Surprising Net Worth Number

[grumpy]

Jonathan Clements has an article in today WSJ with the following statistic:

Don't get me wrong: I am not claiming $1 million isn't a huge sum.

Indeed, it's beyond the wildest dreams of most Americans. Take households headed by someone 55 to 64 years old, which is America's wealthiest age group. Even for these folks, who are on the cusp of retirement, the median household net worth -- including home equity -- is under $250,000, according to the Federal Reserve's 2004 Survey of Consumer Finances.


No wonder we retirees are in the minority!



Grumpy

[Sam]

Yeah, but 1MM net worth (at age 55 - 64) is most likely laughable on this board.

[dex]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam Yeah, but 1MM net worth (at age 55 - 64) is most likely laughable on this board.

I agree and from what I see in the USA the numbers quoted don't seem right to me.

HaHa also has a great point.

A couple of other things to remember. Most journalist don't know how to do financial analysis and the article needs a fear factor to get any interest.

I would really like to see an article that attempts to point out all the wealth in this country.

[runnerr]

Sam, Go ahead and laugh at me because that is about where I am at. Proud of it and doing fine.

[Sam]

Quote:

Originally Posted by runnerr Sam, Go ahead and laugh at me because that is about where I am at. Proud of it and doing fine.

I hope you are not addressing me. Yes, I did make that comment but the meaning was different. I consider 1MM a very large sum.

I was referring to numerous (too many to count) threads on this board questioning the sanity of the OPs when they plan to retire on 1MM, 2MM. Some people even came here asking if they have enough to retire with a mere net worth of 3MM, and 7MM, if I recalled correctly. It was very entertaining for me.

Anyway, I have no idea how much is enough for you, but I know 1MM is a lot for me.

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Last time I looked at the numbers it was worse than that...there werent many people in "the median". Lots of people with under $25k and a bunch with a lot of money.

Seems you either "get it" or you dont.

[roadkill]

Quote:

Originally Posted by grumpy Jonathan Clements has an article in today WSJ with the following statistic: Don't get me wrong: I am not claiming $1 million isn't a huge sum. Indeed, it's beyond the wildest dreams of most Americans. Take households headed by someone 55 to 64 years old, which is America's wealthiest age group. Even for these folks, who are on the cusp of retirement, the median household net worth -- including home equity -- is under $250,000, according to the Federal Reserve's 2004 Survey of Consumer Finances. No wonder we retirees are in the minority! Grumpy

I wonder what the net worth number would be without home equity. Me thinks that once home equity is factored out, it gets really scary.

[haha]

Likely this does not include defined benefit pensions. Plenty of people in this age group are doing fine- they buy $400,000 to million $+ homes. What pays the mortgage is mostly pensions. A surprising number of them are government pensions.

Ha

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Except for the very lowest income levels, where home equity is zero or close to it, it ranges from 30-60%.

For a pretty large segment of the population, building home equity as a store of value as a forced savings plan IS their retirement plan. I guess it helps that shelter is a necessary expense in the first place.

[MasterBlaster]

Well if we elect Hilary then you can share more of your prosperity. She has made quite the stump speech lately talking about shared prosperity and how we are all in this together.

Quoting her...

“Fairness doesn’t just happen. It requires the right government policies.”

[bssc]

I saw this article on why you need $500 in the bank. I guess that we really are in the minority.

[HFWR]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bssc I saw this article on why you need $500 in the bank. I guess that we really are in the minority.

Well, I happen to know the REAL number is $503.78...

[Lazarus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bssc I saw this article on why you need $500 in the bank. I guess that we really are in the minority.

Wow! The first $500 is the hardest! I haden't really thought about people who didn't have a sum that small saved. No hope for them.

[Arc]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MasterBlaster Well if we elect Hilary then you can share more of your prosperity. She has made quite the stump speech lately talking about shared prosperity and how we are all in this together. Quoting her... “Fairness doesn’t just happen. It requires the right government policies.”

The Goddess of Fairness speaks. Do you really need to know anything more about Hillary?

[cute fuzzy bunny]

hey ha...sounds like hairballs!

Hillary?

[Arc]

Tried to attach my first picture file. Hope it worked.

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MasterBlaster Quoting her... “Fairness doesn’t just happen. It requires the right government policies.”

I would say to her: “Net Worth doesn’t just happen. It requires the right personal policies.”


I know, there are exceptions....


-ERD50

[lazygood4nothinbum]

not meant as a personal attack but just to add some humility to this thread: some people are forced into debt through no fault of their own while others never had the luck or the mental capacity to accumulate much wealth so i wouldn't be so quick to laugh, and certainly not at a million bucks.

[maddythebeagle]

I heard that the GAO had its own study and showed people were doing better than these articles point out....Also, I think what is missed in these is that folks with a lower income rate will simply have a decent amount of social security replace their income....if you make and live off of 20k while working, social security isnt bad...

Also, this discussion is similar to all of the threads "Can I retire on 1 million"....some here would scoff at the idea of living on 30-40k/yr while others would consider it pretty damn good...

[OAG]

I could live on $80K a year but choose to live on no more than $30K a year. So I guess I would be classified as VERY LOW INCOME. When are these journalists ever going to get the FACT that it is EXPENSES that drive the train NOT INCOME.