You know, y'all really don't appear to have read the article, or maybe Money is just an easy target. What it really says is:
1) Needing 70-80% of your preretirement income is a commonly accepted benchmark. True, I've heard that without accepting it for most of my career.
2) If you made big bucks while working you'll need to replace most of it, since SS will replace a smaller percentage depending on your salary.
3) They think it would be prudent to be conservative when estimating how much you will need. Build in a cushion.Not a bad idea, IMHO.
4) If you set your sights too low, you'll relegate yourself to a lower lifestyle than you may want. Cover your bets.
5) When you get within 10 years of retirement, quit estimating and start doing a real budget. Again, what's wrong with this.
I agree with y'all about not needing the $180K after retirement if you are a decent LBYM type, and all the other things you can do to limit your costs. I was just a little surprised at the Money attacks on one of the more reasonable articles they've printed recently. I say give credit when it's due, aand kick their @sses when it's deserved.
"Good judgment comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgement." - Will Rogers
DW and I - FIREd at 50 (7/06), living off assets