Remix.run Logo
bluGill 5 hours ago

You know who they didn't interview: those who regret saving so much. Many of those people are dead and so the regret is something we can only apply on assumption that they would. I've known a few people who unexpectedly died before they hit retirement age. I've know a few people who retired and died suddenly. The vast majority of people in a "first world" country have an expected lifespan of about 80 - but there is a statistical curve and people start dieing in significant numbers at 65, while you are not an outlier until you make it to near 100 (though some exist).

You need to have some emergency savings. You should save for retirement somehow. If you can structure the above as insurance - and you can trust the insurance - (I know a few cases where the insurance type system went bankrupt and those with a "policy got nothing") that is best.

Once the above is taken care of though, you can't take it with you (at least in most religions) so spend it. Save enough, but not too much.

3rodents 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

People who save a lot are typically people comforted by sitting on a big nest egg. Saving a lot for retirement and then dying the day before retirement isn’t necessarily going to be a source of regret, because they had 30 years of warm fuzzy feelings about eventually hatching their nest egg. They could have spent it all instead, and had a life full of anxiety.

You’re looking for people who didn’t want to save but begrudgingly saved at the expense of their pre-retirement life and then died before they could enjoy retirement. That’s a much smaller group.

bombcar 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This is more fleshed out in the book "Die with Zero" which may be a bit too extreme.

But in general you have three things to spend in your life: time, money, and effort.

You don't want to spend all your time saving money because you'll run out of time eventually, but you also don't want to spend all your money saving time because you'll run out of money.

It's all about balance and thoughtfully understanding what you actually want and how to get it.

philwelch 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Money can be passed down to your children and grandchildren though.

bubblewand 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

If you follow the fairly common path of "various expensive, intermittent medical problems for a couple decades, a handful of years of very-bad medical problems, nursing home, then hospice care" in the US, and you don't have a shitload of money, you don't really have a savings of your own, you're just temporarily taking care of the medical and end-of-life-care industries' money. There's not going to be much to pass down.

This becomes more true by the year, as those costs keep rising faster than broader inflation.

robocat 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You won't be able to in the future unless you are very wealthy.

Countries cannot afford the benefits and healthcare promised to retirees. So governments are getting more grabby. That pattern seems to be occurring in many countries.

New Zealand example: when you are in nursing or elderly care you must spend all your savings and sell your home. The retirement age also needs to increase - one fund suggested to 70+ https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/business/586737/retirement-age-wi...

Netherlands example: new capital tax 36% rate. A capital growth tax (vermogensaanwasbelasting) applies to stocks, bonds, savings, and cryptocurrencies. A separate capital gains tax applies to real estate and startup shares, taxing only upon sale.

US: see medical debts.

Articles usually talk about savings as though you can bank some funds while working, earn interest, and withdraw the savings later.

Don't deceive yourself thinking like that.

"Savings" cannot work in the future due to demographic issues (especially due to people living longer) even if you saw it work in the past.

Look at how many workers support one retiree. In New Zealand it used to be 7 workers to one retiree, and in the future it looks like 2 workers to 1 retiree.

This is a core issue for anyone below retirement age. Not only do we deceive ourselves about solutions, we are deceived by articles and history.

philwelch 10 minutes ago | parent [-]

I have no intention of spending my childrens' inheritance selfishly extending my own life, and I'm grateful to live somewhere I still have that choice. The people of New Zealand and the Netherlands have my sympathy and I hope they one day have the same freedom of choice.

carlosjobim 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You can do it before you die if you want to do that. They're not much helped by you sitting on it until you die.

bombcar an hour ago | parent [-]

That's one of the biggest takeaways - if you're an average American with average retirement, you will die in your 70s and 80s and your children will inherit ... just before their retirement, likely.

So instead of waiting to die, give it earlier when it helps more; or give to grandchildren.

lelanthran an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> you can't take it with you (at least in most religions) so spend it.

I don't understand this PoV at all.

I can't take it with me, sure, but I'm happy anyway if I leave it behind to my kids.

This PoV that you need to spend, spend, spend to get the most value for your money is very primitive - my kids will do better if I die before touching my nest egg, and if I don't at least I'll have a longer runway to live without working.

There is no downside here, other than the artificial one that dictates you spend it all and leave nothing behind.

bluGill 38 minutes ago | parent [-]

Why are you working to earn that money - take unpaid time off to spend with the kids.

i get what you are saying, but leaving money to the kids isn't the answer. (Other than collage money)

dsign 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Indeed. In fact, I would go further and say than, more than saving money, one should make preparations for a dignified passing should one's time come early. Living happy, dying before a gruesome disease completely erases that treasure. And, if destiny has it that one gets old enough, and one does so with little more than a camping tent, leaving this world because the night was too cold and one succumbed to hypothermia beats what most people get at the end.

ericmcer 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You just get taken in by life though, it isn't even about saving for some idealized retirement to me. As you age and your parents get old and you have kids and a spouse you just live less and less for yourself. You have to adopt a mental state where you feel gratification in sacrificing for others, if you constantly regret the things you can't do because people depend on you, you will drive yourself nuts. That sort of "I am a reliable provider and helper" mentality lends itself to obsessively building up a "safety net" because you can feel good about how stable and safe you make your loved ones.

yoyohello13 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Once the above is taken care of though, you can't take it with you (at least in most religions) so spend it. Save enough, but not too much.

I get it to a certain extent, don't live in poverty if you don't have too, but I am a major saver. I rarely buy new things if an old thing is working fine. If I die early at least my family will will be set.

Really the social safety nets in the US are basically non-existent so having a big savings buffer makes me feel a bit safer. Honestly dying early doesn't worry me too much, I'll be dead so doesn't bother me. What does worry me is the economy tanks and all my saving become worthless. Then I would have some regrets...

sigbottle 3 hours ago | parent [-]

I save out of a combination of buying into minimalism as a kid (though obviously it's nuanced) but also out of laziness, lol.

throw-the-towel 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

As someone who used to save too much, I agree.