Because they don’t know how to have fun and/or don’t have friends outside of their professional circle. Some of it habit and some people are motivated by net worth.

If you have plenty of hobbies, interests and friends you don’t need a job. But many people in large cities don’t have many true friends or hobbies. They don’t have anything better to do with their time than work and they earn money so they keep doing it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You people are all insane to keep working with these amounts of money unless you have easy-peasy, seven-figure jobs that you absolutely love.

And/or kids totally change the picture. I am single and will be retiring in a few years at age 45 with around $1.5 million and a paid-off condo (which I will be selling and then getting tf out of DC). Even now with inflation, life for a single person is just not that expensive unless you have real luxury tastes, and trading away the vibrant years of your life for some luxury is one of the stupidest decisions imaginable.

So you will have 20 years to pay for health insurance. Right now that will be $10-15K/year for just decent insurance. If you live in a HCOL area (DCUM area) you will pay high HOA fees and property taxes. So lets say another $20K. So you are at 35K/year with just that. Add in another $5K for maintenance as your condo gets old, and continue that. You will likely need $60K+ just to live at a minimum.

Unless you live really cheap, you will not have enough to retire at 45, unless you plan to die by 65.

Um, no - my health insurance is $1,600 per YEAR now at age 42 (grandfathered plan pre-Obamacare). I know it will go up over time, but I can afford it. I have a $10K deductible, so I pay just everything out-of-pocket. I'm healthy so this is usually very little.

More importantly, to everyone saying $1.5M is not enough, maybe that's true if you have a generic 60/40 portfolio. However, I buy individual stocks and get about 6-7% yields, so I will be earning around $100K per year without ever selling a share. Heck, the most famous REIT in the world, Realty Income ($O) - which has the bluest of blue-chip companies as tenants - is currently paying a 6.6% dividend. $1.5M and a paid-off condo is plenty for one person.

Some people are big spenders and can’t imagine living on $40-50k per year.

My own mother has a paid off house and spends around 40-60k per year. The breakdown is around 10k for bills, 10k for food, 10k for travel and 10k for other stuff. Occasionally she will spend 10-20k on her house.

She has a 2 million portfolio and doesn’t spend the principle. The paid off house is what’s critical.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You people are all insane to keep working with these amounts of money unless you have easy-peasy, seven-figure jobs that you absolutely love.

And/or kids totally change the picture. I am single and will be retiring in a few years at age 45 with around $1.5 million and a paid-off condo (which I will be selling and then getting tf out of DC). Even now with inflation, life for a single person is just not that expensive unless you have real luxury tastes, and trading away the vibrant years of your life for some luxury is one of the stupidest decisions imaginable.

So you will have 20 years to pay for health insurance. Right now that will be $10-15K/year for just decent insurance. If you live in a HCOL area (DCUM area) you will pay high HOA fees and property taxes. So lets say another $20K. So you are at 35K/year with just that. Add in another $5K for maintenance as your condo gets old, and continue that. You will likely need $60K+ just to live at a minimum.

Unless you live really cheap, you will not have enough to retire at 45, unless you plan to die by 65.

Um, no - my health insurance is $1,600 per YEAR now at age 42 (grandfathered plan pre-Obamacare). I know it will go up over time, but I can afford it. I have a $10K deductible, so I pay just everything out-of-pocket. I'm healthy so this is usually very little.

More importantly, to everyone saying $1.5M is not enough, maybe that's true if you have a generic 60/40 portfolio. However, I buy individual stocks and get about 6-7% yields, so I will be earning around $100K per year without ever selling a share. Heck, the most famous REIT in the world, Realty Income ($O) - which has the bluest of blue-chip companies as tenants - is currently paying a 6.6% dividend. $1.5M and a paid-off condo is plenty for one person.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You people are all insane to keep working with these amounts of money unless you have easy-peasy, seven-figure jobs that you absolutely love.

And/or kids totally change the picture. I am single and will be retiring in a few years at age 45 with around $1.5 million and a paid-off condo (which I will be selling and then getting tf out of DC). Even now with inflation, life for a single person is just not that expensive unless you have real luxury tastes, and trading away the vibrant years of your life for some luxury is one of the stupidest decisions imaginable.

And yet, to me, you sound insane. Retiring at 45 with $1.5 million? At that age you better be conservative with your withdrawal rate so maybe you'll generate $45k/year from investments. I would not want to live on that. "Some luxury" is part of what makes life beautiful. I wouldn't want the "freedom" of being retired without broader financial freedom than what you'll have if you quit so young.

Yes! We want to live life to it's fullest when retired. We plan to travel, drink fine wine, go to sporting events, concerts, whatever interests us. We don't want to have to think---"can we afford that". We want to spoil our grandkids (if there are any)
IMO 45 is way too young to retire unless you are worth tens of multi-millions. And even then, you need to have a plan so you don't spend down your principle. Too many risks you don't know about that could occur

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You people are all insane to keep working with these amounts of money unless you have easy-peasy, seven-figure jobs that you absolutely love.

And/or kids totally change the picture. I am single and will be retiring in a few years at age 45 with around $1.5 million and a paid-off condo (which I will be selling and then getting tf out of DC). Even now with inflation, life for a single person is just not that expensive unless you have real luxury tastes, and trading away the vibrant years of your life for some luxury is one of the stupidest decisions imaginable.

No sh*t Sherlock that kids change the picture. You work for another 10 years, and you change your kids' lives. You don't work, and the future is horrifyingly bleak for kids today if they aren't getting a wealth transfer from their parents. Do you not read the news? The difference between people who have parents who can pay for school and give a down payment on a house at age 25 compared with those who won't get that support is the difference between financial stability, choices, sleeping at night, vs slaving for the next 45 years. Of course their are many exceptions to the rules, but to know you can set your kids are for a much much higher likelihood of a not terrible life? Why wouldn't you do that?

+1 we could have retired at 50 with enough for ourselves but we had three kids just entering college age and we knew we would likely someday have grandchildren. So we worked another ten years and more than doubled our net worth which has created options for us to help our kids and now our grandkids. Our kids are going fine on their own but we are happy that we could fully fund 529 plans so that their kids can graduate debt free…..maybe….many years from now.

Good for you! Your kids and grandkids will greatly appreciate this!

Anonymous wrote:You people are all insane to keep working with these amounts of money unless you have easy-peasy, seven-figure jobs that you absolutely love.

And/or kids totally change the picture. I am single and will be retiring in a few years at age 45 with around $1.5 million and a paid-off condo (which I will be selling and then getting tf out of DC). Even now with inflation, life for a single person is just not that expensive unless you have real luxury tastes, and trading away the vibrant years of your life for some luxury is one of the stupidest decisions imaginable.

And yet, to me, you sound insane. Retiring at 45 with $1.5 million? At that age you better be conservative with your withdrawal rate so maybe you'll generate $45k/year from investments. I would not want to live on that. "Some luxury" is part of what makes life beautiful. I wouldn't want the "freedom" of being retired without broader financial freedom than what you'll have if you quit so young.

Strangely enough, the minute I had enough to retire, I started to enjoy my job. I waltz to work and at work.
My work is like exercise and they feed me too. I still have plenty of time for myself as I work part time and take several vacations a year. I think I've found a nice balance. I would not work a minute if the work was soul-crushing.

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read this thread through but I think about this a lot.

I love my job. I'm an academic. I make far less than my spouse, but we do "feel" the impact of my income, so there is some value in it. It's flexible enough that I've avoided most childcare after K and I feel balanced 90% of the time.

At various points in my life I have noticed that when I am involved in my job my anxiety is pretty much at bay. I am able to channel a productive focus into a meaningful career, as opposed to health anxiety or discontent or boredom. I am not medicated for anxiety or diagnosed with clinical anxiety. I just notice my mental health is much much better overall when working...I still feel stress from work.

So that's a reason for me. I wonder if I were to receive an inheritance if I would want to transition into a different type of career (outside of academia? Off the tenure track?) but the easiest answer for me is probably not, at least not right away.

I think when work is meaningful and enjoyable most of the time it doesn't always feel like work. So that's why people stay.

+1. I agree. I am 53 and enjoy working. I have 3 children (2 of whom are in college and 1 of whom is going to college soon). My DH and I are both attorneys and enjoy our jobs in our niche fields. We have enough to retire, but enjoy the structure of working. I don't even particularly enjoy working from home, as I like interacting with my colleagues and work in a nice office. We've traveled a lot over the years, and still do.

Anonymous wrote:Some do it for fulfillment, some out of greed, some out of fear.

This.

Two coworkers are afraid to retire because their spouses died right after they retired. It’s become a superstition around the office.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't have to commute, I love my coworkers, can work from bed if I want (though I never have), and overall enjoy what I do plus I'm good at it.

We have a lot of money, but we defininity do not have "co-workers" We have people who work for us. We also dont really have a WFH arrrangement, it is more meeting with people, but definitly no grunt work.

DH and I run a company and many people rely on us. We do not have to put in an insane amount of time and effort as the infrastructure is there, plus our kids are still living at home and in middle/high school so that severely limits our ability to travel for pleasure.

Well, la-ti-da, Your Royal Importance!!

Ideally, I would “retire” but buy myself a “job” as a horse person.

Having a serious garden or being an artist are easier to fund but not as fun and can be isolating.

There are just a lot of ways to have fulfilling pursuits that aren’t a salaried job imo. So it’s not a question of “retiring” it’s just a question of what you do with your time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You people are all insane to keep working with these amounts of money unless you have easy-peasy, seven-figure jobs that you absolutely love.

And/or kids totally change the picture. I am single and will be retiring in a few years at age 45 with around $1.5 million and a paid-off condo (which I will be selling and then getting tf out of DC). Even now with inflation, life for a single person is just not that expensive unless you have real luxury tastes, and trading away the vibrant years of your life for some luxury is one of the stupidest decisions imaginable.

So you will have 20 years to pay for health insurance. Right now that will be $10-15K/year for just decent insurance. If you live in a HCOL area (DCUM area) you will pay high HOA fees and property taxes. So lets say another $20K. So you are at 35K/year with just that. Add in another $5K for maintenance as your condo gets old, and continue that. You will likely need $60K+ just to live at a minimum.

Unless you live really cheap, you will not have enough to retire at 45, unless you plan to die by 65.

+1 This is the problem. Retiring with $1.5M at 65 as an empty nester with social security/Medicare is very different from retiring with $1.5M as a single mom with a kid at home and having to pay out of pocket for health insurance and possibly living for 40+ more years.

+1

What you desire to do in retirement matters as well, but yes, health insurance is a huge issue.

We want to travel, attend events, eat out, and continue to live a full life on a higher end budget. So we know how much we need at a minimum. But even at 65, $1.5M does not get you very far with doing/spending much if you live until 90 (my family tends to do so). So we will wait until 57/58 to retire when we have enough

Agreed. The 45 year old single mom seems to categorize anything above a cat food retirement as luxury. Unfortunately, $1.5M at age 45 with a kid at home isn't enough to support even a moderate retirement that includes entertainment and travel plus college savings and activities for her kid. If I were her, then I would keep working but downshift into complacent mode. At least let that $1.5M compound the interest more before drawing down on it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You people are all insane to keep working with these amounts of money unless you have easy-peasy, seven-figure jobs that you absolutely love.

And/or kids totally change the picture. I am single and will be retiring in a few years at age 45 with around $1.5 million and a paid-off condo (which I will be selling and then getting tf out of DC). Even now with inflation, life for a single person is just not that expensive unless you have real luxury tastes, and trading away the vibrant years of your life for some luxury is one of the stupidest decisions imaginable.

So you will have 20 years to pay for health insurance. Right now that will be $10-15K/year for just decent insurance. If you live in a HCOL area (DCUM area) you will pay high HOA fees and property taxes. So lets say another $20K. So you are at 35K/year with just that. Add in another $5K for maintenance as your condo gets old, and continue that. You will likely need $60K+ just to live at a minimum.

Unless you live really cheap, you will not have enough to retire at 45, unless you plan to die by 65.

+1 This is the problem. Retiring with $1.5M at 65 as an empty nester with social security/Medicare is very different from retiring with $1.5M as a single mom with a kid at home and having to pay out of pocket for health insurance and possibly living for 40+ more years.

+1

What you desire to do in retirement matters as well, but yes, health insurance is a huge issue.

We want to travel, attend events, eat out, and continue to live a full life on a higher end budget. So we know how much we need at a minimum. But even at 65, $1.5M does not get you very far with doing/spending much if you live until 90 (my family tends to do so). So we will wait until 57/58 to retire when we have enough

I haven't read this thread through but I think about this a lot.

I love my job. I'm an academic. I make far less than my spouse, but we do "feel" the impact of my income, so there is some value in it. It's flexible enough that I've avoided most childcare after K and I feel balanced 90% of the time.

At various points in my life I have noticed that when I am involved in my job my anxiety is pretty much at bay. I am able to channel a productive focus into a meaningful career, as opposed to health anxiety or discontent or boredom. I am not medicated for anxiety or diagnosed with clinical anxiety. I just notice my mental health is much much better overall when working...I still feel stress from work.

So that's a reason for me. I wonder if I were to receive an inheritance if I would want to transition into a different type of career (outside of academia? Off the tenure track?) but the easiest answer for me is probably not, at least not right away.

I think when work is meaningful and enjoyable most of the time it doesn't always feel like work. So that's why people stay.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You people are all insane to keep working with these amounts of money unless you have easy-peasy, seven-figure jobs that you absolutely love.

And/or kids totally change the picture. I am single and will be retiring in a few years at age 45 with around $1.5 million and a paid-off condo (which I will be selling and then getting tf out of DC). Even now with inflation, life for a single person is just not that expensive unless you have real luxury tastes, and trading away the vibrant years of your life for some luxury is one of the stupidest decisions imaginable.

No sh*t Sherlock that kids change the picture. You work for another 10 years, and you change your kids' lives. You don't work, and the future is horrifyingly bleak for kids today if they aren't getting a wealth transfer from their parents. Do you not read the news? The difference between people who have parents who can pay for school and give a down payment on a house at age 25 compared with those who won't get that support is the difference between financial stability, choices, sleeping at night, vs slaving for the next 45 years. Of course their are many exceptions to the rules, but to know you can set your kids are for a much much higher likelihood of a not terrible life? Why wouldn't you do that?

+1 we could have retired at 50 with enough for ourselves but we had three kids just entering college age and we knew we would likely someday have grandchildren. So we worked another ten years and more than doubled our net worth which has created options for us to help our kids and now our grandkids. Our kids are going fine on their own but we are happy that we could fully fund 529 plans so that their kids can graduate debt free…..maybe….many years from now.