Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Does anybody who has spent their adult working career in this industry have an excuse for not achieving financial independence by age 65?


In answer to your question, Yes.

A lot of people got wiped out in the dot.com debacle, too highly invested in technology, not enough diversity, the need to eat while the portfolio was at its lowest value. Some people have pursued dreams into new ventures, poured their accumulated net worth into those endeavors and had them not succeed. Some folks have developed medical conditions associated with working long hours in a repetitive environment, or working with components that internally were quite toxic and sometimes externally, and spent their accumulated savings on ever increasing health care. Some folks have spent their excess cash on maintaining an image or a lifestyle which they perceive to be the model of success. Some folks have spent all their income on a combination of their own needs and those of their former spouses and children.

Being an engineer/programmer doesn't make you immune to life's ups and downs. And there is no magic 'pension' that kicks in (under funded or not) after you've put in 15, 20, or even 40 years at your job.

That said, I know a number of people who are both financially independent and working 30 to 60 hrs a week for someone else. They just like the work.


True, true. I certainly have experienced a lot of what you describe, quitting my last job-type-job in December 2008 and promptly watching much of my savings evaporate. And my youngest child's congenital birth defect certainly wasn't part of the master plan.

Life throws you plenty of curveballs, but with the skills people in this industry possess it seems to me you can make choices that enable you to be secure in doing what you love as long as you want, and you shouldn't have to worry about what happens when you age, financially. Or at least as much as anyone can. We could all be wiped out by the next banking crisis, or debt crisis, or asteroid or car crash. There are plenty of variables you can control, including how much you spend maintaining an image or lifestyle or living in an expensive locale such as the Bay area or caring for your personal fitness and diet.


Children, medical problems, divorce, expensive hobbies, stock crashes. Stuff happens. If you expect to live to 85, which is pretty reasonable, and keep paying to live in the Bay Area, do a little traveling, you'd want to pull down $100k or so per year and thus need about $2M in the bank.


85 might even be low-balling it. I heard recently that Girl's born in Australia this decade now have an estimated 50% chance of hitting 100.


True if your $2M sits in an account earning zero interest. In reality you need quite a bit less than $2M if you want to guarantee 20 years at $100k.


At a 7% return you'd still need about $1.5 mil. And that's assuming that your hopefully more conservative investments in retirement earn 7% a year and over that 20 year span there is not a crash... This includes about 3.5% per year for inflation.


Medical problems and family misfortune can do a lot to destroy your finances. All it takes is one trip to the doctors or a split second of stupidity by someone else.


Is there something in the article that made you think this person might not be financially independent other than the fact that he has a job?


I was really replying to the comment asking what will we do at 65 and lamenting the fact that older workers get pushed out of the industry. My point is to put your house in order financially so you can have the luxury of doing what you love at whatever age.


It is true there is certainly often a lack of planning and preparation for retirement until it is too late and we are fortunate that our industry tends to afford more opportunities to prepare than many others.


Why 65? Why not 25? Why not 15?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: