Five years to retirement (article)

Non-investing personal finance issues including insurance, credit, real estate, taxes, employment and legal issues such as trusts and wills
Post Reply
bradpevans
Posts: 205
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2018 1:09 pm

Five years to retirement (article)

Post by bradpevans » Wed Jul 11, 2018 9:25 am

Countdown to retirement: A five-year plan , from the NY Times.

[link formatted by admin LadyGeek]

f35phixer
Posts: 81
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 12:41 pm

Re: Five years to retirement (article)

Post by f35phixer » Wed Jul 11, 2018 9:35 am

read like an advertizment, but i did like Brenna's cartoons.... Oh those ladies :oops:

Grt2bOutdoors
Posts: 18579
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 8:20 pm
Location: New York

Re: Five years to retirement (article)

Post by Grt2bOutdoors » Wed Jul 11, 2018 9:40 am

The comments section on nytimes.com is more enlightening.
"One should invest based on their need, ability and willingness to take risk - Larry Swedroe" Asking Portfolio Questions

wrongfunds
Posts: 1698
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 3:55 pm

Re: Five years to retirement (article)

Post by wrongfunds » Wed Jul 11, 2018 9:41 am

I schemed it and it is NOT a bad article. Surprisingly, most of the assumed numbers are more in the BH domain than what I would term as an "average" retiree. That came as a total shock.

carolinaman
Posts: 3062
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2011 9:56 am
Location: North Carolina

Re: Five years to retirement (article)

Post by carolinaman » Thu Jul 12, 2018 8:23 am

Grt2bOutdoors wrote:
Wed Jul 11, 2018 9:40 am
The comments section on nytimes.com is more enlightening.
+1. Agreed. The comments were enlightening as to the mindset of readers. I am not sure they are totally representative but they seemed more fixated on the $140k salary and $1.5M 401k balance than the principles that apply to people at different income and savings levels. They seemed angry for no apparent reason.

vested1
Posts: 1500
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 4:20 pm

Re: Five years to retirement (article)

Post by vested1 » Thu Jul 12, 2018 8:55 am

carolinaman wrote:
Thu Jul 12, 2018 8:23 am
Grt2bOutdoors wrote:
Wed Jul 11, 2018 9:40 am
The comments section on nytimes.com is more enlightening.
+1. Agreed. The comments were enlightening as to the mindset of readers. I am not sure they are totally representative but they seemed more fixated on the $140k salary and $1.5M 401k balance than the principles that apply to people at different income and savings levels. They seemed angry for no apparent reason.
This is common in every comment section of any financial article from any organization, not primarily by the NY Times, who at least filter and approve comments from all sides of the political spectrum. Try reading the comments in a Yahoo finance article if you have the stomach for it.

I believe the anger comes from a combination of fear and failure, a common aspect of ignorance. Ignorance is a universal phenomena. Occasionally a well meaning soul will offer some sound advice in the comment section, which is usually condemned or ridiculed.

Here is a better link to the article from the Times itself, which may be unavailable unless you subscribe.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/06/busi ... -plan.html

vested1
Posts: 1500
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 4:20 pm

Re: Five years to retirement (article)

Post by vested1 » Thu Jul 12, 2018 9:20 am

"Imagine you're a 60 year old woman making $140,000 a year"
"Imagine you own a $500,000 house in New York and pay $25,000 a year in property taxes, insurance, and maintenance."
"Imagine you have 1.5 million in retirement savings and have 5 years to go before you reach retirement."

Imagine you wrote an article that used realistic numbers that represented a majority of readers, rather than an example of someone in the upper class. The article would be comprised of three words:

"You can't retire".

Grt2bOutdoors
Posts: 18579
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 8:20 pm
Location: New York

Re: Five years to retirement (article)

Post by Grt2bOutdoors » Thu Jul 12, 2018 12:11 pm

carolinaman wrote:
Thu Jul 12, 2018 8:23 am
Grt2bOutdoors wrote:
Wed Jul 11, 2018 9:40 am
The comments section on nytimes.com is more enlightening.
+1. Agreed. The comments were enlightening as to the mindset of readers. I am not sure they are totally representative but they seemed more fixated on the $140k salary and $1.5M 401k balance than the principles that apply to people at different income and savings levels. They seemed angry for no apparent reason.
The average person who is making $140K or more is not going to accumulate $1.5M in a 401k. That is due to a combination of factors including, high fees, leakage, periods of unemployment, market factors, poor match/no match, poor investment choices. A more realistic number might be $1M.
"One should invest based on their need, ability and willingness to take risk - Larry Swedroe" Asking Portfolio Questions

annielouise
Posts: 274
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 4:11 pm

Re: Five years to retirement (article)

Post by annielouise » Thu Jul 12, 2018 12:33 pm

vested1 wrote:
Thu Jul 12, 2018 9:20 am
"Imagine you're a 60 year old woman making $140,000 a year"
"Imagine you own a $500,000 house in New York and pay $25,000 a year in property taxes, insurance, and maintenance."
"Imagine you have 1.5 million in retirement savings and have 5 years to go before you reach retirement."

Imagine you wrote an article that used realistic numbers that represented a majority of readers, rather than an example of someone in the upper class. The article would be comprised of three words:

"You can't retire".
She only contributes 6% with a 3% match. That's what got me. No way would that have led to $1.5M at age 60.

bradshaw1965
Posts: 670
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 9:36 pm

Re: Five years to retirement (article)

Post by bradshaw1965 » Thu Jul 12, 2018 12:38 pm

vested1 wrote:
Thu Jul 12, 2018 9:20 am
"Imagine you're a 60 year old woman making $140,000 a year"
"Imagine you own a $500,000 house in New York and pay $25,000 a year in property taxes, insurance, and maintenance."
"Imagine you have 1.5 million in retirement savings and have 5 years to go before you reach retirement."

Imagine you wrote an article that used realistic numbers that represented a majority of readers, rather than an example of someone in the upper class. The article would be comprised of three words:

"You can't retire".
This is going to always be a problem with the papers local focus on NYC with a very high cost of living with the requisite numbers interpreted by the diverse reach of a national audience.

User avatar
jharkin
Posts: 1598
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2016 7:14 am
Location: Boston suburbs

Re: Five years to retirement (article)

Post by jharkin » Thu Jul 12, 2018 12:52 pm

vested1 wrote:
Thu Jul 12, 2018 8:55 am
carolinaman wrote:
Thu Jul 12, 2018 8:23 am
Grt2bOutdoors wrote:
Wed Jul 11, 2018 9:40 am
The comments section on nytimes.com is more enlightening.
+1. Agreed. The comments were enlightening as to the mindset of readers. I am not sure they are totally representative but they seemed more fixated on the $140k salary and $1.5M 401k balance than the principles that apply to people at different income and savings levels. They seemed angry for no apparent reason.
This is common in every comment section of any financial article from any organization, not primarily by the NY Times, who at least filter and approve comments from all sides of the political spectrum. Try reading the comments in a Yahoo finance article if you have the stomach for it.

I believe the anger comes from a combination of fear and failure, a common aspect of ignorance. Ignorance is a universal phenomena. Occasionally a well meaning soul will offer some sound advice in the comment section, which is usually condemned or ridiculed.

Here is a better link to the article from the Times itself, which may be unavailable unless you subscribe.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/06/busi ... -plan.html
Quite true, and they usually degrade to outright name calling, personal attacks and arguments about how the the "gooberment" is stealing their social security "savings account"

I also was surprised at how reasonable the recommendations in the article. Yes, the 1.5MM example is out of reach for the average family but as somebody pointed out if you based it on real average savings figures the only solution is "work till you drop dead at your desk" :(

bradpevans
Posts: 205
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2018 1:09 pm

Re: Five years to retirement (article)

Post by bradpevans » Thu Jul 12, 2018 1:19 pm

jharkin wrote:
Thu Jul 12, 2018 12:52 pm
vested1 wrote:
Thu Jul 12, 2018 8:55 am
carolinaman wrote:
Thu Jul 12, 2018 8:23 am
Grt2bOutdoors wrote:
Wed Jul 11, 2018 9:40 am
The comments section on nytimes.com is more enlightening.
+1. Agreed. The comments were enlightening as to the mindset of readers. I am not sure they are totally representative but they seemed more fixated on the $140k salary and $1.5M 401k balance than the principles that apply to people at different income and savings levels. They seemed angry for no apparent reason.
This is common in every comment section of any financial article from any organization, not primarily by the NY Times, who at least filter and approve comments from all sides of the political spectrum. Try reading the comments in a Yahoo finance article if you have the stomach for it.

I believe the anger comes from a combination of fear and failure, a common aspect of ignorance. Ignorance is a universal phenomena. Occasionally a well meaning soul will offer some sound advice in the comment section, which is usually condemned or ridiculed.

Here is a better link to the article from the Times itself, which may be unavailable unless you subscribe.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/06/busi ... -plan.html
Quite true, and they usually degrade to outright name calling, personal attacks and arguments about how the the "gooberment" is stealing their social security "savings account"

I also was surprised at how reasonable the recommendations in the article. Yes, the 1.5MM example is out of reach for the average family but as somebody pointed out if you based it on real average savings figures the only solution is "work till you drop dead at your desk" :(
I too thought most of the recommendations were reasonable. If someone is five years out, then their situation is their situation, and some nuggets could be gleaned.

investingdad
Posts: 1332
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2013 10:41 pm

Re: Five years to retirement (article)

Post by investingdad » Thu Jul 12, 2018 2:21 pm

jharkin wrote:
Thu Jul 12, 2018 12:52 pm
vested1 wrote:
Thu Jul 12, 2018 8:55 am
carolinaman wrote:
Thu Jul 12, 2018 8:23 am
Grt2bOutdoors wrote:
Wed Jul 11, 2018 9:40 am
The comments section on nytimes.com is more enlightening.
+1. Agreed. The comments were enlightening as to the mindset of readers. I am not sure they are totally representative but they seemed more fixated on the $140k salary and $1.5M 401k balance than the principles that apply to people at different income and savings levels. They seemed angry for no apparent reason.
This is common in every comment section of any financial article from any organization, not primarily by the NY Times, who at least filter and approve comments from all sides of the political spectrum. Try reading the comments in a Yahoo finance article if you have the stomach for it.

I believe the anger comes from a combination of fear and failure, a common aspect of ignorance. Ignorance is a universal phenomena. Occasionally a well meaning soul will offer some sound advice in the comment section, which is usually condemned or ridiculed.

Here is a better link to the article from the Times itself, which may be unavailable unless you subscribe.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/06/busi ... -plan.html
Quite true, and they usually degrade to outright name calling, personal attacks and arguments about how the the "gooberment" is stealing their social security "savings account"

I also was surprised at how reasonable the recommendations in the article. Yes, the 1.5MM example is out of reach for the average family but as somebody pointed out if you based it on real average savings figures the only solution is "work till you drop dead at your desk" :(
On Yahoo finance article comments you forgot to include:
"Wall Street Casino", rigged, fat cats, republocrats, what retirement... I'll work until I'm dead.

Post Reply