I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X

Discuss all general (i.e. non-personal) investing questions and issues, investing news, and theory.
dknightd
Posts: 3727
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2018 10:57 am

Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X

Post by dknightd »

Leesbro63 wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 6:55 am The biggest financial plus that the original poster has in his favor is that he isn't married with or without kids. He can be totally flexible and even become a austere miser, if need be, without consequence to anyone else.
That really depends. If the OP's SO is living in the same house then things get more complicated. I would not want my SO living in the street if I took out a reverse mortgage, then died before they did.
If the SO owns their own house, then that is not a problem.
Retired 2019. So far, so good. I want to wake up every morning. But I want to die in my sleep. Just another conundrum. I think the solution might be afternoon naps ;)
dknightd
Posts: 3727
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2018 10:57 am

Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X

Post by dknightd »

I might be reading between the lines here. I suspect OP's materially older SO might be encouraging them to retire early so they can have more time together. Seems reasonable if they are both financially independent. I could be wrong.

Edit: reading between the lines is very very risky. Would OP be happy without SO? And would SO be happy without OP?
Retired 2019. So far, so good. I want to wake up every morning. But I want to die in my sleep. Just another conundrum. I think the solution might be afternoon naps ;)
tphp99
Posts: 374
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 7:47 pm

Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X

Post by tphp99 »

Wannaretireearly wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 3:57 am Down to 45 months of actual healthy months where you control 100% of your time? (Not controlled by boss, spouse, family, kids, sick parents etc).
Maybe I don't understand this statement, but how would you manage this? Quit your job, get a divorce and renounce all of your family members?

45 months. That scares me. Enough to keep me on a path to start utilizing those months the way I want (I cannot now).
So... when you get to those 45 months, how exactly would you live that's so different than today? - not trying to be a jerk, just curious on your retirement plans without spouse and family members involvement. I'm finding that I'm just doing basically what I've always done while I was still working, it wasn't a on/off switch for me once I retired.

Bottom line: The window is very short where you control your own time 100% AND you are in 100% good health. Doesn’t this scare others? Losing my dad before 60 made this very real for me….
So.. how would you get 100% control of your time, and what would you do exactly? By the 3rd or 4th decade of life, most of us if we're honest must admit that we are no longer 100% healthy. I can't nor want to play 36 holes of golf in one day, would be terrified to do some of the stuff I did in my 20's. Again, I'm just curious on how you picture your complete freedom in those 45 months of retirement.
tphp99
Posts: 374
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 7:47 pm

Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X

Post by tphp99 »

dknightd wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 7:33 am I might be reading between the lines here. I suspect OP's materially older SO might be encouraging them to retire early so they can have more time together. Seems reasonable if they are both financially independent. I could be wrong.

Edit: reading between the lines is very very risky. Would OP be happy without SO? And would SO be happy without OP?
Good point, so if they are living together and the SO is also spending about the same amount, $45K, they are doing fine and can definitely make it work. My only concern is on $45K/yr alone - without the SO, the budget is a bit tight, in my opinion. Not much fat to cut if things go south and going back to work needs to be on the table.
dknightd
Posts: 3727
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2018 10:57 am

Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X

Post by dknightd »

I still plan I'll live to 95, and spouse would be 101. I doubt either of us will live that long. But is possible. I revisit our plan once a year. I do it assuming SS will not decrease. If it does, we'll have to decrease our spending. But will probably be OK.
The interesting thing is that me living to 80, or 95, does not make a huge difference in what we can spend. If SS gets cut by 22%, that does make a difference. If inflation is 5% that does make a difference. If expected returns on investments is different, that does make a difference. But how long I might live is almost noise.
Retired 2019. So far, so good. I want to wake up every morning. But I want to die in my sleep. Just another conundrum. I think the solution might be afternoon naps ;)
EnjoyIt
Posts: 8272
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2013 7:06 pm

Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X

Post by EnjoyIt »

tphp99 wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 8:03 am
Wannaretireearly wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 3:57 am Down to 45 months of actual healthy months where you control 100% of your time? (Not controlled by boss, spouse, family, kids, sick parents etc).
Maybe I don't understand this statement, but how would you manage this? Quit your job, get a divorce and renounce all of your family members?

45 months. That scares me. Enough to keep me on a path to start utilizing those months the way I want (I cannot now).
So... when you get to those 45 months, how exactly would you live that's so different than today? - not trying to be a jerk, just curious on your retirement plans without spouse and family members involvement. I'm finding that I'm just doing basically what I've always done while I was still working, it wasn't a on/off switch for me once I retired.

Bottom line: The window is very short where you control your own time 100% AND you are in 100% good health. Doesn’t this scare others? Losing my dad before 60 made this very real for me….
So.. how would you get 100% control of your time, and what would you do exactly? By the 3rd or 4th decade of life, most of us if we're honest must admit that we are no longer 100% healthy. I can't nor want to play 36 holes of golf in one day, would be terrified to do some of the stuff I did in my 20's. Again, I'm just curious on how you picture your complete freedom in those 45 months of retirement.
I’m in my 40s. We went part time a few years ago. I am in better shape and healthier today than I was 5 years ago. I have more energy to do activities I enjoy and frankly, I look better. My spouse is healthier and looks way better as well. Our adult life is far more active.

Some of the free time we gained going part time is spent living a healthier lifestyle. Maybe we even gained a few extra months of healthy living.
A time to EVALUATE your jitters: | viewtopic.php?p=1139732#p1139732
User avatar
Harry Livermore
Posts: 1937
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2019 5:32 am

Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X

Post by Harry Livermore »

freakyfriday wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 2:56 pm
The biggest barrier to funding yourself for 34+ years is not that it's mathemetical impossible, but that you don't know what the future will look like.
Good point that is always implied around here, but rarely pointed out directly... maybe because (I suspect) most on this site already know this intuitively.
I have always thought of saving for "retirement", whatever that means, as sort of being in the path of a hurricane. You might decide to plan, or not. Your plan may be good, or not. And there is the "cone of uncertainty" when the hurricane is far away. You may not want to waste the next few days boarding up windows and moving possessions to higher ground, figuring "well, I'll just move fast when it's obvious the hurricane is here". But, maybe by the time you need to take action, there's no more plywood to be had and all the highways are jammed up. You might find yourself stuck. I think many on this site (me included) have spent much of their years preemptively boarding up windows, in a constant state of low-level worry about a hurricane that's far off and may impact them.
OP, your original post seems more declarative than questioning, so I would simply offer you applause and wish you good luck. But if your post WAS soliciting advice, here's an idea: how about exploring work in the National Parks Service? Perhaps there's a ranger, firewatch, or station assignment that allows you to continue to make money, be closer to hiking and climbing, etc.?
Cheers
User avatar
gatorking
Posts: 1498
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 5:15 pm
Location: MA

Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X

Post by gatorking »

Patzer wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 1:41 pm
LeftCoastIV wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 1:26 pm What are your assumptions on health care expenses?

Have you considered a "downside" scenario in which you live the last 10 years of your life in a memory care facility, or other highly expensive scenario?
No, nor would I.
I don't see any value to working additional healthy years to make my care better in a scenario where I don't even remember yesterday.
I have watched someone go through 3 years of LTC facility care and die and every time anyone in the family visited they asked if they could please just go home.
If my memory is gone, I would consider worse care that shortens my life a kindness, not a punishment.
Need to bookmark this.
:sharebeer
ThankYouJack
Posts: 5704
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2014 7:27 pm

Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X

Post by ThankYouJack »

randomguy wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 11:15 pm
ThankYouJack wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 11:02 am I think the key phrase for the OP is "I don't have to worry". Other people can worry about what-if financial disasters, but I find threads like this refreshing. At some point the bigger worry should be running out of time.
randomguy wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 3:25 pm
MoonOrb wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 2:09 pm This relies on a lot of assumptions I wouldn't be comfortable making for such a significant decision because the failure mode of this decision is really unpleasant.
Failure mode here is going to work at McDonalds for 10 years at 56. I will let you decide how unpleasant that is.
I highly doubt the McDonalds part. I've never met a former millionaire who's investments went to near nothing and is forced to work at near minimum wage for 10 years. I read a blog post once about someone FIRE'ing and had to go back to work, but if I recall correctly got a software engineering job -- not a job at McDonalds.
How many people who are 55+, who haven't worked in a decade, have you ever heard of going out and getting a professional level job at remotely the level of pay of their prior one? I don't think that is realistic. It is one thing for a 35 year old to take 3 years off and go get a job again. Especially in a high demand field. Go ask the 55+ programmers how easy it is to get a job. Go ask any professional with a 10 year break (lots of SAHM in this group) who easy it was to get right back where they left off... Some times failure shows up quickly (1929, 2000). Sometimes it creeps up on you (1966 wasn't horrible til 73).
The subset I'm interested in is the self-made millionaire by age ~40. I don't see that person's human capital going from sky high to near zero 10 years later. We could go down a catastrophizing rabbit hole of what-ifs but it could cost us dearly.
smitcat
Posts: 13304
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 9:51 am

Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X

Post by smitcat »

brian91480 wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 10:09 pm
smitcat wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 12:38 pm
brian91480 wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 9:42 am This is a refreshing thread, because it makes it seem possible to retire early without having to accumulate a HUGE amount of X... which is the general idea on so many threads on this forum.

The OP has things individualized for him: Not married, older S.O., no heirs, etc.

But this same plan is relatable to all of us, if we individualize things for own specific situation:

1. Do you have a younger S.O.? Add 1-2 X.

2. Do you want to leave money for heirs? Add another 2 - 3 X.

But if we are starting at 23 X with this model... the odds of you needing 35X or more to retire does seem extreme. Especially if it's at the expense of using up your prime years to get there... just so you can sit in your kitchen chair, and look out the window every day because your health is now deteriorated.

So instead of having an opinion of "this post is right!" or "this post is wrong!"... the true answer is:

How can I apply this model for my own situation? If I do this... what number X could I retire young with?

Good post by the author - Patzer. :sharebeer

--- Brian
The general guideline was always 25X after any other incomes such as SS, pensions, P/T work, inheritance, real estate incomes, etc.
That could very well mean that some folks need zero X to retire and/or retire quite early.
We must read different posts on this forum. From what I've read for the past few years... a lot of people here would have a heart attack at the thought of retiring early with 25X... let alone 23X.

--- Brian
Some thoughts....
- what % of historical values do you find suitable? (99%, 95%, 90%, 85%?)
- have you looked at any articles that follow spending patterns by age?
- if the past few years indicate both higher and lower market valuations have you considered that lately?
- do you run any detailed calculators with your personal inputs to review the results?
- perhaps read some other sources on retirement multiples, Kitces, ERN, Bengen, etc
smitcat
Posts: 13304
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 9:51 am

Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X

Post by smitcat »

EnjoyIt wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 8:27 am
tphp99 wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 8:03 am
Wannaretireearly wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 3:57 am Down to 45 months of actual healthy months where you control 100% of your time? (Not controlled by boss, spouse, family, kids, sick parents etc).
Maybe I don't understand this statement, but how would you manage this? Quit your job, get a divorce and renounce all of your family members?

45 months. That scares me. Enough to keep me on a path to start utilizing those months the way I want (I cannot now).
So... when you get to those 45 months, how exactly would you live that's so different than today? - not trying to be a jerk, just curious on your retirement plans without spouse and family members involvement. I'm finding that I'm just doing basically what I've always done while I was still working, it wasn't a on/off switch for me once I retired.

Bottom line: The window is very short where you control your own time 100% AND you are in 100% good health. Doesn’t this scare others? Losing my dad before 60 made this very real for me….
So.. how would you get 100% control of your time, and what would you do exactly? By the 3rd or 4th decade of life, most of us if we're honest must admit that we are no longer 100% healthy. I can't nor want to play 36 holes of golf in one day, would be terrified to do some of the stuff I did in my 20's. Again, I'm just curious on how you picture your complete freedom in those 45 months of retirement.
I’m in my 40s. We went part time a few years ago. I am in better shape and healthier today than I was 5 years ago. I have more energy to do activities I enjoy and frankly, I look better. My spouse is healthier and looks way better as well. Our adult life is far more active.

Some of the free time we gained going part time is spent living a healthier lifestyle. Maybe we even gained a few extra months of healthy living.
"Maybe we even gained a few extra months of healthy living."
While I agree longevity is almost always a good thing we tend to rate the quality of time as the driver for change.
Leesbro63
Posts: 10639
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2010 3:36 pm

Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X

Post by Leesbro63 »

smitcat wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 8:53 am
brian91480 wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 10:09 pm
smitcat wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 12:38 pm
brian91480 wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 9:42 am This is a refreshing thread, because it makes it seem possible to retire early without having to accumulate a HUGE amount of X... which is the general idea on so many threads on this forum.

The OP has things individualized for him: Not married, older S.O., no heirs, etc.

But this same plan is relatable to all of us, if we individualize things for own specific situation:

1. Do you have a younger S.O.? Add 1-2 X.

2. Do you want to leave money for heirs? Add another 2 - 3 X.

But if we are starting at 23 X with this model... the odds of you needing 35X or more to retire does seem extreme. Especially if it's at the expense of using up your prime years to get there... just so you can sit in your kitchen chair, and look out the window every day because your health is now deteriorated.

So instead of having an opinion of "this post is right!" or "this post is wrong!"... the true answer is:

How can I apply this model for my own situation? If I do this... what number X could I retire young with?

Good post by the author - Patzer. :sharebeer

--- Brian
The general guideline was always 25X after any other incomes such as SS, pensions, P/T work, inheritance, real estate incomes, etc.
That could very well mean that some folks need zero X to retire and/or retire quite early.
We must read different posts on this forum. From what I've read for the past few years... a lot of people here would have a heart attack at the thought of retiring early with 25X... let alone 23X.

--- Brian
Some thoughts....
- what % of historical values do you find suitable? (99%, 95%, 90%, 85%?)
- have you looked at any articles that follow spending patterns by age?
- if the past few years indicate both higher and lower market valuations have you considered that lately?
- do you run any detailed calculators with your personal inputs to review the results?
- perhaps read some other sources on retirement multiples, Kitces, ERN, Bengen, etc
I believe the consensus is that 4% (25x) is too risky for an early retiree. Especially for a very early retiree.
smitcat
Posts: 13304
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 9:51 am

Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X

Post by smitcat »

Leesbro63 wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 9:10 am
smitcat wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 8:53 am
brian91480 wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 10:09 pm
smitcat wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 12:38 pm
brian91480 wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 9:42 am This is a refreshing thread, because it makes it seem possible to retire early without having to accumulate a HUGE amount of X... which is the general idea on so many threads on this forum.

The OP has things individualized for him: Not married, older S.O., no heirs, etc.

But this same plan is relatable to all of us, if we individualize things for own specific situation:

1. Do you have a younger S.O.? Add 1-2 X.

2. Do you want to leave money for heirs? Add another 2 - 3 X.

But if we are starting at 23 X with this model... the odds of you needing 35X or more to retire does seem extreme. Especially if it's at the expense of using up your prime years to get there... just so you can sit in your kitchen chair, and look out the window every day because your health is now deteriorated.

So instead of having an opinion of "this post is right!" or "this post is wrong!"... the true answer is:

How can I apply this model for my own situation? If I do this... what number X could I retire young with?

Good post by the author - Patzer. :sharebeer

--- Brian
The general guideline was always 25X after any other incomes such as SS, pensions, P/T work, inheritance, real estate incomes, etc.
That could very well mean that some folks need zero X to retire and/or retire quite early.
We must read different posts on this forum. From what I've read for the past few years... a lot of people here would have a heart attack at the thought of retiring early with 25X... let alone 23X.

--- Brian
Some thoughts....
- what % of historical values do you find suitable? (99%, 95%, 90%, 85%?)
- have you looked at any articles that follow spending patterns by age?
- if the past few years indicate both higher and lower market valuations have you considered that lately?
- do you run any detailed calculators with your personal inputs to review the results?
- perhaps read some other sources on retirement multiples, Kitces, ERN, Bengen, etc
I believe the consensus is that 4% (25x) is too risky for an early retiree. Especially for a very early retiree.
I think you mean if you take 4% at an earlier age, adjusted for inflation each year, then take that full amount every year until your demise.
Yes - that is likely too risky based on history.
Topic Author
Patzer
Posts: 701
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2015 10:56 am

Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X

Post by Patzer »

Harry Livermore wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 8:37 am
freakyfriday wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 2:56 pm
The biggest barrier to funding yourself for 34+ years is not that it's mathemetical impossible, but that you don't know what the future will look like.
Good point that is always implied around here, but rarely pointed out directly... maybe because (I suspect) most on this site already know this intuitively.
I have always thought of saving for "retirement", whatever that means, as sort of being in the path of a hurricane. You might decide to plan, or not. Your plan may be good, or not. And there is the "cone of uncertainty" when the hurricane is far away. You may not want to waste the next few days boarding up windows and moving possessions to higher ground, figuring "well, I'll just move fast when it's obvious the hurricane is here". But, maybe by the time you need to take action, there's no more plywood to be had and all the highways are jammed up. You might find yourself stuck. I think many on this site (me included) have spent much of their years preemptively boarding up windows, in a constant state of low-level worry about a hurricane that's far off and may impact them.
OP, your original post seems more declarative than questioning, so I would simply offer you applause and wish you good luck. But if your post WAS soliciting advice, here's an idea: how about exploring work in the National Parks Service? Perhaps there's a ranger, firewatch, or station assignment that allows you to continue to make money, be closer to hiking and climbing, etc.?
Cheers
Great analogy with the Hurricane.

It's definitely a thought I have had to do a nature related job, but a park ranger makes a small fraction of what I make, so the financial benefit of that extra income compared to my current income is pretty low. I.e. 1 year of my current job lets me save more than 5 years of being a ranger would.

Even with that low financial benefit, I have thought about doing something like that way later in life, even if it's voluntary or just for free parking/camping spot (i.e. a campground guide or off-trail guide at a national park). The older volunteers at national parks often have awesome stories if you spend a little time with them. At that point (70+) I am probably slower and can't go as far and maybe some of my joy of hiking comes from helping younger people to explore it.
User avatar
quantAndHold
Posts: 10141
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2015 10:39 pm
Location: West Coast

Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X

Post by quantAndHold »

Wannaretireearly wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 3:57 am 45 months. That scares me. Enough to keep me on a path to start utilizing those months the way I want (I cannot now).

Bottom line: The window is very short where you control your own time 100% AND you are in 100% good health. Doesn’t this scare others? Losing my dad before 60 made this very real for me….
I think if this were what was keeping me awake at night, I would be making changes *now* to make my life closer to what I want it to be. The idea that the ability to live life the way I want is some sort of on/off switch predicated solely by whether or not I have a job seems kinda sad.
brian91480
Posts: 683
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2021 6:44 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X

Post by brian91480 »

smitcat wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 8:53 am
brian91480 wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 9:42 am This is a refreshing thread, because it makes it seem possible to retire early without having to accumulate a HUGE amount of X... which is the general idea on so many threads on this forum.

--- Brian
Some thoughts....
- what % of historical values do you find suitable? (99%, 95%, 90%, 85%?)
- have you looked at any articles that follow spending patterns by age?
- if the past few years indicate both higher and lower market valuations have you considered that lately?
- do you run any detailed calculators with your personal inputs to review the results?
- perhaps read some other sources on retirement multiples, Kitces, ERN, Bengen, etc
Yes, yes, yes, yes and yes.

But I wasn't talking about me. Read above. I was talking about this thread providing an alternative thought process of how to prepare for early retirement that you usually don't find ---- on this forum.

You providing me with external-from-the-forum sources of information emphasizes the point that I'm already making.

In many cases, reaching an absurdly higher level of X expenses saved may provide some psychological benefit, but little practical benefit if your goal is to retire and enjoy life with... with a highly reasonably positive outcome.

Nothing is "guaranteed"... even if you reach 100X.

Well maybe one thing is guaranteed: you can't get the healthy / prime years back that you spent padding your excessive X savings.

--- Brian
User avatar
Harry Livermore
Posts: 1937
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2019 5:32 am

Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X

Post by Harry Livermore »

Patzer wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 9:23 am
Harry Livermore wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 8:37 am
freakyfriday wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 2:56 pm
The biggest barrier to funding yourself for 34+ years is not that it's mathemetical impossible, but that you don't know what the future will look like.
Good point that is always implied around here, but rarely pointed out directly... maybe because (I suspect) most on this site already know this intuitively.
I have always thought of saving for "retirement", whatever that means, as sort of being in the path of a hurricane. You might decide to plan, or not. Your plan may be good, or not. And there is the "cone of uncertainty" when the hurricane is far away. You may not want to waste the next few days boarding up windows and moving possessions to higher ground, figuring "well, I'll just move fast when it's obvious the hurricane is here". But, maybe by the time you need to take action, there's no more plywood to be had and all the highways are jammed up. You might find yourself stuck. I think many on this site (me included) have spent much of their years preemptively boarding up windows, in a constant state of low-level worry about a hurricane that's far off and may impact them.
OP, your original post seems more declarative than questioning, so I would simply offer you applause and wish you good luck. But if your post WAS soliciting advice, here's an idea: how about exploring work in the National Parks Service? Perhaps there's a ranger, firewatch, or station assignment that allows you to continue to make money, be closer to hiking and climbing, etc.?
Cheers
Great analogy with the Hurricane.

It's definitely a thought I have had to do a nature related job, but a park ranger makes a small fraction of what I make, so the financial benefit of that extra income compared to my current income is pretty low. I.e. 1 year of my current job lets me save more than 5 years of being a ranger would.

Even with that low financial benefit, I have thought about doing something like that way later in life, even if it's voluntary or just for free parking/camping spot (i.e. a campground guide or off-trail guide at a national park). The older volunteers at national parks often have awesome stories if you spend a little time with them. At that point (70+) I am probably slower and can't go as far and maybe some of my joy of hiking comes from helping younger people to explore it.
I would also say (complete anecdote) that one of the fittest and most deceptively young-looking people I've ever met was the father of one of my college buddies. He was a NPS ranger, and at 60, was strong, wiry and full of energy... he did not look a day over 40 (to my eyes anyway, as a 25-year old youngster) I have lost touch with my buddy, and have no idea where his dad might be today (he'd be 90-ish) but that little snapshot of data has made an impression on me.
Being active an fit is not a guarantee for a long life, but it sure seems to stack the deck... so regardless, if you keep hiking and climbing you have an excellent chance at being a healthy old person!
Best of luck!
Cheers
User avatar
quantAndHold
Posts: 10141
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2015 10:39 pm
Location: West Coast

Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X

Post by quantAndHold »

Harry Livermore wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 9:47 am Being active an fit is not a guarantee for a long life, but it sure seems to stack the deck... so regardless, if you keep hiking and climbing you have an excellent chance at being a healthy old person!
Best of luck!
Cheers
I play in a 50+ basketball league. The current oldest active player is 97. There are plenty in their 70’s and 80’s who are traveling the world, hiking, biking, and living high quality lives. My 82 year old teammate just got back from a medical mission in Ghana. The commonality is that they’re physically active, and most of them have been physically active throughout their lives. It isn’t like someone active turns 70 and all of a sudden they’re doomed to spend the rest of their lives on a Rascal scooter.
User avatar
Harry Livermore
Posts: 1937
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2019 5:32 am

Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X

Post by Harry Livermore »

quantAndHold wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 9:57 am
Harry Livermore wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 9:47 am Being active an fit is not a guarantee for a long life, but it sure seems to stack the deck... so regardless, if you keep hiking and climbing you have an excellent chance at being a healthy old person!
Best of luck!
Cheers
I play in a 50+ basketball league. The current oldest active player is 97. There are plenty in their 70’s and 80’s who are traveling the world, hiking, biking, and living high quality lives. My 82 year old teammate just got back from a medical mission in Ghana. The commonality is that they’re physically active, and most of them have been physically active throughout their lives. It isn’t like someone active turns 70 and all of a sudden they’re doomed to spend the rest of their lives on a Rascal scooter.
Agree 100%.
Cheers
EnjoyIt
Posts: 8272
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2013 7:06 pm

Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X

Post by EnjoyIt »

Leesbro63 wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 9:10 am
smitcat wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 8:53 am
brian91480 wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 10:09 pm
smitcat wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 12:38 pm
brian91480 wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 9:42 am This is a refreshing thread, because it makes it seem possible to retire early without having to accumulate a HUGE amount of X... which is the general idea on so many threads on this forum.

The OP has things individualized for him: Not married, older S.O., no heirs, etc.

But this same plan is relatable to all of us, if we individualize things for own specific situation:

1. Do you have a younger S.O.? Add 1-2 X.

2. Do you want to leave money for heirs? Add another 2 - 3 X.

But if we are starting at 23 X with this model... the odds of you needing 35X or more to retire does seem extreme. Especially if it's at the expense of using up your prime years to get there... just so you can sit in your kitchen chair, and look out the window every day because your health is now deteriorated.

So instead of having an opinion of "this post is right!" or "this post is wrong!"... the true answer is:

How can I apply this model for my own situation? If I do this... what number X could I retire young with?

Good post by the author - Patzer. :sharebeer

--- Brian
The general guideline was always 25X after any other incomes such as SS, pensions, P/T work, inheritance, real estate incomes, etc.
That could very well mean that some folks need zero X to retire and/or retire quite early.
We must read different posts on this forum. From what I've read for the past few years... a lot of people here would have a heart attack at the thought of retiring early with 25X... let alone 23X.

--- Brian
Some thoughts....
- what % of historical values do you find suitable? (99%, 95%, 90%, 85%?)
- have you looked at any articles that follow spending patterns by age?
- if the past few years indicate both higher and lower market valuations have you considered that lately?
- do you run any detailed calculators with your personal inputs to review the results?
- perhaps read some other sources on retirement multiples, Kitces, ERN, Bengen, etc
I believe the consensus is that 4% (25x) is too risky for an early retiree. Especially for a very early retiree.
I think the consensus is that a blind 4% for an early retiree has more risk than is stated by a 95% historical success rate. Add in flexibility in spending, add in SS, add in reverse mortgage and 4% is not so bad.

Don’t forget that historically even 5% was successful during certain times. Not that I would bet my retirement on that.

I think the questions many need to ask themselves is what kind of risks are they willing to accept?
Work more now for the higher pay and have less freedom so as to decrease one’s risk of running out of money.
Vs
The risk of spending less or being forced to make a little income to continue one’s current spending.

This is such a personal question on what risk they are willing to accept. One thing is for certain, every day is one day closer to death. Personally I would rather take the chance of spending less. But that is my personal decision.
A time to EVALUATE your jitters: | viewtopic.php?p=1139732#p1139732
EnjoyIt
Posts: 8272
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2013 7:06 pm

Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X

Post by EnjoyIt »

quantAndHold wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 9:57 am
Harry Livermore wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 9:47 am Being active an fit is not a guarantee for a long life, but it sure seems to stack the deck... so regardless, if you keep hiking and climbing you have an excellent chance at being a healthy old person!
Best of luck!
Cheers
I play in a 50+ basketball league. The current oldest active player is 97. There are plenty in their 70’s and 80’s who are traveling the world, hiking, biking, and living high quality lives. My 82 year old teammate just got back from a medical mission in Ghana. The commonality is that they’re physically active, and most of them have been physically active throughout their lives. It isn’t like someone active turns 70 and all of a sudden they’re doomed to spend the rest of their lives on a Rascal scooter.
So maybe quitting work at 40 so that one can be more active will have great results once one becomes 70+

I took a skiing lesson this year where my instructor took me through the backwoods for the day. He kicked my butt on the slopes. Turns out he has been a ski instructor for decades. He was 72 and loves to ski and mountain bike.

I guess the other side of the equation is to work doing something you love that is active. Not sure if the guy needs the money or not. I bet he does. Ski instructor just doesn’t pay all that well.

And since we are sharing anecdotes. I know plenty of people in their 50s and 60s who can barely go up a flight of stairs.
A time to EVALUATE your jitters: | viewtopic.php?p=1139732#p1139732
Wannaretireearly
Posts: 4880
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 4:39 pm

Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X

Post by Wannaretireearly »

dknightd wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 7:15 am
Wannaretireearly wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 3:57 am Quality/healthy Time is the currency here.

Hard to argue with that.
Wannaretireearly wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 3:57 am ... snip ...

45 months. That scares me. Enough to keep me on a path to start utilizing those months the way I want (I cannot now).
One option would be to start taking longer vacations now. That is what I did in the years leading up to my eventual full retirement. Take all your paid vacation days. Then take additional non-paid vacation days. If your job allows. My last year working I actually worked only 9 months
Wannaretireearly wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 3:57 am
Bottom line: The window is very short where you control your own time 100% AND you are in 100% good health. Doesn’t this scare others? Losing my dad before 60 made this very real for me….
I've pretty much decided I will NEVER control 100% of my time. I consider myself in pretty good health. But not as strong as I was between 20 and 40. Those were perhaps my prime years. And I spent them raising a young family - no regrets. We had many fun adventures together ;)
Yes! Great points. My family has always prioritized time away (local or abroad) as you mention.

It saddens me to hear OP cannot take longer breaks (say 3 weeks at a time, which is what we aim for a ‘big’ break each year). It’s one of the unwritten rules of senior leadership roles. I see it with my boss and his peers. They hardly ever take much time off. It seems part of the senior leadership ‘fight club’ rules. And he is always stressed and back to back slammed with work. I’m personally trying to avoid that, mainly due to WLB during the work week, as well as being able to actually take my 5 weeks of PTO a year 🙏.
“At some point you are trading time you will never get back for money you will never spend.“ | “How do you want to spend the best remaining year of your life?“
EnjoyIt
Posts: 8272
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2013 7:06 pm

Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X

Post by EnjoyIt »

smitcat wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 8:55 am
EnjoyIt wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 8:27 am
tphp99 wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 8:03 am
Wannaretireearly wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 3:57 am Down to 45 months of actual healthy months where you control 100% of your time? (Not controlled by boss, spouse, family, kids, sick parents etc).
Maybe I don't understand this statement, but how would you manage this? Quit your job, get a divorce and renounce all of your family members?

45 months. That scares me. Enough to keep me on a path to start utilizing those months the way I want (I cannot now).
So... when you get to those 45 months, how exactly would you live that's so different than today? - not trying to be a jerk, just curious on your retirement plans without spouse and family members involvement. I'm finding that I'm just doing basically what I've always done while I was still working, it wasn't a on/off switch for me once I retired.

Bottom line: The window is very short where you control your own time 100% AND you are in 100% good health. Doesn’t this scare others? Losing my dad before 60 made this very real for me….
So.. how would you get 100% control of your time, and what would you do exactly? By the 3rd or 4th decade of life, most of us if we're honest must admit that we are no longer 100% healthy. I can't nor want to play 36 holes of golf in one day, would be terrified to do some of the stuff I did in my 20's. Again, I'm just curious on how you picture your complete freedom in those 45 months of retirement.
I’m in my 40s. We went part time a few years ago. I am in better shape and healthier today than I was 5 years ago. I have more energy to do activities I enjoy and frankly, I look better. My spouse is healthier and looks way better as well. Our adult life is far more active.

Some of the free time we gained going part time is spent living a healthier lifestyle. Maybe we even gained a few extra months of healthy living.
"Maybe we even gained a few extra months of healthy living."
While I agree longevity is almost always a good thing we tend to rate the quality of time as the driver for change.
That’s exactly why we believe if we are active and do healthy things today, we will have “quality” for longer as we get older.

Let’s be honest if one is very obese and can barely walk a flight of stairs at 50 what will quality of life be at 70 if they even get to that age?
A time to EVALUATE your jitters: | viewtopic.php?p=1139732#p1139732
Wannaretireearly
Posts: 4880
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 4:39 pm

Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X

Post by Wannaretireearly »

tphp99 wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 8:03 am
Wannaretireearly wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 3:57 am Down to 45 months of actual healthy months where you control 100% of your time? (Not controlled by boss, spouse, family, kids, sick parents etc).
Maybe I don't understand this statement, but how would you manage this? Quit your job, get a divorce and renounce all of your family members?

45 months. That scares me. Enough to keep me on a path to start utilizing those months the way I want (I cannot now).
So... when you get to those 45 months, how exactly would you live that's so different than today? - not trying to be a jerk, just curious on your retirement plans without spouse and family members involvement. I'm finding that I'm just doing basically what I've always done while I was still working, it wasn't a on/off switch for me once I retired.

Bottom line: The window is very short where you control your own time 100% AND you are in 100% good health. Doesn’t this scare others? Losing my dad before 60 made this very real for me….
So.. how would you get 100% control of your time, and what would you do exactly? By the 3rd or 4th decade of life, most of us if we're honest must admit that we are no longer 100% healthy. I can't nor want to play 36 holes of golf in one day, would be terrified to do some of the stuff I did in my 20's. Again, I'm just curious on how you picture your complete freedom in those 45 months of retirement.
Thanks for asking. I’ll try to answer below, let me know if i miss anything.

Note: in my 45 month example, it is not meant to be contiguous. I.e. those 45 months of true freedom could be across 2 decades between 50-70. Apologies if I didn’t explain that well.

1. DW and I have been talking about this a lot. We are on the same page as to how we plan to do this. We both want to retire at age 50ish (she is older than me) and utilize the time when kids are away from home and in college. We want to travel for 4-6 weeks at a time and really explore one location. We are not going to sell our house and travel like this couple: https://youtu.be/hpzpnjYZ2lE

But you get the idea. In our first year of retirement we want to do at least two of these longer trips. Spend time at home in between (rest, recuperate, exercise etc). I anticipate we’ll like this longer/slower travel in one place and will want to fit in more.

I don’t expect this phase to last forever & im sure things will come up where we won’t be able to do this for many years (our health, family commitments, etc).

We generally have friends older than us. I expect after roughly 5 years of early retirement most of the friends we want to hang with will retire as well. At that point we can spend time with them. Perhaps active retirement community etc who knows. Likely between age 55/60 and 70. I expect after 70 I’ll def be in the zone you mention. Not much need/incentive to anything out of the ordinary. And that’s ok! I want to maximize ages 50 thru 70 in summary. Man plans, god laughs…
Last edited by Wannaretireearly on Sun Mar 26, 2023 11:27 am, edited 2 times in total.
“At some point you are trading time you will never get back for money you will never spend.“ | “How do you want to spend the best remaining year of your life?“
Wannaretireearly
Posts: 4880
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 4:39 pm

Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X

Post by Wannaretireearly »

EnjoyIt wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 8:27 am
tphp99 wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 8:03 am
Wannaretireearly wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 3:57 am Down to 45 months of actual healthy months where you control 100% of your time? (Not controlled by boss, spouse, family, kids, sick parents etc).
Maybe I don't understand this statement, but how would you manage this? Quit your job, get a divorce and renounce all of your family members?

45 months. That scares me. Enough to keep me on a path to start utilizing those months the way I want (I cannot now).
So... when you get to those 45 months, how exactly would you live that's so different than today? - not trying to be a jerk, just curious on your retirement plans without spouse and family members involvement. I'm finding that I'm just doing basically what I've always done while I was still working, it wasn't a on/off switch for me once I retired.

Bottom line: The window is very short where you control your own time 100% AND you are in 100% good health. Doesn’t this scare others? Losing my dad before 60 made this very real for me….
So.. how would you get 100% control of your time, and what would you do exactly? By the 3rd or 4th decade of life, most of us if we're honest must admit that we are no longer 100% healthy. I can't nor want to play 36 holes of golf in one day, would be terrified to do some of the stuff I did in my 20's. Again, I'm just curious on how you picture your complete freedom in those 45 months of retirement.
I’m in my 40s. We went part time a few years ago. I am in better shape and healthier today than I was 5 years ago. I have more energy to do activities I enjoy and frankly, I look better. My spouse is healthier and looks way better as well. Our adult life is far more active.

Some of the free time we gained going part time is spent living a healthier lifestyle. Maybe we even gained a few extra months of healthy living.
Sounds fantastic! In tech (in the US) we do not have that option at all to my knowledge. The path that is (sadly) always talked about is upwards and more work. It seems social stigma to even talk about slowing down and enjoying more time in Silicon Valley. The way that we get rated (nine box etc) it would put you on the next layoff list given how things have shifted this year.

Again, super happy part time has worked for you, I wish it was an option for more of us! Take care.
Last edited by Wannaretireearly on Sun Mar 26, 2023 11:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
“At some point you are trading time you will never get back for money you will never spend.“ | “How do you want to spend the best remaining year of your life?“
Wannaretireearly
Posts: 4880
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 4:39 pm

Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X

Post by Wannaretireearly »

quantAndHold wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 9:34 am
Wannaretireearly wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 3:57 am 45 months. That scares me. Enough to keep me on a path to start utilizing those months the way I want (I cannot now).

Bottom line: The window is very short where you control your own time 100% AND you are in 100% good health. Doesn’t this scare others? Losing my dad before 60 made this very real for me….
I think if this were what was keeping me awake at night, I would be making changes *now* to make my life closer to what I want it to be. The idea that the ability to live life the way I want is some sort of on/off switch predicated solely by whether or not I have a job seems kinda sad.
Agree. The point is without quantifying like this (use your own currency/terms/bounds) it’s very easy to not make any changes. I can’t make the change now, but if I hit age 50ish and still make excuses (OMY, etc) I am really wasting the most valuable years of my life left. without many remaining excuses to keep working! ;)
“At some point you are trading time you will never get back for money you will never spend.“ | “How do you want to spend the best remaining year of your life?“
Wannaretireearly
Posts: 4880
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 4:39 pm

Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X

Post by Wannaretireearly »

quantAndHold wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 9:57 am
Harry Livermore wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 9:47 am Being active an fit is not a guarantee for a long life, but it sure seems to stack the deck... so regardless, if you keep hiking and climbing you have an excellent chance at being a healthy old person!
Best of luck!
Cheers
I play in a 50+ basketball league. The current oldest active player is 97. There are plenty in their 70’s and 80’s who are traveling the world, hiking, biking, and living high quality lives. My 82 year old teammate just got back from a medical mission in Ghana. The commonality is that they’re physically active, and most of them have been physically active throughout their lives. It isn’t like someone active turns 70 and all of a sudden they’re doomed to spend the rest of their lives on a Rascal scooter.
Fantastic! Something to aspire to for us younger folk.
Just remember, not everyone will be lucky enough to work til 60/65 and have 30 years of healthy retirement. The others cannot speak for themselves on this thread ;)

I have maternal grandparents alive in their mid 90s. Life has been a struggle for them past 5-6 years. I have folks on my Dads side with much lower longevity, including Dad. I have close relatives in their 60s/70s (maternal side, ironically) who are struggling with health issues. Including an uncle and aunt that retired in their early 70s, with big travel anticipation (Australia etc) but cannot do it now :(

Sometimes smart people (my family example) get this equation wrong.
“At some point you are trading time you will never get back for money you will never spend.“ | “How do you want to spend the best remaining year of your life?“
dknightd
Posts: 3727
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2018 10:57 am

Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X

Post by dknightd »

Wannaretireearly wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 10:34 am
It saddens me to hear OP cannot take longer break

It gladdens me to they know that they have options.
Retired 2019. So far, so good. I want to wake up every morning. But I want to die in my sleep. Just another conundrum. I think the solution might be afternoon naps ;)
dknightd
Posts: 3727
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2018 10:57 am

Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X

Post by dknightd »

Wannaretireearly wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 10:56 am
Sounds fantastic! In tech (in the US) we do not have that option at all to my knowledge.
You might be underestimating your options.
Retired 2019. So far, so good. I want to wake up every morning. But I want to die in my sleep. Just another conundrum. I think the solution might be afternoon naps ;)
dknightd
Posts: 3727
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2018 10:57 am

Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X

Post by dknightd »

Patzer wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 1:04 pm I may retire as early as 46.
Many would say I have to worry about living 50-60 years, but I don't really need to worry past 80, because at 70 I can take social security and at 80 I can take a reverse mortgage and buy a SPIA with it, which sets me up with income for life as shown below.

My Income needs from age 46 to 100:
Image

From 2014-2021, I spent an average of 22,726 per year.
From 2022 until I retire I gave myself a raise and plan to spend an average of 37K/yr.
In retirement, I plan to spend 48.6K/yr with a surplus of 5.4K/yr (to cover unexpected expenses) for a total of 54K/yr.

Retiring at 46, my social security benefit at 70 will be 35K, which covers 65% of my spending.

At 80, I could get a reverse mortgage, buy a SPIA (Single Premium Immediate Annuity) with the proceeds. That SPIA would pay 14.7K/yr, for a total of 49.7K/yr with Social Security. Most likely, I will still have investments to cover the remaining 4.3K, but even if I don't that won't matter, because I will easily be able to live on 49.7K/yr (Inflation Adjusted).

This is for a modest 234K house. For someone with a more expensive house this would be an even bigger supplemental income.

Below is the combined proceeds from Social Security and a SPIA for me, and 80 is about the point where it starts to make sense, but if my investments are doing well, I could/would delay it further.
Reverse Mortgage/SPIA + Soc Sec at different ages:
70: 43.8K/yr (Too early)
80: 49.7K/yr (About right)
81: 51K/yr
82: 52.3K/yr
83: 53.6K/yr
84: 55K/yr (More than I can spend)

For those of us with moderate spending, who had short careers with strong earnings, which would be the case for many early retirees, it can be quite easy to hedge against longevity with social security and a SPIA derived from earnings a reverse mortgage on our homes in old age.

Even with a simple Asset Allocation of 70% Stocks / 30% 10 year Treasuries, 24.5X worked all the way to age 100 even if you were unlucky enough to retire in Sept 1929, if you had the Social Security and Reverse Mortgage/SPIA amounts that I am referencing.
If your luck was just a bit better and you retired just 3 months earlier or later then 21.5X and 19.4X would have worked.

I will use a more diversified asset allocation that would have survived with 22.4X in Sept 1929 and 19.8X and 17.7X if I retired 3 months earlier or later.
So, even retiring with just 23X at 46, I don't have to worry about how long I live.

----------
About me:
No heirs, no plans to have heirs. Not married, won't get married.
I do have a long-term romantic partner, but her financials are completely separate from mine and she is materially older than me, so no inheritance worries past me being 80.
One day you might reach 80. Then want to take a trip of a lifetime
Retired 2019. So far, so good. I want to wake up every morning. But I want to die in my sleep. Just another conundrum. I think the solution might be afternoon naps ;)
User avatar
quantAndHold
Posts: 10141
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2015 10:39 pm
Location: West Coast

Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X

Post by quantAndHold »

dknightd wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 11:33 am
Wannaretireearly wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 10:56 am
Sounds fantastic! In tech (in the US) we do not have that option at all to my knowledge.
You might be underestimating your options.
I knew plenty of people who worked part time when I was in tech in the US. It can be done if that’s something someone wants to do. It’s not the norm, but it also isn’t that hard to accomplish.
EnjoyIt
Posts: 8272
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2013 7:06 pm

Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X

Post by EnjoyIt »

Wannaretireearly wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 10:56 am
EnjoyIt wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 8:27 am
tphp99 wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 8:03 am
Wannaretireearly wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 3:57 am Down to 45 months of actual healthy months where you control 100% of your time? (Not controlled by boss, spouse, family, kids, sick parents etc).
Maybe I don't understand this statement, but how would you manage this? Quit your job, get a divorce and renounce all of your family members?

45 months. That scares me. Enough to keep me on a path to start utilizing those months the way I want (I cannot now).
So... when you get to those 45 months, how exactly would you live that's so different than today? - not trying to be a jerk, just curious on your retirement plans without spouse and family members involvement. I'm finding that I'm just doing basically what I've always done while I was still working, it wasn't a on/off switch for me once I retired.

Bottom line: The window is very short where you control your own time 100% AND you are in 100% good health. Doesn’t this scare others? Losing my dad before 60 made this very real for me….
So.. how would you get 100% control of your time, and what would you do exactly? By the 3rd or 4th decade of life, most of us if we're honest must admit that we are no longer 100% healthy. I can't nor want to play 36 holes of golf in one day, would be terrified to do some of the stuff I did in my 20's. Again, I'm just curious on how you picture your complete freedom in those 45 months of retirement.
I’m in my 40s. We went part time a few years ago. I am in better shape and healthier today than I was 5 years ago. I have more energy to do activities I enjoy and frankly, I look better. My spouse is healthier and looks way better as well. Our adult life is far more active.

Some of the free time we gained going part time is spent living a healthier lifestyle. Maybe we even gained a few extra months of healthy living.
Sounds fantastic! In tech (in the US) we do not have that option at all to my knowledge. The path that is (sadly) always talked about is upwards and more work. It seems social stigma to even talk about slowing down and enjoying more time in Silicon Valley. The way that we get rated (nine box etc) it would put you on the next layoff list given how things have shifted this year.

Again, super happy part time has worked for you, I wish it was an option for more of us! Take care.
I was working up the ladder in the corporate world of medicine. When I finally gave it all up to go part time no one understood. I was doing so well and making more and more money. If I continued who knows how high up I could go. No thank you. I was basically working 1.5 jobs. We made enough to have a good life with some luxury/comfort. My spouse says I appear way happier now and much more pleasant to be around.

I agree that I am lucky to be in a career that allows part time work. Not everyone has that luxury.
A time to EVALUATE your jitters: | viewtopic.php?p=1139732#p1139732
JackoC
Posts: 4714
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2018 11:14 am

Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X

Post by JackoC »

randomguy wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 11:15 pm
ThankYouJack wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 11:02 am I think the key phrase for the OP is "I don't have to worry". Other people can worry about what-if financial disasters, but I find threads like this refreshing. At some point the bigger worry should be running out of time.
randomguy wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 3:25 pm
MoonOrb wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 2:09 pm This relies on a lot of assumptions I wouldn't be comfortable making for such a significant decision because the failure mode of this decision is really unpleasant.
Failure mode here is going to work at McDonalds for 10 years at 56. I will let you decide how unpleasant that is.
I highly doubt the McDonalds part. I've never met a former millionaire who's investments went to near nothing and is forced to work at near minimum wage for 10 years. I read a blog post once about someone FIRE'ing and had to go back to work, but if I recall correctly got a software engineering job -- not a job at McDonalds.
How many people who are 55+, who haven't worked in a decade, have you ever heard of going out and getting a professional level job at remotely the level of pay of their prior one? I don't think that is realistic. It is one thing for a 35 year old to take 3 years off and go get a job again. Especially in a high demand field. Go ask the 55+ programmers how easy it is to get a job. Go ask any professional with a 10 year break (lots of SAHM in this group) who easy it was to get right back where they left off... Some times failure shows up quickly (1929, 2000). Sometimes it creeps up on you (1966 wasn't horrible til 73).
Yeah that's really going to vary by what kind of job the person does now, their social/networking skills (maintaining that over a long period) and the state of the job market. I'd guess now with 'McDonald's' type jobs broadly speaking seriously understaffed, relaxing requirements like no felony convictions etc. the prospects for something higher paying, though not the original pay or even a high % of it necessarily, is realistic for many formerly highly paid people even after an extended break. But 5 yrs from now, let alone 10 or 20, complete unknown. It's been hard to get min wage jobs in some past economic environments, especially if some location (and it may not make sense to move in search of min wage) with special economic difficulties. But, there will always be somebody reading this who knows they can get a job at the family business or a true friend will hire them etc. if they *really* need it, all depends.

People have their emotional favorites among plans, and not surprising if some reactions are '*finally* somebody being realistic, of *course* you can retire in your 40's at 23x'. You can do whatever you want, but there's obvious risk there IMO. But risk to gain something (hike rather than work, not being flippant), so there's no way to tell that person it's 'too much risk'. Although umpteently, tools like FireCalc assume the future distribution of return is a neutral sampling from the past distribution of returns with no consideration for starting valuations and yields now v starting valuations/yields in past sample periods. That's an optimistic assumption now. Although as has been mentioned, living cost and government program strength could be as big or bigger variables than investment returns in a case like this.
randomguy
Posts: 11295
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 9:00 am

Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X

Post by randomguy »

quantAndHold wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 12:19 am
randomguy wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 11:15 pm
ThankYouJack wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 11:02 am I think the key phrase for the OP is "I don't have to worry". Other people can worry about what-if financial disasters, but I find threads like this refreshing. At some point the bigger worry should be running out of time.
randomguy wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 3:25 pm
MoonOrb wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 2:09 pm This relies on a lot of assumptions I wouldn't be comfortable making for such a significant decision because the failure mode of this decision is really unpleasant.
Failure mode here is going to work at McDonalds for 10 years at 56. I will let you decide how unpleasant that is.
I highly doubt the McDonalds part. I've never met a former millionaire who's investments went to near nothing and is forced to work at near minimum wage for 10 years. I read a blog post once about someone FIRE'ing and had to go back to work, but if I recall correctly got a software engineering job -- not a job at McDonalds.
How many people who are 55+, who haven't worked in a decade, have you ever heard of going out and getting a professional level job at remotely the level of pay of their prior one? I don't think that is realistic. It is one thing for a 35 year old to take 3 years off and go get a job again. Especially in a high demand field. Go ask the 55+ programmers how easy it is to get a job. Go ask any professional with a 10 year break (lots of SAHM in this group) who easy it was to get right back where they left off... Some times failure shows up quickly (1929, 2000). Sometimes it creeps up on you (1966 wasn't horrible til 73).
I know people who’ve done that. I knew several after 2008, and several more who got offers they couldn’t refuse and decided to go back for a few years. It’s more common than you think in tech. The biggest issue is that as we mature and our health changes, it may not be possible to go back to work for other reasons. I know several people *that* happened to as well.
Really? These people retired in 1998/99 and then in 2008 were getting offers they couldn't refuse? I find that hard to believe..... It is easy for a late 30s/early 40s person to take 18-24 months off. But that isn't what we are talking about.
randomguy
Posts: 11295
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 9:00 am

Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X

Post by randomguy »

Patzer wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 9:23 am

Great analogy with the Hurricane.

It's definitely a thought I have had to do a nature related job, but a park ranger makes a small fraction of what I make, so the financial benefit of that extra income compared to my current income is pretty low. I.e. 1 year of my current job lets me save more than 5 years of being a ranger would.

Even with that low financial benefit, I have thought about doing something like that way later in life, even if it's voluntary or just for free parking/camping spot (i.e. a campground guide or off-trail guide at a national park). The older volunteers at national parks often have awesome stories if you spend a little time with them. At that point (70+) I am probably slower and can't go as far and maybe some of my joy of hiking comes from helping younger people to explore it.
That tends to be the problem with part time work in a lot of fields. The much higher pay that a lot of people can command (i.e. you make 100k versus 30k for the same amount of work) really incentives not quitting . And the other part is small increases in savings drastically improves the safety. You don't need to go to 50x+ like some people suggest. That is a crazy level of safety. But even 28x versus 25x is a huge increase in safety. Thats like 12-18 months working in normal cases. And if we have a market crash during that time, you might sleep better having worked through those 12 months.

Even stuff like working 3 months. Taking your 4 weeks vacation. Working another 3 months and quitting will end up adding a year. I will maintain that if I could work ~1000 hours/year in my field, I probably would never quit. But getting those jobs can be hard. Working 2500 vs 0, is a much tougher choice...
rockstar
Posts: 6326
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2020 5:51 pm

Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X

Post by rockstar »

Wannaretireearly wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 11:06 am
quantAndHold wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 9:57 am
Harry Livermore wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 9:47 am Being active an fit is not a guarantee for a long life, but it sure seems to stack the deck... so regardless, if you keep hiking and climbing you have an excellent chance at being a healthy old person!
Best of luck!
Cheers
I play in a 50+ basketball league. The current oldest active player is 97. There are plenty in their 70’s and 80’s who are traveling the world, hiking, biking, and living high quality lives. My 82 year old teammate just got back from a medical mission in Ghana. The commonality is that they’re physically active, and most of them have been physically active throughout their lives. It isn’t like someone active turns 70 and all of a sudden they’re doomed to spend the rest of their lives on a Rascal scooter.
Fantastic! Something to aspire to for us younger folk.
Just remember, not everyone will be lucky enough to work til 60/65 and have 30 years of healthy retirement. The others cannot speak for themselves on this thread ;)

I have maternal grandparents alive in their mid 90s. Life has been a struggle for them past 5-6 years. I have folks on my Dads side with much lower longevity, including Dad. I have close relatives in their 60s/70s (maternal side, ironically) who are struggling with health issues. Including an uncle and aunt that retired in their early 70s, with big travel anticipation (Australia etc) but cannot do it now :(

Sometimes smart people (my family example) get this equation wrong.
People here in general have unrealistic expectations for how long they’re going to live. One of my friends in his 50s has already lost three friends in their 50s. My parents are pretty much bef ridden in their 70s. They won’t make it to 80. Even my active friends in their 70s are slowing down. You gotta live your life because it’s much shorter then we like.
rockstar
Posts: 6326
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2020 5:51 pm

Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X

Post by rockstar »

dknightd wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 11:42 am
Patzer wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 1:04 pm I may retire as early as 46.
Many would say I have to worry about living 50-60 years, but I don't really need to worry past 80, because at 70 I can take social security and at 80 I can take a reverse mortgage and buy a SPIA with it, which sets me up with income for life as shown below.

My Income needs from age 46 to 100:
Image

From 2014-2021, I spent an average of 22,726 per year.
From 2022 until I retire I gave myself a raise and plan to spend an average of 37K/yr.
In retirement, I plan to spend 48.6K/yr with a surplus of 5.4K/yr (to cover unexpected expenses) for a total of 54K/yr.

Retiring at 46, my social security benefit at 70 will be 35K, which covers 65% of my spending.

At 80, I could get a reverse mortgage, buy a SPIA (Single Premium Immediate Annuity) with the proceeds. That SPIA would pay 14.7K/yr, for a total of 49.7K/yr with Social Security. Most likely, I will still have investments to cover the remaining 4.3K, but even if I don't that won't matter, because I will easily be able to live on 49.7K/yr (Inflation Adjusted).

This is for a modest 234K house. For someone with a more expensive house this would be an even bigger supplemental income.

Below is the combined proceeds from Social Security and a SPIA for me, and 80 is about the point where it starts to make sense, but if my investments are doing well, I could/would delay it further.
Reverse Mortgage/SPIA + Soc Sec at different ages:
70: 43.8K/yr (Too early)
80: 49.7K/yr (About right)
81: 51K/yr
82: 52.3K/yr
83: 53.6K/yr
84: 55K/yr (More than I can spend)

For those of us with moderate spending, who had short careers with strong earnings, which would be the case for many early retirees, it can be quite easy to hedge against longevity with social security and a SPIA derived from earnings a reverse mortgage on our homes in old age.

Even with a simple Asset Allocation of 70% Stocks / 30% 10 year Treasuries, 24.5X worked all the way to age 100 even if you were unlucky enough to retire in Sept 1929, if you had the Social Security and Reverse Mortgage/SPIA amounts that I am referencing.
If your luck was just a bit better and you retired just 3 months earlier or later then 21.5X and 19.4X would have worked.

I will use a more diversified asset allocation that would have survived with 22.4X in Sept 1929 and 19.8X and 17.7X if I retired 3 months earlier or later.
So, even retiring with just 23X at 46, I don't have to worry about how long I live.

----------
About me:
No heirs, no plans to have heirs. Not married, won't get married.
I do have a long-term romantic partner, but her financials are completely separate from mine and she is materially older than me, so no inheritance worries past me being 80.
One day you might reach 80. Then want to take a trip of a lifetime
Or they could drop dead at 60.
EnjoyIt
Posts: 8272
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2013 7:06 pm

Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X

Post by EnjoyIt »

JackoC wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 12:42 pm
randomguy wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 11:15 pm
ThankYouJack wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 11:02 am I think the key phrase for the OP is "I don't have to worry". Other people can worry about what-if financial disasters, but I find threads like this refreshing. At some point the bigger worry should be running out of time.
randomguy wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 3:25 pm
MoonOrb wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 2:09 pm This relies on a lot of assumptions I wouldn't be comfortable making for such a significant decision because the failure mode of this decision is really unpleasant.
Failure mode here is going to work at McDonalds for 10 years at 56. I will let you decide how unpleasant that is.
I highly doubt the McDonalds part. I've never met a former millionaire who's investments went to near nothing and is forced to work at near minimum wage for 10 years. I read a blog post once about someone FIRE'ing and had to go back to work, but if I recall correctly got a software engineering job -- not a job at McDonalds.
How many people who are 55+, who haven't worked in a decade, have you ever heard of going out and getting a professional level job at remotely the level of pay of their prior one? I don't think that is realistic. It is one thing for a 35 year old to take 3 years off and go get a job again. Especially in a high demand field. Go ask the 55+ programmers how easy it is to get a job. Go ask any professional with a 10 year break (lots of SAHM in this group) who easy it was to get right back where they left off... Some times failure shows up quickly (1929, 2000). Sometimes it creeps up on you (1966 wasn't horrible til 73).
Yeah that's really going to vary by what kind of job the person does now, their social/networking skills (maintaining that over a long period) and the state of the job market. I'd guess now with 'McDonald's' type jobs broadly speaking seriously understaffed, relaxing requirements like no felony convictions etc. the prospects for something higher paying, though not the original pay or even a high % of it necessarily, is realistic for many formerly highly paid people even after an extended break. But 5 yrs from now, let alone 10 or 20, complete unknown. It's been hard to get min wage jobs in some past economic environments, especially if some location (and it may not make sense to move in search of min wage) with special economic difficulties. But, there will always be somebody reading this who knows they can get a job at the family business or a true friend will hire them etc. if they *really* need it, all depends.

People have their emotional favorites among plans, and not surprising if some reactions are '*finally* somebody being realistic, of *course* you can retire in your 40's at 23x'. You can do whatever you want, but there's obvious risk there IMO. But risk to gain something (hike rather than work, not being flippant), so there's no way to tell that person it's 'too much risk'. Although umpteently, tools like FireCalc assume the future distribution of return is a neutral sampling from the past distribution of returns with no consideration for starting valuations and yields now v starting valuations/yields in past sample periods. That's an optimistic assumption now. Although as has been mentioned, living cost and government program strength could be as big or bigger variables than investment returns in a case like this.
Well said.

BTW, when would a retiree need to make extra income? Generally when the markets are down and they fear they may not have enough. At the same time since the market is down, often times businesses are tightening as well and not hiring.

I know in my field, medicine, being out 1 year finding works becomes more difficult. Being out 3 years makes finding work near impossible. I bet with IT and engineering, being out a decade will make finding work relatively difficult as well.

On the other hand, anyone with a car can make some cash driving for Uber/Lyft. But, as you said, who knows if that will still exist 10 years from now.
A time to EVALUATE your jitters: | viewtopic.php?p=1139732#p1139732
dknightd
Posts: 3727
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2018 10:57 am

Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X

Post by dknightd »

rockstar wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 1:38 pm

Or they could drop dead at 60.
Which would you prefer? 60 0r 80?
Last edited by dknightd on Sun Mar 26, 2023 1:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Retired 2019. So far, so good. I want to wake up every morning. But I want to die in my sleep. Just another conundrum. I think the solution might be afternoon naps ;)
User avatar
quantAndHold
Posts: 10141
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2015 10:39 pm
Location: West Coast

Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X

Post by quantAndHold »

randomguy wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 1:02 pm
quantAndHold wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 12:19 am
randomguy wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 11:15 pm
ThankYouJack wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 11:02 am I think the key phrase for the OP is "I don't have to worry". Other people can worry about what-if financial disasters, but I find threads like this refreshing. At some point the bigger worry should be running out of time.
randomguy wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 3:25 pm

Failure mode here is going to work at McDonalds for 10 years at 56. I will let you decide how unpleasant that is.
I highly doubt the McDonalds part. I've never met a former millionaire who's investments went to near nothing and is forced to work at near minimum wage for 10 years. I read a blog post once about someone FIRE'ing and had to go back to work, but if I recall correctly got a software engineering job -- not a job at McDonalds.
How many people who are 55+, who haven't worked in a decade, have you ever heard of going out and getting a professional level job at remotely the level of pay of their prior one? I don't think that is realistic. It is one thing for a 35 year old to take 3 years off and go get a job again. Especially in a high demand field. Go ask the 55+ programmers how easy it is to get a job. Go ask any professional with a 10 year break (lots of SAHM in this group) who easy it was to get right back where they left off... Some times failure shows up quickly (1929, 2000). Sometimes it creeps up on you (1966 wasn't horrible til 73).
I know people who’ve done that. I knew several after 2008, and several more who got offers they couldn’t refuse and decided to go back for a few years. It’s more common than you think in tech. The biggest issue is that as we mature and our health changes, it may not be possible to go back to work for other reasons. I know several people *that* happened to as well.
Really? These people retired in 1998/99 and then in 2008 were getting offers they couldn't refuse? I find that hard to believe..... It is easy for a late 30s/early 40s person to take 18-24 months off. But that isn't what we are talking about.
No, they got offers they couldn’t refuse in 2013-2015. The 2008 people had to do job searches like normal people. But they did find jobs in their field, at roughly the same level that they retired at. Don’t get me wrong, it’s not a path I would count on. For one thing, I’ve been retired for six years. If I needed to go back, I couldn’t, because health issues. I’m only 59 and was very fit and healthy before this happened. The best I could do right now is apply for SSDI.
randomguy
Posts: 11295
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 9:00 am

Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X

Post by randomguy »

rockstar wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 1:36 pm

People here in general have unrealistic expectations for how long they’re going to live. One of my friends in his 50s has already lost three friends in their 50s. My parents are pretty much bef ridden in their 70s. They won’t make it to 80. Even my active friends in their 70s are slowing down. You gotta live your life because it’s much shorter then we like.
Out of how many? Yeah I know a half dozen people who have died before 50. But it is out of a social circle of thousands. Yes I know some 70 year olds who are bedridden. They are also the exceptions versus the ones who are still active. Now there are no assurances of anything. But if I had to bet on the 50 year old who was doing 10 mile hikes versus the 50 year old who is winded going to the fridge about the chances of being active at 75, I know where I would place my money. Again anything can happen. But a majority (estimates tend to be up around 70-80%) of poor health outcomes in the under 75 crowd are self inflicted. You need to assess your situation and decide which group you are likely to fall into.

These discussions always come down to how much work is really interfering with who you want to live. One group pretends that when you are working you can't do anything. The other says I can still do tons of stuff. Both have points. You have to think about who you are. I have a hard time believing any company wouldn't be flexible to keep a valuable employee who said I need 2 months off without pay to do life goal. But that could very well be industry specific.
Topic Author
Patzer
Posts: 701
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2015 10:56 am

Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X

Post by Patzer »

randomguy wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 1:15 pm
Patzer wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 9:23 am

Great analogy with the Hurricane.

It's definitely a thought I have had to do a nature related job, but a park ranger makes a small fraction of what I make, so the financial benefit of that extra income compared to my current income is pretty low. I.e. 1 year of my current job lets me save more than 5 years of being a ranger would.

Even with that low financial benefit, I have thought about doing something like that way later in life, even if it's voluntary or just for free parking/camping spot (i.e. a campground guide or off-trail guide at a national park). The older volunteers at national parks often have awesome stories if you spend a little time with them. At that point (70+) I am probably slower and can't go as far and maybe some of my joy of hiking comes from helping younger people to explore it.
That tends to be the problem with part time work in a lot of fields. The much higher pay that a lot of people can command (i.e. you make 100k versus 30k for the same amount of work) really incentives not quitting . And the other part is small increases in savings drastically improves the safety. You don't need to go to 50x+ like some people suggest. That is a crazy level of safety. But even 28x versus 25x is a huge increase in safety. Thats like 12-18 months working in normal cases. And if we have a market crash during that time, you might sleep better having worked through those 12 months.

Even stuff like working 3 months. Taking your 4 weeks vacation. Working another 3 months and quitting will end up adding a year. I will maintain that if I could work ~1000 hours/year in my field, I probably would never quit. But getting those jobs can be hard. Working 2500 vs 0, is a much tougher choice...
Yea, if I could rotate between 1 month of travel and 1 month of work, I would probably work until I was 55.
Doubt anyone is going to pay me to do that, and certainly not at my current position/salary.

I do wonder when I actually get to 23X what flexibility my employer might offer to keep me, while they sort out transitioning me and my team's projects.
Most common is that I have seen people stay on the payroll for 3 months to get them to work an extra month (beyond a 2 week notice), but I have seen a few people get as much as 6 months pay for sticking around 2 months.
smitcat
Posts: 13304
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 9:51 am

Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X

Post by smitcat »

Patzer wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 3:15 pm
randomguy wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 1:15 pm
Patzer wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 9:23 am

Great analogy with the Hurricane.

It's definitely a thought I have had to do a nature related job, but a park ranger makes a small fraction of what I make, so the financial benefit of that extra income compared to my current income is pretty low. I.e. 1 year of my current job lets me save more than 5 years of being a ranger would.

Even with that low financial benefit, I have thought about doing something like that way later in life, even if it's voluntary or just for free parking/camping spot (i.e. a campground guide or off-trail guide at a national park). The older volunteers at national parks often have awesome stories if you spend a little time with them. At that point (70+) I am probably slower and can't go as far and maybe some of my joy of hiking comes from helping younger people to explore it.
That tends to be the problem with part time work in a lot of fields. The much higher pay that a lot of people can command (i.e. you make 100k versus 30k for the same amount of work) really incentives not quitting . And the other part is small increases in savings drastically improves the safety. You don't need to go to 50x+ like some people suggest. That is a crazy level of safety. But even 28x versus 25x is a huge increase in safety. Thats like 12-18 months working in normal cases. And if we have a market crash during that time, you might sleep better having worked through those 12 months.

Even stuff like working 3 months. Taking your 4 weeks vacation. Working another 3 months and quitting will end up adding a year. I will maintain that if I could work ~1000 hours/year in my field, I probably would never quit. But getting those jobs can be hard. Working 2500 vs 0, is a much tougher choice...
Yea, if I could rotate between 1 month of travel and 1 month of work, I would probably work until I was 55.
Doubt anyone is going to pay me to do that, and certainly not at my current position/salary.

I do wonder when I actually get to 23X what flexibility my employer might offer to keep me, while they sort out transitioning me and my team's projects.
Most common is that I have seen people stay on the payroll for 3 months to get them to work an extra month (beyond a 2 week notice), but I have seen a few people get as much as 6 months pay for sticking around 2 months.
"Yea, if I could rotate between 1 month of travel and 1 month of work, I would probably work until I was 55."
Perhaps start your own business.
Wannaretireearly
Posts: 4880
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 4:39 pm

Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X

Post by Wannaretireearly »

dknightd wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 11:27 am
Wannaretireearly wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 10:34 am
It saddens me to hear OP cannot take longer break

It gladdens me to they know that they have options.
Agree. My point is careers have an assumed increase in responsibility and time. Leading to less ability to take time off.
“At some point you are trading time you will never get back for money you will never spend.“ | “How do you want to spend the best remaining year of your life?“
Wannaretireearly
Posts: 4880
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 4:39 pm

Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X

Post by Wannaretireearly »

dknightd wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 11:33 am
Wannaretireearly wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 10:56 am
Sounds fantastic! In tech (in the US) we do not have that option at all to my knowledge.
You might be underestimating your options.
I wish this was the case. Let me know what your thinking please ;) perhaps I’m missing something
“At some point you are trading time you will never get back for money you will never spend.“ | “How do you want to spend the best remaining year of your life?“
Wannaretireearly
Posts: 4880
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 4:39 pm

Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X

Post by Wannaretireearly »

quantAndHold wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 11:45 am
dknightd wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 11:33 am
Wannaretireearly wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 10:56 am
Sounds fantastic! In tech (in the US) we do not have that option at all to my knowledge.
You might be underestimating your options.
I knew plenty of people who worked part time when I was in tech in the US. It can be done if that’s something someone wants to do. It’s not the norm, but it also isn’t that hard to accomplish.
Interesting. I don’t know a single person that is, or has, worked part time in tech. This is experience from myself and DW over a 20+ period in NorCal. Would appreciate if you can expand on the experience you’ve known. Cheers!
“At some point you are trading time you will never get back for money you will never spend.“ | “How do you want to spend the best remaining year of your life?“
Wannaretireearly
Posts: 4880
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 4:39 pm

Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X

Post by Wannaretireearly »

rockstar wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 1:36 pm
Wannaretireearly wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 11:06 am
quantAndHold wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 9:57 am
Harry Livermore wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 9:47 am Being active an fit is not a guarantee for a long life, but it sure seems to stack the deck... so regardless, if you keep hiking and climbing you have an excellent chance at being a healthy old person!
Best of luck!
Cheers
I play in a 50+ basketball league. The current oldest active player is 97. There are plenty in their 70’s and 80’s who are traveling the world, hiking, biking, and living high quality lives. My 82 year old teammate just got back from a medical mission in Ghana. The commonality is that they’re physically active, and most of them have been physically active throughout their lives. It isn’t like someone active turns 70 and all of a sudden they’re doomed to spend the rest of their lives on a Rascal scooter.
Fantastic! Something to aspire to for us younger folk.
Just remember, not everyone will be lucky enough to work til 60/65 and have 30 years of healthy retirement. The others cannot speak for themselves on this thread ;)

I have maternal grandparents alive in their mid 90s. Life has been a struggle for them past 5-6 years. I have folks on my Dads side with much lower longevity, including Dad. I have close relatives in their 60s/70s (maternal side, ironically) who are struggling with health issues. Including an uncle and aunt that retired in their early 70s, with big travel anticipation (Australia etc) but cannot do it now :(

Sometimes smart people (my family example) get this equation wrong.
People here in general have unrealistic expectations for how long they’re going to live. One of my friends in his 50s has already lost three friends in their 50s. My parents are pretty much bef ridden in their 70s. They won’t make it to 80. Even my active friends in their 70s are slowing down. You gotta live your life because it’s much shorter then we like.
100% agree. I’ve been on this forum for 15+ years !?
It truly is discussions like this that make this forum valuable.
I cannot have this discussion anywhere else. Honestly.
“At some point you are trading time you will never get back for money you will never spend.“ | “How do you want to spend the best remaining year of your life?“
Wannaretireearly
Posts: 4880
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 4:39 pm

Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X

Post by Wannaretireearly »

randomguy wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 2:05 pm
rockstar wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 1:36 pm

People here in general have unrealistic expectations for how long they’re going to live. One of my friends in his 50s has already lost three friends in their 50s. My parents are pretty much bef ridden in their 70s. They won’t make it to 80. Even my active friends in their 70s are slowing down. You gotta live your life because it’s much shorter then we like.
Out of how many? Yeah I know a half dozen people who have died before 50. But it is out of a social circle of thousands. Yes I know some 70 year olds who are bedridden. They are also the exceptions versus the ones who are still active. Now there are no assurances of anything. But if I had to bet on the 50 year old who was doing 10 mile hikes versus the 50 year old who is winded going to the fridge about the chances of being active at 75, I know where I would place my money. Again anything can happen. But a majority (estimates tend to be up around 70-80%) of poor health outcomes in the under 75 crowd are self inflicted. You need to assess your situation and decide which group you are likely to fall into.

These discussions always come down to how much work is really interfering with who you want to live. One group pretends that when you are working you can't do anything. The other says I can still do tons of stuff. Both have points. You have to think about who you are. I have a hard time believing any company wouldn't be flexible to keep a valuable employee who said I need 2 months off without pay to do life goal. But that could very well be industry specific.
Tomorrow is Monday. It will interfere with my life. I will be on a 7am zoom call and beholden to whatever my senior leadership deems important tomorrow. On the flip side, I could be: waking up like it’s sunday, spend 30 mins meditating and stretching. 30 mins coffee. Take the dog out for a walk (cannot do that on a weekday morning),relax & hit the home gym. Perhaps go cycling and then grab a local beer.

Do you see the difference ;)

Btw I appreciate your post. There is zero chance I could take two months off. I’ve been lucky to take 3 weeks (every year) at a stretch past 5 years.
Last edited by Wannaretireearly on Sun Mar 26, 2023 7:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“At some point you are trading time you will never get back for money you will never spend.“ | “How do you want to spend the best remaining year of your life?“
Wannaretireearly
Posts: 4880
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 4:39 pm

Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X

Post by Wannaretireearly »

dknightd wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 11:42 am
Patzer wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 1:04 pm I may retire as early as 46.
Many would say I have to worry about living 50-60 years, but I don't really need to worry past 80, because at 70 I can take social security and at 80 I can take a reverse mortgage and buy a SPIA with it, which sets me up with income for life as shown below.

My Income needs from age 46 to 100:
Image

From 2014-2021, I spent an average of 22,726 per year.
From 2022 until I retire I gave myself a raise and plan to spend an average of 37K/yr.
In retirement, I plan to spend 48.6K/yr with a surplus of 5.4K/yr (to cover unexpected expenses) for a total of 54K/yr.

Retiring at 46, my social security benefit at 70 will be 35K, which covers 65% of my spending.

At 80, I could get a reverse mortgage, buy a SPIA (Single Premium Immediate Annuity) with the proceeds. That SPIA would pay 14.7K/yr, for a total of 49.7K/yr with Social Security. Most likely, I will still have investments to cover the remaining 4.3K, but even if I don't that won't matter, because I will easily be able to live on 49.7K/yr (Inflation Adjusted).

This is for a modest 234K house. For someone with a more expensive house this would be an even bigger supplemental income.

Below is the combined proceeds from Social Security and a SPIA for me, and 80 is about the point where it starts to make sense, but if my investments are doing well, I could/would delay it further.
Reverse Mortgage/SPIA + Soc Sec at different ages:
70: 43.8K/yr (Too early)
80: 49.7K/yr (About right)
81: 51K/yr
82: 52.3K/yr
83: 53.6K/yr
84: 55K/yr (More than I can spend)

For those of us with moderate spending, who had short careers with strong earnings, which would be the case for many early retirees, it can be quite easy to hedge against longevity with social security and a SPIA derived from earnings a reverse mortgage on our homes in old age.

Even with a simple Asset Allocation of 70% Stocks / 30% 10 year Treasuries, 24.5X worked all the way to age 100 even if you were unlucky enough to retire in Sept 1929, if you had the Social Security and Reverse Mortgage/SPIA amounts that I am referencing.
If your luck was just a bit better and you retired just 3 months earlier or later then 21.5X and 19.4X would have worked.

I will use a more diversified asset allocation that would have survived with 22.4X in Sept 1929 and 19.8X and 17.7X if I retired 3 months earlier or later.
So, even retiring with just 23X at 46, I don't have to worry about how long I live.

----------
About me:
No heirs, no plans to have heirs. Not married, won't get married.
I do have a long-term romantic partner, but her financials are completely separate from mine and she is materially older than me, so no inheritance worries past me being 80.
One day you might reach 80. Then want to take a trip of a lifetime
Brotha, I’m struggling with your point here. Yes if I reach 80, there will be a motherload of a party. I also want to party between 50-80 too !?!
“At some point you are trading time you will never get back for money you will never spend.“ | “How do you want to spend the best remaining year of your life?“
Wannaretireearly
Posts: 4880
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 4:39 pm

Re: I don't have to worry about living past 80, even if I retire at 46 with just 23X

Post by Wannaretireearly »

EnjoyIt wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 12:10 pm
Wannaretireearly wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 10:56 am
EnjoyIt wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 8:27 am
tphp99 wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 8:03 am
Wannaretireearly wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 3:57 am Down to 45 months of actual healthy months where you control 100% of your time? (Not controlled by boss, spouse, family, kids, sick parents etc).
Maybe I don't understand this statement, but how would you manage this? Quit your job, get a divorce and renounce all of your family members?

45 months. That scares me. Enough to keep me on a path to start utilizing those months the way I want (I cannot now).
So... when you get to those 45 months, how exactly would you live that's so different than today? - not trying to be a jerk, just curious on your retirement plans without spouse and family members involvement. I'm finding that I'm just doing basically what I've always done while I was still working, it wasn't a on/off switch for me once I retired.

Bottom line: The window is very short where you control your own time 100% AND you are in 100% good health. Doesn’t this scare others? Losing my dad before 60 made this very real for me….
So.. how would you get 100% control of your time, and what would you do exactly? By the 3rd or 4th decade of life, most of us if we're honest must admit that we are no longer 100% healthy. I can't nor want to play 36 holes of golf in one day, would be terrified to do some of the stuff I did in my 20's. Again, I'm just curious on how you picture your complete freedom in those 45 months of retirement.
I’m in my 40s. We went part time a few years ago. I am in better shape and healthier today than I was 5 years ago. I have more energy to do activities I enjoy and frankly, I look better. My spouse is healthier and looks way better as well. Our adult life is far more active.

Some of the free time we gained going part time is spent living a healthier lifestyle. Maybe we even gained a few extra months of healthy living.
Sounds fantastic! In tech (in the US) we do not have that option at all to my knowledge. The path that is (sadly) always talked about is upwards and more work. It seems social stigma to even talk about slowing down and enjoying more time in Silicon Valley. The way that we get rated (nine box etc) it would put you on the next layoff list given how things have shifted this year.

Again, super happy part time has worked for you, I wish it was an option for more of us! Take care.
I was working up the ladder in the corporate world of medicine. When I finally gave it all up to go part time no one understood. I was doing so well and making more and more money. If I continued who knows how high up I could go. No thank you. I was basically working 1.5 jobs. We made enough to have a good life with some luxury/comfort. My spouse says I appear way happier now and much more pleasant to be around.

I agree that I am lucky to be in a career that allows part time work. Not everyone has that luxury.
Love this 💪
“At some point you are trading time you will never get back for money you will never spend.“ | “How do you want to spend the best remaining year of your life?“
Post Reply