Does anyone actually retire in this profession?

[nguyenulm]

Funny you ask, 4 pharmacists just retired at my hospital. Director then proceeds to hire 4 pharmacists under the age of 31 lol

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[BMBiology]

Why in the hell does anyone need 2.5 million dollars to retire?

99% do not need that much money. Remember, that's just 401 k money from his calculation. It doesn't include other assets like house, cash, roth ira, cars, etc. You would also be getting 3000-3500 monthly check from social security (cost of living adjusted).

Pharmacists who were planning to retire in 2008 but couldnt because of the stock market crashed probably retired in 2011-2012 when the stock market rebounded. Pharmacists, who are planning to retire in 2014, are still able to retire in 2014.

 

[xiphoid2010]

$2.5 mil just the ending nest egg you need to retire. Not limited to 401k in anyway. I used $17.5k/yr as an example, you can put it wherever you want. And most don't even save that much a year.

$2.5 mil is needed for safety if you follow the 85% post-retirement rule of thumb for someone who make $130K/yr. Again, this rule applies to the general masses, not a savvy few.
https://retirementplans.vanguard.com/VGApp/pe/pubeducation/calculators/RetirementNestEggCalc.jsf
There is still a 12-25% chance of going broke before you die with $2.5 mil nest egg.

http://www.bankrate.com/calculators/retirement/nest-egg-calculator.aspx
Set both current and retirement age to 65. 85% of 130K/yr. Live 30 years. Basically the same number -- $2.67 mil.

And we really can't count on social security to be there for us, at least not anything close to it's current form. But I understand risk tolerance is different between people. Some people can accept 50% risk of out living their money. But I won't.

And you still think people who originally planned to retire in 2014 can do so this year without delay... after 2 crashes and S&P giving 0% return on the last 14 years... Wow, that's amazing! But hey, believe what you want.

 

[BMBiology]

^^ 2.5 mil is your TOTAL nest egg, not just your 401 k?

But yet your whole argument is pharmacists can't retire because the stock market crashed in 2000 and 2008? LOL

How did you pull 2.5 mil out of the air again? Oh yeah you used 401 k contribution plus 7% annual rate of return from the stock market to determine you need 2.5 mil in order to retire.

 

[BMBiology]

Set both current and retirement age to 65. 85% of 130K/yr. Live 30 years. Basically the same number -- $2.67 mil.

You are anticipating to live for another 30 years after 65? So you are going to die at 95? Yeah you are being realistic alright or you are pulling numbers out of nowhere so you can say you are right.

And you still think people who originally planned to retire in 2014 can do so this year without delay... after 2 crashes and S&P giving 0% return on the last 14 years... Wow, that's amazing! But hey, believe what you want.

Not this crap again.

 

[oldstock]

Fight Fight Fight !!!!!! (evil laugh Dr Evil) jk

 

[xiphoid2010]

^^ 2.5 mil is your TOTAL nest egg, not just your 401 k?

But yet your whole argument is pharmacists can't retire because the stock market crashed in 2000 and 2008? LOL

How did you pull 2.5 mil out of the air again? Oh yeah you used 401 k contribution plus 7% annual rate of return from the stock market to determine you need 2.5 mil in order to retire.

I already said I used $17.5k into 401k as one example. You can dump it all in 401K or split it between 401k/IRA/gold or however you want toward retirement. Expecting 7% return on however you sliced it, the number crunch out that $2.5 mil net egg. And that's the amount you need.

What now? You can't argue with Vanguard and Bankrate, so you try to change your try another distraction? C'mon. Stay focused: $2.5 mil.

You are anticipating to live for another 30 years after 65? So you are going to die at 95? Yeah you are being realistic alright or you are pulling numbers out of nowhere so you can say you are right.

Your life expectancy increase as you age. C'mon this is basic financial planning knowledge.

http://longevity.about.com/od/longevity101/p/life_expect.htm.
In 1980, if you made it to 65, you can expect to live until 81.4; make it to 75, that goes to 85.4;
In 2003, if you made it to 65, you can expect to live until 83.4; at 75, that goes to 86.8;
Want to take a guess how long you can expect to live when you turn 65?

And you thought Vanguard and Bankrate were "pulling numbers out of no where". LOL,

Not this crap again.

Yeah, I'm surprise you are still throwing that stuff around.

 

[Silent Cool]

You say "why? Because S&P is at an all-time high!". Well duh, if it S&P had just kept up with inflation from 2000-2014, it should be at ~2100 today, but yet we are 170 points short of that. You conveniently keep on forgetting to mention that inflation from 2000-20014 is 40%.

But let me be very generous and say inflation from 2000-2014 is 0%. (actually I'm just being lazy and want to simplify the next calculation)...

1) we already establishe inflation adjusted on S&P500 from 2000-2014 is basically 0%. So you had $1million dollar saved up at the start of 2000, that portion of the portfolio is still worth just $1million in 2014.

2) so let's see just focus on what happened to the money you put in after 2000. Since you you try to make up for the short by putting in $17.5K each year, saying "we are buying it cheap!"

2001: 48% gain on $17.5K--> $25.9K today
2002: 65% gain --> $28.9k today
2003: 112% gain --> $37.1K
2004: --> $30.5K
2005: --> $27.8K
2006: --> $26.3K
2007: --> $24K
2008: --> $22.8K
2009: --> $38.7K
2010: -->$29.6K
2009 --> $26.8K
2010: --> $27K
2011: --> $24.3K
2012: --> $18.3K

==== Total: $388k today ==

Wow, and that's me being very generous (and lazy) by not deducting inflation from all those gains. Wow, you are only still > $1 million short of the original $2.5 million set to retire.

That's why I estimated: even when factoring in increase SS payment for delayed retirement, and additional years of working and saving, the retirement is roughly 6 years behind schedule.

You need to look at S&P in context. The index had been running like crazy for almost 20 years when it crashed in 2000. That's not sustainable. The past 14 have been a correction and a buying opportunity, just like the 1970s during which time the S&P was also flat for over a decade. IF people had been buying from 1982 to the year 2000 their portfolio would have grown well over 8%. The past 14-year period has simply brought it in line with that 8% average.

 

[xiphoid2010]

You need to look at S&P in context. The index had been running like crazy for almost 20 years when it crashed in 2000. That's not sustainable. The past 14 have been a correction and a buying opportunity, just like the 1970s during which time the S&P was also flat for over a decade. IF people had been buying from 1982 to the year 2000 their portfolio would have grown well over 8%. The past 14-year period has simply brought it in line with that 8% average.

That's a good point. I looked at the S&P return from 1980 to 2000, it returned 12.8%/yr. I will factor that in and re-compute.

In my previous retirement scenario, I had made multiple simplifications to make the calculations easier, but I guess there is no other way than to run a full simulation of person working from 1980-2014 and making $130k/yr today, and to see if he arrives at $2.5 mil.

Thanks for the heads up, and give me a bit to run the math.

 

[BMBiology]

You're welcome!

your model is also flaw because the annual gain wasn't just 7% from 1979 to 2000 due to the tech bubble).

 

[BMBiology]

The main word is "if". For example, if I made it to 85, then I can expect to live until 90 and if I made it to 90 then I can expect to live until 99. What is your point?

I didn't hear you say if I made it to 65 then I can expect to live until I am 95?

QYour life expectancy increase as you age. C'mon this is basic financial planning knowledge.

http://longevity.about.com/od/longevity101/p/life_expect.htm.
In 1980, if you made it to 65, you can expect to live until 81.4; make it to 75, that goes to 85.4;
In 2003, if you made it to 65, you can expect to live until 83.4; at 75, that goes to 86.8;
Want to take a guess how long you can expect to live when you turn 65?

And you thought Vanguard and Bankrate were "pulling numbers out of no where". LOL,



Yeah, I'm surprise you are still throwing that stuff around.

 

[xiphoid2010]

You need to look at S&P in context. The index had been running like crazy for almost 20 years when it crashed in 2000. That's not sustainable. The past 14 have been a correction and a buying opportunity, just like the 1970s during which time the S&P was also flat for over a decade. IF people had been buying from 1982 to the year 2000 their portfolio would have grown well over 8%. The past 14-year period has simply brought it in line with that 8% average.

Ok, I'll write as I run the numbers:

Assumptions about the person:
(1) Annual raise = annual inflation; Annual inflation 01/1980-01/2000 = 4.46%/yr (117% total); from 01/2000-01/2014 = $2.38%/yr, (38.4% total)
(2) Making $130K in 2004. So in 01/2000, he was making $80K/yr. In 1980, he started working at $38K/yr.
(3) Saves same % of the salary each year. Since $17.5K/$130k = 13.5%. We'll use that, so started in 1980 by buying $5092 in S&P500 that year, and increase purchase by 4.5%/yr until 2000, and then 2.4% onward.
(4) Bought nothing but S&P500, earned the same return -0.2% expense ratio. Most people would have put some in bonds, but that just add too much unknown.

S&P return with dividend, not inflation adjusted (since we are trying to arrive at today's dollar, and inflation is already account for in salary)
(1) 1980-2000, annualized 17.4% - 0.2% expense = 17.2%
(2) 2001-2014, annualized 4.3% - 0.2% expense = 4.1%

Let's run the number again:
1980 to 2000: initial balance = $0. Starting salary $38k/yr, saving 13.5% annually, with 4.5% annual raise/contribution, and a return of 17.2%/yr = value at 01/2000 = $1,157,568
2001 to 2014: initial balance = $1,157,568. Salary = $80k/yr, saving 13.5% annually, with 2.4% annual raise/contribution, and a return of 4.1%/yr = value at 01/2014 = $2,260,683

Wow, I stand corrected. It's only $240K short of the $2.5 mil thanks to the strong 1980-2000. So people who were planning to retire in 2014 is only delayed to 2015-2016!

 

[xiphoid2010]

The main word is "if". For example, if I made it to 85, then I can expect to live until 90 and if I made it to 90 then I can expect to live until 99. What is your point?

I didn't hear you say if I made it to 65 then I can expect to live until I am 95?

If you don't live until 65, the entire need to save for retirement becomes moot. Why save a single penny if you expect to die before 65?
And 2 points you neglect to address:
(1) notice the number is still increasing as tech advances. We are still 30 years from retirement. If it's 83.4 in 2003, what do you think it will be in 2045?
(2) There is a 50% chance you will live longer than that number, and 50% you live shorter. We don't have the standard deviation, but probably its couple of years.

You still don't think people can't live until 95 in 2070's?

 

[Momus]

You still don't think people can't live until 95 in 2070's?

Not if you get hit by a truck, get a lottery called cancer, fat coz you think you magically can live to be 95, smoker, alcoholics, junkie, eat unhealthy sh1t, or never regularly exercise in your life. Technology doesn't solve all these obviously.

I minimize the probability that I am going to die before at least 80 by having an active healthy lifestyle (ripped body is a bonus, I enjoy the feeling of endorphins after each exercise). But, I am really afraid of having a car accident or having a plane crash, yet I still jumped out of the air plane for fun and fork out $200. Live in the present, prepare for the future.

 

[Silent Cool]

Ok, I'll write as I run the numbers:

Assumptions about the person:
(1) Annual raise = annual inflation; Annual inflation 01/1980-01/2000 = 4.46%/yr (117% total); from 01/2000-01/2014 = $2.38%/yr, (38.4% total)
(2) Making $130K in 2004. So in 01/2000, he was making $80K/yr. In 1980, he started working at $38K/yr.
(3) Saves same % of the salary each year. Since $17.5K/$130k = 13.5%. We'll use that, so started in 1980 by buying $5092 in S&P500 that year, and increase purchase by 4.5%/yr until 2000, and then 2.4% onward.
(4) Bought nothing but S&P500, earned the same return -0.2% expense ratio. Most people would have put some in bonds, but that just add too much unknown.

S&P return with dividend, not inflation adjusted (since we are trying to arrive at today's dollar, and inflation is already account for in salary)
(1) 1980-2000, annualized 17.4% - 0.2% expense = 17.2%
(2) 2001-2014, annualized 4.3% - 0.2% expense = 4.1%

Let's run the number again:
1980 to 2000: initial balance = $0. Starting salary $38k/yr, saving 13.5% annually, with 4.5% annual raise/contribution, and a return of 17.2%/yr = value at 01/2000 = $1,157,568
2001 to 2014: initial balance = $1,157,568. Salary = $80k/yr, saving 13.5% annually, with 2.4% annual raise/contribution, and a return of 4.1%/yr = value at 01/2014 = $2,260,683

Wow, I stand corrected. It's only $240K short of the $2.5 mil thanks to the strong 1980-2000.

Thank you for pointing that out. So people who were planning to retire in 2014 is only delayed 1.5-2 years!

Out of curiousity, I will run the same number for people who were plan to retire in 2008, and see how much they really were short by.

Nice calculations!

If you dig further back with the S&P (like 1940s/1950s), you can see a similar phenomenon from 1950-ish to about 1968: the market went up significantly and then was flat from 1968 to about 1980.

 

[BMBiology]

If you don't live until 65, the entire need to save for retirement becomes moot. Why save a single penny if you expect to die before 65?
And 2 points you neglect to address:
(1) notice the number is still increasing as tech advances. We are still 30 years from retirement. If it's 83.4 in 2003, what do you think it will be in 2045?
(2) There is a 50% chance you will live longer than that number, and 50% you live shorter. We don't have the standard deviation, but probably its couple of years.

You still don't think people can't live until 95 in 2070's?

Here is another wrench in your model. Knowing dementia and other health condition is age dependent, how many 95 year olds do you know that are still fully functional and mobile? Why on earth would you need that much retirement money when your only priority in life is to get to the restroom on time?

 

[BMBiology]

Not if you get hit by a truck, get a lottery called cancer, fat coz you think you magically can live to be 95, smoker, alcoholics, junkie, eat unhealthy sh1t, or never regularly exercise in your life. Technology doesn't solve all these obviously.

I minimize the probability that I am going to die before at least 80 by having an active healthy lifestyle (ripped body is a bonus, I enjoy the feeling of endorphins after each exercise). But, I am really afraid of having a car accident or having a plane crash, yet I still jumped out of the air plane for fun and fork out $200. Live in the present, prepare for the future.

And technology cant solve genetics!

 

[Momus]

And technology cant solve genetics!

Not now, not yet. Give another 2000 years, I believe brain information transfer, clones, robotics, telomerase halt, nanotech cell repair, body parts stem cell transplant will be as common as vending machine and will give mankind access to physical immortality, even consciousness immortality (if you can roam/upload your consciousness online). It will set out another new set of problems if no one dies. We just live in the wrong era.

^
This is when you know you watch too much sci-fi :-D

 

[xiphoid2010]

Here is another wrench in your model. Knowing dementia and other health condition is age dependent, how many 95 year olds do you know that are still fully functional and mobile? Why on earth would you need that much retirement money when your only priority in life is to get to the restroom on time?

A lot of disease are age related, but that hasn't stopped people from living longer. Just look at how far science had come from 1980 to now. And how do you know we won't be able to cure cancer or dementia by 2070? Using 95 yr old today to predict those in 2070 is silly.

 

[xiphoid2010]

Not now, not yet. Give another 2000 years, I believe brain information transfer, clones, robotics, body parts stem cell transplant will be as common as vending machine and will give mankind access to physical immortality, even consciousness immortality (if you can roam your consciousness online). It will set out another new set of problems if no one dies. We just live in the wrong era.

^
This is when you know you watch too much sci-fi :-D

It won't take 2000 years. The advancement of science and knowledge exponential, as each discovery opens and builds upon each other. Look at the history. First it took millennia for human civilization to make a significant change, then hundreds, then decades....most of the scientific advancements within the entire human history occurred within the last 100 or so years.

I'm hopeful when I turn 70, cancer would have gone the way of AIDS, just another chronic condition. Babies can be genetically tweaked/modified much like in the movie GATTACA.

 

[Momus]

It won't take 2000 years. The advancement of science and knowledge exponential, as each discovery opens and builds upon each other. Look at the history. First it took millennia for human civilization to make a significant change, then hundreds, then decades....most of the scientific advancements within the entire human history occurred within the last 100 or so years.

I'm hopeful when I turn 70, cancer would have gone the way of AIDS, just another chronic condition. Babies can be genetically tweaked/modified much like in the movie GATTACA.

I said mass produced immortality. Things is ethics has a way of cock blocking human advancement. By the time, we are 70, these sort of discoveries will be considered illegal/banned. It will take another century or two, just like stem cell/clone/gay/marijuana/gender equality issues/earth is round before it will be brought to light again. But, eventually it will pass, you can't block free thinkers forever; and too bad it is not in our lifetime that we can live forever.

 

[BMBiology]

A lot of disease are age related, but that hasn't stopped people from living longer. Just look at how far science had come from 1980 to now. And how do you know we won't be able to cure cancer or dementia by 2070? Using 95 yr old today to predict those in 2070 is silly.

Why stop at 95 then? Why not assume you are going to live until 110 with a functional brain and body?

 

[xiphoid2010]

I said mass produced immortality. Things is ethics has a way of cock blocking human advancement. By the time, we are 70, these sort of discoveries will be considered illegal/banned. It will take another century or two, just like stem cell/clone/gay/marijuana/gender equality issues/earth is round before it will be brought to light again. But, eventually it will pass, you can't block free thinkers forever; and too bad it is not in our lifetime that we can live forever.

Man, you totally need to watch the movie GATTACA. Check it out. And remember, ethics/law are less restrictive in some countries. Stem cell research curbed in the US? Do it in China. Sooner or later, human morality always gets dragged along kicking and screaming by technology.

Back in the middle ages, the Pope outlawed crossbow, this new weapon is just too deadly he said. Screw that the soldiers who's fighting for his life said.

 

[xiphoid2010]

Why stop at 95 then? Why not assume you are going to live until 110 with a functional brain and body?

That will happen in time. I'm just guessing what will be available in 2070. Direct computer - brain transfer might be possible by then, but I think it's a bit harder than just treating dementia and hence of lower probability.

 

[anewmanx]

This doesn't directly correlate to what you guys are talking about, but I was very happy to see the progress DARPA made with the DEKA Arm. The model they show in all the videos is the one controlled with foot controls, but there is another version that has direct nerve interface through rerouting the leftover brachial plexus to a patch of chest muscle. They say some of the other arms in development even have *some* tactile feedback.

Here's a montage of different shots from the news reports, along with some anecdotal references to pop culture that are now becoming a reality.

 

[xiphoid2010]

This doesn't directly correlate to what you guys are talking about, but I was very happy to see the progress DARPA made with the DEKA Arm. The model they show in all the videos is the one controlled with foot controls, but there is another version that has direct nerve interface through rerouting the leftover brachial plexus to a patch of chest muscle. They say some of the other arms in development even have *some* tactile feedback.

Here's a montage of different shots from the news reports, along with some anecdotal references to pop culture that are now becoming a reality.

That's pretty cool. Check this out. I think this is even closer to direct brain/computer interface.



See 6:30. Quadriplegic controlling robotic arm with just her thoughts.

 

[anewmanx]

The cool thing, to me, is that the DEKA arm has been approved by the FDA for mass production. Hopefully, it will become the standard replacement for veterans who get amputated. (The VA was who did the clinical trial for the arms.) I remember when I got hurt five years ago and they weren't sure if my arm would need to be amputated.... seeing the promo videos of the arm and hoping it would come to mass production.

The disgusting part is the arm was produced not to help people, but to save money. It was projected to cost about $100,000 to produce on it's highest estimate. To the Department of Defense, it seemed better to give amputees a DEKA arm and keep them in the military than give them a disability rating of 80% for amputation at the elbow and pay at least (more with kids) $1,525.55 a month for the rest of their lives, adjusted for inflation. So the government approved funding for the research.

 

[oldstock]

This doesn't directly correlate to what you guys are talking about, but I was very happy to see the progress DARPA made with the DEKA Arm. The model they show in all the videos is the one controlled with foot controls, but there is another version that has direct nerve interface through rerouting the leftover brachial plexus to a patch of chest muscle. They say some of the other arms in development even have *some* tactile feedback.

Here's a montage of different shots from the news reports, along with some anecdotal references to pop culture that are now becoming a reality.

That's pretty cool. Check this out. I think this is even closer to direct brain/computer interface.



See 6:30. Quadriplegic controlling robotic arm with just her thoughts.

wow !!!!

 

[Silent Cool]

Why stop at 95 then? Why not assume you are going to live until 110 with a functional brain and body?

You know, I was thinking about this recently, and all I kept saying to myself was something like:

"Man, I wish I had gotten laid more when I was younger."

Seriously. Get it while you can.

 

[confettiflyer]

Oh man, but without those Cali taxes they couldn't afford to make intrusive rules for every aspect of your life. Why, just recently a city threatened fines to a family for having a brown lawn, when they were unable to water their lawn for threat of being fined for using water during a drought.

Magic!!

Duh, the solution is to rip out the lawn!

I wish more people actually hated CA and stopped moving here, bah.

 

[confettiflyer]

Not this crap again.

soooo.... loan forgiveness, yah?

 

[BMBiology]

You know, I was thinking about this recently, and all I kept saying to myself was something like:

"Man, I wish I had gotten laid more when I was younger."

Seriously. Get it while you can.

how old are you now?

 

[oldstock]

You know, I was thinking about this recently, and all I kept saying to myself was something like:

"Man, I wish I had gotten laid more when I was younger."

Seriously. Get it while you can.

Not that easy to get laid but you already know ....

how old are you now?

90 ?? jk

 

[xiphoid2010]

Not that easy to get laid but you already know ....

I don't know, it was pretty easy in undergrad, and too many liked it too much and caused a lot of mistakes...

 

[oldstock]

I don't know, it was pretty easy in undergrad, and too many liked it too much and caused a lot of mistakes...

lol

 

[Silent Cool]

how old are you now?

32