Question About Retiring in 1966

Discuss all general (i.e. non-personal) investing questions and issues, investing news, and theory.
User avatar
FiveK
Posts: 11550
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2014 2:43 pm

Re: Retiring in 1966 on 2% SWR

Post by FiveK »

Given a 4% withdrawal ratio "just barely" succeeding or failing, a 2% withdrawal ratio would have been fine.
User avatar
gwe67
Posts: 873
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 9:52 pm

Re: Retiring in 1966 on 2% SWR

Post by gwe67 »

I believe you have asked this question before.

Question About Retiring in 1966
viewtopic.php?t=344094
VTI 48%, VXUS 12%, BND 40%
z3r0c00l
Posts: 2391
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 11:43 am
Location: NYC

Re: Retiring in 1966 on 2% SWR

Post by z3r0c00l »

They would have been more likely to have a pension and live a very modest, and on average, 8 year shorter life.
100% Global Stocks / Ibond Emergency Fund
Candor
Posts: 477
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 4:25 pm

Re: Retiring in 1966 on 2% SWR

Post by Candor »

IIRC 3.8% was successful for this period of time so 2% is virtually bullet proof.
Time is your friend, impulse is your enemy. - John C. Bogle
Marseille07
Posts: 4082
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2020 1:41 pm

Re: Retiring in 1966 on 2% SWR

Post by Marseille07 »

I mean...simple math is that the lower SWR the higher chance of success, given the same AA. As another poster said, 3.8% was the line so 2% would have been fine.
User avatar
JDCarpenter
Posts: 1593
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2014 2:42 pm

Re: Retiring in 1966 on 2% SWR

Post by JDCarpenter »

z3r0c00l wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 6:15 pm They would have been more likely to have a pension and live a very modest, and on average, 8 year shorter life.
Interesting stuff. Your post sent me delving! More likely, but still unlikely, to have a pension. Estimated 83.8 million in 1965 labor force, https://www.commentarymagazine.com/arti ... nomy-1966/, and "more than 26 million em-
ployees were under retirement plans" in 1966. https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v31n4/v31n4p23.pdf
Edit Signature
Topic Author
Leesbro63
Posts: 7143
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2010 4:36 pm

Re: Retiring in 1966 on 2% SWR

Post by Leesbro63 »

gwe67 wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 6:08 pm I believe you have asked this question before.

Question About Retiring in 1966
viewtopic.php?t=344094
I must be losing my marbles!!! Sorry about asking the same question twice in a short period of time. I guess I forgot!!!!! :oops:
z3r0c00l
Posts: 2391
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 11:43 am
Location: NYC

Re: Retiring in 1966 on 2% SWR

Post by z3r0c00l »

JDCarpenter wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 7:42 pm
z3r0c00l wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 6:15 pm They would have been more likely to have a pension and live a very modest, and on average, 8 year shorter life.
Interesting stuff. Your post sent me delving! More likely, but still unlikely, to have a pension. Estimated 83.8 million in 1965 labor force, https://www.commentarymagazine.com/arti ... nomy-1966/, and "more than 26 million em-
ployees were under retirement plans" in 1966. https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v31n4/v31n4p23.pdf
My numbers may have been off, I understood it peaked with over half of Americans having a pension by 1980, and it is now 4 percent. (Let's say 30% for 1966.) I guess my point is, people didn't necessarily live that long after retiring and they were much more apt to live with family, modestly, and on pension and social security checks, rather than rely on saving large amounts to spend down in 30 years. 1968 - 82 was in many ways the most miserable run since the Great Depression but I think retirees did just fine. Purely anecdotal, but my grandparents were roughly retired in this time frame. 3/4 of them passed by the early 80's but one survived until 2000 as a pensioner. Doubt any of them saved much for the future and just lived on their social security/pension balancing monthly expenses against monthly income. They were blue/pink collar workers in the parlance.
100% Global Stocks / Ibond Emergency Fund
nigel_ht
Posts: 2185
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2019 10:14 am

Re: Question About Retiring in 1966

Post by nigel_ht »

Zillions wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 9:11 pm I don't mean to sound angry or bitter,
You aren’t the one that sounds angry or bitter…
but I think underestimating the importance of networking among alums is ignoring the elephant in the room -- it's as much about WHO you know as the WHAT you know.
Your friends can get you jobs your resume never will.

That’s been true forever starting from some caveman getting his buddy into a some primo hunt just because they were buddies.

As a hiring manager, we look at B students from Stanford more than A students from a college we never heard about and had to look up. Now Georgia Tech vs Stanford is a different story but not all state flagships are in that category.

We also often ask our really good interns if they know any good candidates…generally the answer is “yeah, but she’s already got an offer from Google”.
Zillions
Posts: 329
Joined: Sun May 24, 2020 12:58 am

Re: Question About Retiring in 1966

Post by Zillions »

nigel_ht wrote: Fri Jun 11, 2021 7:16 am
Zillions wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 9:11 pm I don't mean to sound angry or bitter,
You aren’t the one that sounds angry or bitter…
but I think underestimating the importance of networking among alums is ignoring the elephant in the room -- it's as much about WHO you know as the WHAT you know.
Your friends can get you jobs your resume never will.

That’s been true forever starting from some caveman getting his buddy into a some primo hunt just because they were buddies.

As a hiring manager, we look at B students from Stanford more than A students from a college we never heard about and had to look up. Now Georgia Tech vs Stanford is a different story but not all state flagships are in that category.

We also often ask our really good interns if they know any good candidates…generally the answer is “yeah, but she’s already got an offer from Google”.
Thank you.

My daughter is very high IQ but has significant social challenges (high functioning autistic). Despite her intelligence, she has not done well in high school, and will likely "only" make it to UC Davis, which is a good school but hardly Stanford!

As a parent, It is frustrating to me as what one does for 4 years as a teenager can make or break one's future, and apparently sometimes permanently so. I hope that changes, but until then, parents will continue to push their teenagers to make it to Harvard or Princeton, because a degree in Art History from Harvard appears to matter more than a degree in Computer Science from UC Davis, even if the kid has seemingly aced all 4 years and graduates summa cum laude.
Last edited by Zillions on Fri Jun 11, 2021 8:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
smitcat
Posts: 7930
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 10:51 am

Re: Question About Retiring in 1966

Post by smitcat »

Zillions wrote: Fri Jun 11, 2021 8:15 am
nigel_ht wrote: Fri Jun 11, 2021 7:16 am
Zillions wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 9:11 pm I don't mean to sound angry or bitter,
You aren’t the one that sounds angry or bitter…
but I think underestimating the importance of networking among alums is ignoring the elephant in the room -- it's as much about WHO you know as the WHAT you know.
Your friends can get you jobs your resume never will.

That’s been true forever starting from some caveman getting his buddy into a some primo hunt just because they were buddies.

As a hiring manager, we look at B students from Stanford more than A students from a college we never heard about and had to look up. Now Georgia Tech vs Stanford is a different story but not all state flagships are in that category.

We also often ask our really good interns if they know any good candidates…generally the answer is “yeah, but she’s already got an offer from Google”.
Thank you.

My daughter is very high IQ but has significant social challenges (high functioning autistic). Despite her intelligence, she has not done well in high school, and will likely "only" make it to UC Davis, which is a good school but hardly Stanford!

As a parent, It is frustrating to me as what one does for 4 years as a teenager can make or break one's future, and apparently sometimes permanently so. I hope that changes, but until then, parents will continue to push their teenagers to make it to Harvard or Princeton, because a degree in Art History from Harvard appears to matter more than a degree in Computer Science from UC Davis, even if the kid has seemingly aced all 4 years and graduates cum laude.
"It is frustrating to me as a parent that 4 years as a teenager can make or break one's future, and apparently sometimes permanently so."
Some do not see it that way - at least we do not.
Zillions
Posts: 329
Joined: Sun May 24, 2020 12:58 am

Re: Question About Retiring in 1966

Post by Zillions »

smitcat wrote: Fri Jun 11, 2021 8:18 am
Zillions wrote: Fri Jun 11, 2021 8:15 am
nigel_ht wrote: Fri Jun 11, 2021 7:16 am
Zillions wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 9:11 pm I don't mean to sound angry or bitter,
You aren’t the one that sounds angry or bitter…
but I think underestimating the importance of networking among alums is ignoring the elephant in the room -- it's as much about WHO you know as the WHAT you know.
Your friends can get you jobs your resume never will.

That’s been true forever starting from some caveman getting his buddy into a some primo hunt just because they were buddies.

As a hiring manager, we look at B students from Stanford more than A students from a college we never heard about and had to look up. Now Georgia Tech vs Stanford is a different story but not all state flagships are in that category.

We also often ask our really good interns if they know any good candidates…generally the answer is “yeah, but she’s already got an offer from Google”.
Thank you.

My daughter is very high IQ but has significant social challenges (high functioning autistic). Despite her intelligence, she has not done well in high school, and will likely "only" make it to UC Davis, which is a good school but hardly Stanford!

As a parent, It is frustrating to me as what one does for 4 years as a teenager can make or break one's future, and apparently sometimes permanently so. I hope that changes, but until then, parents will continue to push their teenagers to make it to Harvard or Princeton, because a degree in Art History from Harvard appears to matter more than a degree in Computer Science from UC Davis, even if the kid has seemingly aced all 4 years and graduates cum laude.
"It is frustrating to me as a parent that 4 years as a teenager can make or break one's future, and apparently sometimes permanently so."
Some do not see it that way - at least we do not.
What is your opinion?
smitcat
Posts: 7930
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 10:51 am

Re: Question About Retiring in 1966

Post by smitcat »

Zillions wrote: Fri Jun 11, 2021 8:43 am
smitcat wrote: Fri Jun 11, 2021 8:18 am
Zillions wrote: Fri Jun 11, 2021 8:15 am
nigel_ht wrote: Fri Jun 11, 2021 7:16 am
Zillions wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 9:11 pm I don't mean to sound angry or bitter,
You aren’t the one that sounds angry or bitter…
but I think underestimating the importance of networking among alums is ignoring the elephant in the room -- it's as much about WHO you know as the WHAT you know.
Your friends can get you jobs your resume never will.

That’s been true forever starting from some caveman getting his buddy into a some primo hunt just because they were buddies.

As a hiring manager, we look at B students from Stanford more than A students from a college we never heard about and had to look up. Now Georgia Tech vs Stanford is a different story but not all state flagships are in that category.

We also often ask our really good interns if they know any good candidates…generally the answer is “yeah, but she’s already got an offer from Google”.
Thank you.

My daughter is very high IQ but has significant social challenges (high functioning autistic). Despite her intelligence, she has not done well in high school, and will likely "only" make it to UC Davis, which is a good school but hardly Stanford!

As a parent, It is frustrating to me as what one does for 4 years as a teenager can make or break one's future, and apparently sometimes permanently so. I hope that changes, but until then, parents will continue to push their teenagers to make it to Harvard or Princeton, because a degree in Art History from Harvard appears to matter more than a degree in Computer Science from UC Davis, even if the kid has seemingly aced all 4 years and graduates cum laude.
"It is frustrating to me as a parent that 4 years as a teenager can make or break one's future, and apparently sometimes permanently so."
Some do not see it that way - at least we do not.
What is your opinion?
Our opinion is directly correlating someones self worth and happiness to a high school test or which college they attend is frought with pitfalls.
Making numerous assumptions about/for someone early in life can easily lead to additional limits.
YMMV
User avatar
firebirdparts
Posts: 2563
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2019 4:21 pm

Re: Retiring in 1966 on 2% SWR

Post by firebirdparts »

Leesbro63 wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 5:07 pm [Merged into earlier discussion to keep answers together -- moderator oldcomputerguy]


With the latest inflation data, I'm wondering if we might not see something like the 1966 retiree saw. I know that 4% just barely made it or maybe just barely failed, but I'm wondering how the 1966 retiree did, in real terms, over 30 years, if he or she did a 2% SWR. This is very actionable to me.
Extreme wealth at the end, but of course, you're dead then.
A fool and your money are soon partners
User avatar
firebirdparts
Posts: 2563
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2019 4:21 pm

Re: Question About Retiring in 1966

Post by firebirdparts »

smitcat wrote: Fri Jun 11, 2021 8:18 am "It is frustrating to me as a parent that 4 years as a teenager can make or break one's future, and apparently sometimes permanently so."
Some do not see it that way - at least we do not.
Here's how I see it: Life is a minefield of moral choices fraught with pitfalls. Lots of people will tell you nobody warned them. It's a total lie. They were warned 10,000 times and deliberately ignored it all with extreme prejudice.

What I mean by "moral" is that if a school teacher says "I want you to learn this" then you have a moral decision, are you going to learn it or not. if you go to work and the boss says "make sure this stockroom is FIFO" then you have a moral choice whether you are going to show that you are one of the "cool kids" by screwing it all up. If you deal with customers then you have constant moral choices how your behavior is going to reflect on the company.

We all have to make the best of what we are. It's easy for me to say that, I know, I have nothing to blame on "the system". I was the one that was advantaged by "the system" as it was.
Last edited by firebirdparts on Fri Jun 11, 2021 9:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
A fool and your money are soon partners
User avatar
HomerJ
Posts: 16686
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 12:50 pm

Re: Retiring in 1966 on 2% SWR

Post by HomerJ »

Leesbro63 wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 5:07 pm With the latest inflation data, I'm wondering if we might not see something like the 1966 retiree saw. I know that 4% just barely made it or maybe just barely failed, but I'm wondering how the 1966 retiree did, in real terms, over 30 years, if he or she did a 2% SWR. This is very actionable to me.
The latest inflation data is probably just a blip... It's year-to-year, and a year ago, nearly the whole country was locked down.

Airline prices make up a huge part of that inflation number, and used car prices... A year ago, rental companies were dumping used cars. Now they may be buying.

Supply and demand are way out of whack right now. Give it some time to settle down before we start worrying about long-term inflation.

Look at these numbers

May 2020 to May 2021

All items - 5%
Food away from home - 4%
New vehicles - 3.3%
Rent of Primary residence - 1.8%
Used cars and trucks - 29.7%
Airline fares - 24.1%

Source, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index


I'm not worried about inflation yet.
A Goldman Sachs associate provided a variety of detailed explanations, but then offered a caveat, “If I’m being dead-### honest, though, nobody knows what’s really going on.”
Topic Author
Leesbro63
Posts: 7143
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2010 4:36 pm

Re: Retiring in 1966 on 2% SWR

Post by Leesbro63 »

HomerJ wrote: Fri Jun 11, 2021 9:19 am
Leesbro63 wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 5:07 pm With the latest inflation data, I'm wondering if we might not see something like the 1966 retiree saw. I know that 4% just barely made it or maybe just barely failed, but I'm wondering how the 1966 retiree did, in real terms, over 30 years, if he or she did a 2% SWR. This is very actionable to me.
The latest inflation data is probably just a blip... It's year-to-year, and a year ago, nearly the whole country was locked down.

Airline prices make up a huge part of that inflation number, and used car prices... A year ago, rental companies were dumping used cars. Now they may be buying.

Supply and demand are way out of whack right now. Give it some time to settle down before we start worrying about long-term inflation.

Look at these numbers

May 2020 to May 2021

All items - 5%
Food away from home - 4%
New vehicles - 3.3%
Rent of Primary residence - 1.8%
Used cars and trucks - 29.7%
Airline fares - 24.1%

Source, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index


I'm not worried about inflation yet.
I hope you are right. The official government line seems to be that this is just a "reopening spike". But history has shown significant inflation for something like 5 years after the Civil War, WW1, WW2 and Vietnam. This wasn't that type of war, but there are financial similarities.
User avatar
HomerJ
Posts: 16686
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 12:50 pm

Re: Retiring in 1966 on 2% SWR

Post by HomerJ »

z3r0c00l wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 6:15 pm They would have been more likely to have a pension and live a very modest, and on average, 8 year shorter life.
Pension has nothing to do with the 4% "rule", nor does a lower life expectancy.

Pulling 3.8% from your investments would have lasted 30 years.
A Goldman Sachs associate provided a variety of detailed explanations, but then offered a caveat, “If I’m being dead-### honest, though, nobody knows what’s really going on.”
User avatar
HomerJ
Posts: 16686
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 12:50 pm

Re: Question About Retiring in 1966

Post by HomerJ »

Zillions wrote: Fri Jun 11, 2021 8:15 am
nigel_ht wrote: Fri Jun 11, 2021 7:16 am
Zillions wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 9:11 pm I don't mean to sound angry or bitter,
You aren’t the one that sounds angry or bitter…
but I think underestimating the importance of networking among alums is ignoring the elephant in the room -- it's as much about WHO you know as the WHAT you know.
Your friends can get you jobs your resume never will.

That’s been true forever starting from some caveman getting his buddy into a some primo hunt just because they were buddies.

As a hiring manager, we look at B students from Stanford more than A students from a college we never heard about and had to look up. Now Georgia Tech vs Stanford is a different story but not all state flagships are in that category.

We also often ask our really good interns if they know any good candidates…generally the answer is “yeah, but she’s already got an offer from Google”.
Thank you.

My daughter is very high IQ but has significant social challenges (high functioning autistic). Despite her intelligence, she has not done well in high school, and will likely "only" make it to UC Davis, which is a good school but hardly Stanford!

As a parent, It is frustrating to me as what one does for 4 years as a teenager can make or break one's future, and apparently sometimes permanently so. I hope that changes, but until then, parents will continue to push their teenagers to make it to Harvard or Princeton, because a degree in Art History from Harvard appears to matter more than a degree in Computer Science from UC Davis, even if the kid has seemingly aced all 4 years and graduates summa cum laude.
School only matters for the first job. And one's life is not "broken" because they don't get a job at Google or Facebook right out of college.

One can join Google or Facebook later in life, after getting some work experience elsewhere. Or never work for them all, and still be successful.

One can still get into the top 5%-10% of salaries working for "normal" companies coming out of a "normal" school. And that's an amazing excellent life in this country.
A Goldman Sachs associate provided a variety of detailed explanations, but then offered a caveat, “If I’m being dead-### honest, though, nobody knows what’s really going on.”
z3r0c00l
Posts: 2391
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 11:43 am
Location: NYC

Re: Retiring in 1966 on 2% SWR

Post by z3r0c00l »

HomerJ wrote: Fri Jun 11, 2021 9:34 am
z3r0c00l wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 6:15 pm They would have been more likely to have a pension and live a very modest, and on average, 8 year shorter life.
Pension has nothing to do with the 4% "rule", nor does a lower life expectancy.

Pulling 3.8% from your investments would have lasted 30 years.
I don't understand that. If the number of years you need to pull drops, or the amount you need to spend each year is reduced due to pension, why wouldn't that alter your SWR? Either it is a totally abstract mathematical figure that has no bearing on individual needs, or it is an entirely personal question based on the need and ability to withdraw from savings in retirement. If life expectancy in retirement is 10 years, why would someone care about making a nest egg last 30 years? If one only needs a few thousand a month after pension and SS, why would they worry about withdrawing more?
100% Global Stocks / Ibond Emergency Fund
dbr
Posts: 35928
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 9:50 am

Re: Retiring in 1966 on 2% SWR

Post by dbr »

z3r0c00l wrote: Fri Jun 11, 2021 10:49 am
HomerJ wrote: Fri Jun 11, 2021 9:34 am
z3r0c00l wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 6:15 pm They would have been more likely to have a pension and live a very modest, and on average, 8 year shorter life.
Pension has nothing to do with the 4% "rule", nor does a lower life expectancy.

Pulling 3.8% from your investments would have lasted 30 years.
I don't understand that. If the number of years you need to pull drops, or the amount you need to spend each year is reduced due to pension, why wouldn't that alter your SWR? Either it is a totally abstract mathematical figure that has no bearing on individual needs, or it is an entirely personal question based on the need and ability to withdraw from savings in retirement. If life expectancy in retirement is 10 years, why would someone care about making a nest egg last 30 years? If one only needs a few thousand a month after pension and SS, why would they worry about withdrawing more?
It is an applied math mathematical figure, not exactly abstract, but you are right. I think the disconnect here is that all of this SWR stuff is an analysis of how portfolios behave. The retiree has to decide how to take that information into account. If a person really only wants to ensure income for ten years, then you look at the analysis for ten years. Of course formal life expectancy would not be the way to get that. 50% of the pool will live longer than life expectancy. One might go out to the 95th percentile of life chances or something Malevsky even wrote a paper once producing the combined probability of running out of money and still being alive.

Also, obviously if you don't need all the money that is saved, you might or might not withdraw more and spend it. It comes down to what you are trying to do with your money. For one person realizing they can spend more might inspire uses for more of the money. For another person the incentive might be to grow the portfolio for posterity. Some people might just give a lot of it away.

Without a doubt SWR has become a fetish on this forum (in my opinion) when there are larger matters that apply. Common sense should be a rule.
User avatar
HomerJ
Posts: 16686
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 12:50 pm

Re: Retiring in 1966 on 2% SWR

Post by HomerJ »

z3r0c00l wrote: Fri Jun 11, 2021 10:49 am
HomerJ wrote: Fri Jun 11, 2021 9:34 am
z3r0c00l wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 6:15 pm They would have been more likely to have a pension and live a very modest, and on average, 8 year shorter life.
Pension has nothing to do with the 4% "rule", nor does a lower life expectancy.

Pulling 3.8% from your investments would have lasted 30 years.
I don't understand that. If the number of years you need to pull drops, or the amount you need to spend each year is reduced due to pension, why wouldn't that alter your SWR? Either it is a totally abstract mathematical figure that has no bearing on individual needs, or it is an entirely personal question based on the need and ability to withdraw from savings in retirement. If life expectancy in retirement is 10 years, why would someone care about making a nest egg last 30 years? If one only needs a few thousand a month after pension and SS, why would they worry about withdrawing more?
We're talking about the viability of pulling 3.8% from your investments for 30 years in 1966. 1966 had the worst 30-year SWR in U.S. history.

if you had a pension in 1966, you would have needed less in investments, but you could have still pulled 3.8%.

If you died 20 years in, there would have been money left over, but that doesn't change the fact that the 3.8% would have lasted 30 years.

Yes, someone in 1966 would have more likely had a pension and probably would have died sooner. That doesn't change what the "rule" says.
A Goldman Sachs associate provided a variety of detailed explanations, but then offered a caveat, “If I’m being dead-### honest, though, nobody knows what’s really going on.”
User avatar
HomerJ
Posts: 16686
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 12:50 pm

Re: Retiring in 1966 on 2% SWR

Post by HomerJ »

z3r0c00l wrote: Fri Jun 11, 2021 10:49 am [If] the amount you need to spend each year is reduced due to pension, why wouldn't that alter your SWR?
To clarify further.

If the amount you need to spend each year is reduced due to pension, your ACTUAL withdrawal rate (AWR?) might be lower.

But the SAFE withdrawal rate would remain the same.

If you had saved $1 million by 1966, you could have safely pulled $38,000 a year.

If you had a $20,000 a year pension, you would have only needed to pull $18,000 a year from investments (or 1.8%). But you COULD still have pulled 3.8%, and have had more money to spend or give away.

Or you could have only saved $500,000 instead of a million because of the pension...

What you pull or what you need to save can change because of a pension, but the math behind the 3.8% Safe WR doesn't change.
A Goldman Sachs associate provided a variety of detailed explanations, but then offered a caveat, “If I’m being dead-### honest, though, nobody knows what’s really going on.”
HootingSloth
Posts: 385
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2019 3:38 pm

Re: Question About Retiring in 1966

Post by HootingSloth »

Zillions wrote: Fri Jun 11, 2021 8:15 am
nigel_ht wrote: Fri Jun 11, 2021 7:16 am
Zillions wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 9:11 pm I don't mean to sound angry or bitter,
You aren’t the one that sounds angry or bitter…
but I think underestimating the importance of networking among alums is ignoring the elephant in the room -- it's as much about WHO you know as the WHAT you know.
Your friends can get you jobs your resume never will.

That’s been true forever starting from some caveman getting his buddy into a some primo hunt just because they were buddies.

As a hiring manager, we look at B students from Stanford more than A students from a college we never heard about and had to look up. Now Georgia Tech vs Stanford is a different story but not all state flagships are in that category.

We also often ask our really good interns if they know any good candidates…generally the answer is “yeah, but she’s already got an offer from Google”.
Thank you.

My daughter is very high IQ but has significant social challenges (high functioning autistic). Despite her intelligence, she has not done well in high school, and will likely "only" make it to UC Davis, which is a good school but hardly Stanford!

As a parent, It is frustrating to me as what one does for 4 years as a teenager can make or break one's future, and apparently sometimes permanently so. I hope that changes, but until then, parents will continue to push their teenagers to make it to Harvard or Princeton, because a degree in Art History from Harvard appears to matter more than a degree in Computer Science from UC Davis, even if the kid has seemingly aced all 4 years and graduates summa cum laude.
From what I have seen, many very smart folks on the spectrum seem to struggle a bit in their teen years but slowly strengthen those skills over time and go on to flourish. I can understand your fears, but your daughter seems to have done well so far and her future is still in her hands. Best of luck to you both.
Global Market Portfolio + modest tilt towards volatility (80/20->60/40 as approach FI) + modest tilt away from exchange rate risk (80% global+20% U.S. stocks; currency-hedge bonds) + tax optimization
seajay
Posts: 134
Joined: Sat May 01, 2021 3:26 pm

Re: Question About Retiring in 1966

Post by seajay »

Leesbro63 wrote: Wed Mar 24, 2021 11:35 amSo that kind morphs into the current question: Does 4% still work with historically low bond yields?
A primary factor is inflation. In some historic SWR runs pretty much any choice of allocation near failed due to high inflation and asset values in general not keeping up with that. In a interim period 'bad/worst' case situation a combination of real value declines along with drawing a income pulled the portfolio value down to levels where the real portfolio value was for instance around a third of the inflation adjusted start date portfolio value, such that even a 3% SWR value had risen to being more like 9% of the ongoing portfolio value being drawn. Whilst mathematically it pulled through, good times followed, whether you could endure that in practice??? Another factor is that the circumstances that led to such real-value declines (high inflation) would also likely see taxes being increased as the 'public purse' would also be strained. High inflation and high taxation tend to correlate.

If real yields are +2% one day and your portfolio value is $500K, but a few weeks later the value had doubled to $1M but real yields declined to -2%, then applying 4% SWR equally to each does seem a bit daft. However SWR tables reflect such cases, consider the worst case outcomes. The latter is at greater risk of running right up to the wire. Perhaps when considering initial SWR % the real yields evident at the time should be considered in order to better avoid running too close to the wire. 0% real yields, 4% SWR; +2% real yield and 6% SWR might be fine, -2% real yields and 2% SWR ... or suchlike.
sycamore
Posts: 2274
Joined: Tue May 08, 2018 12:06 pm

Re: Question About Retiring in 1966

Post by sycamore »

There's a WSJ article today When Americans Took to the Streets Over Inflation. It starts off describing protests in 1966 over inflation so some readers of this thread may find it interesting. It then proceeds to describe inflation in the 70's and 80's (Volcker).

In case the article is behind a paywall for you, the same article (without pictures) is available at Morningstar in two parts:
https://www.morningstar.com/news/dow-jo ... -inflation
https://www.morningstar.com/news/dow-jo ... nflation-2
nigel_ht
Posts: 2185
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2019 10:14 am

Re: Question About Retiring in 1966

Post by nigel_ht »

Zillions wrote: Fri Jun 11, 2021 8:15 am
nigel_ht wrote: Fri Jun 11, 2021 7:16 am
Zillions wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 9:11 pm I don't mean to sound angry or bitter,
You aren’t the one that sounds angry or bitter…
but I think underestimating the importance of networking among alums is ignoring the elephant in the room -- it's as much about WHO you know as the WHAT you know.
Your friends can get you jobs your resume never will.

That’s been true forever starting from some caveman getting his buddy into a some primo hunt just because they were buddies.

As a hiring manager, we look at B students from Stanford more than A students from a college we never heard about and had to look up. Now Georgia Tech vs Stanford is a different story but not all state flagships are in that category.

We also often ask our really good interns if they know any good candidates…generally the answer is “yeah, but she’s already got an offer from Google”.
Thank you.

My daughter is very high IQ but has significant social challenges (high functioning autistic). Despite her intelligence, she has not done well in high school, and will likely "only" make it to UC Davis, which is a good school but hardly Stanford!

As a parent, It is frustrating to me as what one does for 4 years as a teenager can make or break one's future, and apparently sometimes permanently so. I hope that changes, but until then, parents will continue to push their teenagers to make it to Harvard or Princeton, because a degree in Art History from Harvard appears to matter more than a degree in Computer Science from UC Davis, even if the kid has seemingly aced all 4 years and graduates summa cum laude.
I'd look at a 4.0 CS grad from UC Davis...we don't send recruiters there though so she'd have to find us and get past the first sort to get it into my queue...

And I've know a few folks that went from GSOC (google summer of code) into Google but that was a long while ago. So there are always alternative paths...harder and less well travelled perhaps but for computer science the career graph is connected...bad math jokes aside, it's far less critical for computer science than say...investment banking or something.

I would worry less for your daughter than my son who is not as smart and likely far lazier...
nigel_ht
Posts: 2185
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2019 10:14 am

Re: Question About Retiring in 1966

Post by nigel_ht »

smitcat wrote: Fri Jun 11, 2021 9:08 am
Zillions wrote: Fri Jun 11, 2021 8:43 am
smitcat wrote: Fri Jun 11, 2021 8:18 am
Zillions wrote: Fri Jun 11, 2021 8:15 am
nigel_ht wrote: Fri Jun 11, 2021 7:16 am

You aren’t the one that sounds angry or bitter…



Your friends can get you jobs your resume never will.

That’s been true forever starting from some caveman getting his buddy into a some primo hunt just because they were buddies.

As a hiring manager, we look at B students from Stanford more than A students from a college we never heard about and had to look up. Now Georgia Tech vs Stanford is a different story but not all state flagships are in that category.

We also often ask our really good interns if they know any good candidates…generally the answer is “yeah, but she’s already got an offer from Google”.
Thank you.

My daughter is very high IQ but has significant social challenges (high functioning autistic). Despite her intelligence, she has not done well in high school, and will likely "only" make it to UC Davis, which is a good school but hardly Stanford!

As a parent, It is frustrating to me as what one does for 4 years as a teenager can make or break one's future, and apparently sometimes permanently so. I hope that changes, but until then, parents will continue to push their teenagers to make it to Harvard or Princeton, because a degree in Art History from Harvard appears to matter more than a degree in Computer Science from UC Davis, even if the kid has seemingly aced all 4 years and graduates cum laude.
"It is frustrating to me as a parent that 4 years as a teenager can make or break one's future, and apparently sometimes permanently so."
Some do not see it that way - at least we do not.
What is your opinion?
Our opinion is directly correlating someones self worth and happiness to a high school test or which college they attend is frought with pitfalls.
Making numerous assumptions about/for someone early in life can easily lead to additional limits.
YMMV
I tell my kid that there is an easy path and a hard path. The amount of work for the easy path isn't necessarily less than the hard path and in fact it will be a lot more work TODAY to get a 4.0 and a high SAT score and then do a gazillion extra things to get into an elite institution with a remunerative major than just slack off.

But for sure, high educational attainment is the easiest path, even in today's competitive environment, for the average individual seeking a reasonable middle/upper middle class lifestyle.

FI and LYBM is FAR easier with a high income than a low income. That doesn't necessarily being self worth or happiness but being FI and unhappy is generally a far better place to be than not-FI and unhappy.
hnd
Posts: 546
Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2020 11:43 am

Re: Question About Retiring in 1966

Post by hnd »

I kind of gravitate towards sr citizens. we've lived in aged neighborhoods and many of the guys i fished with and golfed with over the past 20 years are/were about my grandparents age or my great grandparents. I believe many of them retired in the 70's-80's. Most of them are gone today. In our area many worked for either Alcoa or John Deere. Some in offices some on the floor. My grandparents both worked for GM as they resided in the rust belt.

I think its hard to put a # on them as most of them retired with pensions. And it appears the idea of taking a lump sum back then was pretty out of the ordinary. I know my grandparents it was pension and SS. there wasn't anything else. I know others who supplemented with odd stock combinations like railroad, utility, bank stocks. Very few of them invested in mutual funds while working.

So the concept of a withdrawal rate was probably pretty foreign. they relied on the gvt and the company they worked for to figure it out.

my wifes grandfathers and 1 grandmother farmed until they died. when one grandfather died, the grandmother finally "retired" and is supported by SS and a little revenue from the family farm.
Grt2bOutdoors
Posts: 23782
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 8:20 pm
Location: New York

Re: Retiring in 1966 on 2% SWR

Post by Grt2bOutdoors »

Leesbro63 wrote: Fri Jun 11, 2021 9:23 am
HomerJ wrote: Fri Jun 11, 2021 9:19 am
Leesbro63 wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 5:07 pm With the latest inflation data, I'm wondering if we might not see something like the 1966 retiree saw. I know that 4% just barely made it or maybe just barely failed, but I'm wondering how the 1966 retiree did, in real terms, over 30 years, if he or she did a 2% SWR. This is very actionable to me.
The latest inflation data is probably just a blip... It's year-to-year, and a year ago, nearly the whole country was locked down.

Airline prices make up a huge part of that inflation number, and used car prices... A year ago, rental companies were dumping used cars. Now they may be buying.

Supply and demand are way out of whack right now. Give it some time to settle down before we start worrying about long-term inflation.

Look at these numbers

May 2020 to May 2021

All items - 5%
Food away from home - 4%
New vehicles - 3.3%
Rent of Primary residence - 1.8%
Used cars and trucks - 29.7%
Airline fares - 24.1%

Source, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index


I'm not worried about inflation yet.
I hope you are right. The official government line seems to be that this is just a "reopening spike". But history has shown significant inflation for something like 5 years after the Civil War, WW1, WW2 and Vietnam. This wasn't that type of war, but there are financial similarities.
Barron’s has an in-depth article on what occurred prior to WWII and what transpired during and after. There was basically constrained spending followed by a boom in spending for years after the end of the War and even then, people did not expend all of the savings they accumulated, they held on to it. So how high inflation goes and for how long is anyone’s guess but continual bidding wars in real estate are expected to cool down.
"One should invest based on their need, ability and willingness to take risk - Larry Swedroe" Asking Portfolio Questions
Grt2bOutdoors
Posts: 23782
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 8:20 pm
Location: New York

Re: Question About Retiring in 1966

Post by Grt2bOutdoors »

HomerJ wrote: Fri Jun 11, 2021 9:40 am
Zillions wrote: Fri Jun 11, 2021 8:15 am
nigel_ht wrote: Fri Jun 11, 2021 7:16 am
Zillions wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 9:11 pm I don't mean to sound angry or bitter,
You aren’t the one that sounds angry or bitter…
but I think underestimating the importance of networking among alums is ignoring the elephant in the room -- it's as much about WHO you know as the WHAT you know.
Your friends can get you jobs your resume never will.

That’s been true forever starting from some caveman getting his buddy into a some primo hunt just because they were buddies.

As a hiring manager, we look at B students from Stanford more than A students from a college we never heard about and had to look up. Now Georgia Tech vs Stanford is a different story but not all state flagships are in that category.

We also often ask our really good interns if they know any good candidates…generally the answer is “yeah, but she’s already got an offer from Google”.
Thank you.

My daughter is very high IQ but has significant social challenges (high functioning autistic). Despite her intelligence, she has not done well in high school, and will likely "only" make it to UC Davis, which is a good school but hardly Stanford!

As a parent, It is frustrating to me as what one does for 4 years as a teenager can make or break one's future, and apparently sometimes permanently so. I hope that changes, but until then, parents will continue to push their teenagers to make it to Harvard or Princeton, because a degree in Art History from Harvard appears to matter more than a degree in Computer Science from UC Davis, even if the kid has seemingly aced all 4 years and graduates summa cum laude.
School only matters for the first job. And one's life is not "broken" because they don't get a job at Google or Facebook right out of college.

One can join Google or Facebook later in life, after getting some work experience elsewhere. Or never work for them all, and still be successful.

One can still get into the top 5%-10% of salaries working for "normal" companies coming out of a "normal" school. And that's an amazing excellent life in this country.
+1. This country offers many opportunities not necessarily found elsewhere which is part of the continued appeal. It’s not easy here but where is it?
"One should invest based on their need, ability and willingness to take risk - Larry Swedroe" Asking Portfolio Questions
User avatar
22twain
Posts: 2828
Joined: Thu May 10, 2012 5:42 pm

Re: Question About Retiring in 1966

Post by 22twain »

"Holy thread drift, Batman!" :o
It's "Roth", not "ROTH". Senator William Roth was a person, not an acronym.
Post Reply