The risk of DEATH ---- under-discussed on this forum?

Discuss all general (i.e. non-personal) investing questions and issues, investing news, and theory.
User avatar
NAVigator
Posts: 2545
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 6:24 am
Location: Iowa

Re: The risk of DEATH ---- under-discussed on this forum?

Post by NAVigator »

I came close enough to death three times due to medical issues. I also grew up poor, compared to normal standards. Therefore I am extra cautious in financial and health concerns. Since medical issues are frowned upon here, I use the BH forum for financial information and consider it a valuable resource. I strive to have my finances sufficient to make each of my children instant millionaires upon my demise. I trust they won't accelerate that timeline. :wink:
"I was born with nothing and I have most of it left."
User avatar
JoeRetire
Posts: 15381
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2018 1:44 pm

Re: The risk of DEATH ---- under-discussed on this forum?

Post by JoeRetire »

surfstar wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 1:59 pm Meh - 8+ hours a day doing something that you don't want to do - that's not my "best life".
Fortunately, I found a way to spend 55+ hours per week on average, doing something I enjoyed doing.
Sorry that your mileage seems to vary.

I like to find a way to enjoy just about every day of my life, working or not. So far, so good.
This isn't just my wallet. It's an organizer, a memory and an old friend.
surfstar
Posts: 2853
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 12:17 pm
Location: Santa Barbara, CA

Re: The risk of DEATH ---- under-discussed on this forum?

Post by surfstar »

JoeRetire wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 2:05 pm
surfstar wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 1:59 pm Meh - 8+ hours a day doing something that you don't want to do - that's not my "best life".
Fortunately, I found a way to spend 55+ hours per week on average, doing something I enjoyed doing.
Sorry that your mileage seems to vary.

I like to find a way to enjoy just about every day of my life, working or not. So far, so good.
As I said before - Catch-22.
Working sucks. Its called work for a reason. Sure some people have either been brainwashed by thousands of years of society normalization and/or they might have brains that are actually wired to receive some sort of gratification from "a job well done", "contributing to society" etc. Nope. Not buying it. You live once, then you're dead forever. 55+ hours per week sounds absolutely horrible. You'll be dead and gone and the world will move on. How you spent your life working towards whatever noble end/means will have 0 long-term affect. I'm glad for you that you enjoyed it. There's just an entire world of things better to do with my life. Unfortunately they require money, I require food, and prefer to have a house over my head. That's what work is for.
visualguy
Posts: 2988
Joined: Thu Jan 30, 2014 12:32 am

Re: The risk of DEATH ---- under-discussed on this forum?

Post by visualguy »

surfstar wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 2:13 pm There's just an entire world of things better to do with my life. Unfortunately they require money, I require food, and prefer to have a house over my head. That's what work is for.
I used to think similarly to some extent, but when the time came to engage in this "entire world of things better to do", I found that it's not so clear what those are in reality, and that scaling down work (not even completely stopping it) had more of a negative effect than I expected.
Wannaretireearly
Posts: 4880
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 4:39 pm

Re: The risk of DEATH ---- under-discussed on this forum?

Post by Wannaretireearly »

It’s a fact if I retire early, I’ll be healthier & not stuck to my computer during the day. Conversely I’ll likely live longer and need more money! Ah, the conundrum.

Father passed before enjoying any retirement, at age 59.
Grandparents on mothers side still alive and living alone in their mid 90s. 40 year+ retirement.

FIL retired before 50, already enjoyed 25 ish years of retirement.

I don’t think anyone that follows this forum & general advice is going to be at poverty level. Blanket statement.

It’s about do I retire now, and live an ok but not spendy life (50k a year). Do I retire in 5 years and be able to spend 100k. Do I wait til age 60 and be able to spend 150k a year or whatever.

Balance that out with best/golden years seem to be 45 to 65, and you begin triangulating a plan. Too early now, likely too late (for me) if I wait past age 55. Ymmv
“At some point you are trading time you will never get back for money you will never spend.“ | “How do you want to spend the best remaining year of your life?“
JackoC
Posts: 4714
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2018 11:14 am

Re: The risk of DEATH ---- under-discussed on this forum?

Post by JackoC »

Kenkat wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 11:32 am There was a discussion awhile back that included a calculator that took death into account - i.e., rich, broke or dead:

https://engaging-data.com/will-money-last-retire-early/

Unfortunately or fortunately depending on your perspective, we can’t plan for our death date so we have to have some sort of buffer built in for a long life. I think social security is probably the best way for most people to insure for this, so the common advice to delay as long as possible is good.

p.s. dang, terran beat me to the draw :wink:
But the problem with many cool tools like that, that show you a lot of stuff in color as a result of complicated calculations inside a black box...is if the assumptions of the black box are questionable. Sometimes a more simplistic and boring non-color exercise with better assumptions might be more useful. The two problems with that tool are:
1. The 'likelihood' of investing outcomes is based on the distribution of past returns. But now asset valuations are higher and expected returns therefore lower. It's doubtful to think what's a 90% worst case historically is only 10% likely now with the midpoint of the distribution, the expected return, shifted down a few % points from the long term historical distribution. When I've used that tool at all in the past I've inserted an extra 'expense' of 2% pa to try to correct for that, though I'm not sure 2% now is enough.
2. The longevity function is that of the general population. This is too optimistic (from the POV of saving enough) for higher educated upper middle class people of the backgrounds and group affiliations common here. Personalized LE calculators can easily return a LE well into the 90's for people like that already in their 60's, from white collar backgrounds with reasonably good health histories and habits (interestingly family longevity is a minor independent factor per multiple studies, many people think it's the leading factor), vs. mid 80's for gen pop. And it's hard to correct the tool for that. When I used the tool at all I turned that part off.
surfstar
Posts: 2853
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 12:17 pm
Location: Santa Barbara, CA

Re: The risk of DEATH ---- under-discussed on this forum?

Post by surfstar »

visualguy wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 2:19 pm
surfstar wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 2:13 pm There's just an entire world of things better to do with my life. Unfortunately they require money, I require food, and prefer to have a house over my head. That's what work is for.
I used to think similarly to some extent, but when the time came to engage in this "entire world of things better to do", I found that it's not so clear what those are in reality, and that scaling down work (not even completely stopping it) had more of a negative effect than I expected.
Do you wish your weekends/vacations were longer? Do you dread having to stop or leave whatever you're doing in order to return to work?

We do.
I take it you don't surf, snowboard, rock climb, SCUBA dive, backpack, camp, travel, or similar, very much? We have lots we want to do and see and limited time and money to do so. Work simply gets in the way, but is the necessary evil in order to fund what we'd rather do.

Different strokes for different folks.
ShadowRegent
Posts: 230
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 11:52 am

Re: The risk of DEATH ---- under-discussed on this forum?

Post by ShadowRegent »

We can't eliminate risk, rather we just shift it around. It's good to re-evaluate the risk tradeoffs you are making regularly and to be conscious of them because some, like death, are easy to push from your mind. There's not a right answer on which risks are appropriate to take-- it's a highly personal decision, but make the decision intentionally.
delamer
Posts: 17453
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 5:13 pm

Re: The risk of DEATH ---- under-discussed on this forum?

Post by delamer »

I just don’t see that it is a frequent occurrence on the forum that people are encouraged to postpone their retirement for several years due to exaggerated longevity concerns.
One thing that humbles me deeply is to see that human genius has its limits while human stupidity does not. - Alexandre Dumas, fils
User avatar
nisiprius
Advisory Board
Posts: 52211
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:33 am
Location: The terrestrial, globular, planetary hunk of matter, flattened at the poles, is my abode.--O. Henry

Re: The risk of DEATH ---- under-discussed on this forum?

Post by nisiprius »

sureshoe wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 1:56 pm And for what it's worth - I literally just had this conversation with a relative at Thanksgiving. I encouraged them to take Social Security as early as possible and spend their money. They're a smoker, so the odds of them getting much past 79 aren't fantastic.
I don't think that's accurate. The first thing that popped up in a Google search was "Life expectancy for smokers is at least 10 years shorter than for nonsmokers." "At least" is vague. It might be appropriate to have the accurate numbers.

But on the face of it, a smoker living past 79 is comparable to a random member of the population living past 89, and there is plenty of ink past 89 on my chart above.
Last edited by nisiprius on Thu Dec 02, 2021 2:35 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness; Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.
User avatar
JoeRetire
Posts: 15381
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2018 1:44 pm

Re: The risk of DEATH ---- under-discussed on this forum?

Post by JoeRetire »

surfstar wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 2:13 pmI'm glad for you that you enjoyed it.
Thanks! I am too.
I'm sorry that you don't.
This isn't just my wallet. It's an organizer, a memory and an old friend.
bmelikia
Posts: 842
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 9:23 pm

Re: The risk of DEATH ---- under-discussed on this forum?

Post by bmelikia »

Listening the book "When Breath Becomes Air" on Audible - about half way through. . .quite a perspective from what I have listened to so far
"I would rather die with money, than live without it...." - Bogleheads member Ron | | A time to EVALUATE your jitters https://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1139732#p1139732
surfstar
Posts: 2853
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 12:17 pm
Location: Santa Barbara, CA

Re: The risk of DEATH ---- under-discussed on this forum?

Post by surfstar »

JoeRetire wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 2:28 pm
surfstar wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 2:13 pmI'm glad for you that you enjoyed it.
Thanks! I am too.
I'm sorry that you don't.
I enjoy my life outside of work. I am a bit envious of those who either like work or have a job that is enjoyable.
:sharebeer

I like my co-workers and some have become friends that we adventure with. It's just the whole needing-to-work thing that is annoying.
Last edited by surfstar on Thu Dec 02, 2021 2:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
twh
Posts: 1773
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2020 2:15 pm

Re: The risk of DEATH ---- under-discussed on this forum?

Post by twh »

While it may seem counterintuitive...if you end up spending your last dollar the day you die, you did not plan properly.
Ependytis
Posts: 617
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 11:10 am

Re: The risk of DEATH ---- under-discussed on this forum?

Post by Ependytis »

nisiprius wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 2:01 pm This kind of argument is sometimes made by people who can't deal with uncertainty. Death is really unpleasant to think about. Uncertainty is really unpleasant to think about. It is quite natural to recoil from getting serious about it and just say, in various ways, "I'm not going to worry about it, I'll be dead long before then."

I think death is discussed reasonably often in the forum. The problem is that people yearn for certainty, for calculators that will tell them how long to plan for--and recoil at the implications of the variability of life expectancy.
This is from the SSA life table. For the population of people reading this, the mean would probably be higher, but it is the standard deviation and range I'm interested in talking about.

Image

The standard deviation, for both males and females, is about 7.6 years. Using the ±3σ rule of thumb, that would be around ±22 years as a reasonable range guesstimate. So in thinking about remaining life expectancy, we should not think of remaining life expectancy at age 65 as "18 years for males, 20 years for females" but more like "18±22 for males, 20±22 for females."*

For example, "women live longer," but there is plenty of red ink to the right of the peak of the blue ink; that is, many males live longer than the average female life expectancy.

But the point is that fifteen or twenty years more than "life expectancy at age 65" is not crazy optimism (or crazy pessimism from a financial point of view), but a reasonable planning assumption.

That chart has plenty of ink on it right of age 95.

I don't think I'll live to be a hundred, but the chances of even that happening are not too small to consider.

*1) In this post, "female" means "matched 23rd chromosomes," "male" means "one stunted 23rd chromosome). 2) Well, OK, obviously the distribution is skew, so any statistical experts who know how to do something more appropriate than ±3σ, by all means chime in.
I think a standard deviation of 7.6 years is a bit generous. The reason I say that is it is it on the lower and it’s heavily skewed increasing the standard deviation. If I look at the median at 87 and where the curve just comes close to the axis it’s 100. The difference is 13 years. If I take 13 years and divided by three that’s 4.3 years. I think 4.3 years is closer to the standard deviation for people that are already in their 50s.
User avatar
JoeRetire
Posts: 15381
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2018 1:44 pm

Re: The risk of DEATH ---- under-discussed on this forum?

Post by JoeRetire »

nisiprius wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 2:27 pm My parents each smoked three packs a day and neither of them lived to collect Social Security, so I get it, but, again, the variability of life span is large compared to the predictive power of things you can easily determine.
True.

My parents both smoked 3 packs a day and live until their mid 80s and late 80s.

Fortunately for me, having learned from their bad example, I have never smoked.
This isn't just my wallet. It's an organizer, a memory and an old friend.
chuckb84
Posts: 628
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2015 10:41 am
Location: New Mexico

Re: The risk of DEATH ---- under-discussed on this forum?

Post by chuckb84 »

I can see both sides of this. Two friends from high school days are almost destitute, living in subsidized and very minimal housing (like one room), living on social security and some money from family. They didn't plan, they just thought it would "work out" and the result, to me, is utterly horrifying. It keeps me conservative with finances---that and wanting to leave money to our kids.

OTOH, I retired at 60 and definitely left money on the table. I was in perfect health and decided I valued the (relatively) young and healthy years enough to pass up money that I didn't absolutely need. Guess what? Age 65.5 and I was diagnosed with stage IV colon cancer. I've now been fighting that for a year and a half. Retiring at 60 now looks like a great decision, because I had 5 years of a very active retirement. I may beat this, but it seems doubtful that my health will ever go back to what it was. No complaints, I'm still here, after being initially told "90 days". With the best treatment and good luck, I have 5(?) years?

The thing is that no one REALLY believes they're going to die, but we all are. I think nearly everyone on this forum is very likely to die long before they "run out of money", so I'm just saying: consider the other half of the question. It's real.
Big Dog
Posts: 4608
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2015 4:12 pm

Re: The risk of DEATH ---- under-discussed on this forum?

Post by Big Dog »

visualguy wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 11:43 am Life expectancy statistics for the entire population are of somewhat limited applicabity when looking at a subset such as Bogleheads. I would expect the numbers to be higher for Bogleheads than the general population.

The risk of relatively early death is there, but it's not huge, so it's not something you should use in making planning decisions unless you know you're particularly susceptible to it. The risk of being incapacitated to varying degrees is higher, but that can actually require having more money put aside.
Exactly. The SS mortality tables are based on the national population, which includes those who practice unhealthy lifestyle habits (smoke, abuse alcohol, drugs, obese, etc.)

But there are other mortality tables which could fit your situation better which should be taken into account.

btw: another plug for Mike Piper's Open Social Security which allows the user to pick different mortality tables.
pepys
Posts: 174
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2018 9:34 am

Re: The risk of DEATH ---- under-discussed on this forum?

Post by pepys »

Agreed, cryonics should be discussed much more here.
Tamalak
Posts: 1988
Joined: Fri May 06, 2016 2:29 pm

Re: The risk of DEATH ---- under-discussed on this forum?

Post by Tamalak »

Cryonics or simply rejuvenation. Our bodies already fix 99.99% of the damage done through normal operations of the cell. Is it too much to ask for us to figure out how to fix the last 0.01% over decades?

https://www.lifespan.io/road-maps/the-r ... n-roadmap/
dertere
Posts: 83
Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2021 12:23 pm

Re: The risk of DEATH ---- under-discussed on this forum?

Post by dertere »

The way I think about it, if I save too much and die early, I won't be able to regret the non-optimization of the margin of utility of my lifetime earnings. If I don't save enough and live a long time, I will be able to regret it very much, perhaps for a very long time. So I error on the side of caution.
User avatar
celia
Posts: 16774
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 6:32 am
Location: SoCal

Re: The risk of DEATH ---- under-discussed on this forum?

Post by celia »

OP, There are several things you are ignoring about Bogleheads, starting with we admit we are not “average”. Our incomes while working and in retirement are higher than the average American, our education levels tend to be higher, and we have the ability to make good choices. Each of these contributes to better health and longer life expectancies. I’m not saying that guarantees we will live longer, but our odds are more than “average” life expectancies.

brian91480 wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 11:25 am
''there's a 40% chance I'll be dead when I am 80 years old!''
I guess that also means the average person will have a 60% chance of living past age 80! But this statistic likely applies to life expectancy at birth this year. Some people die a lot earlier than that. For example, someone who is 79 is a lot more likely to make it to 80 than someone who is 49 or 19. Your odds change each year since those born the same year as you who were destined to die before your current age are already gone, leaving you with better odds each year as you age.

Those of us with several relatives in their 90s or later can also assume they will live longer.

And even if the odds say I was more likely to die earlier, I still need to plan for a spouse to survive me and want to help out my heirs after I die.

So, there’s no way I would plan to die at a specific age and spend all my money before that. I would be in deep trouble if I lived longer than what the statistics say. Remember, I’m a Boglehead!
:sharebeer
User avatar
willthrill81
Posts: 32250
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 2:17 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The risk of DEATH ---- under-discussed on this forum?

Post by willthrill81 »

Death is not a risk. It is a certainty.

There is no harm if you die before you go broke.

There IS harm if you go broke before you die.
The Sensible Steward
User avatar
calmaniac
Posts: 1325
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2015 2:32 pm

Re: The risk of DEATH ---- under-discussed on this forum?

Post by calmaniac »

surfstar wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 2:13 pm Working sucks. Its called work for a reason. Sure some people have either been brainwashed by thousands of years of society normalization and/or they might have brains that are actually wired to receive some sort of gratification from "a job well done", "contributing to society" etc. Nope. Not buying it. You live once, then you're dead forever.
----SNIP----
Wow! I can't see choosing to do anything I hated for one third of my waking hours and do that for 30-40 years.

I agree that we live life once and this is not a dress rehearsal. But that would make it even more important to choose work that you enjoy and find meaningful and not urinate away that much of your life and energy on something you hate. YMMV.
"Pretired", working 20 h/wk. AA 75/25: 30% TSM, 19% value (VFVA/AVUV), 18% Int'l LC, 8% emerging, 25% GFund/VBTLX. Military pension ≈60% of expenses. Pension+SS@age 70 ≈100% of expenses.
User avatar
Candor
Posts: 1287
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 4:25 pm

Re: The risk of DEATH ---- under-discussed on this forum?

Post by Candor »

JackoC wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 2:22 pm
Kenkat wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 11:32 am There was a discussion awhile back that included a calculator that took death into account - i.e., rich, broke or dead:

https://engaging-data.com/will-money-last-retire-early/

Unfortunately or fortunately depending on your perspective, we can’t plan for our death date so we have to have some sort of buffer built in for a long life. I think social security is probably the best way for most people to insure for this, so the common advice to delay as long as possible is good.

p.s. dang, terran beat me to the draw :wink:
But the problem with many cool tools like that, that show you a lot of stuff in color as a result of complicated calculations inside a black box...is if the assumptions of the black box are questionable. Sometimes a more simplistic and boring non-color exercise with better assumptions might be more useful. The two problems with that tool are:
1. The 'likelihood' of investing outcomes is based on the distribution of past returns. But now asset valuations are higher and expected returns therefore lower. It's doubtful to think what's a 90% worst case historically is only 10% likely now with the midpoint of the distribution, the expected return, shifted down a few % points from the long term historical distribution. When I've used that tool at all in the past I've inserted an extra 'expense' of 2% pa to try to correct for that, though I'm not sure 2% now is enough.
2. The longevity function is that of the general population. This is too optimistic (from the POV of saving enough) for higher educated upper middle class people of the backgrounds and group affiliations common here. Personalized LE calculators can easily return a LE well into the 90's for people like that already in their 60's, from white collar backgrounds with reasonably good health histories and habits (interestingly family longevity is a minor independent factor per multiple studies, many people think it's the leading factor), vs. mid 80's for gen pop. And it's hard to correct the tool for that. When I used the tool at all I turned that part off.
The longevity function has 3 choices: Poor - unhealthy smoker; Avg - Soc. Security; Great - Healthy Non-smoker.
The fool, with all his other faults, has this also - he is always getting ready to live. - Seneca Epistles < c. 65AD
visualguy
Posts: 2988
Joined: Thu Jan 30, 2014 12:32 am

Re: The risk of DEATH ---- under-discussed on this forum?

Post by visualguy »

surfstar wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 2:23 pm
visualguy wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 2:19 pm
surfstar wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 2:13 pm There's just an entire world of things better to do with my life. Unfortunately they require money, I require food, and prefer to have a house over my head. That's what work is for.
I used to think similarly to some extent, but when the time came to engage in this "entire world of things better to do", I found that it's not so clear what those are in reality, and that scaling down work (not even completely stopping it) had more of a negative effect than I expected.
Do you wish your weekends/vacations were longer? Do you dread having to stop or leave whatever you're doing in order to return to work?

We do.
I take it you don't surf, snowboard, rock climb, SCUBA dive, backpack, camp, travel, or similar, very much? We have lots we want to do and see and limited time and money to do so. Work simply gets in the way, but is the necessary evil in order to fund what we'd rather do.

Different strokes for different folks.
What I really wished for on occasion is the ability to take sabbaticals of a few weeks up to maybe a few months, but retirement is something completely different.

Travel is nice, but we managed to do quite a lot of that during our working years. I used to think that this would be a major activity during retirement, but we don't have a long list of remaining places that we are truly keen to visit. Also, travel kind of gets old - not something I can do for very long before yearning for the comforts of home.

The thing is that even at the age of fairly early retirement, your physical condition is quite different than when you were young. It's a real problem. The paradox is that if you have a white-collar non-physical job, you may be in a much better position to do that than to engage in physical recreational activities.
User avatar
willthrill81
Posts: 32250
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 2:17 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The risk of DEATH ---- under-discussed on this forum?

Post by willthrill81 »

JackoC wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 2:22 pm
Kenkat wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 11:32 am There was a discussion awhile back that included a calculator that took death into account - i.e., rich, broke or dead:

https://engaging-data.com/will-money-last-retire-early/

Unfortunately or fortunately depending on your perspective, we can’t plan for our death date so we have to have some sort of buffer built in for a long life. I think social security is probably the best way for most people to insure for this, so the common advice to delay as long as possible is good.

p.s. dang, terran beat me to the draw :wink:
But the problem with many cool tools like that, that show you a lot of stuff in color as a result of complicated calculations inside a black box...is if the assumptions of the black box are questionable. Sometimes a more simplistic and boring non-color exercise with better assumptions might be more useful. The two problems with that tool are:
1. The 'likelihood' of investing outcomes is based on the distribution of past returns. But now asset valuations are higher and expected returns therefore lower. It's doubtful to think what's a 90% worst case historically is only 10% likely now with the midpoint of the distribution, the expected return, shifted down a few % points from the long term historical distribution. When I've used that tool at all in the past I've inserted an extra 'expense' of 2% pa to try to correct for that, though I'm not sure 2% now is enough.
I understand your concern, but as you note, if we're concerned enough about our specific future sequence being worse than the worst in history, there is no bottom to that rabbit hole. Is 2% of 'additional expense' enough? Maybe it should be 3%, or 4%, or more. Once we leave the historic record, which it's not always as clear cut as we would like, though the data pretty much 'are what they are' since 1970, it's anybody's guess as to how bad the future could be. And exceptionally few are prepared to deal with a future as bleak as one that includes the U.S. stock market getting nationalized, the U.S. defaulting on its debt obligations, etc.

Incorporating as much flexibility into one's withdrawals is, IMHO, one of the very best defenses one can make against the risk of going broke in retirement.
Last edited by willthrill81 on Thu Dec 02, 2021 4:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The Sensible Steward
Faith20879
Posts: 1242
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 9:16 am

Re: The risk of DEATH ---- under-discussed on this forum?

Post by Faith20879 »

The risk of death? What risk? Isn't it a sure thing?

Anyway, my father passed at age 99, only 5 months short of 100 and my mother at age 87. Everyone says to me that I need to plan for a long retirement, meaning saving like a fiend. Then my very healthy brother died unexpectedly a few weeks ago at age 64. I am only a couple years younger. He was of my generation so probably shared more common genes with me than with my parents. Should I plan for my expiration to his age or to my parents'? Statistics are only just statistics.
User avatar
willthrill81
Posts: 32250
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 2:17 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The risk of DEATH ---- under-discussed on this forum?

Post by willthrill81 »

Faith20879 wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 4:40 pm Anyway, my father passed at age 99, only 5 months short of 100 and my mother at age 87. Everyone says to me that I need to plan for a long retirement, meaning saving like a fiend. Then my very healthy brother died unexpectedly a few weeks ago at age 64. I am only a couple years younger. He was of my generation so probably shared more common genes with me than with my parents. Should I plan for my expiration to his age or to my parents'? Statistics are only just statistics.
For some reason, many seem to believe that their longevity will match that of their parents. But the objective data we have do not support that. Genes only explain 20-25% of one's longevity; the remaining 75-80% is due to other factors, many of them behavioral.
The Sensible Steward
User avatar
SmileyFace
Posts: 9184
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2014 9:11 am

Re: The risk of DEATH ---- under-discussed on this forum?

Post by SmileyFace »

I like to think of it as "Leaving more money to my spouse and/or kids than planned".
wrongfunds
Posts: 3187
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 2:55 pm

Re: The risk of DEATH ---- under-discussed on this forum?

Post by wrongfunds »

iceport wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 1:36 pm
Dottie57 wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 1:19 pm My concern is the 18% chance of being alive between 91 and 110.
Yeah, and that's for a 62 year old male. For a 68 year old female, the chance goes up to 31%!

Playing around with that spreadsheet is very interesting...
I am trying to see if that claim is reasonable. Is it true that if that were the case, there should *lots* of 91+ age women population. In your daily life, you will come across many 91+ year old women. I don't think that is my experience.
dboeger1
Posts: 1411
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2017 6:32 pm

Re: The risk of DEATH ---- under-discussed on this forum?

Post by dboeger1 »

chuckb84 wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 2:34 pm I can see both sides of this. Two friends from high school days are almost destitute, living in subsidized and very minimal housing (like one room), living on social security and some money from family. They didn't plan, they just thought it would "work out" and the result, to me, is utterly horrifying. It keeps me conservative with finances---that and wanting to leave money to our kids.

OTOH, I retired at 60 and definitely left money on the table. I was in perfect health and decided I valued the (relatively) young and healthy years enough to pass up money that I didn't absolutely need. Guess what? Age 65.5 and I was diagnosed with stage IV colon cancer. I've now been fighting that for a year and a half. Retiring at 60 now looks like a great decision, because I had 5 years of a very active retirement. I may beat this, but it seems doubtful that my health will ever go back to what it was. No complaints, I'm still here, after being initially told "90 days". With the best treatment and good luck, I have 5(?) years?

The thing is that no one REALLY believes they're going to die, but we all are. I think nearly everyone on this forum is very likely to die long before they "run out of money", so I'm just saying: consider the other half of the question. It's real.
This is a great point that highlights the value in considering the other half, as you put it. My aunt is in a somewhat similar position, except she did not take those 5 years off from work. She's been racking her brain for years on whether or not to retire, always bringing it up at family gatherings and whatnot. I don't know exactly how old she is, but I think she's approximately 65. The weird thing she did that I never understood is that she continued renting and working in one state, but bought a house in another state where she wanted to retire to be near her elderly family. I always thought that was crazy. And even her job was more of a seasonal consulting gig that paid less than her highly-compensated position from before. She would fly back and forth every weekend for the consulting work, only taking a few months off each year.

I don't know if she technically retired last year or not, but I know she was just finishing up a major project, and to my knowledge, she hadn't started a new one, so I guess you could say she finally retired. This year, she was diagnosed with cancer, and is now undergoing chemo treatments. I'm not privy to all the details of her personal finances, but she has always spent very comfortably and enjoyed the finer things in life, so either she lived beyond her means or is quite well off. For her to think about retirement for so many years only to retire and get diagnosed with cancer was quite sad. And like you said, even if she pulls through, it's doubtful her health will ever be the same as before.

For all the talk about running out of money being a risk that one literally can't afford, I don't think that's always true or fair either. There are lots of people who work low-wage subsistence jobs, live free/cheaply with family, or relocate somewhere cheaper. There's nothing wrong with not wanting to do those things... but I do think people who make those things out to be worse than they are to be misleading themselves. I would actually choose many of those things over getting cancer immediately after retirement. Maybe that's because I've been poor and it's the devil I know, as they say. Just a couple of nights ago, I made a big pot of French onion soup that lasted like 3 days and only took about $1 worth of ingredients, and I rather enjoyed it. There are certainly trade-offs to either end of the spectrum.
visualguy
Posts: 2988
Joined: Thu Jan 30, 2014 12:32 am

Re: The risk of DEATH ---- under-discussed on this forum?

Post by visualguy »

wrongfunds wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 4:46 pm
iceport wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 1:36 pm
Dottie57 wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 1:19 pm My concern is the 18% chance of being alive between 91 and 110.
Yeah, and that's for a 62 year old male. For a 68 year old female, the chance goes up to 31%!

Playing around with that spreadsheet is very interesting...
I am trying to see if that claim is reasonable. Is it true that if that were the case, there should *lots* of 91+ age women population. In your daily life, you will come across many 91+ year old women. I don't think that is my experience.
Go visit some assisted living facilities and nursing homes... Some don't go out of their homes much, so you don't see them, but they're there. Also, it depends on where you live. Some areas have a lot more old people than others.
Wrench
Posts: 1055
Joined: Sun Apr 28, 2019 10:21 am

Re: The risk of DEATH ---- under-discussed on this forum?

Post by Wrench »

surfstar wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 1:00 pm
brian91480 wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 11:25 am For a person who likes analytics, that seems like common sense to me? I read a few comments here and there about not wanting to be the "richest person in the graveyard" upon death. But overall, there is an imbalance in the discussions that I see.

As my friend on this BH forum, Patzer, told me:

"It's sad, because people will plan for 95-100% success rates, to life expectancies that they only have a few percent chance of living to, and then talk about padding that with a few more years of work. I would rather take a couple percent chance of having to go back to work for 2-3 years to fix an off course retirement, then take a 100% chance of working 2-3 extra years to try to mitigate that risk even more."
Yes it is under-discussed in this forum. I'd say the majority of people here do not have hobbies that they enjoy more than work or accumulating wealth. The people who do not ascribe to this thinking are more likely found on one of the FIRE forums.

We want to FIRE as soon as practically possible - for our own situation that means not "extreme" FIRE or anything crazy regarding cutting expenses close to nil and living in a Van, but we are much closer to the FIRE side of the spectrum, than the BH work until we've accumulated more than we'll ever spend side.

My view is that it is a Catch-22:
If you are someone who is so driven to be a high performer at work and accumulate a lot of status and wealth via your job; you are also unlikely to want to FIRE and "lose" all of that.
If you are someone who hates going to work on Mondays and would rather extend your weekends indefinitely, you are unlikely to be so driven at work that you become a higher earner and could FIRE.
There are always exceptions, but I think these categories easily account for a majority of people across the spectrum.

I always ask those who have achieved more wealth than they need, yet continue to work; to donate to my FIRE fund. Hasn't worked. Hopefully they donate to charitable orgs at least.
Ooh - new app/website idea - GoFIREfundMe!!! lol
As someone who strongly believes in FI, but NOT RE, I have never understood those who "hate going to work on Monday" and their solution is to keep doing it so they can FIRE. Why not quit the job that they hate and find one that they are passionate about even if it pays much less? Then they can work forever (or at least a long time), and enjoy every day of their life. They can still work toward FI. It may take longer, but it won't matter because they are doing something they love. That's essentially what I have done, and I hope to "work" until I am well into my 70s, or as long as I am mentally sharp enough to do so. Oh, and this path has led us to FI, so this is by choice not necessity.

Wrench
Blue456
Posts: 2152
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2019 5:46 am

Re: The risk of DEATH ---- under-discussed on this forum?

Post by Blue456 »

Your life insurance company can probably pretty accurately calculate most likely year of death.
User avatar
ResearchMed
Posts: 16795
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2008 10:25 pm

Re: The risk of DEATH ---- under-discussed on this forum?

Post by ResearchMed »

wrongfunds wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 4:46 pm
iceport wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 1:36 pm
Dottie57 wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 1:19 pm My concern is the 18% chance of being alive between 91 and 110.
Yeah, and that's for a 62 year old male. For a 68 year old female, the chance goes up to 31%!

Playing around with that spreadsheet is very interesting...
I am trying to see if that claim is reasonable. Is it true that if that were the case, there should *lots* of 91+ age women population. In your daily life, you will come across many 91+ year old women. I don't think that is my experience.
There might be "lots of 91+ year old women" if 31% of "all women born" lived to 91+
But these percentages are about women who have already reached age 68.

That has already ruled out those who didn't make it through infancy.... those who succumbed to accidents early in life, and those who had assorted illnesses leading to death before age 68, etc.

And as visualguy pointed out, many elderly aren't out wandering around a lot, especially as they get very old.
Some are, but many are not, regardless of whether they live in care facilities.

I have no idea if these numbers are accurate, and I also have no reason to question them - or to support them.
But the logic about "there should be *lots*" doesn't hold up.

RM
This signature is a placebo. You are in the control group.
Running Bum
Posts: 358
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2013 1:00 pm

Re: The risk of DEATH ---- under-discussed on this forum?

Post by Running Bum »

Blue456 wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 4:57 pm Your life insurance company can probably pretty accurately calculate most likely year of death.
No, they can't. They deal in groups of people, not individuals. They know there will be some outliers below and above average expectancy, but not where you will fall as an individual.
User avatar
vitaflo
Posts: 1905
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 3:02 pm

Re: The risk of DEATH ---- under-discussed on this forum?

Post by vitaflo »

brian91480 wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 12:09 pm
JoeRetire wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 11:52 am
brian91480 wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 11:25 am You are more likely to be dead before you become old and broke -- so quit worrying so much about that unlikely outcome.
The video is a lot of nonsense. "You are probably going to be dead so quit worrying." Does anyone actually make plans based on "you are more likely"?

The same line of thinking would pertain to "You are more likely not to have your house burn down. So quit worrying and spend the money for your homeowner's insurance on something else."

You can plan on dying by 80 if you like and not save any money for beyond that age. Maybe you won't be broke due to social security, or the kindness of your family.
For me, I'm going to plan on a long life and make sure I will never be broke.
I'm advocating a centrist position. Nobody is suggesting throwing caution to the wind. I'm suggesting that maybe this forum's posts are a bit over cautious.
It's Bogleheads, everything here is over cautious. It's a forum filled with people who will die the richest person in their graveyard. To me time > money. And my time is worth a lot more now than it is when I'm 90, just like the value of a dollar.
dboeger1
Posts: 1411
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2017 6:32 pm

Re: The risk of DEATH ---- under-discussed on this forum?

Post by dboeger1 »

Wrench wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 4:55 pm
surfstar wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 1:00 pm
brian91480 wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 11:25 am For a person who likes analytics, that seems like common sense to me? I read a few comments here and there about not wanting to be the "richest person in the graveyard" upon death. But overall, there is an imbalance in the discussions that I see.

As my friend on this BH forum, Patzer, told me:

"It's sad, because people will plan for 95-100% success rates, to life expectancies that they only have a few percent chance of living to, and then talk about padding that with a few more years of work. I would rather take a couple percent chance of having to go back to work for 2-3 years to fix an off course retirement, then take a 100% chance of working 2-3 extra years to try to mitigate that risk even more."
Yes it is under-discussed in this forum. I'd say the majority of people here do not have hobbies that they enjoy more than work or accumulating wealth. The people who do not ascribe to this thinking are more likely found on one of the FIRE forums.

We want to FIRE as soon as practically possible - for our own situation that means not "extreme" FIRE or anything crazy regarding cutting expenses close to nil and living in a Van, but we are much closer to the FIRE side of the spectrum, than the BH work until we've accumulated more than we'll ever spend side.

My view is that it is a Catch-22:
If you are someone who is so driven to be a high performer at work and accumulate a lot of status and wealth via your job; you are also unlikely to want to FIRE and "lose" all of that.
If you are someone who hates going to work on Mondays and would rather extend your weekends indefinitely, you are unlikely to be so driven at work that you become a higher earner and could FIRE.
There are always exceptions, but I think these categories easily account for a majority of people across the spectrum.

I always ask those who have achieved more wealth than they need, yet continue to work; to donate to my FIRE fund. Hasn't worked. Hopefully they donate to charitable orgs at least.
Ooh - new app/website idea - GoFIREfundMe!!! lol
As someone who strongly believes in FI, but NOT RE, I have never understood those who "hate going to work on Monday" and their solution is to keep doing it so they can FIRE. Why not quit the job that they hate and find one that they are passionate about even if it pays much less? Then they can work forever (or at least a long time), and enjoy every day of their life. They can still work toward FI. It may take longer, but it won't matter because they are doing something they love. That's essentially what I have done, and I hope to "work" until I am well into my 70s, or as long as I am mentally sharp enough to do so. Oh, and this path has led us to FI, so this is by choice not necessity.

Wrench
There's a lot of confirmation bias in statements like that. It's great that you were able to do that, but for that to happen, many things had to line up:

1) Your interests.
2) Your access to education and opportunities.
3) Development of relevant talent/skills.
4) Your upbringing equipping you to take advantage of those opportunities.
5) Being accepted by the positions you want above all other candidates.
6) Not being pushed out of those positions by illness, market change, etc.
7) Being able to balance other life obligations, including faith, mental wellness, children, savings, etc.

There's just so much that can go wrong in any of those areas that it's really unfair to suggest that everyone who doesn't find themselves loving work is just doing it wrong. Sure, to some extent, we can make our own luck and force ourselves to pursue opportunities that align all of those things. But if my passion is acting and I'm born a poor kid in Arica to abusive parents and suffer severe health effects due to malaria, it's not likely my audition tapes are going to be seen in Hollywood. And no, listing that one person who made it despite those circumstances does not mean everyone can do it. There's a key difference between "anyone" and "everyone" in cases like these. Anyone could be the exception. Everyone can't, otherwise it wouldn't be the exception. There's only so much opportunity in many fields.

I suspect it's extremely common for most people to simply put off finding their passions until it's too late. It's kind of the whole "How do I Google the answer if I don't know what to ask?" problem. Most kids don't have access to industry professionals in whatever area they're thinking about pursuing, nor do their parents, so they just kind of go through the motions at school hoping it'll work out. Then they get whatever job their degree will qualify them for at whichever company is willing to hire them. That job might suck for any number of reasons, which may be unrelated to the work itself. At that point, going and getting a better job might be a matter of years of training, getting certifications, higher education, etc., which may no longer be affordable or feasible, especially if someone has kids, sick parents, etc. It's really no wonder most people feel stuck in jobs. Not everyone gets to write their own ticket or finds their dream job right out of school. Bills always seem to find them regardless, though.
User avatar
Sandtrap
Posts: 19590
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2016 5:32 pm
Location: Hawaii No Ka Oi - white sandy beaches, N. Arizona 1 mile high.

Re: The risk of DEATH ---- under-discussed on this forum?

Post by Sandtrap »

brian91480 wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 11:25 am I came across a video that got me thinking:

Do people on the Boglehead forum under-estimate the realistic risk of normal life expectancy?

The video -- linked below -- talks about the percentage chances that people have to live to certain ages, based on the general Social Security estimators. The overall point of the video is this:

You are more likely to be dead before you become old and broke -- so quit worrying so much about that unlikely outcome.

In countless posts on this forum, I read about "do I have enough money" or "what is the safe withdrawal rate"? Folks on this forum tend to be extremely cautious and analytical --- about running out of money prior to a long retirement life. Sometimes to be extra safe, people even exclude Social Security in their retirement calculations. Or they hit their goal for X number in savings, but then feel the need to pad that number by a few additional "X" numbers, just in case!

Yet the same analytical people are minimizing a much more likely scenario: The realistic chance that they will be dead (or even extremely disabled?) before any of the bad financial outcomes can ever happen. So they spend extra prime-health years working, to try and minimize a non-likely outcome.

So when we evaluate the word RISK on this forum... shouldn't the pendulum swing away from the small chance of ''what if'' that causes me to go broke, many years into retirement' --- and have the pendulum swing back towards ''there's a 40% chance I'll be dead when I am 80 years old!''

For a person who likes analytics, that seems like common sense to me? I read a few comments here and there about not wanting to be the "richest person in the graveyard" upon death. But overall, there is an imbalance in the discussions that I see.

As my friend on this BH forum, Patzer, told me:

"It's sad, because people will plan for 95-100% success rates, to life expectancies that they only have a few percent chance of living to, and then talk about padding that with a few more years of work. I would rather take a couple percent chance of having to go back to work for 2-3 years to fix an off course retirement, then take a 100% chance of working 2-3 extra years to try to mitigate that risk even more."

Link to video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mV2IM-WE2qA

--- Brian

PS. I can be guilty about thinking about some of these things that I am saying should be more controlled. So I acknowledge that this topic is difficult to properly balance.
The topic heading and it’s premise is perhaps incorrect, or misdirected.

If not for mortality concerns, end and thru life, and the need to address all that that entails from providing for loved ones, self, etc. this forum would not exist.

This is the “elephant in the room” in nearly every post except perhaps plumbing leaks.

We all work and earn and finance of money is integral to life in the above context.

While there can be spreadsheets and mortality statistics and plans, there are most certainly other plans being made that we are not purview to.
j🌺
Last edited by Sandtrap on Thu Dec 02, 2021 5:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Wiki Bogleheads Wiki: Everything You Need to Know
User avatar
iceport
Posts: 6054
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 4:29 pm

Re: The risk of DEATH ---- under-discussed on this forum?

Post by iceport »

wrongfunds wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 4:46 pm
iceport wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 1:36 pm
Dottie57 wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 1:19 pm My concern is the 18% chance of being alive between 91 and 110.
Yeah, and that's for a 62 year old male. For a 68 year old female, the chance goes up to 31%!

Playing around with that spreadsheet is very interesting...
I am trying to see if that claim is reasonable. Is it true that if that were the case, there should *lots* of 91+ age women population. In your daily life, you will come across many 91+ year old women. I don't think that is my experience.
wrongfunds,

I encourage you to see for yourself if I made any errors. #Cruncher's spreadsheet is here: http://eyebonds.info/downloads/pages/Od ... Alive.html

Here's the last revision log entry: 11/24/21: Add SSA 2019 Period table & make it the default

So #Cruncher is using the SSA 2019 period table.

Open the Excel file and enable editing. Set the gender and age of Person 1 in Cells H3 and I3 to the values of interest to you. Unhide the columns between M and T. The values in Column P are the percentages of people (of the gender and age specified for Person 1) who die at the age shown in Column B (for Person 1). Then all you have to do is sum up the values in Column P for whatever age range you want.

(You might need to unprotect the sheet. It's not password protected.)

When I set Person 1 to 68 years old and female, and sum up the chances of dying from 91 to 110 inclusive in Column P, I get 31.22%. Can you duplicate that, or did I mess up?

Just change the gender to male, and the chance of dying from 91 to 110 drops to 20.88%.

What that says is that of the set of women who are currently 68 years old, about 31% are expected to live to at least 91.
"Discipline matters more than allocation.” |—| "In finance, if you’re certain of anything, you’re out of your mind." ─William Bernstein
fortunefavored
Posts: 1424
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2015 8:18 pm

Re: The risk of DEATH ---- under-discussed on this forum?

Post by fortunefavored »

Wrench wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 4:55 pm
surfstar wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 1:00 pm
Yes it is under-discussed in this forum. I'd say the majority of people here do not have hobbies that they enjoy more than work or accumulating wealth. The people who do not ascribe to this thinking are more likely found on one of the FIRE forums.

We want to FIRE as soon as practically possible - for our own situation that means not "extreme" FIRE or anything crazy regarding cutting expenses close to nil and living in a Van, but we are much closer to the FIRE side of the spectrum, than the BH work until we've accumulated more than we'll ever spend side.

My view is that it is a Catch-22:
If you are someone who is so driven to be a high performer at work and accumulate a lot of status and wealth via your job; you are also unlikely to want to FIRE and "lose" all of that.
If you are someone who hates going to work on Mondays and would rather extend your weekends indefinitely, you are unlikely to be so driven at work that you become a higher earner and could FIRE.
There are always exceptions, but I think these categories easily account for a majority of people across the spectrum.

I always ask those who have achieved more wealth than they need, yet continue to work; to donate to my FIRE fund. Hasn't worked. Hopefully they donate to charitable orgs at least.
Ooh - new app/website idea - GoFIREfundMe!!! lol
As someone who strongly believes in FI, but NOT RE, I have never understood those who "hate going to work on Monday" and their solution is to keep doing it so they can FIRE. Why not quit the job that they hate and find one that they are passionate about even if it pays much less? Then they can work forever (or at least a long time), and enjoy every day of their life. They can still work toward FI. It may take longer, but it won't matter because they are doing something they love. That's essentially what I have done, and I hope to "work" until I am well into my 70s, or as long as I am mentally sharp enough to do so. Oh, and this path has led us to FI, so this is by choice not necessity.

Wrench
It is simply impossible for some people to find a "job" they love. As long as someone is directing my work, schedule, or output, I would be extremely unhappy. The mere idea makes me angry that I had to do it for even 30 years so I could retire early in my late 40s. And yes, I walked away from probably another $5-10M net, but I don't need it.. so why would I? I topped out at $500K to $1M/year and left when I hit 35X.

Time is always on my mind too. All my relatives died or were terminally diagnosed by 65. And no offense to the spry 75+ "above average" bogleheads.. most 75+ people I know ain't exactly living la vida loca. They're mostly just going to medical appointments and staying home.
etfan
Posts: 526
Joined: Sun May 16, 2021 4:22 pm

Re: The risk of DEATH ---- under-discussed on this forum?

Post by etfan »

So to summarize, some people would rather err on the side of dying young and leaving lots of unspent money behind, than living a long life in poverty.

While others prefer the opposite.
Rdytoretire
Posts: 443
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2019 6:23 pm

Re: The risk of DEATH ---- under-discussed on this forum?

Post by Rdytoretire »

I sense a lot of whistling past the graveyard on this forum and in our society in general. I am recently retired, relatively young and healthy. I may not have a lot compared to many on this forum but I am much more concerned about running out of life than running out of money.

Edit: Retired two years now, my only regret is that I didn't do it sooner.
Last edited by Rdytoretire on Thu Dec 02, 2021 6:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
willthrill81
Posts: 32250
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 2:17 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The risk of DEATH ---- under-discussed on this forum?

Post by willthrill81 »

Rdytoretire wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 6:10 pm I sense a lot of whistling past the graveyard on this forum and in our society in general. I am recently retired, relatively young and may not have a lot compared to many on this forum. But I am much more concerned about running out of life than running out of money.
I get your point, but both risks (i.e., running out of life or money) can potentially be kept to a minimum. I'm planning on retiring at around age 45, so the former isn't much of a risk, and the likelihood of running out of money should be very low.
The Sensible Steward
User avatar
whodidntante
Posts: 13114
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:11 pm
Location: outside the echo chamber

Re: The risk of DEATH ---- under-discussed on this forum?

Post by whodidntante »

Don't let thoughts of retirement ruin a perfectly good life. I spend plenty on foreign travel, restaurants, cars, motorcycles, and guns. I don't buy the finest for any of those, because I'm after the experience, not the image. Some of my foreign trips cost less than others spend on a trip to Disney World, and my fire-breathing rocket ship costs less than some of y'all spend on a Toyota that can barely keep up with traffic. But do your thing, not mine.
User avatar
celia
Posts: 16774
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 6:32 am
Location: SoCal

Re: The risk of DEATH ---- under-discussed on this forum?

Post by celia »

Sandtrap wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 5:19 pm If not for mortality concerns, end and thru life, and the need to address all that that entails from providing for loved ones, self, etc. this forum would not exist.

This is the “elephant in the room” in nearly every post except perhaps plumbing leaks.
+1
I want my house plumbing to outlast me. If it gives out before I do, I’ll have a big problem on my hands, when I am least able to solve the problem. Besides, I want my heirs to be able to sell the house easily,
:oops:

So, are we agreeing that the forum’s most important financial concern is the plumbing, followed closely by caring for our survivors?
:D
twh
Posts: 1773
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2020 2:15 pm

Re: The risk of DEATH ---- under-discussed on this forum?

Post by twh »

celia wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 6:47 pm
Sandtrap wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 5:19 pm If not for mortality concerns, end and thru life, and the need to address all that that entails from providing for loved ones, self, etc. this forum would not exist.

This is the “elephant in the room” in nearly every post except perhaps plumbing leaks.
+1
I want my house plumbing to outlast me. If it gives out before I do, I’ll have a big problem on my hands, when I am least able to solve the problem. Besides, I want my heirs to be able to sell the house easily,
:oops:

So, are we agreeing that the forum’s most important financial concern is the plumbing, followed closely by caring for our survivors?
:D
Then it shall only be copper pipes.
Wrench
Posts: 1055
Joined: Sun Apr 28, 2019 10:21 am

Re: The risk of DEATH ---- under-discussed on this forum?

Post by Wrench »

dboeger1 wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 5:18 pm
Wrench wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 4:55 pm
surfstar wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 1:00 pm
brian91480 wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 11:25 am For a person who likes analytics, that seems like common sense to me? I read a few comments here and there about not wanting to be the "richest person in the graveyard" upon death. But overall, there is an imbalance in the discussions that I see.

As my friend on this BH forum, Patzer, told me:

"It's sad, because people will plan for 95-100% success rates, to life expectancies that they only have a few percent chance of living to, and then talk about padding that with a few more years of work. I would rather take a couple percent chance of having to go back to work for 2-3 years to fix an off course retirement, then take a 100% chance of working 2-3 extra years to try to mitigate that risk even more."
Yes it is under-discussed in this forum. I'd say the majority of people here do not have hobbies that they enjoy more than work or accumulating wealth. The people who do not ascribe to this thinking are more likely found on one of the FIRE forums.

We want to FIRE as soon as practically possible - for our own situation that means not "extreme" FIRE or anything crazy regarding cutting expenses close to nil and living in a Van, but we are much closer to the FIRE side of the spectrum, than the BH work until we've accumulated more than we'll ever spend side.

My view is that it is a Catch-22:
If you are someone who is so driven to be a high performer at work and accumulate a lot of status and wealth via your job; you are also unlikely to want to FIRE and "lose" all of that.
If you are someone who hates going to work on Mondays and would rather extend your weekends indefinitely, you are unlikely to be so driven at work that you become a higher earner and could FIRE.
There are always exceptions, but I think these categories easily account for a majority of people across the spectrum.

I always ask those who have achieved more wealth than they need, yet continue to work; to donate to my FIRE fund. Hasn't worked. Hopefully they donate to charitable orgs at least.
Ooh - new app/website idea - GoFIREfundMe!!! lol
As someone who strongly believes in FI, but NOT RE, I have never understood those who "hate going to work on Monday" and their solution is to keep doing it so they can FIRE. Why not quit the job that they hate and find one that they are passionate about even if it pays much less? Then they can work forever (or at least a long time), and enjoy every day of their life. They can still work toward FI. It may take longer, but it won't matter because they are doing something they love. That's essentially what I have done, and I hope to "work" until I am well into my 70s, or as long as I am mentally sharp enough to do so. Oh, and this path has led us to FI, so this is by choice not necessity.

Wrench
There's a lot of confirmation bias in statements like that. It's great that you were able to do that, but for that to happen, many things had to line up:

1) Your interests.
2) Your access to education and opportunities.
3) Development of relevant talent/skills.
4) Your upbringing equipping you to take advantage of those opportunities.
5) Being accepted by the positions you want above all other candidates.
6) Not being pushed out of those positions by illness, market change, etc.
7) Being able to balance other life obligations, including faith, mental wellness, children, savings, etc.

There's just so much that can go wrong in any of those areas that it's really unfair to suggest that everyone who doesn't find themselves loving work is just doing it wrong. Sure, to some extent, we can make our own luck and force ourselves to pursue opportunities that align all of those things. But if my passion is acting and I'm born a poor kid in Arica to abusive parents and suffer severe health effects due to malaria, it's not likely my audition tapes are going to be seen in Hollywood. And no, listing that one person who made it despite those circumstances does not mean everyone can do it. There's a key difference between "anyone" and "everyone" in cases like these. Anyone could be the exception. Everyone can't, otherwise it wouldn't be the exception. There's only so much opportunity in many fields.

I suspect it's extremely common for most people to simply put off finding their passions until it's too late. It's kind of the whole "How do I Google the answer if I don't know what to ask?" problem. Most kids don't have access to industry professionals in whatever area they're thinking about pursuing, nor do their parents, so they just kind of go through the motions at school hoping it'll work out. Then they get whatever job their degree will qualify them for at whichever company is willing to hire them. That job might suck for any number of reasons, which may be unrelated to the work itself. At that point, going and getting a better job might be a matter of years of training, getting certifications, higher education, etc., which may no longer be affordable or feasible, especially if someone has kids, sick parents, etc. It's really no wonder most people feel stuck in jobs. Not everyone gets to write their own ticket or finds their dream job right out of school. Bills always seem to find them regardless, though.
I don't disagree with anything you have said. I have been extremely fortunate: I was born in the richest country in the world, to loving middle class parents who believed in education and encouraged me to pursue it. Although my life has not been without its hardships (I was orphaned as a teenager) I know that in many, many ways I have been lucky. I did not mean to imply that quitting a job one hates is the best path for everyone, anymore than FIRE is, nor that someone is "doing it wrong" by continuing to work in a less than ideal job. I apologize to any that may have read it that way or taken it personally. I was simply trying to suggest that there are options OTHER than FIRE that can work just as well. There seems to be SUCH a strong emphasis on retiring early in this forum that I thought a different perspective might be of value.

Wrench
User avatar
langelgjm
Posts: 308
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 9:02 am
Location: India

Re: The risk of DEATH ---- under-discussed on this forum?

Post by langelgjm »

etfan wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 6:06 pm So to summarize, some people would rather err on the side of dying young and leaving lots of unspent money behind, than living a long life in poverty.

While others prefer the opposite.
Well, it's not like those are the only two options. This is Bogleheads, a forum populated by wealthy people who live in a wealthy country at the richest time in history. I'm pretty sure retiring 5 or 10 years early isn't going to mean a life of poverty for most folks here...
"Simplicity is the master key to financial success." - John Bogle | "If I am what I have and if what I have is lost, who then am I?" - Erich Fromm
Locked