Die With Zero

[Anonymous]

Anyone read this book? I just listened to a couple of podcasts about it and found it really thought provoking. The premise is that once you've saved enough to fund your retirement, you should start focusing more on generating memorable life experiences. The author says that your NW should peak between age 45 and 55, and that people slow down after that and most people die with too much money.

"If you spend hours and hours of your life acquiring money and then die without spending all of that money, then you've needlessly wasted too many precious hours of your life. There is just no way to get those hours back. If you die with $1 million left, that's $1 million of experiences you didn't have. And if you die with $50,000 left, well, that's $50,000 of experiences you didn't have. No way is that optimal. The question we all must answer is how to make the most of our finite time on earth."
- author Bill Perkins

I have always been a disciplined saver, maxing out my retirement plans from my very first job in my early 20s, and working to build after-tax savings, too, as my income grew. I didn't move up to a bigger house as our HHI moved higher and higher (HHI now over $1M and we still live in our $700K house), and as income grows, I feel more internal pressure to build my after-tax investments. But honestly, reading about this philosophy (haven't actually read the book yet) has me thinking, hmm. Why am I feeling so conflicted and stressed about spending more of my money, especially now when our kids are young and these are likely going to be our most healthy and active years? I really do feel like my thinking has been a bit transformed. Like, why not renovate my house while the kids are still young and raise them in something much more beautiful? Why not take massive trips now? The author also talks about "memory dividends" that are more valuable than stock dividends.

Anyway, I promise I'm not a promoter for this book. I'm a longtime reader and poster on this board and I relate to many here who feel pressure to save, save, save and invest and who look upon people's NW relative to HHI and think "Why is it so low? You're not saving enough!" I've been on the receiving end of those comments, too (HHI $1M liquid NW of $4M, but HHI hasn't been in this vicinity very long) and honestly they make me feel a bit ashamed and putting more pressure on myself to save. But the thought of just...continuing to max our 401(k)s and save $5k/mo to nonqualified savings and then just...blowing the rest...feels a bit revelatory to me. Exciting and like it makes sense. At least that's how I'm feeling after a weekend of listening to some podcasts about this book. Talk some sense into me, or tell me why you agree with the book's premise. Thanks!

[Anonymous]

That sounds great, but what are the chances you time it right? The cost of healthcare is unknown, so that makes for some tricky math.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anyone read this book? I just listened to a couple of podcasts about it and found it really thought provoking. The premise is that once you've saved enough to fund your retirement, you should start focusing more on generating memorable life experiences. The author says that your NW should peak between age 45 and 55, and that people slow down after that and most people die with too much money.

"If you spend hours and hours of your life acquiring money and then die without spending all of that money, then you've needlessly wasted too many precious hours of your life. There is just no way to get those hours back. If you die with $1 million left, that's $1 million of experiences you didn't have. And if you die with $50,000 left, well, that's $50,000 of experiences you didn't have. No way is that optimal. The question we all must answer is how to make the most of our finite time on earth."
- author Bill Perkins

I have always been a disciplined saver, maxing out my retirement plans from my very first job in my early 20s, and working to build after-tax savings, too, as my income grew. I didn't move up to a bigger house as our HHI moved higher and higher (HHI now over $1M and we still live in our $700K house), and as income grows, I feel more internal pressure to build my after-tax investments. But honestly, reading about this philosophy (haven't actually read the book yet) has me thinking, hmm. Why am I feeling so conflicted and stressed about spending more of my money, especially now when our kids are young and these are likely going to be our most healthy and active years? I really do feel like my thinking has been a bit transformed. Like, why not renovate my house while the kids are still young and raise them in something much more beautiful? Why not take massive trips now? The author also talks about "memory dividends" that are more valuable than stock dividends.

Anyway, I promise I'm not a promoter for this book. I'm a longtime reader and poster on this board and I relate to many here who feel pressure to save, save, save and invest and who look upon people's NW relative to HHI and think "Why is it so low? You're not saving enough!" I've been on the receiving end of those comments, too (HHI $1M liquid NW of $4M, but HHI hasn't been in this vicinity very long) and honestly they make me feel a bit ashamed and putting more pressure on myself to save. But the thought of just...continuing to max our 401(k)s and save $5k/mo to nonqualified savings and then just...blowing the rest...feels a bit revelatory to me. Exciting and like it makes sense. At least that's how I'm feeling after a weekend of listening to some podcasts about this book. Talk some sense into me, or tell me why you agree with the book's premise. Thanks!

I mean, duh. Yes, people ridiculously oversave. Thrift is a virtue, but so is living in the moment. But denying yourself EVERYTHING IN THE MOMENT for the sake of saving that extra $1,000 in your 401K when you already have like 3 million in it is stoopid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That sounds great, but what are the chances you time it right? The cost of healthcare is unknown, so that makes for some tricky math.

You could also get hit by a bus on the day before you retire and die. Or you could get pancreatic cancer in your late 50s. These things DO happen. With some frequency.

Saving for the future is a great thing and necessary. But asceticism to do so in the name of "sacrifice" undercuts that. Live a little, too. Balance in everything.

[Anonymous]

The entire point of my existence is to live happily while passing on the bulk of my fortune to my children. Something my family has done, or attempted to do, for generations.

So I'll pass on the nonsense advice, thanks.

[Anonymous]

If medical aid in dying were legal across the US and available to people with early dementia diagnoses I would 100% embrace this.

[Anonymous]

Another thing is that if you don’t learn how to spend (responsibly) now, you definitely aren’t going to learn it in retirement. You will be too set in your ways at that point. I have seen countless retirees who sit on huge savings and do nothing with it because they lived their lives saving every dollar possible, and they don’t know how to spend.

[Anonymous]

"most people die with too much money"

In the US? Today? 30 years from now?

[Anonymous]

Correct, many people on this board are pathological hoarders of money. They think that since many people are irresponsible with money, they are doing well by avoiding that behavior. They don’t realize they are simply extremists in the other direction.

Anyone who has $3 million saved and continues to work—unless they truly feel that their work is their mission, the reason they have been put on this earth—is wasting their life.

[Anonymous]

No, you can have great experiences without spending way too much money.
From walking in the park to spending quality time with your family and friends.
Money can give you more freedom and opinions but I disagree with the writer.

[Anonymous]

* options

[Anonymous]

I have a high-income Uncle who I always think did life right in terms of spending.

The only $ he saved from his 20s to about age 50 was in his 401k and a healthy emergency fund. He used to spend like crazy, awesome vacations, he loved cars (that was his main industry) and was always trading them in like every year or two, and was the life of the party and paid the bill. He also moved houses a lot, probably 10 times (some were bigger, some were just a different layout that he thought would be better).

Then around 50 he got a final big promotion. From 30-50 he made the equivalent of mid to high 6 figures and this one about doubled his salary. Instead of spending even more he saved all the extra and retired about 7-8 years later (then consulted part-time for a few more). Now in his late 70s he spends less, says he did everything he wanted to and can’t or doesn’t want to travel the same way, mostly only travels to his childhood hometown in Europe.

He lived it up young and now is enjoying a quieter less spendy life (been in the same house for 20 years). I personally couldn’t do it, he had supreme confidence that he could always get another high paying job, but wish I could and feel he spent his money in a pretty ideal fashion. Enjoyed the younger days fully and pulled back when older.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Another thing is that if you don’t learn how to spend (responsibly) now, you definitely aren’t going to learn it in retirement. You will be too set in your ways at that point. I have seen countless retirees who sit on huge savings and do nothing with it because they lived their lives saving every dollar possible, and they don’t know how to spend.

I don't think it's that hard to learn how to spend money responsibly - at least it's not harder than saving every dollar possible. I also kind of doubt that these people regret dying with money in the bank, and they probably enjoy being able to pass down their wealth to whoever they want. I think the way to convince people who've been scrimping their whole life to spend more is to figure out what their goals are, and show them why spending now, rather than later, will align with those goals.

For example, the Die with Zero author makes the argument that, no matter what you want to do with your fortune (spend it, pass it down to future generations, donate it to charity), that it's best to start doing it earlier than later. I believe his book (only listened to a podcast) talks about how charities can change with subsequent directors, so you don't know how they'll be run 5 to 10 years into the future, and that it's easier to make sure the charity aligns with your goals if you're still alive when giving them the donation. For giving to future generations, it's better to help them fund college, grad school, down payment for a house, etc., than to give your 60 year old children a lump sum. Obviously, with travel, you'll have more fun doing it at age 40 than 70. If you have family members that refuse to spend, maybe try talking to them about what they're hoping to get out of the money that they're saving.

[Anonymous]

I mean, it's not like "you can't take it with you" is some new idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another thing is that if you don’t learn how to spend (responsibly) now, you definitely aren’t going to learn it in retirement. You will be too set in your ways at that point. I have seen countless retirees who sit on huge savings and do nothing with it because they lived their lives saving every dollar possible, and they don’t know how to spend.

I don't think it's that hard to learn how to spend money responsibly - at least it's not harder than saving every dollar possible. I also kind of doubt that these people regret dying with money in the bank, and they probably enjoy being able to pass down their wealth to whoever they want. I think the way to convince people who've been scrimping their whole life to spend more is to figure out what their goals are, and show them why spending now, rather than later, will align with those goals.

For example, the Die with Zero author makes the argument that, no matter what you want to do with your fortune (spend it, pass it down to future generations, donate it to charity), that it's best to start doing it earlier than later. I believe his book (only listened to a podcast) talks about how charities can change with subsequent directors, so you don't know how they'll be run 5 to 10 years into the future, and that it's easier to make sure the charity aligns with your goals if you're still alive when giving them the donation. For giving to future generations, it's better to help them fund college, grad school, down payment for a house, etc., than to give your 60 year old children a lump sum. Obviously, with travel, you'll have more fun doing it at age 40 than 70. If you have family members that refuse to spend, maybe try talking to them about what they're hoping to get out of the money that they're saving.

Why is this obvious? I enjoy things on which I have spent money but which have not detracted from my financial goals. I’m 42 but would not enjoy a $15,000 vacation now because I have other financial goals which that would delay - I’d be thinking about that even while taking in the beautiful scenery. I’m not saying you have to wait till 70, but I know for sure I would enjoy that trip more at 52 than 42.