The Average ER.org'er has $2.9M Net Worth, $84K/yr Spending, 3.4% Withdrawal Rate...

[jollystomper]

On the bragging issue, perhaps I am not as sensitive to words as others. What constitutes bragging? For example, I see a difference between these two statements:

- "My net worth is AAAA, with an asset allocation of BB/CC/DD" - IMHO just a statement of fact on one's situation (as well as one can assume it is a fact on an anonymous internet community )
- "My net worth is AAAA, with an asset allocation of BB/CC/DD, and that makes me SO MUCH better than you! BOW TO ME, PEASANT!" - Okay, that is bragging

I see extremely few cases of the latter. The former - well that is just a statement. Do some see it as bragging? I do not.

I appreciate the info the OP has shared - my net worth is "below average", but it suits me and my situation fine, so I am still very happy.

 

[RetireAge50]

On the bragging issue, perhaps I am not as sensitive to words as others. What constitutes bragging? For example, I see a difference between these two statements:

- "My net worth is AAAA, with an asset allocation of BB/CC/DD" - IMHO just a statement of fact on one's situation (as well as one can assume it is a fact on an anonymous internet community )
- "My net worth is AAAA, with an asset allocation of BB/CC/DD, and that makes me SO MUCH better than you! BOW TO ME, PEASANT!" - Okay, that is bragging

I see extremely few cases of the latter. The former - well that is just a statement. Do some see it as bragging? I do not.

I appreciate the info the OP has shared - my net worth is "below average", but it suits me and my situation fine, so I am still very happy.

Funny one! I actually like the 2nd statement better, information and laughs.

 

[Amethyst]

I submit that we are more likely to see "And I started with nothing! Anybody could do what I did, but my pathetic relatives won't even try."

- "My net worth is AAAA, with an asset allocation of BB/CC/DD, and that makes me SO MUCH better than you! BOW TO ME, PEASANT!" - Okay, that is bragging

.

 

[razztazz]

Caddy Shack provides important advice on how to handle numbers.

Judge Smails: Ty, what did you shoot today?
Ty Webb: Oh, Judge, I don't keep score.
Judge Smails: Then how do you measure yourself with other golfers?
Ty Webb: By height.

After 37 years it still makes me laugh.

FN

Philosophies for a better life from "Caddy Shack" and on another thread "Killdozer!" Another example of how the people here see things rest of the herd doesn't

 

[razztazz]

Lots of talk about 'humblebrag' but is it really?

There are at least two examples in this thread alone. And easy on the humble at that.

 

[Fermion]

I guess the threads that annoy me somewhat are more those that hint at needing a lot of net worth to overcome relatively small risks.

"Don't count on SS"

"4% might not work in the future"

"Healthcare may cost you $500,000" (this one is probably ONLY true for those with high net worth)

 

[flintnational]

I guess the threads that annoy me somewhat are more those that hint at needing a lot of net worth to overcome relatively small risks.

"Don't count on SS

"4% might not work in the future"

"Healthcare may cost you $500,000" (this one is probably ONLY true for those with high net worth)

While not annoyed, I agree. I'm generalizing, but folks as a rule are very (overly IMO) risk averse. In reality, I think we often minimize one risk but increase another unrecognized risk. "Working OMY only to find out you have health issues".

FN

 

[Blue Collar Guy]

I checked the acronyms page, and didn't see INTJ, or INTP....

enlighten me, please.

Of course I had to A) look at the acronym page, then 2) google it. It is still a mystery to me, but it has to do with personality types.

 

[Midpack]

I checked the acronyms page, and didn't see INTJ, or INTP....

enlighten me, please.

Of course I had to A) look at the acronym page, then 2) google it. It is still a mystery to me, but it has to do with personality types.

If you haven't found it already

http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/mbti-basics/the-16-mbti-types.htm?bhcp=1

 

[Rianne]

I want to know...if net worth is 2.9M at age 50, what will it be at age 60? If HI is $532/mo now, what will it be next year? Could be 2K/mo. What length of RE are we talking about...30 years, 40 years? If 2.9M at 50 yrs. old can take me to 100 years old spending $84K a year, I'm good with that.

It's really a guessing game. One hopes HI doesn't go from $6000/yr to $24,000/yr and no limit to out of pocket expense. One hopes taxes don't go from !5% to 25%. One hopes one never gets hit my a hurricane without hurricane insurance. I'm hoping a lot these days. I feel the FIRE but hope I don't live near a dry forest.

 

[pj.mask]

Man, sounds like we need one of those anonymous surveys with all of these questions together

 

[dallas27]

...holds 11 or fewer mutual funds in portfolio,

with a house that's 15% or less of net worth and,

46% have a pension that provides 25% or more of income, 24% have a pension but less than 25% of income and 30% have no pension.

Based on 6 fairly current polls from earlier threads and stemming from another thread. It seems there are always assumptions about how individuals here think they compare to others on ER.org - with some misconceptions both ways. The distributions are pretty wide, so you're probably in good company here no matter how you compare...

[Caveat: Drawing means from histograms is not exact for those anxious to pounce.]

Voluntary polls are highly unreliable to the point they can't be accepted as foundation for any conclusions.

 

[FlaGator]

Really?

I concluded, based on the voluntary nature of polls of self-selected participants who are in a narrow strata of financial self-discipline, there is a broad range of ways to retire early

I agree, statistically, one shouldn't make any life-changing decisions based on these results. It's a reference point for me, one of several that confirm I'm between the guardrails.

I'm puzzled by the statistics-based dismissal of any utility (there's a word for you economists ) of summarization of board polls. We're not approving lifesaving cancer drugs based on these stats.....

 

[ERD50]

... I'm puzzled by the statistics-based dismissal of any utility (there's a word for you economists ) of summarization of board polls. ....

Speaking for myself, I never said there is not any utility to the data in these polls. But I think I'm on firm ground when I say that the terms used in the title and many follow-up posts are just not valid. You cannot say that these polls represent the averages of the members here. As has been pointed out, self-selected or self-reported polls cannot be counted on to be representative, and these are both.

It doesn't mean it's not worth discussing. It doesn't mean it's not worth starting a thread on it. It doesn't mean we can't just have some fun with it. But it is just inappropriate to say these polls represent the averages of the members here. It only represents the averages of those who chose to take the poll, and what they chose to report. And if someone is using words that infer that it does represent the actual averages of the members here, well, they can expect to be corrected.

Let's not try to take something from it that we cannot, that's all. Otherwise, go ahead and have fun with it, discuss it, whatever - but it just cannot be assumed that the data represents the actual averages of the general membership here.

-ERD50

 

[Car-Guy]

Personally I like a lot of the polls that are held on this site, even some of the more serious ones. Heck, I've even started a few. If I'm not interested, I move on. However, I realize that the way polls are presented (worded) or who (or who doesn't) participate may have a significant effect, not to mention the makeup of the sample groups. All are taken with a few grains of salt. Need an example, most pollsters sure blew it in November.

 

[Midpack]

'Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good'...

 

[Midpack]

Speaking for myself, I never said there is not any utility to the data in these polls.

Based on .... self-selected self-reporting. It is meaningless to say this represents anything other than what those people who took the poll decided to report.

Even if they were truthful/accurate, it's still only a summary of the data of those who chose to take part in the poll. We have no idea if that group is representative of the population of ER.org'ers.

Polling 101.

-ERD50

'Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good'...

 

[ERD50]

'Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good'...

What's the problem? Are you saying self-selected and self-reported polls can be assumed to be representative of the larger group? I think you are arguing facts there. Read up a bit on polling methodology if you doubt it.

It also doesn't mean the data isn't representative, it might be, but we have no way to determine that.

But if someone wants to analyze what the poll takers reported, have at it. Just don't try to tell me it can be taken as representative.

-ERD50

 

[Amethyst]

It's more data than we would have if nobody ever did a poll, that's all.
And to me, that's worthwhile, especially since I don't have to do anything to get the data - other than peruse the forum.

We all know the real deal - net worth aside - is always going to be, How much $$ do you need? And how much more than that do you have, and how safe are you from losing it?

It doesn't mean it's not worth discussing. It doesn't mean it's not worth starting a thread on it. It doesn't mean we can't just have some fun with it. But it is just inappropriate to say these polls represent the averages of the members here.

-ERD50

 

[GrayHare]

All polls are self-selected to a certain extent because in all polling situations certain people who are questioned instead opt out. Most polls here may have too small a number of responses to diminish the impact of self-selection.

 

[Midpack]

What's the problem? Are you saying self-selected and self-reported polls can be assumed to be representative of the larger group? I think you are arguing facts there. Read up a bit on polling methodology if you doubt it.

It also doesn't mean the data isn't representative, it might be, but we have no way to determine that.

But if someone wants to analyze what the poll takers reported, have at it. Just don't try to tell me it can be taken as representative.

-ERD50

You're on a mission again - relax. It wasn't intended to be perfect, and there was a stated caveat in red in post #1. It's just a summary of the poll data here - since there's no other "data" to work with that I know of. Though admittedly not perfect, I doubt it's "wrong" by orders of magnitude. Folks can make of it what they like, no one is expected to draw "meaningful" conclusions.

Obviously it's self selected, it was meant to represent the ER.org audience, though it's still a random subset - as many (but not all) polls are. And most polls are self reported, participants can always misrepresent their answers, we've all seen countless polls that didn't predict actual outcomes. This audience knows the shortcomings of polls.

If the summary wasn't of interest to you, that's fine. And I you have a better approach, I'm sure some members would be interested...

Your motive isn't accuracy anyway, so you're welcome to the last word.

 

[street]

Again thanks for the data and I always enjoy the polls. I think we should take the polls for what they are worth and they aren't all created equal just like an poll that exists on any topic. Each situation is different but it does give a good view from people that took apart in these polls.

 

[audreyh1]

You're on a mission again - relax. It wasn't intended to be perfect, and there was a stated caveat in red in post #1. It's just a summary of the poll data here - since there's no other "data" to work with that I know of. Though admittedly not perfect, I doubt it's "wrong" by orders of magnitude. Folks can make of it what they like, no one is expected to draw "meaningful" conclusions.

Obviously it's self selected, it was meant to represent the ER.org audience, though it's still a random subset - as many (but not all) polls are. And most polls are self reported, participants can always misrepresent their answers, we've all seen countless polls that didn't predict actual outcomes. This audience knows the shortcomings of polls.

If the summary wasn't of interest to you, that's fine. And I you have a better approach, I'm sure some members would be interested...

Your motive isn't accuracy anyway, so you're welcome to the last word.

And I'm sure many participants here - and most of the long time ones - understand the constraints.

I thought the effort was worthwhile, found the compilation very interesting and appreciate the post. In spite of all the obvious caveats. I thought it was great!

 

[street]

As I look at it we are almost all in the top 10% of the wealthiest people in the US. From the ranges I have seen it goes from 800K to 8M to be in the top 10% of wealth in the US. That is something we all should be every thankful for we all are very fortunate to be where we are at financially.

 

[ERD50]

You're on a mission again - relax. It wasn't intended to be perfect, and there was a stated caveat in red in post #1. ...

Your motive isn't accuracy anyway, so you're welcome to the last word.

My only motivation was in accuracy of the description. It just bugs me to see someone say that a poll like this represents the average of the membership, when that cannot be said. Is that really so hard to understand?

It has nothing to do with 'perfection', just call a spade a spade.

And I you have a better approach, I'm sure some members would be interested...

Like most everything, until the goal is stated, an approach cannot be defined. And I don't see any way to get an accurate accounting of "the membership" here, with a self selected, self reported poll, so no, I won't be offering a 'better' approach.

So yes, take from the poll what you wish, maybe something of value can be gleaned, fine. Just don't try to tell us it represents "the membership here"! It's that simple!

OK, I'm calling it - Time of Death of Horse is 10:51 CT.

-ERD50