re: Here's how much money you should have saved at every age

quote:

---

you're assuming the average person has a white collar job with a 401k match lol thats nice

---

Don't try to crawfish and backtrack.

I didn't say the average person. I was answering the specific scenario *you* citied. And most people at the income level you meationed have some kind of 401k employer contribution. And even if they didn't, you didn't say the average person either. You flat out said it was impossible to reach those limits without sacrificing your social life.

And the math works out no matter what income level you are speaking of. As long as you are saving at least 10% of your check, you will attain every single one of these benchmarks you say is impossible regardless of your income level.

Especially as they clearly state this isn't just investment, even payments on a house qualifies.

And I repeat, if you aren't saving at least 10% of your check, you have serious cash flow issues. You are obviously spending to "keep up with the Jonses." The people who I see not saving at least 10% aren't for the sake of a social life. It's for a new car every few years and an apartment with fancy electronics.

quote:

---

I'm just pointing out that if you stick to the plan and don't keep up with the jones's, this is a do'able path. this is not some kind of crazy path that makes you live in your mom's basement and eat potted meat for every meal and bike to work.

---

Exactly.

While the general rules of thumb in the OP might not be possible for some people, they do represent good financial targets for most. Some may be able to hit them easily. Some may struggle. But to just say that it can't be done because (new or leased) car payments, travel/vacation, eating out, private school or whatever will get in the way... well, people sometimes confuse needs with wants. Those who do that may end up working until the day they drop dead. Those who employ (realistic) budgeting and use written financial goal setting at least have a road map. And they can use various rules of thumb (that included more than just pure savings and investments, by the way - some apparently didn't carefully read the OP) to track their progress. If you don't know where you are, how do you know where you're going?

Something that I did last year was to read some stats on the number of Americans that do NOT contribute to an available employer sponsored 401k, and those that do not contribute enough to fully capture the (free money) employer match. Then, there was the number that did not contribute to ANY sort of retirement savings plan. And then I read about the amount that Americans spend on discretionary items, including lottery tickets. If anyone wants to read some sad stories, Google those categories and keep a box of Kleenex handy.

While there are always exceptions to any rule (especially rules of thumb), when one looks at per capita spending vs. saving/investing in the U.S., it's rather clear that at least part of our problem revolves around confusing needs with wants and keeping up with the jone's, as you correctly pointed out.

quote:

---

put aside 25/week into a roboinvester,

---

what is this?

quote:

---

Your basic convenience store manager makes $50k annually and they're probably not retiring with $400k in cash

---

If they are making $50K and saving 10% then it's definitely possible as several others have mentioned.

quote:

---

it's nice you think most $50k earners have 401k programs and know about investing in the s&p 500 to generate traditional returns. It really shows how out of touch you are with the numbers included in the op

---

Not sure why you're getting on to him about others not knowing the value of investing in something as simple as the S&P 500.

This is the problem with these statistics. They don't take into account one's stupidity or laziness to not learn and try to improve one's life. You don't need a 401k to invest. Some people are just too ignorant to put in the the basic time to learn about simple funds. That's not my fault or yours but you sure do seem to be using it as an excuse for every $50K earner without a 401k plan.

If your guy never gets a raise and makes $50k from when he's 22 to age 65 and invests $5k in a Roth yearly (so 10%) he'll have between $800k (15x) and $1MM (19x) at 65.

This has nothing to do with having a 401k. It has to do with personal accountability.

that list is retarded and unrealistic

quote:

---

Personally I think this is very aggressive.

---

I don't think it's that aggressive for someone with a college education. I'm nearly 10 years ahead. It's even easier in a dual income household.

quote:

---

they? Man I'm in the convenience store business and I have 4 managers that make $1000/week and they don't have any type of employer contribution to anything. Your basic convenience store manager makes $50k annually and they're probably not retiring with $400k in cash but it's nice you think most $50k earners have 401k programs and know about investing in the s&p 500 to generate traditional returns. It really shows how out of touch you are with the numbers included in the op

---

I probably know a few hundred people in various occupations that earn in the 45K-75K range 95% of them have access to a 401K plan, but I don't know any convenience store managers, if that is the only occupation you have for reference then maybe you are out of touch with the average workers finances.

Why is the list linear? (1x every 5 years? Once you're 40-45 your investments should be ramping up really quick compared to your 20s and 30s

These figures are pretty meaningless click bait.

How much someone needs to save is dependent on so many factors that it cannot be boiled down into a single number at each age. I know humans love single numbers that they can attach to but it just isn't that simple.

Someone could have 3x at retirement and be fine while someone else might need 15x. There is a ton of variability here.