This strikes me as totally ridiculous not to mention overkill for most, even high earners. 2 million by 40? If you look at the stats I posted above you will see that the vast, vast majority of U.S. earners aren't even close to $250k (and that's net worth, not liquid savings) at that age.davidsorensen32 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 30, 2017 8:46 pmAverage rule of thumb that my mentor told me when I was starting my career: Target for $1M by 40. That's savings+investment gains. For someone starting their career now I'd say $2M by 40. But don't forget to live a little. Remember everybody dies, but not everyone lives.
Most people (I'd venture 90% at least) could retire to a life of leisure with $1m in the bank by age 70. That would mean that they had saved well, had fortuitous market conditions, and had reasonably high incomes and thus would get a decent SS payout. They'd get $40k per year from investments and (to lowball it) another $20k in SS. So, $5k per month without touching their principle.
I work in higher ed and, while there is no forced retirement, the rule of thumb I've heard is that members of the faculty will retire (or at least consider retiring) when they have $1m in the bank. And these are people with high incomes and a generous retirement plan.