this post was submitted on 09 Nov 2025
740 points (97.2% liked)

World News

50787 readers
1596 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jaybone@lemmy.zip 17 points 6 days ago (2 children)

In the US, 1 million is not enough to retire comfortably unless you are already retirement age and can collect social security and Medicare. It’s not like you can retire early on 1 million dollars. That doesn’t even buy you a house where I live.

[–] lepinkainen@lemmy.world 3 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I have a friend who made it big young (well earned IMO, they started working at 15) and they have about 2M in investments.

They make 4k/month after taxes just from the stock dividends every year.

That’s well enough for a comfortable life over here, as their house and cars are paid for - and the money keeps growing in investments.

[–] jaybone@lemmy.zip 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I’m not quite at that level, but I’m getting there. My main concern would be health care. And that my house isn’t fully paid off. And with Trump manipulating the market, idk I get nervous. 2 million might work. But I know 1 million is for sure not enough, at least in the US.

[–] xyzzy@lemmy.today 2 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

This question always depends heavily on where someone lives and someone's expected standard of living.

Someone who lives on that much already thinks it would be enough for them until they die, but they might not have ever had open market insurance, and likely not a catastrophic illness while on it. That kind of thing makes you realize how financially vulnerable you really are. It's not about steady state while healthy, it's about contingency planning.

I'm in a situation where I could probably relatively safely retire with $2 million, but like you I would be nervous about $1 million.

[–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago

We're aiming for $2.5-$3 million in investment income. That's based on two things:

  1. The median household incomes in the US is about $80,000.
  2. The safe indefinite withdraw rate in stock index funds is about 3%.

(2) is based on the 3% rule, a common retirement planning tool. People have crunched the numbers on historic market returns, factoring in inflation, dividends, etc. 3% is about the amount you can safely withdraw each year while the principal will still remain steady through time, even after adjusting for inflation and crashes. It is the amount you use if you want to be reasonably certain you will not outlive your retirement income.

[–] spacesatan@leminal.space 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

1 million is 'not enough' when you want a passive income that is higher than what half of working people earn.

[–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

That's literally the definition of retirement though. The ability to live without working. And no, $1 million is really not enough to retire on. You're vastly overestimating the amount of passive income that can safely be earned on $1 million.

You know what a million is worth? $30,000 a year. That's based on the 3% rule. That really is the safest amount you can rely on in a stock market account while still factoring in the risk of market drops. In retirement planning, that is a number you can use if you want to be reasonably sure you will not outlive your retirement savings. If you do a whole bunch of math on historic returns, inflation rates, and market bubbles and crashes, historically a 3% withdraw rate would be safe to keep your principal constant over time.

Can you live on $30,000 a year? Maybe, but the median household income in the US is $80,000. Half of households earn more than $80k, half less. Some couples do survive on $30k/year. But not many people would be willing to retire on that lifestyle. A couple with a million in retirement savings can safely earn $30k/year from that investment. That's it. And this is investing in the stock market. If you invest in inflation-indexed treasury bonds, your safe annual income would be more like $10k per year on a $1 million asset.

In 2025, if you want to retire with retirement income (w/o considering social security) equal to the median US household income? Using the 3% rule, that would require approximately $2.7 million in an investment portfolio.

I know this because this is how we're handling our own retirement planning. We're probably going to need $2.5-$3 million in retirement assets. We're lucky enough that unless things go catastrophically wrong in the US economy, we'll be able to do it. And our wants aren't incredible. We would like to have a retirement income right around where the average US household income is. And that will take $2.5-$3 million in retirement savings.

[–] spacesatan@leminal.space 1 points 3 days ago

So a few things. Since we're in the weeds at this point I want to remind us both that the original point was that a millionaire and a billionaire both have the same general relationship to living and labor which is 'they don't have to worry about selling their labor to have their basic needs met'. This is still true. I was also talking in terms of individual wealth not household wealth but the figures aren't really that different because housing is such a large share of expenses.

The retirement scenario you're describing is a very comfortable one. 3% is a conservative drawdown, 3.5% is considered safe, and higher is typical if you can be flexible in spending. Retired households do not have the expenses associated with commuting and most do not have the expenses of childcare. Being able to afford living near employment centers is a luxury for a retired household, not a need. So a retired household with the income of a median working age household is doing quite well.

That's fine to want to retire moderately well off but once your income is based on rents from capital your class interests are not aligned with the working class.