I think the vast majority of people would find it incredibly difficult to save ~7.5k per month for 10 years (assuming an annually compound savings interest of 2.2%), to hit 1M.

That type of savings goes beyond "no Ferraris/Great-Gatsby-parties".

Depends. If you have a SEP-IRA, half of that is pre-tax. If you've optimized your location away from California/New York on a normal tech billing regime (2x salary, maybe 3/4 the billable hours), you're almost there on tax savings alone; let alone housing expenses.

I didn't realize just how big a difference that pre-tax savings makes until recently. A couple weeks ago I thought there was an error when I increased my pre-tax savings and I noticed my take home pay only went down 66% of what I increased my savings by. I logged in and realized that the full amount I increased by was coming off, but I was saving 33% in taxes so my take home only went down 66% of what I expected.

For example, let's say I increased my bi-weekly savings by $150. Because it was pre-tax, with the tax savings I was still saving $150 but my take home only went down $100.

By the time I want that money, I shouldn't have a mortgage payment so I'll need far less money than I'm making now and my income tax should be much lower, not to mention the additional gains on a higher principle.

10 may be a stretch for many. 15 to 20 years should be achievable by many tech workers.

Once you hit your number, work gets pretty depressing. You realize you're making more from passive investing, just doing nothing.

In the UK IT contractors get paid a lot more if your frugal and have the right skills I could see saving £6k a month not being hard.

I can do 2.5k a month as a not massively well paid employee

you done goofed if you're saving at 2.2%, he means investing in the S&P500 or the likes

While it's true the market has given guaranteed returns well north of 2.2% average for 30 years or more (the single worst 30 year period would of been higher than 2.2% average). However, when you cut that down to a decade it changes the picture significantly. There are decades where you could of actually seen a loss.

So without giving financial advice, I'd say it's more complicated than throwing it in an index fund if your time-frame is a decade.

Don't overthink this stuff. Most of the decades you wouldn't see a loss, so you're better off investing a good chunk. Keep 10 to 20% of your holdings in cash getting 2% interest if it helps you sleep at night.

I wasn't trying to overthink. But the market is volatile at the moment and the next decade is rather uncertain. Thinking you can just throw your money in and get 7% over the next decade and get to $1M may not be the best strategy.

We aren't talking about losing sleep over volatility here. We are talking about a situation where someone specifically wants to hit $1M in a decade.

The past decade was also quite volatile. So was the previous. Volatility is normal and timing the market doesn't work, so DCA in and forget about it.

I'm not suggesting one time the market. We've been in a huge bull run in the last decade volatile or not. But if you are shooting for $1M in a decade you might want to think about asset allocation more carefully than 100% in the market. That's all I am suggesting. I agree for the portion you are allocating to stocks, DCA in and don't try to time the market.

For example, I put several thousand in a Vanguard TR Fund in January of last year. It's still down 2% overall. Now on a 30 year horizon, no big deal. But for a decade that will significantly impact the compounding returns. Stocks are very volatile and may not be real desirable for a 10 year time frame.

I'm all for buy-and-hold, but you do realize that there's a group of people for which this is very hard? Psychologically, they'll have trouble staying the course when seas are rough.

It's figurative language. "1Million" in "currency unspecified" for 10 years isn't the exact price or time cost of a good life.

With ongoing contribution plans like retirement accounts, the thirty year average returns are relevant to a sixty year contribution cycle: Assuming no back loading (later contributions larger than early contributions). With a back loaded cycle, dollar by dollar thirty year averages require a greater than sixty year investment cycle.

Even a ten year average returns is typically going to require more -- a cycle longer than twenty years. Financial services are sold: caveat emptor.

You right.

Let's say a 7% annual compound interest over 10 years (which I think, is debatable). That puts you at $5,800/mo. I think my argument still stands?

Unless you started saving in the year 2000, then you would have had a negative return 10 years later.

https://dqydj.com/sp-500-return-calculator/

If you don't need to pay for health insurance out of pocket or have a family, sure. This is possible.