So...it seems that we are being manipulated by the financial institutions to "over save"... :
http://finance.yahoo.com/expert/article/moneyhappy/24438
http://finance.yahoo.com/expert/article/moneyhappy/24438
If this was the case you'd think that the researchers, and the financial institutions manipulating us, would have ER'd years ago...Helen said:I find this really hard to believe.
I still have a hard time figuring out what we'd be spending it on.Rich_in_Tampa said:then spending down the remainder in the earlier years
Nords said:I still have a hard time figuring out what we'd be spending it on.
If $25K dropped onto the computer desk in the next 10 minutes then we'd be ready to relandscape the yard. But we were going to do that anyway in the next couple years. If the market went to hell then we'd just stretch out the project and do more of it with our own sweat equity.
If $50K dropped then what would I do-- buy a Lexus to take care of? Fly first-class on a trip I'm not really interested in yet? Go down to Ke'eamoku Street looking for... well, you know where this is going. Charity, sure, but I'd probably do a crappier job finding the right place for it.
It's not "What are we saving it for?" as much as "Where's its spending value?"
Jarhead* said:Nords: Couldn't agree more. In any case, I am in total agreement with you on this point, and have no misgivings about leaving something on the table.
We pretty much do what we want, when we want, and feel no pressure regarding spending money on anything that won't improve what we value.
jazz4cash said:the actual report indicates thier definition of adequate consumption is $9,000/yr/person. It's pretty twisted to take this data and extrapolate to the idea of "saving too much".
Helen said:A separate study by John Karl Scholz, an economist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, and two other researchers found more than 80 percent of households headed by Americans born between 1931 and 1941 have accumulated their optimal wealth targets for retirement.
at least in part it may be that couples are assumed to require 1.66x that of singles (instead of 2x) ... this is likely reasonable, but does not take into consideration that most couples will eventually become a single at some point.Granted, somebody else mentioned that singles were not to be included in the broad conclusions of the original article. Still, I wonder why not.