mind when you consider whether it's worthwhile to keep working in order to pad a '30 year' retirement. It may be, and it may not. It's a very personal decision.
I had planned on retiring at 68 until my employer decided to retire me a year earlier. At first I was upset with the change in plans but after being retired for two years now I believe my employer did me a big favor and I would probably be better off if they had done it even sooner. The thing is you don't even realize what the mental and physical stress is doing to you until you are able to leave it behind. Sometimes I still have bad dreams about having to go back to work.marcopolo wrote: ↑Mon Jul 02, 2018 4:36 pmThanks for this.willthrill81 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 02, 2018 4:10 pm It's surprising, but 20% of American men age 65 don't survive to age 74. Keep that in mind when you consider whether it's worthwhile to keep working in order to pad a '30 year' retirement. It may be, and it may not. It's a very personal decision.
In our elusive pursuit of "safety" in our investment plans, we often forget this very important counter balance.
It is not just the very real risk of dying, but also of fewer years of good health.
My father-in-law had always dreamed of going to see the Grand Canyon. Yet shortly after his diagnosis, he was unable to travel far from home. That was a big regret for him. It is my intention to learn from that.TheTimeLord wrote: ↑Mon Jul 02, 2018 4:30 pmI am far more fearful of a chronic debilitating condition than death, believing I will have more time for regret during the former than the latter.willthrill81 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 02, 2018 4:27 pmIt looks like my father will finally call it quits from work just before turning 70. He's still healthy, but my father-in-law was very energetic and appeared healthy when he was diagnosed with kidney cancer at age 62. By 65, he was gone. For me, I want to take full advantage of the time that I'm given, and if 'longevity risk' rears its head, we are planning to do our best to deal with that, but that's a lesser risk in my view that working until 65 and then dying in a few years, wishing I had had time to do more with my life than be stuck at a job, even one that I like but is still a job.TheTimeLord wrote: ↑Mon Jul 02, 2018 4:21 pmWhat I balance everyday is my concern that within 10-15 years of my retirement I won't be physically able to do many of the things I love to a level where I still enjoy them. And this is what drives me towards retirement, not my work. That said I am able to do these things now and in retirement in a much nicer way than I would have had I retired 4 years ago so net/net I am happy with my personal decision to date.willthrill81 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 02, 2018 4:10 pm It's surprising, but 20% of American men age 65 don't survive to age 74. Keep that in mind when you consider whether it's worthwhile to keep working in order to pad a '30 year' retirement. It may be, and it may not. It's a very personal decision.
I have been fortunate enough to have traveled the world when I was younger, so I don't really have any destinations like that. I have things I want to do, but none of them would be a source of great regret if I am unable to mark it off the list. At this point in life relationships are more meaningful me than adventures. That doesn't mean I don't plan to travel in retirement, because I do, it just means I am more focused on who I will be traveling with than where I am traveling.willthrill81 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 02, 2018 5:13 pmMy father-in-law had always dreamed of going to see the Grand Canyon. Yet shortly after his diagnosis, he was unable to travel far from home. That was a big regret for him. It is my intention to learn from that.TheTimeLord wrote: ↑Mon Jul 02, 2018 4:30 pmI am far more fearful of a chronic debilitating condition than death, believing I will have more time for regret during the former than the latter.willthrill81 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 02, 2018 4:27 pmIt looks like my father will finally call it quits from work just before turning 70. He's still healthy, but my father-in-law was very energetic and appeared healthy when he was diagnosed with kidney cancer at age 62. By 65, he was gone. For me, I want to take full advantage of the time that I'm given, and if 'longevity risk' rears its head, we are planning to do our best to deal with that, but that's a lesser risk in my view that working until 65 and then dying in a few years, wishing I had had time to do more with my life than be stuck at a job, even one that I like but is still a job.TheTimeLord wrote: ↑Mon Jul 02, 2018 4:21 pmWhat I balance everyday is my concern that within 10-15 years of my retirement I won't be physically able to do many of the things I love to a level where I still enjoy them. And this is what drives me towards retirement, not my work. That said I am able to do these things now and in retirement in a much nicer way than I would have had I retired 4 years ago so net/net I am happy with my personal decision to date.willthrill81 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 02, 2018 4:10 pm It's surprising, but 20% of American men age 65 don't survive to age 74. Keep that in mind when you consider whether it's worthwhile to keep working in order to pad a '30 year' retirement. It may be, and it may not. It's a very personal decision.
You've got the perfect job with summers off to travel and enjoy tons of experiences with your family while you can, are young, energetic and able. Are you able to take advantage of doing that?willthrill81 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 02, 2018 4:27 pmIt looks like my father will finally call it quits from work just before turning 70. He's still healthy, but my father-in-law was very energetic and appeared healthy when he was diagnosed with kidney cancer at age 62. By 65, he was gone. For me, I want to take full advantage of the time that I'm given, and if 'longevity risk' rears its head, we are planning to do our best to deal with that, but that's a lesser risk in my view that working until 65 and then dying in a few years, wishing I had had time to do more with my life than be stuck at a job, even one that I like but is still a job.
Yes, we travel quite a lot, though it's been reduced the last couple of years with the birth of our daughter. She's traveled with us a lot already though (e.g. 4k mile road trip through CA and OR, week in HI, going to Disney World for the second time next year), and in a couple more years, we'll do a lot more road trips. Once she's around 10, we'll take her with us on international trips. New Zealand is high on our list of places to see.CyclingDuo wrote: ↑Tue Jul 03, 2018 9:38 amYou've got the perfect job with summers off to travel and enjoy tons of experiences with your family while you can, are young, energetic and able. Are you able to take advantage of doing that?willthrill81 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 02, 2018 4:27 pmIt looks like my father will finally call it quits from work just before turning 70. He's still healthy, but my father-in-law was very energetic and appeared healthy when he was diagnosed with kidney cancer at age 62. By 65, he was gone. For me, I want to take full advantage of the time that I'm given, and if 'longevity risk' rears its head, we are planning to do our best to deal with that, but that's a lesser risk in my view that working until 65 and then dying in a few years, wishing I had had time to do more with my life than be stuck at a job, even one that I like but is still a job.
I look back at my years from ages 28 - 46 with kids in the house: lived in Europe and traveled during the 2 months off I had every summer (a month one summer in France alone in the mini-van, along with spending time in England, Spain, Italy, Poland, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, etc...). Moved back stateside, and traveled to Canada along with domestic travels to Niagara Falls, NYC, Washington D.C., San Francisco, Vail, Breckenridge, Yellowstone, Grand Canyon, Tahoe, Black Hills, Mackinac Island, Wisconsin Dells, and many other destinations for sporting events (St. Louis, Phoenix, Minneapolis, Milwaukee, Chicago, Kansas City, Oakland. Enough that I have no need to tear up when I hear Harry Chapin's Cats in the Cradle.
Jobs in academia allow for a lot of summertime opportunities, so I hope you are able to take advantage of it with your family. We only get one journey. No need to wait until retirement...
Good, you are doing it right - in our opinion.willthrill81 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 03, 2018 11:17 am Yes, we travel quite a lot, though it's been reduced the last couple of years with the birth of our daughter. She's traveled with us a lot already though (e.g. 4k mile road trip through CA and OR, week in HI, going to Disney World for the second time next year), and in a couple more years, we'll do a lot more road trips. Once she's around 10, we'll take her with us on international trips. New Zealand is high on our list of places to see.
A big part of the reason I pursued a career in academia was to have time to spend with my family. And that has certainly happened. But even so, I'm still planning on an early retirement, very likely no later than 55 and perhaps earlier. The only disadvantage of this career is that I have very little flexibility in determining when we can travel. When classes are underway, a long weekend is about the best we can do. I do plan on taking a sabbatical at some point so we can see New England and drive down the Blue Ridge Parkway in the fall.
Do any retirement calculators take into account life expectancy? What I have seen is pick a time frame, say 30 years, and calculate the probability of portfolio survival. A 65 year old man only has a 7% chance of living to 95, so why pick a withdrawal rate pinned to 30 years? Just guessing, I would think that if you took longevity into account and even if you wanted a 99% success rate, the withdrawal rate would be higher than 4%. The math seems like it would be straightforward for someone who knows probabilities well, and the data is out there. Any leads?willthrill81 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 10, 2018 11:08 pm Take a look at the graph below. Those life expectancy lines are surprisingly steep.