In regards to the 4% rule the article says:
Quote:
But this rule has its flaws, especially when applied to young people. It’s generally used for those retiring in their 60s, who aren’t likely to need money for more than 30 years.
|
I disagree in part. It is not the rule that is flawed, rather it is the application of the rule to the wrong part of the population that is flawed. Still they make a good point. Often I hear people talk about the 4% rule and they forget the that it is aimed at those in their 60's who need about 30 years max of assured income.
What these young people need are assets that will continue to vigorously grow for at least the first 20-30 years of their 'retirement'. Then they can coast along with the 4% rule and probably come out OK.
Their biggest risk is some exogenous event that will upset their plans. A lot can happen in 30-50 years. After 10-15 years out of the job market, they may only be qualified to 'flip burgers', assuming that the burger joints are still using humans to do that work. So, part of their retirement needs to be a plan to get up to speed in the event of some unexpected event.
OTOH, it is great to see young people not willing to hand their future financial success over to some Megacorp, politician, FA, or other entity that may not have their bet interests at heart. I'm glad they have learned from the elders (many of whom were betrayed by those they trusted) who lost their retirement assets at the hands of others. Even if they don't manage to retire 'early' they will hopefully have enough assets that they don't have to 'take it' if the job gets oppressive.