Why do people with millions of dollars still work?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, do you have kids? I think it's having very young kids that makes me feel it's not enough. I just don't know what life might bring.

This. It's different when you still have kids at home in your 40's or 50's vs. it's just the two of you in your 60's. Kids are very expensive. Plus you don't know what the stock market and economy might do. It's a better bet to work more now then retire permanently than retire early with the idea that you'll magically get a high-paying job at age 58 if the economy tanks and you need more money after leaving the workforce for 10 years.

But I hear you, OP. We couldn't wait to leave DC. DH's job went remote during the pandemic, so we moved to an area we really wanted to move to. We had a little over $3M in real estate assets, plus over $3M in other investments. Not enough for DH to stop working, but enough that we could comfortably survive on a lower salary if he ever loses his job. Kids are thriving in excellent public schools, we've made tons of friends, and the lifestyle is just so much more relaxed and fun.

If anyone is looking to do this, look at an area with a decent overall tax picture for your family, excellent public schools, and good, reasonably priced State universities. These things really impact your savings and lifestyle. After freaking out about saving for out of state/private college for our 3 kids (lived in DC), we realized we pretty much already met the 529 goals for in-state universities in the new location. I can't even begin to explain the relief and joy we felt. DC is really hard for families unless you have a high HHI.

Good luck to everyone and I hope you find the lifestyle that works well for your family, wherever that may be.

Where is this incredible place? I want to move there too.

[Anonymous]

My mother is in her 70s, has 8 figures in her bank account and continues to work. She put herself through business school in the 1960s when she was the only woman there and then started her own business which has been very successful. My siblings and I refer to this business as her favorite child, it's also prevented her from developing many hobbies. I think small business owners have a lot more autonomy though, she makes all the rules and can take whatever time off she wants. The business is so much a part of her identity that I imagine she will still be working there in some capacity when she dies, as long as she's at all capable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I used to wonder why older people neglect house maintenance. Turns out, house maintenance is expensive! Even if you buy a brand new home at 50, it will be 30 years old when you’re 80. Going into an older retiree’s home can be crazy, as it oftentimes has become a time capsule. Old folks stop updating almost everything. The point us, retirement is expensive and one way to save funds for basic survival is to neglect the house

No, they don't update because they don't GAF about keeping up with the Jonses or HGTV. Unless you are talking about a leaky roof, water in the basement/kitchen floor, HVAC not working, etc. which I don't think you are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No one takes the time to study investing, so they have to slave away for decades. Most people don't know there are stocks yielding 10%+ dividends with minimal risk. If you can get a 7% overall withdrawal rate for the rest of your life, which is very doable, you check out at $2M - no one needs more than $140K income in retirement.

But since people are told to buy bonds and other nonsense, they can only safely withdraw 2.5% or 3% of their portfolio and so must slave away until they're 65.

Can you list a few? I'd be interested in investing in them.

[Anonymous]

The biggest reason for us is the uncertainty of the cost of healthcare from 60-65.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t feel that way about my job or my life. That’s why I work.

I am part of something I feel great about, like my colleagues, have good work life balance, and I feel productive and useful and know I have a purpose. And I don’t WFH either. Short commute.

+1

Not lazy.

[Anonymous]

Because work is a big part of their identity

Because society is judgemental of people who don’t do anything

For the respect, purpose, engagement

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is why I’m a SAHM, but most people on dcum would say I’m lazy and living off my DH. Oh well, you can’t please everyone. People who’ve checked out just keep to themselves more.

I don't know if you're lazy, but you technically are living off of your DH. If it works for your relationship you don't need to make excuses to anyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No one takes the time to study investing, so they have to slave away for decades. Most people don't know there are stocks yielding 10%+ dividends with minimal risk. If you can get a 7% overall withdrawal rate for the rest of your life, which is very doable, you check out at $2M - no one needs more than $140K income in retirement.

But since people are told to buy bonds and other nonsense, they can only safely withdraw 2.5% or 3% of their portfolio and so must slave away until they're 65.

This is half true and half nonsense.

Yes you should have a very equity heavy portfolio your whole life. Yes a safe withdrawal rate above 2.5% can be done.

No there is not minimal risk for any equity investment. Hopefully you build a portfolio that counters this.

In terms of no one needs more than 140k a year. What are you talking about. I spend 25-35 a month. Income is seven figures. I save a lot also. But I want 35k a month in retirement spend. For that you need a lot more than 2 million. Everyone is different.

[Anonymous]

You mean ... Bezos and the other idiots? Those people hoard money. It's an illness.

Everyone else that has enough money to retire but they don't can't stand being alone with themselves. They will say they love to work, but they mean they hate being alone with themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one takes the time to study investing, so they have to slave away for decades. Most people don't know there are stocks yielding 10%+ dividends with minimal risk. If you can get a 7% overall withdrawal rate for the rest of your life, which is very doable, you check out at $2M - no one needs more than $140K income in retirement.

But since people are told to buy bonds and other nonsense, they can only safely withdraw 2.5% or 3% of their portfolio and so must slave away until they're 65.

This is half true and half nonsense.

Yes you should have a very equity heavy portfolio your whole life. Yes a safe withdrawal rate above 2.5% can be done.

No there is not minimal risk for any equity investment. Hopefully you build a portfolio that counters this.

In terms of no one needs more than 140k a year. What are you talking about. I spend 25-35 a month. Income is seven figures. I save a lot also. But I want 35k a month in retirement spend. For that you need a lot more than 2 million. Everyone is different.

PP is right that you don't need it, you want it.

[Anonymous]

Millions of dollars isn’t what it used to be. I probably have 50 more years of life and will need some kind of care in my later years. I have multiple kids and private college is now close to half a million for 4 years. Plus remember when the market crashed and we all lost like 25% of our investments? Now imagine that happening when you are 60 or 70.

So those are all my reasons. I just don’t want to worry if I have enough and if im spending it too fast. I also like being able to donate six figures every year to charities I care about.

And theoretically my job is adding some value to the world. But it’s less that.

[Anonymous]

Also, our kids are in college and it's important to have purpose in your life. Not sure what we would do if we didn't work all day - probably spend money. We are too young to do nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one takes the time to study investing, so they have to slave away for decades. Most people don't know there are stocks yielding 10%+ dividends with minimal risk. If you can get a 7% overall withdrawal rate for the rest of your life, which is very doable, you check out at $2M - no one needs more than $140K income in retirement.

But since people are told to buy bonds and other nonsense, they can only safely withdraw 2.5% or 3% of their portfolio and so must slave away until they're 65.

This is half true and half nonsense.

Yes you should have a very equity heavy portfolio your whole life. Yes a safe withdrawal rate above 2.5% can be done.

No there is not minimal risk for any equity investment. Hopefully you build a portfolio that counters this.

In terms of no one needs more than 140k a year. What are you talking about. I spend 25-35 a month. Income is seven figures. I save a lot also. But I want 35k a month in retirement spend. For that you need a lot more than 2 million. Everyone is different.

PP is right that you don't need it, you want it.

It’s just so hard to predict what your costs will be in 40 years. I’m sure my parents didn’t predict that they would have medication that costs 10/day. And most people didn’t anticipate how much the cost of decent assisted living is. I’m just not confident what our country/world will look like in 30-50 years. Things like food might be much more expensive with climate change impacts.

[Anonymous]

Some people just want to be more future proofed than you OP. Also, people don’t want the bare minimum in terms of lifestyle. They want luxury goods and services. They want to leave a lot to children, build generational wealth. It’s very individual.

You probably know this so it seems like another troll thread.