Chat is a text only community for casual conversation, please keep shitposting to the absolute minimum. This is intended to be a separate space from c/chapotraphouse or the daily megathread. Chat does this by being a long-form community where topics will remain from day to day unlike the megathread, and it is distinct from c/chapotraphouse in that we ask you to engage in this community in a genuine way. Please keep shitposting, bits, and irony to a minimum.
As with all communities posts need to abide by the code of conduct, additionally moderators will remove any posts or comments deemed to be inappropriate.
Thank you and happy chatting!
I spoke the other day about rich people whingeing that they don't have enough to retire in luxury. In today's news there is a 67 year old man who hates his job and wants to retire. However the poor thing only has $700K saved up. This only gives him $28K a year in interest. 
Poor old dear still hasn't paid off his mortgage so how will he manage on that?
How the other half live.
67 with that amount saved and a significant chunk of your mortgage to pay off is not rich.
Also that money isn't interest, it's the estimated rate of withdrawal they'd be able to do without running out of money before dying. The money itself is probably split between stocks and bonds, with more bonds to mitigate risk
He ain't living to 97, so why are we assuming a 4% withdrawal rate? His life expectancy isn't even half that, 81 is the likely number here.
That math doesn't work out. 67 year old man has a life expectation of 81, that's 14 years of withdrawals of 50k per year assuming 0 interest. Since they're getting interest, it would be more than 50k
And what're they supposed to do if they live to 82? In retirement planning you want to overestimate how long you'll live because the alternative really really sucks. In this case they're assuming a 4% withdrawal rate which is considered "safe" in that there's only a 5-10% chance you run out of money before 30 years.
There's only like a 0.1% chance he makes it to 97. Who cares if there's a 10% chance he'll run out of money at 97 when there's a 99.99% chance he'll be dead. Can't spend money if you're dead.
The 4% rule is useful rule of thumb if you're like 50-60 when you retire. If you're pushing 70, you can increase it.
Social Security data says that 3.16% of 67 year old men and 7.22% of women live to be 97. Bit high not to take into account when the stakes are putting food on the table.
ok so 97% chance of death. What I said remains correct, his late age of working means he can withdraw more than 4%. 4% is the rule of thumb for people retiring at 55, not at 67
We don't know the gender of this person
Rule of 4% is just for a period of 30 years. The math doesn't become less correct based on age. It was originally conceived in 1994 for people retiring 62-65. With increases in life expectancy since then I don't think 67 is too far of a stretch to apply it.
Wow, you're right. A lot of people in these comments have said they're a man, but it doesn't actually say that anywhere.
I was going off of this from OP, I thought they knew this person personally and didn't see the hyperlink
Not rich compared to jeff bezos maybe. Very rich compared to a huge number of everyday people who'll never earn their own home, work two jobs to survive and go without food and heating. As far as the mortgage being a problem, downsize?
It's incredibly normal to get mad at a 67 year old wanting to retire but not being financially secure enough. What are you talking about?
He is financially secure enough, he just doesn't want to have to downsize and budget - ie live like a normal person. That's the point of the post, someone who is wealthy enough to retire is whingeing that he can't afford to retire when the truth is he absolutely can afford to retire if he's satisfied with living comfortably rather than luxuriously. Most people nowadays will never own their own home, work multiple jobs and go without heating and meals, barely surviving, while this man complains he can't both retire right now and keep living an above-average lifestyle.
~~could you link to the news story?~~ the numbers we have are painting a pretty different picture. i.e. someone who added very little to their retirement savings and now has enough to retire to just above the US poverty line. I wouldn't call that comfortable, especially with the medical expenses of being at retirement age. like from the picture you're painting of this person is of one less well off than the standard of living working people deserve and that our society is capable of providing them.
EDIT: realized it wasn't a text post.
The link to the story is in the post, I think. All we know is "I'm 67 and desperate to retire. My boss is an absolute tyrant and I hate it every day. I have $700K saved but still have a hefty mortgage."
We have literally 3 pieces of information on this person:
That is nowhere near enough to determine that they're financially secure. We don't even know where they live! ~45k a year is not luxurious living anywhere in the US, and their standard of living will only get worse as inflation continues.
Again, just because some people have it worse than this person doesn't mean this person is in a "good" situation.
65% of Americans are homeowners. It's really not that luxurious, especially with a mortgage.
And what is he to downsize to? Renting? He should just subjugate himself to the whims of landlords while on a fixed income if he wants to retire? In a lot of places $28k a year is barely enough for a one bedroom and a car. I lived in a cockroach infested studio with no car when I made that much. It wasn't even in a major metro area and I'm young and can walk everywhere.
You're getting mad at a guy that almost managed to play the game right and scrape by instead of the game that fucks most of us over.
Assuming he's owned his current house for more than 5 years, it's likely the cheapest housing option available to him. Housing prices have exploded in the past ten years and rent has gone up correspondingly. If he sold his house, he might well be trading $1500/month for $2500/month.
That he can afford this year. He'll be stuck on 28k/yr until the day he dies. Consider how much rent has gone up since 2020. How long do you think he'd be able to afford living if rent keeps going up at the rate it has lately? Much less other bills like groceries.
And you might be thinking "Oh, well he can just go to one of those rent controlled 55+ places", but even those go up eventually, and quite frankly I'm not sure if there are enough of them for all the elderly baby boomers in this country.
I think this might be a classic case of hating the player instead of the game.
$28k is more money than I've ever had in my entire life lmao. He could downgrade into something that doesn't require a mortgage and could cash out on stocks/bonds. Like the OP states, he wants to maintain a life of luxury and not have to part with his assets. The rest of us will part ways with possessions, move to different countries, eat fewer meals, give away our pets, etc. if we have to.
This fuck could move into something more affordable in a smaller space, but that would mean having to live like some kind of poor.
Oh yeah he should just cash out the 401k, owe a third of it to the government in income tax just for the hell of it, then start renting and live at the whims of landlords all because some internet socialists are mad an old guy did what most Americans do to retire. If he happens to make it to 80 when he'll run out of money he can just start working again np.