Now, but maybe not in 30 years after inflation

You would have it invested somewhere that generates a return above inflation.

Some of these calculators (maybe all?) assume this wad of money you retire with is stored under your mattress.

Any example of a calculator assuming it's stored under a mattress?

Here's[1] an article on the 4% rule, and it clearly is about invested money:

> The rule applies to a hypothetical portfolio invested 50% in stocks and 50% in bonds.

[1] https://www.schwab.com/learn/story/beyond-4-rule-how-much-ca...

30 years is a lot for retired individuals..

The harshest test for the 4% rule was the 1970s.

We might have been calling it The 6% rule otherwise...

Not a chance. Unless you want to live in a place without facilities and a functioning economy. Inflation alone will take care of your million quite handily. Of course if you're 85 already then you'll manage but if you're in your 20's or 30's I can pretty much guarantee you that this is too little.

Also: taxes, setbacks, health, children, divorces, stuff breaking that needs to be replaced and so on. A million all at once is a lot of money, but spread out over the course of a lifetime in the developed world it isn't all that much.

It's a common misconception that inflation drags you down with these methods. The real question is will $40k/yr work (or the inflated equivalent) cover your lifestyle. That's where major lifestyle adjustments you mentioned could matter.

> ... If you have $1 million saved for retirement ... you could spend $40,000 in the first year of retirement following the 4% rule.

> Beginning in year two of retirement, you adjust this amount by the rate of inflation. ... In year three, you’d take the prior year’s allowed withdrawal, and then adjust that amount for inflation.

> One common misconception is that the 4% rule dictates that retirees withdraw 4% of their portfolio’s value each year during retirement. The 4% applies only in year one of retirement. After that inflation dictates the amount withdrawn. The goal is to maintain the purchasing power of the 4% withdrawn in the first year of retirement.

https://www.forbes.com/advisor/retirement/four-percent-rule-...

Inflation reduces the purchasing power of your remaining savings with the same degree that it reduces the purchasing power of what you've already withdrawn.

In other words: you'll be withdrawing more and more over time to keep up with the compound effect of inflation on your savings. And there is no law that says inflation should be between 0 and 3%, as the last couple of years have amply demonstrated.

The idea is that if broader stock market returns 7% on average per year. Your 4% withdrawals include compounding inflationary adjustment without dipping into the capital (over many decades)

That's effectively 'timing the market' though. Because the broader stockmarket may well not realize those returns when you need them most.

But sure, if you see having your funds in the stockmarket as risk free and guaranteeing you that 7% then you can base your retirement strategy on that.

Savings = Cash in the bank

Stocks = an asset class, so an investment

The bulk of the people that have this kind of money will have the majority of it in the form of home equity, not in the form of savings in the bank or stocks.

Depending on where you live your first healthcare crisis can wipe out that million easily.

GP is also not quite right. The point of the 4% rule is it's the historically maximum safe withdrawal rate. You're not assuming a 7% return here. You're assuming that there's not been a time ever where 4% wasn't indefinitely sustainable.

https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/05/29/how-much-do-i-nee...

I think the article is considering retiring at a normal age, no? It still feels odd. My relatives certainly got by without 3 million dollars. I can't imagine their yearly expenses cracked 15k if even anywhere near that. Paid off house, no extra mouths to feed and they eat like a bird at this age, cheap boring old person car lease or they are driving something they bought 15 years ago and is only at 40k miles today, medicare and medicaid coverage, too old to travel and spend a ton. Factor in social security and you aren't really drawing on that wad too much if at all. Then consider this pile of cash you have isn't just sitting there deflating. Chances are its in some sort of structure that generates a return for you.

The paid off house is a very important milestone and one that only a fraction of society can aspire to. The rest will be paying rent until they die. And if they end up in a managed care facility they'll be fleeced for every last penny.

No extra mouths to feed is also something you can't take for granted, both 'up', 'down' and 'sideways' in your family tree.

Cars are technically speaking optional but not having one immediately shrinks your world considerably unless you have excellent public transport.

Social security may be available, or it may not be available by the time you reach your pensionable age. If you count on it you may end up with a serious shortfall if for whatever reason there are cuts.

And no returns without risks...

The paid off house is not as much of an anomaly where they live in the midwest compared to on the coasts, to be honest. In the area homes range from $50-120k today, and in the wider region even the palatial guilded era estates in the rich gentry suburb are going for about $125 a sq foot or so.

Of course, they ended up on good circumstances to make all of this possible, but imo these circumstances they ended up with aren't all that rare especially in the area they live. The returns could backfire, sure, but there are investment strategies that are pretty safe too. I think robinhood is offering 4.15% on cash currently, for example.

Health is the big one to watch then. That can ruin your plans in days.

Definitely, but they at least had medicare and medicaid covering their issues, and lived close to major hospitals.

> The paid off house is a very important milestone and one that only a fraction of society can aspire to

If you insist on spending your life and retirement somewhere expensive. I bought 3 houses in cash for less than $150k total. If you want to live and retire in the center of Paris or New York or whatever, that is your choice and then you need a lot more money. Houses can be found for next to nothing in many places. If you are capable of DIY (I am not), you can really pick up stuff for nothing and spend 10 years before your pension doing it up as a side project.

And sure, social security, free/accessible healthcare or your pension pot may no longer be available once you reach this age; society might have collapsed and the money you saved might be worth nothing anymore. You cannot plan for those things reasonably; I am going to assume healthcare and social security are good still in my country and next to that, I live of very little (couldn’t care less about ‘things’) with my family at about $1200/mo while making about $300k/year (excluding stocks and other passive income). No reason for that to change (inflation corrected of course) unless some type of societal collapse.

Retirement sounds as boring as heaven, so I am doing neither anyway.

> If you insist on spending your life and retirement somewhere expensive.

Where I live life is expensive. My kids will live here. I will have the choice to abandon them or to retire 'somewhere expensive'.

> I bought 3 houses in cash for less than $150k total.

Good for you! Here that would get you 1/2 of the most basic house or apartment.

> If you want to live and retire in the center of Paris or New York or whatever, that is your choice and then you need a lot more money.

Those are still a lot more expensive than where I live. But a half decent house here in a place near where there is work and with decent schools and other facilities will be anywhere from 300K to 500K depending on the market and the kind of house.

> Houses can be found for next to nothing in many places.

Not in this country. Even the most rundown area (the North East of Groningen, where I lived for years) still has as the cheapest listing a 90K price with a 1000 euros / months service fee:

https://www.funda.nl/koop/haren-gr/appartement-42005398-nesc...

> If you are capable of DIY (I am not), you can really pick up stuff for nothing and spend 10 years before your pension doing it up as a side project.

I'm very much capable of DIY, restored a bunch of buildings, made money on some, broke even on others and even lost on some. Markets are fickle.

> And sure, social security, free/accessible healthcare or your pension pot may no longer be available once you reach this age; society might have collapsed and the money you saved might be worth nothing anymore. You cannot plan for those things reasonably; I am going to assume healthcare and social security are good still in my country and next to that, I live of very little (couldn’t care less about ‘things’) with my family at about $1200/mo while making about $300k/year (excluding stocks and other passive income).

If you make $300K / year you are in a group called the lucky few. Which is disproportionally represented on HN, but it's nothing that you can count on if you're just an ordinary individual that works a regular job (or two...).

> No reason for that to change (inflation corrected of course) unless some type of societal collapse.

Or your health takes a turn for the worse. This is one that I've seen a couple of people near me deal with and that can really ruin your plans. And I had a bad scare myself a few years ago (but got away with it).

> Retirement sounds as boring as heaven, so I am doing neither anyway.

This we can agree on.

Not a chance?

There are quite a few retirement simulators that you can look at to see what chance you have with the money you have.

Cfiresim, firecalc, etc.

I retired on less than 1 million about a decade ago and I'm doing more than fine.

--

The trouble with anyone giving anyone else an amount they need to save before they can retire is that you have to ask first how little you can live on.

Good for you. But: that means that you likely had your house paid off and that you retired at an 'appropriate' age. If you're still young then there is a fair chance that life will interfere with your plans.

https://moneysmart.gov.au/retirement-income/retirement-plann... suggests around $800,000 to live on an average comfortable income ($61,062) if I retire at 67 and live to 92.

per person.

assuming no setbacks.

assuming a rate of inflation that is not in line with the present day numbers.

assuming that you have all of that liquid rather than invested, where it is exposed to risk.

If you manage to make it work then more power to you but I like to have a generous safety margin around these things and the remainder can go to my kids.

You raised the most important point, I'm not really worried about my retirement savings, but I would like buy both my kids a house before I retire. I've got another 20 years, but I need another 2 million or so.

I'm working hard to make sure my next product is "the big one" :)

Sincerely: Best of luck with that next product. It's a tricky market at the moment, there are plenty of opportunities because of that but a lot of traditional modeling is not going to survive the next five years.

I used to follow them with enthusiasm. Then I learned that the 4% rule applies to a thirty year retirement, not FIRE. Also these people have major blog income.

I FIRE'd with $850k without owning a primary residence. I spend like $800 a month. I would love to have blog income like them - it makes a huge psychological difference.

These days I believe that having a free and clear place to live really helps and that a 2.5% rule is more robust. What a surprise.