The crazy thing is millionaires have more on common with us normal workers than they do with billionaires.
I get what you’re saying, that they are millionaires are closer to being broke than to being a billionaire, but they still have more in common with billionaires than normal workers. Once you reach the mid to high single digit millionaire you can pretty much choose your own adventure.
Lemmy is seriously underestimating the number of comfortable millionaires. Got $1M? You can retire and live modestly. Got $3M? That’s a new way of life, not radical, but much better. Got $10M? You’re well set for whatever happens.
In the US, 1 million is not enough to retire comfortably unless you are already retirement age and can collect social security and Medicare. It’s not like you can retire early on 1 million dollars. That doesn’t even buy you a house where I live.
I’m not quite at that level, but I’m getting there. My main concern would be health care. And that my house isn’t fully paid off. And with Trump manipulating the market, idk I get nervous. 2 million might work. But I know 1 million is for sure not enough, at least in the US.
This question always depends heavily on where someone lives and someone’s expected standard of living.
Someone who lives on that much already thinks it would be enough for them until they die, but they might not have ever had open market insurance, and likely not a catastrophic illness while on it. That kind of thing makes you realize how financially vulnerable you really are. It’s not about steady state while healthy, it’s about contingency planning.
I’m in a situation where I could probably relatively safely retire with $2 million, but like you I would be nervous about $1 million.
We’re aiming for $2.5-$3 million in investment income. That’s based on two things:
The median household incomes in the US is about $80,000.
The safe indefinite withdraw rate in stock index funds is about 3%.
(2) is based on the 3% rule, a common retirement planning tool. People have crunched the numbers on historic market returns, factoring in inflation, dividends, etc. 3% is about the amount you can safely withdraw each year while the principal will still remain steady through time, even after adjusting for inflation and crashes. It is the amount you use if you want to be reasonably certain you will not outlive your retirement income.
That’s literally the definition of retirement though. The ability to live without working. And no, $1 million is really not enough to retire on. You’re vastly overestimating the amount of passive income that can safely be earned on $1 million.
You know what a million is worth? $30,000 a year. That’s based on the 3% rule. That really is the safest amount you can rely on in a stock market account while still factoring in the risk of market drops. In retirement planning, that is a number you can use if you want to be reasonably sure you will not outlive your retirement savings. If you do a whole bunch of math on historic returns, inflation rates, and market bubbles and crashes, historically a 3% withdraw rate would be safe to keep your principal constant over time.
Can you live on $30,000 a year? Maybe, but the median household income in the US is $80,000. Half of households earn more than $80k, half less. Some couples do survive on $30k/year. But not many people would be willing to retire on that lifestyle. A couple with a million in retirement savings can safely earn $30k/year from that investment. That’s it. And this is investing in the stock market. If you invest in inflation-indexed treasury bonds, your safe annual income would be more like $10k per year on a $1 million asset.
In 2025, if you want to retire with retirement income (w/o considering social security) equal to the median US household income? Using the 3% rule, that would require approximately $2.7 million in an investment portfolio.
I know this because this is how we’re handling our own retirement planning. We’re probably going to need $2.5-$3 million in retirement assets. We’re lucky enough that unless things go catastrophically wrong in the US economy, we’ll be able to do it. And our wants aren’t incredible. We would like to have a retirement income right around where the average US household income is. And that will take $2.5-$3 million in retirement savings.
So a few things. Since we’re in the weeds at this point I want to remind us both that the original point was that a millionaire and a billionaire both have the same general relationship to living and labor which is ‘they don’t have to worry about selling their labor to have their basic needs met’. This is still true. I was also talking in terms of individual wealth not household wealth but the figures aren’t really that different because housing is such a large share of expenses.
The retirement scenario you’re describing is a very comfortable one. 3% is a conservative drawdown, 3.5% is considered safe, and higher is typical if you can be flexible in spending. Retired households do not have the expenses associated with commuting and most do not have the expenses of childcare. Being able to afford living near employment centers is a luxury for a retired household, not a need. So a retired household with the income of a median working age household is doing quite well.
That’s fine to want to retire moderately well off but once your income is based on rents from capital your class interests are not aligned with the working class.
3M invested is a nice retirement, not a new way of life. That’s a barely 6-figure a year payout. Of course, a chunk of a3m networth is likely your house.
I get what you’re saying, that they are millionaires are closer to being broke than to being a billionaire, but they still have more in common with billionaires than normal workers. Once you reach the mid to high single digit millionaire you can pretty much choose your own adventure.
Lemmy is seriously underestimating the number of comfortable millionaires. Got $1M? You can retire and live modestly. Got $3M? That’s a new way of life, not radical, but much better. Got $10M? You’re well set for whatever happens.
In the US, 1 million is not enough to retire comfortably unless you are already retirement age and can collect social security and Medicare. It’s not like you can retire early on 1 million dollars. That doesn’t even buy you a house where I live.
I have a friend who made it big young (well earned IMO, they started working at 15) and they have about 2M in investments.
They make 4k/month after taxes just from the stock dividends every year.
That’s well enough for a comfortable life over here, as their house and cars are paid for - and the money keeps growing in investments.
I’m not quite at that level, but I’m getting there. My main concern would be health care. And that my house isn’t fully paid off. And with Trump manipulating the market, idk I get nervous. 2 million might work. But I know 1 million is for sure not enough, at least in the US.
This question always depends heavily on where someone lives and someone’s expected standard of living.
Someone who lives on that much already thinks it would be enough for them until they die, but they might not have ever had open market insurance, and likely not a catastrophic illness while on it. That kind of thing makes you realize how financially vulnerable you really are. It’s not about steady state while healthy, it’s about contingency planning.
I’m in a situation where I could probably relatively safely retire with $2 million, but like you I would be nervous about $1 million.
We’re aiming for $2.5-$3 million in investment income. That’s based on two things:
(2) is based on the 3% rule, a common retirement planning tool. People have crunched the numbers on historic market returns, factoring in inflation, dividends, etc. 3% is about the amount you can safely withdraw each year while the principal will still remain steady through time, even after adjusting for inflation and crashes. It is the amount you use if you want to be reasonably certain you will not outlive your retirement income.
1 million is ‘not enough’ when you want a passive income that is higher than what half of working people earn.
That’s literally the definition of retirement though. The ability to live without working. And no, $1 million is really not enough to retire on. You’re vastly overestimating the amount of passive income that can safely be earned on $1 million.
You know what a million is worth? $30,000 a year. That’s based on the 3% rule. That really is the safest amount you can rely on in a stock market account while still factoring in the risk of market drops. In retirement planning, that is a number you can use if you want to be reasonably sure you will not outlive your retirement savings. If you do a whole bunch of math on historic returns, inflation rates, and market bubbles and crashes, historically a 3% withdraw rate would be safe to keep your principal constant over time.
Can you live on $30,000 a year? Maybe, but the median household income in the US is $80,000. Half of households earn more than $80k, half less. Some couples do survive on $30k/year. But not many people would be willing to retire on that lifestyle. A couple with a million in retirement savings can safely earn $30k/year from that investment. That’s it. And this is investing in the stock market. If you invest in inflation-indexed treasury bonds, your safe annual income would be more like $10k per year on a $1 million asset.
In 2025, if you want to retire with retirement income (w/o considering social security) equal to the median US household income? Using the 3% rule, that would require approximately $2.7 million in an investment portfolio.
I know this because this is how we’re handling our own retirement planning. We’re probably going to need $2.5-$3 million in retirement assets. We’re lucky enough that unless things go catastrophically wrong in the US economy, we’ll be able to do it. And our wants aren’t incredible. We would like to have a retirement income right around where the average US household income is. And that will take $2.5-$3 million in retirement savings.
So a few things. Since we’re in the weeds at this point I want to remind us both that the original point was that a millionaire and a billionaire both have the same general relationship to living and labor which is ‘they don’t have to worry about selling their labor to have their basic needs met’. This is still true. I was also talking in terms of individual wealth not household wealth but the figures aren’t really that different because housing is such a large share of expenses.
The retirement scenario you’re describing is a very comfortable one. 3% is a conservative drawdown, 3.5% is considered safe, and higher is typical if you can be flexible in spending. Retired households do not have the expenses associated with commuting and most do not have the expenses of childcare. Being able to afford living near employment centers is a luxury for a retired household, not a need. So a retired household with the income of a median working age household is doing quite well.
That’s fine to want to retire moderately well off but once your income is based on rents from capital your class interests are not aligned with the working class.
3M invested is a nice retirement, not a new way of life. That’s a barely 6-figure a year payout. Of course, a chunk of a3m networth is likely your house.
Your math is a bit off
i think is when you reach 10s of millions in wealth is when things becomes very seperate from the plebs.