Article - Retire but don't quit your job

[ERhoosier]

Agree orig article's title is misleading, but still gives food for thought. Like Ziggy mentioned, attitude towards job is much different when you feel you reached FI before RE. You could take a step back from the "pressure" of loosing job's income so you might be able to focus more on aspects of the job that you enjoy.....Or maybe not if you just plain hate the job. Also agree that shifting $$ from "mandatory" retirement savings to nice vacations (or other luxuries) can sure make life generally a bit nicer waiting for that eventual retirement date.
Interesting to me that article author did not touch on those who are SOOOO connected to their jobs that they fear loss of self-identity at some level if they retire. Or those lucky few who truly enjoy their jobs.

[obgyn65]

Thank you for sharing, Andre1969. I never used Firecalc to perform simulation analyses like the ones you did. I need to have another look at the tool.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andre1969 For example, in my case, running the Firecalc numbers, I have a 90.4% chance of being able to retire in 2016 if I invest $20,000 per year until then. If I push it to 2017, I have a 98.8% chance. But, if I cut back my investing to $10,000 per year, I have a 91.6% chance of success if I retire in 2017, and a 98.8% chance if I do it in 2018. (but only an 85.5% chance of success if I retire in 2016). So, in this case, I'd have $10,000 more per year to play with and have fun with, at the expense of having to work one more year. If I quit saving altogether and used that $20K per year for fun money, I'd have an 89.2% chance of success retiring in 2018 and a 97.6% chance if I retire in 2019. So in this case, I'd have to work two more years.

[Jay_Gatsby]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andre1969 Now in my case, I think the time is more valuable than the money, but others may not see it that way.

Time is more valuable than money once you reach a certain point in your savings - primarily when you reach FI. Even if you haven't reached FI, a desire to watch (help) your kids grow up, write the next Great American Novel, travel, etc... may still override your desire to earn the maximum amount that you can at the expense of such pursuits. Put differently, the pursuit of money becomes less important the more you have of it, simply because you have enough to fund your current lifestyle.

[Gone4Good]

Quote:

Originally Posted by growing_older So the plan they suggest is to stay working - that alone makes me think it is not retirement - then spend all the money you used to be saving towards retirement, so you get used to a higher expense lifestyle before you actually retire. If your savings weren't enough to support retirement before, what makes anyone think they will grow so fast if not added to, that they will support a more expensive retirement later.

That was my thought too. But the numbers they suggest (assuming we agree with their calculations - not provided) is that the couple gets to increase current expenditures $15K and in six years can retire with $16K more in combined SS and withdrawals. It's an option, I guess.

[chemist]

It is an interesting article. I am already retired but if working and considering a "retire while still working" scenario I would continue to max out the 401(k) and start spending down my taxable savings. In other words, instead of saving $17K + $5K into the 401(k) and maybe another $8K into taxable for a total $30K a year in retirement savings, to "roll it back" by $15K as the author suggests I would still put the $22K into the 401(k), suspend taxable savings and spend $7K from taxable savings.

That would give you the required extra $15K to have a ball with while continuing to take advantage of pretax savings while in a high tax bracket.

[Live And Learn]

Bottom line is that the article is saying you can work beyond FI and spend all the extra. I think we all know that.

[Finance Dave]

I agree in theory with what they are saying. Once you amass a small fortune, most of the increases in balance come from two of the three things below, and not so much from the third one...I'll let you guess which it is.

1) Growth on your small fortune
2) Not withdrawing money
3) Continued contributions

In our portfolio, we get more in growth now each year than our entire salaries. This is not because our income is low...but rather because our balance is very high due to many years of saving.

But as others have rightfully stated...I would not call it retirement if you don't have the freedom.

[RetireBy90]

Many good points in the postings here, my idea of retirement isn't doing what I'm doing now till 70!!!

But then again, is this article really for folks that have planned? Isn't the base that they haven't planned? There are lots like this out there I suspect, and this may be good news for them.

I did find this interesting:

Quote:

The longer you delay retirement-plan withdrawals, the less you need to save. You might need $1 million to retire comfortably at age 62 if you wanted to replace 75% of a $75,000 annual salary. Wait until age 67, and you would need $675,000. Wait until age 70, and your required nest egg would be $525,000

Not sure where the numbers come from, but I wouldn't have suspected such a drastic difference.

Makes me happy once again I don't have to follow Suze Orman and work till I'm 70 or whatever she is saying now

[okapi]

After reading some of these post,I will now work 10 years after I die.Probably as a paperboy.