The Release Valve in Practice
In yesterday's post, I explained how meaningful work is a release valve to so much time and financial pressure. Instead of hoarding money and sucking up miserable work in pursuit of an earlier-the-better retirement, I propose that we ought to consider the pursuit of meaningful work. When we do, we don't feel pressured to race to the finish line. This provides for a more meaningful life and less pressure to hoard assets to create the escape hatch.
A few readers reached out to ask questions about this concept. I admit, it's counter-cultural. I'm honored people would take the time to consider these wild ideas. A few people asked if I could give an example of the release valve in practice. Here's a real-life situation someone recently approached me with. I'll use round-ish numbers to make it more digestible:
Age: 30
Current Investments: $100,000
Desired Retirement Age: 50
Desired Retirement Income: $100,000/year in today's dollars
Job Status: He's currently in a high-paying job that he despises. It's sucking the life out of him. Zapped energy, he's a jerk to his wife, and he travels a LOT. However, it pays a lot of money......
The Situation: He desires to save as much money as possible, as quickly as possible, so he "only" has to do this for 20 more years.....tops. His question to me was how much money he needs to invest (er, hoard) to make that goal a reality.
Here's the math. For him to retire at age 50 with an annual retirement income equal to $100,000 in today's dollars (using 3% inflation, a 9% return, and the 4% rule for withdrawals), he needs to invest approximately $5,900/month between age 30 and 50. In other words, he'll continue working a job he absolutely hates (but "only" for 20 more years), sock away nearly $6,000/month, and have little income left to actually live a life.
He oddly seemed excited about this. However, I threw out a few alternatives. First, I shared the numbers for a more traditional retirement at age 60. To get the same $100,000 retirement income (in today's dollars), he would need to invest $2,700/month between age 30 and 60. That's less than half! He hated this idea. To him, it means he has to put up with a miserable job for 30 years instead of 20. Or, as he put it, "I'll never survive that."
Then, I showed him the release valve. I showed him what an age 70 retirement could look like. I caveated one point, though. It's not 40 years of misery.......rather, 40 years of meaning. In this scenario, he would need to invest $1,100/month from age 30 to 70 to get the same $100,000 annual income (in today's dollars). For one-fifth of the monthly cost, he can live a meaningful life, pursue work that matters, and have the cash flow flexibility to travel and make memories with his small children.
The verdict? Option #1: "20 years doesn't sound so bad. It will go by fast." Sadly, I think he's right. It will most certainly go by in the blink of an eye.