Today, I read an alarming report that said (among other things) that Americans are guessing at how much money they need to retire… and they are guessing wildly wrong. For example, the median Millennial “guesstimated” that he would need a $500,000 nest egg to retire.
This is great if you have generous children willing to support you, or if you enjoy eating cat food. Otherwise, Millennials, we need to shape up.
To be fair, Millennials are not being uniquely stupid here. Our parents in GenX and the Baby Boom (aka “The Olds”) are roughly the same amount of dumb about retirement. But I’m not talking to them, because (1) the Olds are so much closer to retirement they’re beyond my help, and (2) they are going to retire into a functional Social Security system, so, while their own irresponsibility might ruin their plans, it won’t ruin their lives.
But the first Millennials don’t start retiring until 2049. The Social Security Trust Fund will be empty in 2035. Do the math.
Social Security will still exist after 2035, since the Trust Fund is only one part of its funding, but the Olds’ refusal to deal with its massive long-term funding problem now means that it is likely to pay our generation less than we were promised. You can pretty much count on receiving at least half your scheduled benefit. In fact, it’s very likely you’ll get 75% of your benefit. But beyond that? It depends on the Olds’ willingness to raise taxes on the rich, and have you seen their voting records? So let’s assume our parents are going to mess this up (as usual) and leave us with the bill (as usual), as they have on everything from student loans to the home mortgage interest deduction. You’re going to have a lean Social Security check, so you need to make sure you have enough saved up for yourself.
How much is “enough”?
A very solid rule of thumb is that you need to figure out how much money you’re going to spend each year in retirement, then multiply it by 25. This is because a nest egg that large generates enough interest that you can live on it without having to spend down the principal. Your money will replenish itself, and you will (very likely) never run out. Since you have no idea how long you will live — whether with future medical advances or sheer luck, you could live to age 100 or beyond! — you need to make sure you’re not spending down your principal.
So let’s say you’re the median Millennial. You were born in 1990, you’re now 28 years old, you’re living with somebody but probably not married (yet), and your household has a combined total paycheck of around $54,000. You spend the whole paycheck on stuff, from housing to insurance to tax to food to streaming services. You’ve never even seen avocado toast. Social Security is scheduled to pay you guys about $30,000/year starting at age 67… which means you should probably only count on seeing $20,000/year.
In retirement, your spending habits are going to change: housing costs will go down, medical costs will go up. Middle-aged people planning for retirement in their peak earning years are probably going to be spending less in retirement than today. But you’re young, still a ways away from your peak earning years. It’s fair to assume that, in retirement, you’re going to have expenses that are fairly close to what yours are today.
So you’re going to need, more or less, $54,000/year in retirement. Social Security covers $20,000 of that, so your real need is $34,000/year. Multiply that by 25 to get the size of the nest egg you need when you retire in forty years: $850,000. (If you’re single, or keep your finances separate from your spouse / consort / platonic lifelong roommate / convent / whatever, halve these numbers.) Under a million bucks stashed away in four decades? That’s easy enough, isn’t it?
Not so fast. Because there’s going to be inflation. Social Security adjusts for inflation automatically… but your retirement savings targets don’t. You need to account for it.
If you’re real lucky, there won’t be much inflation. For people who started working in America in the 1930s, retiring in the 1960s, the average annual rate of inflation over their career was only about 2%. But those people were stupidly lucky with inflation. (Less lucky with having the Great Depression and World War II.)
The long-term average rate of inflation since the Federal Reserve was created — which is what you should expect — is about 3.5%.
And if you’re unlucky? If you started working in the midst of 1970s stagflation and retired into the Great Recession (as millions of people did), the average annual rate of inflation over your career was as high as 4.3%. That’s not what you should expect, but it’s what you should prepare for.
Long story short, in forty years, $34,000 isn’t going to be worth very much! You’ll be telling your grandkids about the Good Ol’ Days, when the stuff on the McDonald’s Dollar Menu actually cost One Dollar, not $5.25. And you’ll need a whole lot more money to buy what you can buy today with $34,000.
Maybe we’ll luck out, and inflation will stay low. It’s been very low since the Great Recession, which is pretty cool. If average inflation over our careers is only 2%, the “$34,000/year” we need inflates to $75,000/year. Which means you’ll need $1.8 million in your nest egg.
But we’re probably not going to get that lucky. It’s more likely that inflation will be around 3.5%. In that case, you’ll need $135,000/year to have the same standard-of-living as you have today, and your actual nest egg? $3.4 million.
But that’s just an average. We could easily get unlucky. The millions of people who started working under Jimmy Carter and retired during the Great Recession weren’t very lucky with inflation rates at all. You need to prepare for that possibility. If we have average inflation of 4.3% over the rest of our careers, you’ll need $180,000/year just to keep pace with that $34,000/year you’re looking at today. How much do you need to save up? Just multiply by 25: you’re going to need a $4.5 million nest egg to maintain your current standard of living.
And that’s after Social Security. And that’s assuming your household today earns around the median. If you’re making more than that? Then you’re going to need even more money in retirement to maintain your standard of living.
Now, there’s good news, too. Inflation doesn’t just sneak up in the middle of the night and ruin your savings. It will happen slowly, a few dollars at a time for forty years. Your salary is going to get inflated over time, your savings will inflate, your investments will inflate, growing a little extra every year thanks to inflation. When you get there, $4.5 million isn’t going to seem as crazy as it does right now.
Nevertheless: you, the median Millennial, should be aiming to have accumulated around $4.5 million in 40 years. That’s just to keep living the way you’re living now, not blinging it up with round-the-world cruises and gold-plated walkers, and it assumes inflation that is worse than average, but hardly worst-case.
So start saving now! If you and your significant other put 20% of your pre-tax income (that’s $11,000 a year, if you’re the median Millennial household) into a 401(k) or a Roth IRA, starting now and continuing until you retire, and you keep putting in 20% even as your wages grow in the next few years, and you don’t withdraw from your retirement accounts… well, you’re gonna make it.
If you already started saving when you were younger, you probably don’t even need to put away 20% to keep up. I started saving at 22. Today, even after marrying, raiding my Roth, and stopping some deposits for a year due to a series of financial emergencies, I’m saving only 15% for retirement. I’m no longer ahead of the game, but I’m still on track.
And if you fall a little short? If you’re having a rough decade in your 20s and don’t start earning real money until your 30s? If you have to raid the Roth IRA to buy a house to fit your growing family? (Full disclosure: I did this.) It’s not the end of the world. Start saving when you can. You’ll just have to live a little more frugally in retirement than you may have expected. You won’t be eating cat food. With even $2 or $3 million by the late 2050s, you’re gonna be fine. Heck, you’ll need even less than that if inflation stays close to the average.
But you do need to start saving as soon as it’s practical. There’s no future where $500,000 is going to be enough for a Millennial to retire on. If you still think it is, start stocking up on Fancy Feast.
Editor’s Note: This post is definitely a public service and not a sly attempt to get somebody to check my retirement math on the cheap.
UPDATE 6 MAY 2019: A friend of the blog pointed out an error in my inflation calculations. I apparently fat-fingered a formula in my Excel spreadsheet, which caused several figures to come out too low. The ol’ Reinhart-Rogoff conundrum! I fixed the error. I then took the opportunity to find a better figure for the median household income of 28-year-olds before recalculating.
The headline figure (“You need $4.5 million”) remained the same. However, median household income changed to $54,000 (from $65,000 in the original), a misleading aside on taxes was excised, and the overall annual income need in retirement (in 2019 constant dollars) changed to $34,000 (from $45,000). The annual need in 2059 dollars under the low-inflation scenario therefore changed to $75,000 (from $100,000) and the nest egg to $1.8 million (from $2.4 million). The annual need in 2059 dollars under the average inflation scenario changed to $135,000 (from $133,000) and the nest egg did not change. The high-inflation scenario did not change. Thanks to Jeff P. for pointing out the original error.
Other than that, the story was accurate!
In other news, I’ve been asked elsewhere to explore these calculations a bit more in depth, for people at various saving and spending levels. While there are many good retirement calculators out there already, I admit I wrote my own, based on the basic plan laid out in this post. I plan to clean it up and post the calculator as a Google Sheet when I get the chance, for those interested.
I am distressed to see you refer to baby boomers as “The Olds”. I have been surprised at the development over the last five years of younger people blaming everything on “boomers”. It is definitely a trendy development. But I never thought I would see this from you, James. You appeared to be different: mature, considerate, compassionate, respectful.
Full disclosure: I am just barely outside the window of “millennial” but I guess I have respect beyond my generation.
I have always felt that respect is earned, and the Boomer generation in particular has done everything it can to lose it.
As they enter their long twilight, we can look back on the political arc of Boomerism and recognize it for what it is: a legacy of selfishness, laziness, and myopia. They were amply warned, many times, on many issues, by many prophets, from Ross Perot to James Dobson. Like Israel before the Captivity, they refused to listen. Their legacy is a collection of policies that were, are, and will continue to be destructive for the rising generations, long after the Boomers themselves are dead. To take just the really obvious example, smart people have been ringing the alarm bell about our astonishing national debt for a lot longer than I’ve been alive, but Boomers voted repeatedly to take the money now (the tax cuts, the handouts, the vast mortgage subsidies) and leave their children and grandchildren with the bill.
“Our children will foot the bill” is such a hoary line now it’s a cliche, but what’s new is that those children and grandchildren are finally growing up, and they’re mad. All of them, rich and poor, watched the thriving youth employment market where Boomers cut their teeth implode like it was Ragnarok… and those jobs don’t seem to be coming back, ever. The wealthy young people are now saddled with exorbitant student loan debts (which are immune to ordinary bankruptcy procedures because reasons), which are causing them to delay family formation and home purchases. The poor ones are facing a shrinking social safety net as ever-more money is diverted to federal debt service. That’s going to get drastically worse in coming years, and The Olds form a large enough voting bloc to ensure that the money paying their debts won’t be coming out of their Medicare and Social Security. They’re going to kick the can down the road to you and me, because that’s all the Boomer generation has ever done in its entire political life.
And they don’t care. They have never cared. Unless and until the Youngs become a sufficiently unified and active voting bloc to fight back (and I’m by no means convinced this would be a good thing), the Boomers will never care. Some individuals do care, I know, and bless them for it. I have plenty of Boomer friends, mentors, and fellow travellers. But, collectively, the Boomers have refused to take responsibility for one single thing they has done to hurt this country. (And that list… brother, forget fiscal policy, let’s just talk about how much violence Boomers did to their own children with their culture of divorce.) Instead of admitting fault and trying to clean up their mess, they while their days away on Facebook sharing about how lazy Millennials are “killing brunch” and pull the lever for whichever politician vows to change everything except the policies that subsidize them.
The Boomers’ parents recovered from the Depression, built the social safety net (despite its many flaws), and then went off to fight World War II. They earned the name “Greatest Generation.” The Boomers themselves emptied the piggy bank on themselves, let their inheritance decay, shrugged at the post-apocalyptic landscape they left for their kids, and, in what must qualify as the quintessential paroxysm of Boomer politics, gave us a choice in 2016 between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. (It wasn’t the youth, in either party, that drove those candidates to the top!) Again, while I like and respect many individual Boomers, I think they will be remembered as a whole as the “Worst Generation,” and I think they will deserve it. I have resented their legacy since 2003 (I had an economic revelation in the sacristy one day after altar serving, as I guess one does), but the intervening 16 years have only deepened my opinion, and seen ever-more young people reach the same conclusion.
GenX… I don’t know. I honestly don’t know all that much about their history. It was unfair of me to lump them in with the rest of The Olds when the real object of my ire is those born 1944-1964. Sorry.
Thanks for reading the blog! I’m glad you think all those kind things about me. I hope this doesn’t ruin that opinion — but I gotta call the balls and strikes as I see them.
–James H.
There seems to be such a misunderstanding about who the Boomers are. I was born in 1954, right in the middle of this artificially designed group. My father was a veteran of the Korean War, not WWII. It was my parents’ generation who thrived as young adults in the post war economic boom – a boom created as the USA was the only functioning economy after the war and basically rebuilt the whole world. (I don’t think we want another world war to fix our economy)
My father (who is now 90) has been retired for 32 years and has been getting a >$2,000 per month pension for all this time in addition to his social security. I believe his generation is known as the Silent Generation. I, as a Baby Boomer, became an adult in the 1970s when the economy sucked. When we bought our first house, our mortgage interest rate was 15% . Do a little math to see how much house you could buy today if mortgage rates were 15%. Yet we still bought what little house we could because we wanted to be independent. We don’t have pensions like my father does. Our retirement is funded by our savings. The article makes a valid point that saving 15% of your income throughout your working life will fund your retirement. This was true for my “boomer” generation, and it should be true for millennials. Boomers who saved that 15% for forty years are now “rich” and millennials think we cheated somehow and messed things up for them. You will be rich too when you’re 65 if you minimize your debt and save for the future.
To blame millennials’ reluctance to start families or buy houses on their student loan debt is so out of touch I’m literally wondering who has taken over your blog. The gross over generalizations, the lack of any responsibility whatsoever on any other generation, and the doubling down on the offensive name-calling … I just don’t even know how to process this from you.
Perhaps you’re tapped into different social science literature than I am, but all the empirical evidence I’m familiar with is unambiguous: student debt plays a significant role in causing Millennials to delay marriage, home purchases, and childbearing. The magnitude of the effect is still disputed, and it certainly isn’t the entire story, but it seems well-established that there is a significant effect. Here are some sources on this:
https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/consumer-community-context-201901.pdf
https://www.demographic-research.org/volumes/vol30/69/30-69.pdf
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5231614/
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.718.4343&rep=rep1&type=pdf
https://paa2010.princeton.edu/papers/101529
http://familyinamerica.org/journals/spring-2010/crushing-burden-student-loans-how-debt-weakens-family-formation-among-generation-x/
https://eric.ed.gov/?q=student+debt&pg=2&id=EJ1204454
This applies principally to wealthier Millennials, of course, since poorer Millennials tend not to carry student loan debt. This is why I regard student loan debt relief plans (like that of Elizabeth Warren and other Democratic presidential candidates) with considerable suspicion; the moral hazard of bailouts aside, it looks an awful lot like vote-buying.
But I don’t think there’s a good empirical basis for denying that student loan debt has indeed contributed significantly to wealthier Millennials’ reluctance to start families or buy houses, just as I said in my post.
As for the rest, I’m very sorry to disappoint, but there’s nothing in my comment that I think is unfair or would describe as name-calling. (Is calling people between the ages of 40 and 73 “The Olds” name-calling, in your view?)
–James H.
Um yes. Labeling an entire group of real people “The Olds” because half of them didn’t vote the way you wanted them to is hurtful and disrespectful. And you know darn well, James, the number one reason millennials aren’t starting families is because we are in the midst of a spiritual crisis. You can blame all of this on their parents because they DIDN’T do their job and teach their children as they should have, and you’d be absolutely right, but the tone of this post, the conclusions, the lack of empathy or attempt to understand is so unlike you. I hope you live long enough to understand first hand because it WILL happen. Every generation is contemptuous and dismissive of the one or two generations before, so we will be on the receiving end of it someday, and unfortunately it seems to get worse with every generation so by the time our turn rolls around we’re really in for it.