Tobold's Blog
Tuesday, February 25, 2025
 
Retirement and frugality

In 1889 the first old age pension system was introduced by Otto von Bismarck. It set the retirement age to 70, an age that few workers at the time actually reached, so there weren't actually all that many pensioners. Since then, the retirement age all over the world has been lowered, while our life spans increased. Today it is rather likely that you not only reach retirement age, but also live 20+ more years in retirement. So for many people approaching retirement, the question whether they can hold their current standard of living is a rather important one.

Imagine the amount of money you spend per year is X, and you are currently earning (after taxes) twice that, 2X. So you spend half your income, and save the other half. Even if those savings didn't yield any interest, you'd have 25X in savings after 25 years. With 4% interest yield you'd reach 25X in 18 years, thanks to the power of compound interest. If you have 25X money in the bank, you could stop working, and as long as you continue to get 4% interest, that would give you X per year, and you could live at your usual standard of living forever.

Calculations like the above paragraph are the basics of the FIRE (financial independence, retire early) movement. However, a savings rate of 50% is nearly impossible to achieve for most people. As long as you want to be at leased basically housed, eat regular meals that don't make you sick, and wear clothes good enough to go to work with, there is something like a minimum standard of living depending on local conditions; and not everybody earns twice that minimum. Due to that minimum, it is much easier for high income individuals to have a higher saving rate than for low income individuals.

But much of the difficulty of achieving a high savings rate is psychological. 36% of Americans who earn over $200,000 a year say they live paycheck to paycheck. As there are obviously other Americans with annual incomes of half that living in the same area, it is proven that these people could live on half their income; but they either have an inflated idea of how their living standard should look like, or they are trying to "keep up with the Joneses", and spend due to social pressure.

If you have a savings rate of zero, retirement will come as a shock. Wherever you live, old age pensions tend to be only a fraction of your last salary. On average in Europe pension levels are less than half of final salaries, but there is a distribution to that: If you already live of welfare, your retirement welfare check won't be much different from your current income. If you have an income from work, you have to pay a percentage of that into the pension system, and get a return based on what you paid in. The more you earn, the more you pay in, and the more you get out, but it doesn't scale perfectly. Various caps and rules result in the pension as a percentage of your final salary getting lower and lower, the higher your salary is. For example in the USA your pension benefits calculate as 90% of your monthly earnings below $1,226, 32% of your earnings between $1,226 and $7,391, and just 15% of your earnings above $7,391. If you do the numbers for an American with an annual salary of $200,000, he'll end up with social security benefits of only a quarter of salary. That'll be rough, if he previously thought he couldn't even live on half his salary.

For most people, neither the FIRE idea nor zero savings are financially viable. The good news is that with a moderate savings rate plus the state pension you'll be able to hold you standard of living. For example if you save 15% of your annual income every year for 40 years, and then retire with a state pension of half your previous salary, the interest on your savings should be able to make up for the other half. The real live calculation is complicated, as your annual salary over 40 years is probably going up, stock market returns aren't constant, and life has its financial ups and downs that make a constant savings rate difficult. The other complicated factor is that you can withdraw more of your retirement savings every year than just its interest yield. If you knew how long you will live, you could get both the interest rate and withdraw an amount of the capital at the rate that the savings run out the day you die. Not knowing when that is, and possibly wanting to leave money to your children, complicates that.

The important idea is that you can't spend all of your annual income on your living expenses. You need to be at least a bit frugal during the working portion of your life. If you don't, the pension system will impose a much more drastic frugality on you after retirement. The higher your savings rate, the more comfortable your retirement will become, and at some savings rate even retiring before working 40+ years becomes financially viable.

Comments:
Yeah, it's astonishing the degree to which people with huge incomes can get themselves into spending trouble, making saving difficult or seemingly impossible. My partner and I are firmly on the FIRE path, but only because I was fortunate to choose a lucrative career so that we could have a high standard of living while still saving half or more of our income. Until my career somewhat unexpectedly took off, we had been saving a modest 15% and were targeting a much more modest (but still early) retirement at 55-60.

I often wonder how much of the ease with which we find controlling our spending to be related to my partner and I both coming from lower middle class families - our current standard of living feels like luxury compared to our childhoods, even though it's not that extreme.
 
I am retiring Friday 2025-02-28 at age 54 as a software developer in the US. It took me 11 years following FIRE to reach my goal. For the last 3 years of work, I saved 60% to 75% of my income, that took a lot of discipline. Once I was debt free and able to pay myself my current salary without touching my savings, I pulled the trigger on retirement. That means my savings will grow untouched at least 7 to 13 more years until I decide to take social security if it still exists, or 16 years until the government forces me to withdraw from my 401k and IRA. Had my job been more enjoyable, I probably would have continued to work, but I was no longer enjoying software development after 32 years in the industry from junior developer to director level and everything in between.
 
Post a Comment

<< Home
Newer›  ‹Older

  Powered by Blogger   Free Page Rank Tool