Hacker News Reader

Comment by ebg13 | Hacker News Reader

Now I'm not an economist, but percentage of my current income seems like a braindead metric to work with that doesn't factor in that I spend less than half of my income and the rest is invested for later and that when I retire I will stop doing that. Shouldn't they be looking for "sufficient assets to meet expenses"?

View on HN

People who are living on less than 50% of their income (particularly less than half of after-tax income) are a pretty much vanishingly small subset of the population.

It's a smart policy, but it's quite uncommon. When economists think of simplifying assumptions that also help to communicate the essence of a situation, this one doesn't seem that bad to me.

https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/01/13/the-shockingly-si...

I'm sorry but this comment comes from a very privileged position. Let's talk reality here: a large portion of the US can't afford a 400$ expense without going into debt (https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/20/heres-why-so-many-americans-...). The vast number of people live paycheck to paycheck; to be so surprised that the number of people living on less than 50% of their income is vanishingly small betrays a lack of knowledge of a vast majority of people.

I agree that being able to save so much is a very privileged position. It also, though, represents a proportion of total dollars that is greater than the proportion of its constituent people. The headline number given isn't X people; it's X dollars.

That just makes it worse. Since your share of retirement savings is proportionally higher on the other side of the equation.

Makes what worse? Nobody is arguing here that gross inequality is good. The question here is whether "70% of current income" is a reasonable metric for individual retirement.

No, it’s not for every individual. It’s on average. My point was that for people like you where 70% is overly high and you’re already saving a lot, you’re skewing the other side of the equation as well. The big picture question is whether people have enough money saved. High savers such as yourself make the picture look better than it is, even if they are high earners, making the situation seem worse than it is.

I think you’re agreeing with me that the GP post represents an uncommon case.

> Let's talk reality here: a large portion of the US can't afford a 400$ expense without going into debt (https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/20/heres-why-so-many-americans-...)

That is not true

From TFA they would have to sell something(assets), and probably adjust their spending in the next paycheck

The myth that abled bodied human beings in 2019 America are unable to come up with $400 is ridiculous

Selling assets is actually worse than going into debt. I know plenty of people who would not be able to afford paying their bills without going into debt if they had an unexpected 400 dollar charge. The delusion that wealth inequality and massive economic impoverishment is a myth in America is insane. Get out of your bubble.

https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/2018-repor...

Assets are a resource you hold instead of holding cash

It’s things you bought that you can sell to access those $400

not selling those assets and going into debt is a choice

False. Assets are a resource with economic value that are expected to provide a benefit. If that benefit is worth more than the current cash value, you actually lose more by selling it. You're free to make stupid choices though, like wrongly defining what assets are.

Why are retirees expected to have such high incomes? I fail to see why 50% or less of their incomes isn't enough. Not trying to be difficult, it just doesn't match my blue collar parents' experiences. Most peoples' expenses in retirement basically amount to either property taxes or rent, healthcare, and food. And Medicare kicks in at 65, Social Security around the same time.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com