If You Get Rich, You Won't Quit Working For Long (bbc.com)

An anonymous reader writes: You'd think striking it suddenly rich would be the ultimate ticket to freedom. Without money worries, the world would be your oyster. Perhaps you'd champion a worthy cause, or indulge a sporting passion, but work? Surely not. However, remaining gainfully employed after sudden wealth is more common than you'd think. After all, there are numerous high-profile billionaires who haven't called it quits despite possessing the luxury to retire, including some of the world's top chief executives, such as Amazon's Jeff Bezos and Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg. But it turns out, the suddenly rich who aren't running companies are also loathe to quit, even though they have plenty of money. That could be, in part, because the link between salary and job satisfaction is very weak. According to a meta-analysis by University of Florida business school professor Timothy Judge and other researchers, there's less than a 2% overlap between the two factors. In the long run, we derive job satisfaction from non-monetary sources, which include positive peer relationships, the ability to work on meaningful projects and even leadership opportunities.

Comments

You may not "quit working"

[Anonymous Coward]

...but exactly what it is you "work" on will quite likely change since you're now free to choose something you find enjoyable or fulfilling.

Re:You may not "quit working"

[Austerity Empowers]

This is exactly true. I do many things for a buck, but I wouldn't do what I presently do. I would like to think I'd be productive and busy, but I would be doing the parts of the job I want to do, and either abdicating or paying someone to do the nasty stuff.

The salary thing is a red herring. HR usually uses that to justify low (i.e. "market") wages. But they neglect engagement and retention. When paid market wages I tend to optimize the "life" part of work/life balance, and consider my job to be fairly disposable (i.e. I won't put up with a lot of crap, and don't think twice about calling a moron a moron). If I were rich I would never take such a job, which is ironic considering I don't need the money, but such places tend to have very bottom line attitudes about the parts of the job I enjoy too.

Re:You may not "quit working"

[Anonymous Coward]

Very few people have a job that they really enjoy. So they think "If I had a lot of money I would immediately quit working". But, the truth is, doing nothing all day is actually quite boring.

Re:You may not "quit working"

[Oswald McWeany]

I loved the job I had in College. I'd gladly work in a small bookstore again if money weren't an issue, and such things still existed.

Re:You may not "quit working"

[gsslay]

Exactly. I was suddenly rich I wouldn't stop work. Well, only for a year or so. But the work I went on to do would then be something I enjoyed, no matter how badly paid it was. I would forever be in the position of never having to worry about losing the job, or being able to quit if I decided I didn't like it.
This is why born-rich politicians (pointing no fingers) will never be able to understand the working lives of the rest of us. They've never been in the position where losing a job is disastrous. They've always had the luxury of choosing what job they'd like, to what degree, and taking a break from it all whenever suits them. That freedom truly changes the nature of your working life entirely.

Re: You may not "quit working"

[Anonymous Coward]

^^^ came here to to say this. I recently am coming off a 12 month break of doing nothing. Literally nothing. Sleeping until noon, going to bed at 4am, playing video games and chilling. I did keep the house clean ;). The only productive thing I did in those 12 months is cook and clean the house. Every night dinner on the table. I felt like a stay at home mom, except I'm a single father.

My experience, at first was cool, it was something new. Quickly wore off, now I'm at the point where I only interact with family and 1 friend IRL and I find myself feeling deeply depressed. I have no goals, no motives, and that's just no life to live. I wake up feeling sad, like another day of nothing. I love going to sleep because I get a break from my boring life. I truly believe this experiment has left me with clinical depression. When I worked I was never this sad. Never was my sleep schedule so off when I worked.

I guess long story short is I agree. Humans need to have a purpose. Or atleast something that gives them pleasure. Sitting around doing nothing all day even with money, is quite boring and not fulfilling at all. I can't wait to get back to work.

Re:You may not "quit working"

[cayenne8]

Very few people have a job that they really enjoy. So they think "If I had a lot of money I would immediately quit working". But, the truth is, doing nothing all day is actually quite boring

You know, a few years ago, I had about a 7 month gap in between contracting gigs.

My typical day was, wake up, walk the dog....jump on my motorcycle and hit the gym for a couple of hours.

I'd come back home, have some lunch, look for jobs about an hour or so, and then often after showering and dressing, I'd jump on my motorcycle and run around town (living in New Orleans). I spent days seeing the art museums, WW2 museum, all sorts of neat things. I might have left out earlier and met friends for lunch somewhere....

Usually by about 3-4pm, I'd usually meet some friends at one of our MANY fine drinking establishments, for a few...and then come home, etc.

For 7 months, lather, rinse, repeat. I had NO problem finding things to do.

I thought to myself, "Man, if I won the lottery, this would likely be a large part of my life, and hell, if I got tired of this, I could always take a vacation.

Seriously....how could anyone get bored with all the money they ever need, and a bit of imagination?

Re:You may not "quit working"

[ghoul]

This is kind of the reason we dont like hiring people with family money. They have no commitment to the job. We need to be able to plan on the person being around to do their job when the going gets tough.

Re:You may not "quit working"

[ausekilis]

I knew a guy that was a seasonal worker. He'd work for ~6 months in the spring/summer so he could hit the slopes wherever and whenever he wanted for the rest of the year. While I like my job and coworkers, I'm actually a bit envious that he was able to do that.

Go ahead and ask any retiree too, that "free time" gets filled up quick.

Re:You may not "quit working"

[Anonymous Coward]

I sold out of a company a few years back and got a bit of cash (though not enough to retire) and lots of free time. I did that stuff for a little while, but then got bored and started another company. Basically, you are right, but the inherent problem was that all my friends were not in the same position as myself. I could imagine back at the start of my career, when everyone didn't have families, mortgages etc, it would have been a lot more fun. But people get really busy in middle age and basically you either have to go hang out with retired people, or get used to hanging out by yourself a whole lot.

In contrast, many friends who had worked themselves into senior positions at big companies had extensive social lives based almost entirely around their workmates and business activities. Personally I found that a bit odd but it is just the way things are now, particularly in tech. If you have made it yourself outside such circles, then it is quite a lonely existence, and this was part of why I just went back into business much earlier than I really needed too.

Re:You may not "quit working"

[RabidReindeer]

This is kind of the reason we dont like hiring people with family money. They have no commitment to the job. We need to be able to plan on the person being around to do their job when the going gets tough.

In other words, we want them desperate, not invested!

Re:You may not "quit working"

[w3woody]

Exactly right. I do software development, and I'd probably continue doing software development. But I'd be a hell of a lot pickier about the sorts of projects I choose to work on. Ironically people I know who have been in a similar position find themselves even making a larger salary in the long run, because they are able to take greater risks while picking things they like and want to do (and are good at) rather than just looking for whatever they can that they may be good on, but which pays.

Re: You may not "quit working"

[RabidReindeer]

OK, here's your purpose: find a purpose. Make a full-time job out of it.

Look around. What interests you? people, things? animals? making stuff?

If you like dealing with people, consider some of the old standbys. Toastmasters, the various "Loyal order of Water Buffalo" organizations, food banks, Habitat for Humanity, check out Meetup for local groups and see if any of them are doing things that interest you. Maybe join a local amateur sports team.

If you like things, how do you like them? making them? collecting them? both? Here again, there are places you can go and/or stuff you can buy and play with - since you apparently aren't entirely lacking in funds.

Same with animals. Work on/buy a farm or ranch, consider raising alpacas, volunteer at an animal shelter, whatever.

Or travel, explore. Even if your budget is limited, you can travel virtually for free these days.

Grow things, even if it's just a balcony garden. Draw, craft, become an Internet curmudgeon - there's no expertise required beyond what you claim for yourself. Since you're already cooking, tune into some of the cooking shows on TV/Internet and learn how to cook like a pro from the pro's.

Become an artist - people will think you're unemployed anyway. Buy a 3d printer and play with it. Sculpt, paint, bend wire, draw, make art using chainsaws and/or explosives.

If you're depressed, and can't explore, then you can spend your time and money talking to mental health professionals. It's good for the economy.

It's a big world and there are plenty of things to do. Finding a direction and getting started is the hard part.

Re: You may not "quit working"

[fahrbot-bot]

My experience, at first was cool, it was something new. Quickly wore off, now I'm at the point where I only interact with family and 1 friend IRL and I find myself feeling deeply depressed. I have no goals, no motives, and that's just no life to live. I wake up feeling sad, like another day of nothing. I love going to sleep because I get a break from my boring life. I truly believe this experiment has left me with clinical depression. When I worked I was never this sad. Never was my sleep schedule so off when I worked.

I'm in a similar position, though not of my choosing, and completely understand what you mean. I'm 53, debt-free and financially independent for my current and foreseeable future (looking 50+years out) according to my budget, even without a job, so don't need to work. I still do work 3/4 to full time because I think I'd be bored and have also never been w/o a job. I'm in this position because I was very happily married to a wonderful woman, who was 19 years older than me, for 20 years and we lived responsibly accounting for the fact that she would retire before me. Instead, she died, literally in my arms, of a brain tumor in Jan 2006, just seven weeks after diagnosis. I'm still a bit lost and without direction because she was all that really mattered... The only thing I can really disagree with you is that my experience was never cool.

Remember Sue...

Re: You may not "quit working"

[butchersong]

This is why I farm even though it isn't super profitable. When you have a lot of land there is always something to do and you get plenty of daily exercise. You can setup experiments for different fields, work on optimizing breeds of livestock for your climate and needs, decide you need a new pond or you try out new direct marketing strategies... you're never bored.

There's "work" and then there is "work"

[Anonymous Coward]

I suggest you watch that last Family Guy episode where Stewie takes a job at a printing company. That's the average persons job. No rich person would tolerate that kind of work for 5 minutes. What rich people call work the rest of us call "a dream come true." I'll happily do Jeff Bezo's job for 25 cents an hour.

Re:There's "work" and then there is "work"

[ErichTheRed]

"That's understandable, but quite naive. There are plenty of executives with grey hairs from constant pressure and worrying."

Having worked at a bunch of big companies, and having done IT support for executives, I disagree. The only thing executives have to worry about is being the public cheerleader for the company. Their lives are immeasurably enriched by the company's resources. It looks like very nice work if you can get it. In many cases, executives "work" on the boards of many companies, and receive salary/perks from each one. Things I can think of that they have access to include "forgiven" loans for personal real estate purchases, corporate jets, and basically every personal expense paid for by the company in one form or another.

Even smaller business owners are much better off than the average wage-earner. All of a business owners' personal expenses can be funneled through the business, resulting in a much lower tax burden. The owner's business can own all their houses, cars, etc. as assets.

"The common employee lives a more comfortable, relatively worry-free, sheltered life without having to worry whether his labor will bring in a salary."

See basically every offshoring/H-1B replacement worker story out there. The common employee is seen by the executive class as disposable. That's not a worry-free lifestyle. Common employees have to worry about paying their bills, something an executive will never worry about.

Exception

[slipped_bit]

I'll be the exception.

The Interest of Science

[colinrichardday]

I don't know if sudden wealth has that effect, but in the interest of science, I'm willing to find out.

Re:The Interest of Science

[Oswald McWeany]

We're glad you feel that way and are willing to donate your entire wealth, along with other donors, to someone in order to test if they continue working.

Thank you,

- Science

One reason:

[JamesTRexx]

If you do what you love, you'll never work a day in your life.
-Marc Anthony

Re:One reason:

[networkBoy]

for about 17 years that was my case.
I recently was laid off as my team moved to Israel (among other things) but in fact I felt like I was paid money to go play all day.
I only *worked* maybe 4-8 hours a month (meetings... ick), the rest of the time I did things I found so engaging and fun that I would often forget to take breaks, go to lunch, go home... I literally had to set an alarm on my computer to remind me of such things.

Re:So...

[bluefoxlucid]

I've seen people hit the lottery for $5 million, quit their job, and come back in a year poor. I can retire on a tenth of that, even planning for long-term inflation.

I'd definitively still work

[Sebby]

Though I would probably switch careers, or potentially simply get involve more in my hobbies, or else pursue things I've not had time to. But in the end, I'd definitively still be 'working' - I would just have the luxury of choosing exactly what that work would be, at any moment.

Re:I'd definitively still work

[Solandri]

Pretty much everyone I know who is extremely wealthy ($250k/yr+ including three guys making over $1 million/yr) is a workaholic. If they find they have some free time, they don't go to the beach or watch TV or read slashdot like you and I would do. They use it to do more work. Whether that's their personality or because they just happened to find a job they love to do, they enjoy working so much that their spouses have a hard time dragging them away from it long enough just to go on vacation with the kids. That's what the wife of one of the $1+ million/yr guys complained to me about when I stayed at their house for a weekend. She kept having to pull phones, tablets, laptops out of his hands during their vacation because he kept trying to work. Eventually she conceded and let him work for a few hours each evening back at the hotel, in exchange for him not doing anything work-related the rest of the day while they were sightseeing with the kids.

Most people probably believe rich people are like the stereotype of the fat cat banker who works 4 hours and takes off to play golf the rest of the day, because that's what they fantasize being rich is like. But the rich people I've met are the exact opposite of that. Another of the over $1 million/yr persons I know epitomizes TFA. His family (landlord for my business) owns a good chunk of the land in Southern California and they probably pull in several hundred $million/yr in lease and rental fees. It's all passive income so they don't have to lift a finger, but he works pro bono as an accountant for the city he lives in, often putting in 10-12 hour workdays. (The third one works 8 hr/day at his law practice, then goes home and helps run his wife's business the rest of the evening.)

Nonsense.

[ScentCone]

The notion that there's no correlation between the paycheck and satisfaction is absurd. How many people would keep enjoying those "peer relationships" at the office if their paycheck was cut to 10%?

For the VERY SMALL number of people who have a had a large windfall but continue to do higher-level executive work, it is indeed the labor-of-love thing, or the awareness that what they know and can do can generate even more piles of money so they can do things like ... start rocket companies, etc.

But those are vanishingly infrequent circumstances. The average or even upper-middle-class employee may not describe their salary as THE thing that makes them happy, but you can bet that if it was slashed to the bone, it would be the thing that makes them unhappy.

Re:Nonsense.

[Actually, I do RTFA]

The notion that there's no correlation between the paycheck and satisfaction is absurd.

There's research that shows that there's a point where your salary desire is sated, and more money while nice ceases to be the primary reason you work. In other words, once people are compensated at 100k/year they are more likely to be motivated by ping-pong tables and free soda type perks than 101k/year, even if the 1k is worth more.

Obviously, the majority of people have not hit that level yet.

Re:Nonsense.

[AuMatar]

I'd pick free sodas over 1K per year. I drink a lot of diet coke, and I don't want to have to remember to buy a 6 pack ever morning. Even if I come up slightly behind in dollars the convenience factor is more than worth it.

Or course not.

[Qbertino]

This is quite obvious and has been covered since the days of ancient Greece.
I've said it before.
Humans need to feel love, a sense of competence and a sense of purpose.
The amount of money you get beyond roughly 75 000 Euros per year has near to no influence on your happiness.
In fact, if you tie your happiness to riches, you'll get depressed quite soon, even if you don't lose your wealth.

I'd probably work even more if I'd win the lottery.
Albeit on projects that I fund myself because I care about them.

Re:Or course not.

[jareth-0205]

Bullshit. The guy earning 100,000,000 Euros a year is happier than the guy earning 75,000 Euros. Why? Because he can lose his job at anytime, or choose to work on something else, or retire. The 75,000 Euro guy doesn't have that luxury. He NEEDS his job.

Pretty much your every post on this subject starts with "bullshit", which almost no actual justification.

Try to understand that not everybody is made happy solely by money (or stability). Being able to do *anything* is in itself a stress. Ever felt guilty about not doing anything on a lazy Sunday? Imagine that for the rest of your life.

Re:Or course not.

[UnknownSoldier]

I'm calling bullshit on your bullshit.

You are so focused on the destination that you forget the journey is even more important.

For every rich person I could show you 10x poor people who are far happier. There are people who have absolute NOTHING that far happier then the rich guy who has to constantly worry about how to keep and increase his wealth, how his financial portfolio is doing, that his trophy wife is spending more then he can make, etc.

Money != Happiness, although it can buy a little temporary pleasure.

Life is what you make of it, not what you got. Money only provides the potential to enjoy more freedoms, and pursue new interests.

At the end of the day, the amount of money STILL does't satisfy the soul's deep need to create. Any true artist wants to have their art appreciated. The money is just a convenience to be able to KEEP doing the same thing.

My first love is coding. There is no amount of money that could even come close to replacing it. Because regardless of how much I have or don't have I STILL want to write great code.

Re:Or course not.

[lgw]

The amount of money you get beyond roughly 75 000 Euros per year has near to no influence on your happiness.

Presumptuous of you to speak for others.

What you're talking about is the "utility curve" - the increased happiness that increased money brings is not linear. It's often more than 1:1 when you're broke, and much less than 1:1 when you have a lot. But different people have different curves.

When you apply mathematics to investment decisions, you have to allow for the individual's utility curve before you can really plan anything (and many people don't know, of course). x^-2? x^-3? log(x)?

And obviously the more dependents you have, the more you need with any curve.

Re:So...

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think you can retire on $500k, especially given the fact that the government is getting ready to slash the social safety net and SS and Medicare. I don't think I'd attempt it for less than $2m. Remember you are going to be on the hook for your own health care.

Re:So...

[Oswald McWeany]

I've seen people hit the lottery for $5 million,

I'd like you to introduce me to some of your friends.

Re:So...

[gsslay]

This is a common story, particularly among those who have been poor their entire life. It's all down to a mind set. If you have never had much money, money is something that you spend. Either simply on living, or on luxuries before it gets eaten away by basic expenses. Money is not something you consider long-term and save or invest. But if you're used to having money above that of living expenses, money is something you are used to planning about. You don't go straight out and spend it.

It's not about "not working"

[phorm]

It's about doing what I want to work on. If I were suddenly flush in cash I could go back to school for stuff I want to learn, afford to build a full shop with the tools I want to work with, and not worry that "failure=lose house" if I wanted to start my own business

Lottery

[Rik Sweeney]

If I ever won the lottery, I'd still go to work every day, and make sure my work colleagues knew that I'd won the lottery and didn't actually need to ever work again.

Why? Because it'd really piss them off.

Re:Lottery

[Major Blud]

If I ever won the lottery

I know what I'd do. Two chicks at the same time.

Re:So...

[cayenne8]

I read these things and I'm dumbfounded.

If I hit the lottery and had enough money where I'd never need to work again, I'd leave work so fast I'd leave skid marks out the door!!

I frankly don't know if I'd even notify them I was leaving I might just never return....

Ok, I'd tell them, I'm not *that* much an ass, but it illustrates my feelings.

I work for one and ONLY ONE reason, to make money to support the style of life I enjoy when not working. Period, cut dried simple.

If I had enough money to never have to work again, I would not. I have PLENTY of things I'd rather be doing with my time. I have lots of hobbies....I'd like to spend time traveling, doing photography, chasing women, etc.

I just don't get it why anyone would still work if they didn't have to.

I've heard of people that for some reason, associate their self identity with their work...and I've actually seen this happen, often to older men who retire and just seem to lose part of themselves. I thought, however that this was mainly the product of older generations.

But my work, and I made a very decent living, is purely mercenary. I don't care about the work, other than doing it of as high quality I can to get paid for it. If the customer is happy, then they pay me and keep me around.That's it. I have no love for my work or vocation.

I'd certainly NOT be doing any of this at all if I didn't have to do it for a living.

I just can't imagine the mindset of someone, that could not find the world entertaining enough, to find things to do if they had their fiscal needs met for a lifestyle they like, and not have to work any more.

It depends on who you are

[houghi]

I have been without work for 2 years in a row twice and the only reason I went back to work was money. I would have had money, I sure would have not gone to work. That does not mean that I was sitting on my sofa eating nachos. I just did more of what I wanted to do when I wanted to it.

Ask people what they do in their free time and they will come up with "Movies, hanging out with friends and fitness". None of these are things you can do all day for a longer period of time (months on end) and the friends part will be limited as they work and will not be available most of the time.

So I do believe that many people would go back to work, but not because of money, but because of boredom and lack of fantasy.

So what did I do? I spend a lot more time with Open Source. No, I do not want to do that as a job as I would want to do my hooby in my free time.

It's about ego and power

[Maavin]

When you have that kind of money that the billionaires mentioned have, it's not about money anymore, it's about power.

Re:So...

[networkBoy]

no one said you'd keep your *same* job.
I'd still work (in fact I do have a "win the lottery" fiscal plan, even though I only play when the pot odds are at .90 or better), but it'd be working on stuff that interests me and that would be at least break even. If possible I'd hire on a couple of my mates that are in the same line of interest and start a small company, predominately to stay busy.

Re:So...

[Anonymous Coward]

I find comments (and internet articles) like this interesting. There are so many people out there who are dirt poor and somehow manage to live through retirement. I know that people in the world are increasingly more material and require more money but somehow, the majority are getting by without having millions or even 100s of thousands saved for retirement.

The same thing goes with the cost of raising kids. Studies will tell you that you need tons of money to raise a kid but somehow, my parents raised 9 of us and they didn't spend the millions that studies suggest they would have needed.

How much money does it take to retire (or raise a kid)? It costs however much you want to spend on it. (Which is different than however much the next guy is going to spend).

Re:So...

[Frobnicator]

If I hit the lottery and had enough money where I'd never need to work again, I'd leave work so fast I'd leave skid marks out the door!! ... I work for one and ONLY ONE reason, to make money to support the style of life I enjoy when not working. ... I have lots of hobbies....I'd like to spend time traveling, doing photography, chasing women, etc. ... I just don't get it why anyone would still work if they didn't have to. ... I have no love for my work or vocation.

There are plenty of reasons to continue working.

Let's say you win $5M. After taxes you get about $2.5M. Assuming you're in your 30's that gives you 50K per year, except that when you account for inflation you are probably closer to 30K or 20K per year when you get old. Which will suck. So even if you get lucky and have an enormous windfall, you will want to spend it slowly. Maybe pay off your current house or get a slight upgrade, and perhaps step up to a 2017 model year car. You'll want to spend it slow enough that when you reach old age you can still pay for everything. Financial planning is important.

As for reasons to continue working, you get social aspects, there are benefits like insurance benefits in countries that have private insurance (an area where USA sucks), there is a constant mental challenge. The work environment is not only about income. There are many mental / psychological / social benefits as well.

I also know several people who became rich through various means. None of them work full time or put in overtime, they end up working 20 to 30 hours each week, and they take frequent extended vacations, but they are still working. You mention photography. If that is your true passion in life then it might become your new part-time job.

If you're looking for a notable example of this, Minecraft's Notch, Markus Persson, wrote that after becoming a multi-billionaire selling Minecraft his life became a living hell. His social life was destroyed because money effected everything, he didn't have his work or his life passion, he spends time waiting for his friends (who have jobs and families) to have time, and he occasionally writes here on reddit about his struggles to keep his life interesting or feeling motivated to keep his life filled with interesting things.

Personally, if somehow my bank account had 9 or 10 figures I know I would still keep my job, but instead of a 40 hour work week it would probably become a MWF 10-3 kind of job. Enough that I could keep my sanity and my social benefits, and enough it would still make me emotionally value my free time.

Re:So...

[DiSKiLLeR]

What? You're literally reconfirming what the parent said.

Poor people, when they win the lottery, spend it all, and end up broke within a year or two.
Rich people, when they win the lottery, don't change much (if anything) about their lifestyle. They most likely just reinvest all the winnings.

Don't forget ego

[tomhath]

Whether they're politicians, business executives, athletes, or entertainment celebrities - people at the top of the food chain crave money and power. Bezos, Zuckerberg, Clinton, Trump, Ballmer, LeBron, whoever - they won't give up the ego boost unless they are forced to.

Re:So...

[Anonymous Coward]

I hit the proverbial startup lottery to the tune of ~$12M two years ago (was very early employee at a company that eventually IPOed). I'm still gainfully employed in the same job I had before. Dunno what else to do with myself. Have a wife and kids and just don't like the prospect of quitting and doing fuck all. Might eventually start my own company at some point, but haven't figured out what I'd do yet.

To be honest, you'd be surprised how much things go back to normal in terms of your psychology and long-term plans if you can make it through the first year post-windfall without doing anything foolish (which I mostly did).

I can honestly say I'm no happier or fulfilled now than I was before this happened, though I live in a slightly larger house that I own (instead of rent) and I drive a newer car. The financial things I worry about are shifted as I no longer have to worry about saving for college or a house, but all the other things in my life are mostly unchanged and still present challenges (e.g. getting along with spouse, worrying about kids development, losing weight, staying healthy).

Now that I've been on both sides, I can say that money doesn't solve a lot of problems, but when we don't have much, we tend to assume it will solve more problems than it actually does.

Re:So...

[bluefoxlucid]

If I had enough money to never have to work again, I would not. I have PLENTY of things I'd rather be doing with my time. I have lots of hobbies....I'd like to spend time traveling, doing photography, chasing women, etc.

In three years, you'd have already spent five or ten million on expensive traveling, expensive high-end cameras you can afford now, and so forth. Then you'd be poor and broke.

The last people I saw show back up at work in just 2 years had a 9 month stint in Europe.

Re:So...

[bluefoxlucid]

Let's say you win $5M. After taxes you get about $2.5M.

You take it as an annuity and record it as income of at least $18,000 plus 2% inflation (so at least 40,000 over 40 years). That $18,000 goes into a 401(k), either by satellite employment or by creating a sole proprietorship and financing yourself. With an SP, you can put up to $120k into your 401(k) as a 100% match of your declared salary to yourself.

When you reach retirement age and take it out, you pay retirement-age taxes on it. That's usually less, notably because that $18,000 is the top of your tax bracket, and it comes off the bottom of an inflated bracket. For us non-lotto-winners making e.g. $60k-$100k, the top $18k faces 25% in Federal taxes excluding social security; in retirement, the bottom tax bracket will be $20k instead of $9k for today's new entrants, so they'll put $18k in and save 25% on it, then take $50k out at a rate of $12k x 0% (standard deduction, single, 2060) + $20k x 10% + $18k x 15%.

Re:I'm still working

[davecb]

I already had to make that decision. I have enough money that I could take early retirement, so now I only work for organizations I actually like. That means I end up doing things like six months pro-bono for a leadership campaign, and then three years with a start-up, because they were inherently worth doing. Now I'm with a hardware company, because I love their product.

Re:So...

[lgw]

5% after-tax return is more htan most people manage while drawing down an account. 5% is easy when you putting money in, because dollar-cost averaging makes volatility your friend, so you can make higher returns by accepting higher volatility. That totally doesn't work when you're removing money each month - you need to be in stable income investments (which is 2-3% now, basically inflation) or actually be good at juggling stocks and bonds and guessing where the economy is going.

Also, right now if your over 60 but not yet getting Medicre, health insurance will run you $12-15k, and that's just barebones insurance. $18k is a more realistic budget for those years (and everything will change when Trump changes Obamacare, so it's hard to budget at all).

It's one thing living on $25 when you're 24, but it's not happening when you're 64.

Re:So...

[__aaclcg7560]

There are so many people out there who are dirt poor and somehow manage to live through retirement.

How many of those people deliberately planned to live "dirt poor" in retirement? Not many.

After my mother passed away from breast cancer, my father sold everything and bought a trailer home for $10,000 and paid $400 per month for trailer spot. He lived on his $1,000 per month pension, banked his $1,000 per month Social Security benefits for eight years. When he was diagnosed with throat cancer and died six weeks later, all the money he saved from Social Security paid his hospital bills and funeral expenses.

For my father, this was an ideal retirement as he died with no debts and wasn't a financial burden to the family. For my older brother, he thought it was embarrassing that his step-father died poor from not pursuing the American Dream of having it all. For me, I thought my father was a perfect example of living a modest lifestyle.

Re:So...

[Cro Magnon]

Right now, I'm healthy. Will I still be healthy in 10 years? 20? 30??

Re:So...

[MitchDev]

Also depends on your lifestyle and how much waste you have in it.

You don't need a new iPhone/Galaxy every year. You don't need $100+ dollar a month cell/smartphone plans. You don't need cable subscriptions to every channel in the universe... a lot of "How much do I need to retire?" questions need to be scrutinized through the lens of "What kind of lifestyle do you expect to have?"

Re:So...

[khallow]

. I don't think I'd attempt it for less than $2m. Remember you are going to be on the hook for your own health care.

Save four times as much just so you can burn it on the most unproductive health care on Earth? I bet two million dollars would buy me a very pretty pyramid.

Re:So...

[Jason Levine]

I think this is the key. If you're poor or middle class, you work at whatever will pay the bills. If you enjoy your job, that's a bonus, but you don't always have this luxury. If you were to become rich (and assuming you didn't just squander your newfound wealth away), you might still work but it would be only on stuff you enjoyed doing.

For example, I like my job as a web developer and I recognize that I'm lucky enough to like my job when many other people don't. However, if money were no object, I'd probably hang up my web dev toolkit and commit to writing full time. Unfortunately, said writing doesn't currently pay the bills so I can't just quit my job because I've published a novel and am working on my second one. Whether I'm rich or poor, I wouldn't be sitting around doing nothing. I'd still be working. It's just WHAT I'd be doing that would change.

Re:So...

[pnutjam]

Whose going to retire in 20 or 30 years? We'll all be busy fighting over who runs Bartertown.

Re:So...

[cayenne8]

In three years, you'd have already spent five or ten million on expensive traveling, expensive high-end cameras you can afford now, and so forth. Then you'd be poor and broke.

No, not really.,

I'm pretty much debt free....

And honestly, I own just about most everything I want for the most part. Sure, I"d buy a new camera or lens here and there, but while pricey they don't break the bank. I buy them now, just make it 1-3 purchases a year.

But if I took home say, $5M in cash....in vested it and made 2.5% interest, that would be $125K a year.

Being debt free, I could easily live comfortable on that the rest of my days.

Actually with me being a bit older these days, it would be more than that annually...and again, I could easily live on that, have my toys and never run out of money or have to work again.

As far as travel, thinking about it....with all the terrorist crap going on in the world, etc....there are PLENTY of place for me to travel in the US that would keep me well entertained, and I'd never even have to ponder leaving the mainland.

I might hit some caribbean spots, but that's about it I think.

No, I'm not one of those that would blow it.

I could live VERY easily on $125K a year in New Orleans and be quite happy the rest of my days and not have to work again if it happened.

"Retirement"

[bluegutang]

Retirement doesn't mean you stop working.

It means you stop choosing your work based on the salary. (So you switch to a more rewarding job, or you pursue a hobby full-time, or you hang around the house - whatever feels best to you.)

In a real sense, those tech CEOs with billions ARE retired.

Re:So...

[fahrbot-bot]

... and he occasionally writes here on reddit ...

Um, I know things have slipped a bit here in recent years, but this is actually /. :-)

[ But I wouldn't mind a link to some of his threads so I can read what he's written. ]

Re:So...

[asylumx]

Quit thinking of it as income, and instead think of it as spending. $25k is actually a decent amount of spending each year (over $2k/mo). I mean, if you're not working then you don't need to live in a big city with high cost of living, and you don't need any long commute (which means not much expensive gas, or maintenance on an expensive car) because where are you going to commute to? You don't have to be in a rush to do everything anymore. Take your time -- walk, ride your bike. You have time to cook your own fresh dinner so no need to eat out all the time. Think about it, what are you going to be spending all your money on?

Re:So...

[Enigma2175]

They talk about a 4% draw down on your investments during retirement in order to not run out of money too early ...
I plan to retire at 55, but only if I can get closer to 5M in equity investments.

Really, you need $200,000 per year in retirement to be comfortable? That seems like a hell of a lot. I guess it depends on what your current standard of living is but that is around four times the median household income in the US, and people in retirement often have lower expenses than working people (kids have generally grown, house is often paid off, etc.). I am planning on retiring early but with nowhere near that war chest, probably closer to $1M in investments for a $40k annual income. Once Social Security kicks in it will just be extra income on top of the investment income. I am just not willing to exchange further years of my life for extra money at the end of it, I would rather retire when I still have the physical and mental ability to enjoy it.

Re:So...

[Pfhorrest]

There are lot of people out there who are dirt poor, old, and just barely surviving by a thread, and only thanks to the sliver of social safety net we still have left. My parents are both among them, with my dad living in a falling-apart trailer on land that he's constantly on the verge of losing for tax or inspection reasons, and my mom drifting from one shithole bedroom shared with two other people to another. They've both got flaws that I could blame them both for their own circumstances, but then they also both made plenty of money in their prime, I'm told money comparable to what I'm making now, which the statistics tell me is about twice what the median individual American makes (or about the median American household). I live in a tiny trailer myself to save on rent, live a lifestyle that everyone I know describes as too cheap (refraining from buying fairly ordinary things most people have that "I can afford" but don't strictly need because having that money in the future is more important) and save pretty much every other paycheck, frantically trying to avoid their fate, but when I do the math I'm still not sure it's going to work out. If I'm lucky, our social safety nets will still exist when the time comes, and my own preparation will actually make for a nice retirement, but I'm not counting on it -- and if I lived like my parents, I'd probably starve or die of exposure at their age. And they're not even retirement age yet!

Most people die miserable in poverty and you have to be filthy stinking "rich" to have any hope of avoiding that.

Re:So...

[__aaclcg7560]

The trick to life is to run out of money and die at exactly the same time [...]

I've noticed that whenever someone dies, relatives throw out 99.9% of their worldly possessions. So I'm doing my relatives a favor by throwing out everything I own and keeping a bare minimum of possessions for daily life.

Re:So...

[TheRaven64]

There's an old saying: money doesn't buy happiness, but it makes misery a lot more comfortable.

Re:So...

[PPalmgren]

Money put into an eligible retirement plan like a 401k is referred to as 'deferred compensation.' Because the compensation is deferred to a later date, there's no income tax when you put it in but you pay taxes when you take it out.

Re:So...

[Pfhorrest]

Because the only reason to live anywhere in an enormous geographical area is because your job is there, and not because you, like tens of millions of other people, were born and raised there and all your family and friends and loved ones and your entire life is there?

Why don't all retired Brits leave the UK and move to eastern Europe somewhere that it's much cheaper? That's about the same scale we're talking here.