If you're new here, you may want to learn what this site is about. I encourage you to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
Retirement is big business. Financial planners, investment brokers, and accountants are eager to convince you to save big bucks in preparation. There are scores of books packed with advice about finding the magic number, that target dollar amount that will be your ticket to the easy life. All these people have a vested interest in having you funnel money through them. Surely some of what they say is correct, but could they be overstating the problem?
A recent article in The New York Times suggests that this may be the case. Damon Darlin writes that some economists believe that the average person could save less and still retire with enough.
A small band of economists from universities, research institutions and the government are clearly expressing the blasphemy that many Americans could be saving less than they are being told to by the financial services industry — and spending more — while they are younger. The negative savings rate, they say, is wildly distorted.
According to them, the financial industry, with its ostensibly objective online calculators, overstates how much money someone will need in retirement. Some, in fact, contend that financial firms have a pointed interest in persuading people to save much more than they need because the companies earn fees o managing that money.
The more realistic amount could be as little as half the typical recommendation made by Fidelity, Vanguard or any number of other financial institutions.
This is a bold claim, and flies in the face of conventional financial wisdom. If true, an average couple might be able to free several hundred dollars a month to use for other priorities.
But this research should not be viewed as a license to give up retirement savings. Providing for your future is essential. Darlin quotes skeptics like John Rother of AARP who worries that these economists are “not doing anyone a service because of the tremendous amount of effort it takes to get people to save”.
This is an important point. The economists are not saying that one shouldn’t save for retirement; they’re saying that the average person may be able to save less than they’ve been led to believe. Several surveys and research projects have independently reached the same conclusion: most senior citizens have acquired adequate wealth.
But while most retirees have enough, a large minority find themselves unprepared for the financial obligations. USA Today recently published an article describing how many retirees are running up against debt. This piece is more typical of the doom-and-gloom retirement stories we’re accustomed to hearing.
Soaring health care costs are hitting seniors at a time when more employers are cutting back on retiree medical and pension benefits. People are living longer. Yet many seniors subsist on fixed incomes and have little means to boost their incomes. For them, debt provides a temporary — and often costly — reprieve from unexpected expenses.
What does this all mean to you? How is this applicable to your life?
Don’t be overly influenced by either article. It’s important to evaluate your needs and your circumstances rather than searching for some magic number. Each person’s situation is different. Certainly if you can afford it, you should save as much as possible, up to the amounts recommended by financial planning organizations. But don’t panic. Save what you can.
The best thing that you can do is start a retirement account and begin saving now. Regardless of how much you’ll ultimately need to have saved, there’s no question that it’s easier to reach this figure by using the power of compound returns. If you start saving while you’re young, time will help you earn more money.
Ultimately I believe the best choice for young people is to save as much as possible toward retirement. If by some quirk of fate you actually save too much, then retire early. For my part, I’m only just beginning to save for retirement. I’ll be 38 next month. I have roughly $70,000 set aside. I’m a little behind the curve. The good news is that I’ve realized the error of my ways, and when my debt has been eliminated, I will pursue retirement savings with vigor.
For more information on the New York Times article, read Are you saving TOO MUCH for retirement? at My Open Wallet.
[New York Times: A contrarian view: Save less and still retire with enough, via Cognitive Daily]

.jpg)

February 8th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
If $70k at 38 is ‘behind the curve’ then I’m behind the 8 ball. According to one calculator, if you stopped saving right now and earned the average of 9% in a tax-deferred account, you’d have almost $790k at 65.
February 8th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
Just curious JD, does that 70k figure include your wife’s retirement savings too?
February 8th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
Also, when using the Millionaire Next Door calculations, I come in as an Average Accumulator of Wealth (which is up from being an Under-Accumulator a few years ago).
But like I say: I’m not panicking. I feel like I’m starting late, but I have a clear view of what I need to do, and I’m going to do it. Keeping this site will help me work toward that goal!
Alan, no that number does not include my wife’s retirement savings. She has about the same amount, maybe a little more.
February 8th, 2007 at 1:39 pm
Cool. Then I think y’all are in good shape.
February 8th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
It is very hard to save too little. What if your career becomes obsolete, or you suffer age discrimination in your field, and your earnings go down sometime before you retire? What if you have unexpected medical expenses?
If you do save “too much”, then you can still retire earlier.
February 8th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
Norman, don’t forget that inflation reduces the buying power of the money you calculate he’ll have at retirement. And, once retired, unless he knows when he is going to die, he has to invest that money so that after it pays his expenses he has income left over to grow his networth at the rate of inflation.
Everyone should do this exercise: Calculate how much you would need to have invested at 7% to pay your current expenses of $20,000 per year with enough left over to grow your net worth to keep pace with an inflation rate of 3%.
(7% and 3% are just guesses you can try different numbers that you might think are more realistic - don’t be overly optimistic - better safe than sorry.)
7% return on investments = expenses + 3% growth of investments
x*.07 = expenses + x.03
.07x-.03x=expenses
(.07-.3)x= expenses
x=expenses/.04
20,000/.04 = 500,000
Adjust for inflation: rule of 72: divide 72 by the rate of inflation 72/3 = 24:
double the 500,000 for every 24 years until retirement.
If you plan to retire at 65 and are 41 now you will need $1,000,000 when you retire to live like you do on 20k today.
Hopefully you will be shocked into action, and not paralized by discouragement. Save more spend less.
Reducing spending works two ways:
If you can spend less right now then: 1) you will have more money available to invest and 2) you will need less money to retire on.
February 8th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
If the predictions of how much you need to save are inflated, then one negative effect that may have is that it discourages people from saving anything: if there’s no way you’ll ever save enough money to retire, why not buy a plasma TV? It’s only if it seems realistically attainable that you can motivate yourself to save for it…
February 8th, 2007 at 2:33 pm
I think that there are some things to consider in this research when asking whether on the whole “people” are saving enough.
First, those that are saving more tend to be those that younger.
Second, when asking why younger people are skewed to saving more, it may (IMO it is) because they perceive more risk to other sources of retirement — especially social security, Medicare and Pension.
Finally, when doing projections for retirement, its crucial to include inflation in the equation. if you assume a 10% long term market return, and a 3% inflation rate, you get a net 7% return.
Its completely OK to assume a 9% rate of return as Norman has, but I believe you are remiss in your planning if you don’t realize that the resulting $790k in Norm’s case really has the purchasing power of about $560K worth of buying power at today’s dollars.
February 8th, 2007 at 3:54 pm
Yes, inflation must be accounted for. My point is that by having $70k, right now, JD is doing great. Especially since that doesn’t include his wife’s 70k. I wasn’t telling him to stop saving and retire to the Isle of Capri:)
February 8th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
Since the Millionaire Next Door formula came up, and JD’s vs. his wife’s retirement savings–I’ve wondered a time or two whether you’re supposed to use individual or household earnings as your baseline.
I’m inclined to think for a married couple, you ought to use the total household income, and include both partners’ assets in the comparison. Is that how the rest of you read it?
February 8th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
Sometimes I do wonder if I’m “oversaving,” if one can do such a thing. I don’t feel particularly deprived by what I allot myself to live on, but a couple of people I know (who are good savers) think I’m a tad fanatic about saving. (I put close to 25% of my income into retirement, and my employer puts the equivalent of 10% of my salary into a pension every year.)
I’m not sure I want to *stop* saving so much, but it’s hard for me to gauge what part of my savings is crucial, and what part of it is likely to be a future safety net or legacy/fun money.
Part of the problem is that I go back and forth between two goals: (1) Do I merely want to retire comfortably, or (2) do I want to retire comfortably and possibly “rich” (with money/assets to leave to charities, etc.). I know that option 1 is my minimum goal, but I waver on option 2 because I don’t know if it’s truly feasible, or if I should just try to make use of that “extra” savings money now while I’m alive….
I wonder if there are any “Am I oversaving?” calculators…..
February 8th, 2007 at 5:28 pm
RJ wrote:
I wonder if there are any “Am I oversaving?” calculators…..
HA! Actually, if the NYT piece wasn’t behind a paywall, you could see that one of the economists is pitching a $125 (or so) calculator that will tell you just that!
February 8th, 2007 at 5:39 pm
RJ, I wouldn’t worry too much about oversaving if I were you — SO LONG AS by saving 25%, you are not living so frugally that you aren’t also enjoying your life now.
If you are doing without things and resenting it, then maybe drop your savings rate. If you were saving 20% instead of 25% you’d still be doing better than almost everybody.
If, however, you aren’t really missing the money then keep doing what you’re doing, and be prepared to be in clover later in life! Who knows? You might even be able to retire early, or do something cool like Warren Buffet did and make a charitable gift of some of your riches that you won’t need later.
February 8th, 2007 at 6:19 pm
That article is pretty bad. The formula seems to be: find a corner case -> write a sensational title -> attract attention -> more page views for ad dollars. Had it been about Americans not saving enough, it would’ve been an old story everyone glosses over.
February 8th, 2007 at 8:58 pm
The 10% average stock market return for the past 70 years also is post inflation. So it’s like 13% or so with inflation included.
February 8th, 2007 at 9:45 pm
I think investment firms use intimidation to get *some* people to over save.
Let’s say you currently earn $70k after tax. You spend $30k a year on housing. $8k on retirement savings. $1,000 on your child’s college fund. $1,000 on life insurance. You’re left with $30k a year to live on.
If you’re 65 and your house is paid off, your kids are finished college and you have equity in your home and retirement savings to support your loved ones, you can still live on $30k a year. In 32 years, at 3% inflation, that means you’d need $1.1M saved to generate that income, assuming you don’t draw down on it.
And that assumes that you won’t receive any sort of government pension or other assistance. And that you won’t downsize your home to rustle up a little cash.
February 8th, 2007 at 10:00 pm
About 20% of our income goes right into retirement saving, I wish we could do more. We don’t know what tomorrow will hold so I say save away and the New York Times be damned!
February 9th, 2007 at 12:07 am
There are two very different perspectives you need to consider when reading this article. One is the perspective of the someone considering the population as a whole: many people will get social security payments, the stock market may go up during their retirement, they may not live very long after retirement.
However this is not relevant to the other perspective which is that of the individual saving for retirement. This person has to consider that they may live for a long time after retirement, the stock market might go down just after they retire (what if you retired in 2000?), and no one knows what changes might be made to social securty in future years.
Therefore while it is true that when looking at the population in a statistical manner, you may see that many people may save more than they need, as an individual you should to consider the worst case scenario and try to be prepared for it.
If everyone is doing what they ought, then, yes, many people will save too much.
February 9th, 2007 at 12:59 am
One of the things that I seemed to read in the article (and in savings for retirement in general) is an assumption that retirees would be able to live on 60-70% of their income after retirement.
In all honesty, if I’ve got more time on my hands, I’d want to spend more money. I’m envisioning travel, and when I’m old I probably won’t want to do that as cheaply as I do now. So it’ll be expensive.
If I have too much money, I’ll donate it to charity, friends and relatives. It’ll be a nice problem to have. I feel that its unlikely as I have a grand sum of £9000 (approx $15000) in retirement investments so far (I’m in my late 20s).
I guess its another vote for taking your own circumstances into account.
February 9th, 2007 at 1:14 am
I find that final totals are understated more often than not. Every retirement calculator I use is happy to tell me what my social security will be… but not that I’m taking a chance on relying that I’ll have any income from social security at all. Those of us who are 18-30 right now *cannot* rely on pensions and social security to provide income in later life. And, yeah, expenses don’t always drop when you get older.
Inflation is also a b… er, it’s not very nice, to be honest. If you invest with the assumption of 10% returns overall, for example, you may get that in the long run, but if we have another major inflationary period… well. Using the inflation number we usually used in my finance classes, 2.5%, a person who needs $25k in today’s dollars will need almost $70k in 40 years to live the same way. Unfortunately, someone who started planning in 1966 to retire in 2006 and made that same assumption might be unhappy to find out today that the inflation over their working years worked out to almost double that.
If you think your brokerage or whatever is giving you high estimates because they want your money, you can always go someplace else. In all likelihood, they’re giving you high estimates because when it comes to retirement, it’s always better to err on the side of caution. I’d rather save “too much” now and leave a legacy than to take risks with my savings and spend my golden years eating ramen.
February 9th, 2007 at 3:17 am
Not sure who’s these economists are but they are dangerous, very very dangerous to all the general well being of the public, imagine saying .. well you know you’ll probably have TOO MUCH in retirement where you need to fund yourself for the next 30+ years on your own funds because the government can’t support social security benefits anymore …
LUNACY!!!
Save as much as you can so you can retire whenever you want because your investments are providing cashflow to support or supplant your work income.
February 9th, 2007 at 4:21 am
I’m with the economists. They have no vested interest in having us save more than we need to, unlike mutual funds, brokers, financial advisors, etc. On the other hand, though, I’ve always been a bit wary of economic theory, especially when it’s applied to individual people, who behave far less “rationally” in economic terms than do businesses or the economy as a whole.
One of the economists in the NYTimes story is the guy behind E$Planner software (not cheap at $150 but I would consider getting it if they had a Canadian version), which lets you set the living standard you want for both the near-term and in the future, and then shows you how much you need to save in order to meet those goals.
I believe there can be real costs to saving “too much” for your retirement, especially if you’re depriving ourselves of opportunities in your youth. There are a lot of things I could do with money now that I may not be able to do when I’m in my 70s, especially if my health doesn’t hold out. Personally I’d rather live life to its fullest throughout my existence, rather than wait until I’m retired.
February 9th, 2007 at 5:56 am
(I actually haven’t read either article yet, so if this was address in the articles themselves, I apologize.) I’m surprised that no one has comment on what the meaning of “enough” is. If the paid financial planners think “enough” means “enough to have a new car every five years and cable TV while also eating steak for dinner every day for the rest of your life” and the economists think that “enough” means “enough to have a roof over your head and eat frugally while using a bicycle for transportation and a library card for entertainment for the rest of your life”, then obviously they are not going to come up with the same numbers. You should think about what “enough” means to you before deciding which of these guys you want to pay the most attention to.
February 9th, 2007 at 8:25 am
I think Andrew’s comment hit it on the head. Retirement planning is about what you want to do after your job. If you want daily golf and a big house you better keep over saving, but if your like me and just want out of the job market for good by my 45th birthday on a simple lifestyle, then I don’t need anywhere near the same amount.
Also the standard inflation numbers are a bit misleading. They are based on a standard basket of goods with consumer preference weighting (for example a 2 to 1 preference on buying an apple over an orange). So if you don’t use half of those goods and don’t buy in the same as everyone else in weighting the number can quickly become useless. Track your own expenses and find out your personal inflation rate. I know I estimated mine is around 1.5 to 2% last year. Well below the 3% average.
February 9th, 2007 at 11:07 am
This debate clearly demonstrates the insane level of income stratification that exists in our society. Some may be saving too much for retirement because they can. This is a similar problem to some of the largest U.S. corporations having too much cash - the money is not being put to good use for them.
The reality is that the average American has a net worth of only $17,800. Only 37% of U.S. workers have retirement accounts at all. The median balance in those accounts is about $22,000. In my opinion, it is irresponsible to suggest that the over-saving “problem” is applicable to anybody but the 5% of Americans with the highest incomes.
February 9th, 2007 at 11:54 am
Thanks for the mention!
February 9th, 2007 at 2:28 pm
Saving for retirement reminds me of a story where two men are holding ropes, after capturing a lion in Africa. The ropes break and the lion begins chasing the men. One man is fit and fast and the other is less so. The fit and fast man is laughing as he’s running and the other man asks, “What in god’s name is so funny? The lion is chasing us and gaining fast! We can’t out run him!” The fit and fast man looks over and says, “No, but I can outrun you!” Retirement savings ladies and gentleman…
February 11th, 2007 at 4:01 am
[...] Could You Save Less and Still Retire With Enough? by JDRoth @ Get Rich Slowly. JD wonders if financial consultants are scaring you into worrying too much about your retirement. I have expressed similar worries in one of my earlier posts and so have some other bloggers. Here is an excerpt from JD’s post: The economists are not saying that one shouldn’t save for retirement; they’re saying that the average person may be able to save less than they’ve been led to believe. [...]
February 11th, 2007 at 5:22 am
There are two big problems with the statement that “people are oversaving for retirement,” even if it can be applied to a specific person.
The first problem is that there are too many unknowns, and not enough known variables. How big a return will you get? (Are you planning/hoping for a 10-11% historical return, or for the 6-7% return that many analysts predict stocks will earn in the next 20 years?) How big a bite will inflation take out of your savings? (Estimates range anywhere from 2-5%.) What will your expenses be in retirement? (Will you have to purchase all of your own health coverage, will Medicare still be around, or will we adopt universal health care policies?) When you start saving earlier, you put time and compound interest on your side, but the variability in the unknown factors also increases.
The second problem is that the risks in saving too little FAR outweigh the risks in saving too much. If you save too much, you could have spent more throughout your working life, possibly resulting in a higher standard of living and the ability to do more things which you enjoy. If you save to little, you may have to make drastic cuts in your lifestyle, move in with relatives, and attempt to go back to work at age 70+.
So, given all the unknown factors, and given the asymmetry of the possible outcomes, it is completely reasonable for people to err on the side of saving too much.
February 11th, 2007 at 9:00 am
[...] How could you possibly save too much money? There’s been a good deal of discussion in the last few weeks about whether we’re saving too much money. My take is that you can never save enough and I’ll tell you why. [...]