Should retirement fund be equal to amount of money needed for financial independence?
"It depends what you mean. Finance Independence and Retirement Early (FI/RE) are two overlapping ideas. If you plan to retire early and spend the same amount of money every year (adjusted for inflation), then you need to save twenty-times your yearly spending to satisfy the 4% Safe Withdrawal rule of thumb. Carefully notice I say ""yearly spending"" and not income.  I'm unaware how it is in Pakistan, but in America, people who retire in their sixties tend to reduce their spending by 30%. This is for a host of reasons like not eating out as much, not driving to work, paid off mortgages, and their children being adults now. In this type of profile, a person needs to save 17.5x yearly spending. This numbers presume a person will only use their built assets as an income source. Any programs like a government pension acting as a safety net. If you factor those in, the estimates above become smaller." I want to know ideally how much should a person save for retirement   funds? A person should save enough such that your total retirement resources will equal the amount you personally need for a comfortable retirement at the point in time when the person desires to retire. If you want to retire at 40, you may need to save quite a lot each year. If you want to retire at 70, you may need to save less each year. If you will have a pension, you may wish to save somewhat less than someone who won't have a pension. The same is true for Social Security (or your local equivalent). I am getting a feeling retirement funds is equal to financial   independence because one can live without needing to borrow money from   anyone. Sort of, but it depends on your goals. Some who are financially independent never choose to retire, but choose jobs without regard to financial need.
The 20x number is drawn directly from the assumption that it should be easy to get more than 4% average return on investment. After lots of historical studies,  Monte Carlo simulations, and the like there was a consensus that saving more didn't significantly increase the odds of achieving at least the desired yearly income sustainably. (That's the same calculations the insurance firms use as the starting point for writing annuities.) There are also some assumptions about inflation and its interaction with the market built into this rule-of-thumb. Note that this is 20x what you want as post-retirement income, not necessarily 20x your current income. I have a moderately frugal lifestyle, And my budget confirms that my actual spending -- even in years when I allow myself a splurge -- is well below my current income, with the excess going into the investments. To sustain my lifestyle, I need that lower number plus any taxes that'll be due on it plus whatever I want to allocate as average emergency reserve... and theoretically I should be able to base the 20x on that lower number. When I run estimates (Quicken has a tool for this, so does my credit union, I  presume others are widely available), they tend to confirm this. I'm still using the higher number for planning, though. I don't feel any need to retire early (though I have issues with my current manager), and I have no objection at all to being able to afford better toys on occasion. Or to leaving a legacy to friends, relatives, and/or charity. But it's nice to know exactly when I could punt the day job if I wanted to. A person who always saves and appropriately invests 20% of their income can expect to have a secure retirement. If you start early enough, you don't need anything close to 20%. Now, there are many good reasons to save for things other than just retirement, of course. You say that you can save 80% of your income, and you expect most people could save at least 50% without problems. That's just unrealistic for most people. Taxes, rent (or mortgage payments), utilities, food, and other such mandatory expenses take far more than 50% of your income. Most people simply don't have the ability to save (or invest) 50% of their income. Or even 25% of their income. As a general rule, diversification means carrying sufficient amounts in cash equivalents, stocks, bonds, and real estate.   An emergency fund should have six months income (conservative) or expenses (less conservative) in some kind of cash equivalent (like a savings account).  As you approach retirement, that number should increase.  At retirement, it should be something like five years of expenses.  At that time, it is no longer an emergency fund, it's your everyday expenses.  You can use a pension or social security to offset your effective monthly expenses for the purpose of that fund.  You should five years net expenses after income in cash equivalents after retirement.   The normal diversification ratio for stocks, bonds, and real estate is something like 60% stocks, 20% bonds, and 20% real estate.  You can count the equity in your house as part of the real estate share.  For most people, the house will be sufficient diversification into real estate.   That said, you should not buy a second home as an investment.  Buy the second home if you can afford it and if it makes you happy.  Then consider if you want to keep your first home as an investment or just sell it now.   Look at your overall ownership to determine if you are overweighted into real estate.  Your primary house is not an investment, but it is an ownership.  If 90% of your net worth is real estate, then you are probably underinvested in securities like stocks and bonds.  50% should probably be an upper bound, and 20% real estate would be more diversified.   If your 401k has an employer match, you should almost certainly put enough in it to get the full match.   I prefer a ratio of 70-75% stocks to 25-30% bonds at all ages.  This matches the overall market diversification.  Rebalance to stay in that range regularly, possibly by investing in the underweight security.  Adding real estate to that, my preference would be for real estate to be roughly a quarter of the value of securities.  So around 60% stocks, 20% bonds, and 20% real estate.  A 50% share for real estate is more aggressive but can work.   Along with a house or rental properties, another option for increasing the real estate share is a Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT).  These are essentially a mutual fund for real estate.  This takes you out of the business of actively managing properties.   If you really want to manage rentals, make sure that you list all the expenses.  These include:   Also be careful that you are able to handle it if things change.  Perhaps today there is a tremendous shortage of rental properties and the vacancy rate is close to zero.  What happens in a few years when new construction provides more slack?   Some kinds of maintenance can't be done with tenants.  Also, some kinds of maintenance will scare away new tenants.  So just as you are paying out a large amount of money, you also aren't getting rent.  You need to be able to handle the loss of income and the large expense at the same time.   Don't forget the sales value of your current house.  Perhaps you bought when houses were cheaper.  Maybe you'd be better off taking the current equity that you have in that house and putting it into your new house's mortgage.  Yes, the old mortgage payment may be lower than the rent you could get, but the rent over the next thirty years might be less than what you could get for the house if you sold it.  Are you better off with minimal equity in two houses or good equity with one house?   I would feel better about this purchase if you were saying that you were doing this in addition to your 401k.  Doing this instead of your 401k seems sketchy to me.  What will you do if there is another housing crash?  With a little bad luck, you could end up underwater on two mortgages and unable to make payments.  Or perhaps not underwater on the current house, but not getting much back on a sale either.   All that said, maybe it's a good deal.  You have more information about it than we do.  Just...be careful. "The standard interpretation of ""can I afford to retire"" is ""can I live on just the income from my savings, never touching the principal."" To estimate that, you need to make reasonable guesses about the return you expect, the rate of inflation, your real costs -- remember to allow for medical emergencies, major house repairs, and the like when determining you average needs, not to mention taxes if this isn't all tax-sheltered! -- and then build in a safety factor. You said liquid assets, and that's correct; you don't want to be forced into a reverse mortgage by anything short of a disaster. An old rule of thumb was that -- properly invested -- you could expect about 4% real return after subtracting inflation. That may or may not still be correct, but it makes an easy starting point. If we take your number of $50k/year (today's dollars) and assume you've included all the tax and contingency amounts, that means your nest egg needs to be 50k/.04, or $1,250,000. (I'm figuring I need at least $1.8M liquid assets to retire.) The $1.5M you gave would, under this set of assumptions, allow drawing up to $60k/year, which gives you some hope that your holdings would mot just maintain themselves but grow, giving you additional buffer against emergencies later. Having said that: some folks have suggested that, given what the market is currently doing, it might be wiser to assume smaller average returns. Or you may make different assumptions about inflation, or want a larger emergency buffer. That's all judgement calls, based on your best guesses about the economy in general and your investments in particular.  A good financial advisor (not a broker) will have access to better tools for exploring this, using techniques like monte-carlo simulation to try to estimate both best and worst cases, and can thus give you a somewhat more reliable answer than this rule-of-thumb approach. But that's still probabilities, not promises. Another way to test it: Find out how much an insurance company would want as the price of an open-ended inflation-adjusted $50k-a-year annuity. Making these estimates is their business; if they can't make a good guess, nobody can. Admittedly they're also factoring the odds of your dying early into the mix, but on the other hand they're also planning on making a profit from the deal, so their number might be a reasonable one for ""self-insuring"" too. Or might not. Or you might decide that it's worth buying an annuity for part or all of this, paying them to absorb the risk. In the end, ""ya pays yer money and takes yer cherce.""" I think rather than take a percentage out, I focus on getting a total amount I consider appropriate for my emergency fund.  Then as for retirement, I do at least what my employer matches, up to the contribution limit.  For example my personal retirement plan in the US has an annual max contribution of $5000. Once I have my 6 to 12 month emergency fund (in a pretty liquid form) and a fully funded retirement, I want to concentrate on building wealth via investments or increasing the quality of my life by spending. Summary answer is:  no percentage for emergency, just get to a total amount you feel comfortable.  Then whatever percentage will allow you to make the most of employer matching and make your retirement fully funded. "What does this mean and how do you do it? Consider that there are may be more than a few different objectives when it comes to investing: Each of these is a different objective that can have different timelines, objectives for the money as well as possible accounts and investment choices. In a sense the question could be stated as ""How much money do you need and when do you need it?"" Is it trying to figure out how much money you hope to have for   retirement, or does it include short term expenses The objective could be retirement but doesn't have to be. The short term expenses can be included in various ways. The retirement funds could include what kind of method would be used to make sure expenses can be met as if one is looking at retirement just a few years away the ""short term expenses"" may come up as part of the retirement living." "My suggestion would be that you're looking at this the wrong way, though for good reasons.  Once you are a family, you should - and, in most cases I've seen, will - think of things differently than you do now. Right now, your post above is written from a selfish perspective.  Not to be insulting, and not implying selfish is a bad thing - I don't mean it negatively.  But it is how you're defining this problem: from a self-interested, selfish point of view.  ""Fair"" and ""unfair"" only have meaning from this point of view; something can only be unfair to you if you come from a self-centered viewpoint. Try to think of this from a family-centric viewpoint, and from your significant other's point of view. You're absolutely right to want both of you to be independent financially as far as is possible; but think about what that means from all three points of view (your family's, yours, and hers)? Exactly what it means will depend on the two of you separately and together, but I would encourage you to start with a few basics that make it likely you'll find a common ground: First of all, ensure your significant other has a retirement account of her own that is funded as well as yours is.  This will both make life easier if you split up, and give her a safety net if something happens to you than if you have all of the retirement savings.  I don't know how your country manages pensions or retirement accounts, but figure out how to get her into something that is as close to equal to yours as possible. Make sure both of you have similar quality credit histories.  You should both have credit cards in your own names (or be true joint owners of the accounts, not just authorized users, where that is possible), and both be on the mortgage/etc. when possible.  This is a common issue for women whose spouse dies young and who have no credit history.  (Thanks @KateGregory for reminding me on this one) Beyond that, work out how much your budget allows for in spending money for the two of you, and split that equally.  This spending money (i.e., ""fun money"" or money you can do whatever you like with) is what is fundamentally important in terms of financial independence: if you control most of the extra money, then you're the one who ultimately has control over much (vacations, eating out, etc.) and things will be strained.  This money should be equal - whether it is literally apportioned directly (each of you has 200 a month in an account) or simply budgeted for with a common account is up to you, whatever works best for your personal habits; separate accounts works well for many here to keep things honest. When that money is accounted for, whatever it is, split the rest of the bills up so that she pays some of them from her income.  If she wants to be independent, some of that is being in the habit of paying bills on time.  One of you paying all of the bills is not optimal since it means the other will not build good habits.  For example, my wife pays the warehouse club credit card and the cell phone bill, while I pay the gas/electric utilities. Whatever doesn't go to spending money and doesn't go to the bills she's personally responsible for or you're responsible for (from your paycheck) should go to a joint account.  That joint account should pay the larger bills - mortgage/rent, in particular - and common household expenses, and both of you should have visibility on it.  For example, our mortgage, day-care costs, major credit card (which includes most of our groceries and other household expenses) come from that joint account. This kind of system, where you each have equal money to spend and each have some household responsibilities, seems the most reasonable to me: it incurs the least friction over money, assuming everyone sticks to their budgeted amounts, and prevents one party from being able to hold power over another. It's a system that seems likely to be best for the family as a unit.  It's not ""fair"" from a self-centered point of view, but is quite fair from a family-centered point of view, and that is the right point of view when you are a family, in my opinion. I'll emphasize here also that it is important that no one party hold the power, and this is set up to avoid that, but it's also important that you not use your earning power as a major arguing point in this system.  You're not ""funding her lifestyle"" or anything like that: you're supporting your family, just as she is.  If she were earning more than you, would you cut your hours and stay at home?  Trick question, as it happens; regardless of your answer to that question, you're still at the same point: both of you are doing the thing you're best suited for (or, the thing you prefer).  You're both supporting the family, just in different ways, and suggesting that your contribution is more valuable than hers is a great way to head down the road to divorce: it's also just plain incorrect.  My wife and I are in almost the identical situation - 2 kids, she works part time in the biological sciences while spending plenty of time with the kids, I'm a programmer outearning her significantly - and I can tell you that I'd more than happily switch roles if she were the bread earner, and would feel just as satisfied if not more doing so. And, I can imagine myself in that position, so I can also imagine how I'd feel in that position as far as how I value my contribution." Assume you will need to retire with a few million in the bank to maintain an average lifestyle.  I had an analysis done for me (at 33) that shows my family, to keep it up lifestyle will need to have 3.4MM in the bank so in retirement I can draw down enough cash. This number reflects inflation. Now that you are 18, if you make consistent but small savings you will achieve that financial stability.  Try to make it automatic so you aren't tempted to spend. There is more you can do but since you have such an early start, you can do less than most people and still have plenty. Even thought it is great you are thinking about it, don't forget to be young, move around lots and have fun.  Just pay yourself first and have fun second. Also, thank whoever guided you to this point.  If you did it all on your own, be proud. "No, I do not.  The advice is to take advice :-) but it is not required.  Several ""low cost"" SIPPs allow an ""Execution Only"" transfer from some pensions (generally not occupational or defined benefits schemes [where transfers are generally a bad idea anyway] but FAVCs such as mine are ok). Best Invest is one such, and the fees are indeed relatively low. As far as anyone knows, the government's plans for changes to rules on using pension funds would still apply even once I've transferred my pension pot and begun to withdraw funds (provided I don't commit myself to an annuity or other irrevocable investment). I am not a financial adviser, nor employed or otherwise connected with Best Invest, and I'm not endorsing their SIPP schemes, just giving them as an example of what can be done. [Added after I carried out my plan] I found the process very straightforward; I needed to apply for a pension fund with my new provider and fill in a transfer form, which set up the scheme and transferred the funds with no expense required.  Once the money arrived in my pension account I filled in another form to take the lump sum and set up regular withdrawals from the fund. I had my lump sum within a couple of months of initiating the transfer.  I'm very happy I did not take independent advice because it would have been very poor value for money.  During my researches I was approached eagerly by one firm promising to get me my money quick and claiming to be an independent financial advisor.  Luckily I mistrusted the service they offered." "Technically, anyone who advises how you should spend or proportion your money is a financial adviser.  A person that does it for money is a Financial Advisor (difference in spelling). Financial Advisors are people that basically build, manage, or advise on your portfolio.  They have a little more institutional knowledge on how/where to invest, given your goals, since they do it on a daily basis. They may know a little more than you since, they deal with many different assets: stocks, ETFs, mutual funds, bonds, insurances (home/health/life), REITs, options, futures, LEAPS, etc. There is risk in everything you do, which is why what they propose is generally according to the risk-level you want to assume.  Since you're younger, your risk level could be a little higher, as you approach retirement, your risk level will be lower.  Risk level should be associated with how likely you're able to reacquire your assets if you lose it all as well as, your likelihood to enjoy the fruits from your investments. Financial Advisors are great, however, be careful about them.  Some are payed on commissions, which are given money for investing in packages that they support.  Basically, they could get paid $$ for putting you in a losing situation.  Also be careful because some announce that they are fee-based - these advisers often receive fees as well as commissions.  Basically, associate the term ""commission"" with ""conflict-of-interest"", so you want a fee-only Advisor, which isn't persuaded to steer you wrong. Another thing worth noting is that some trading companies (like e*trade) has financial services that may be free, depending how much money you have with them.  Generally, $50K is on the lower end to get a Financial Advisors.  There has been corruption in the past, where Financial Advisors are only given a limited number of accounts to manage, that means they took the lower-valued ones and basically ran them into the ground, so they could get newer ones from the lot that were hopefully worth more - the larger their portfolio, the more $$ they could make (higher fees or more commissions) and subjectively less work (less accounts to have to deal with), that's subjective, since the spread of the wealth was accross many markets." The amount of money you have should be enough for you to live a safe but somewhat restricted life if you never worked again - but it could set you up for just about any sort of financial goal (short of island buying) if you do just about any amount of work. The basic math for some financial rules of thumb to keep in mind: If your money is invested in very low-risk ways, such as a money market fund, you might earn, say, 3% in interest every year. That's $36k. But, if you withdraw that $36k every year, then every year you have the same principal amount invested. And a dollar tomorrow can't buy as much as a dollar today, because of inflation. If we assume for simplicity that inflation is 1% every year, then you need to contribute an additional $12k to your principal balance every year, just so that it has the same buying power next year. This leaves you with a net $24k of interest income that you can freely spend every year, for the rest of your life, without ever touching your principal balance. If your money is invested more broadly, including equity investments [stocks], you might earn, say, 7% every year. Some years you might lose money on your investments, and would need to draw down your principal balance to pay your bills. Some years you might do quite well - but would need to remain conservative and not withdraw your 'excess' earnings every year, because you will need that 'excess' to make up for the bad years. This would leave you with about $74k of income every year before inflation, and about $62k after inflation. But, you would be taking on more risk by doing this. If you work enough to pay your daily bills, and leave your investments alone to earn 7% on average annually, then in just 10 years your money would have doubled to ~ $2.4 Million dollars. This assumes that you never save another penny, and spend everything you make. It's a level of financial security that means you could retire at a drop of the hat. And if don't start working for 20 years [which you might need to do if you spend in excess of your means and your money dries up], then the same will not be true - starting work at 45 with no savings would put you at a much greater disadvantage for financial security. Every year that you work enough to pay your bills before 'retirement' could increase your nest egg by 7% [though again, there is risk here], but only if you do it now, while you have a nest egg to invest. Now in terms of what you should do with that money, you need to ask yourself: what are your financial goals? You should think about this long and hard (and renew that discussion with yourself periodically, as your goals will change over time). You say university isn't an option - but what other ways might you want to 'invest in yourself'? Would you want to go on 'sabbatical'-type learning trips? Take a trade or learn a skill? Start a business? Do you want to live in the same place for 30 years [and thus maybe you should lock-down your housing costs by buying a house] or do you want to travel around the world, never staying in the same place twice [in which case you will need to figure out how to live cheaply and flexibly, without signing unnecessary leases]. If you want to live in the middle of nowhere eating ramen noodles and watching tv, you could do that without lifting a finger ever again. But every other financial goal you might have should be factored into your budget and work plan. And because you do have such a large degree of financial security, you have a lot of options that could be very appealing - every low paying but desirable/hard-to-get job is open to you. You can pursue your interests, even if they barely pay minimum wage, and doing so may help you ease into your new life easier than simply retiring at such a young age [when most of your peers will be heavy into their careers]. So, that is my strongest piece of advice - work now, while you're young and have motivation, so that you can dial back later. This will be much easier than the other way around. As for where you should invest your money in, look on this site for investing questions, and ultimately with that amount of money - I suggest you hire a paid advisor, who works based on an hourly consultation fee, rather than a % management fee. They can give you much more directed advice than the internet (though you should learn it yourself as well, because that will give you the best piece of mind that you aren't being taken advantage of). "I argued for a 15% rule of thumb here: Saving for retirement: How much is enough? Though if you'll let me, I'd refine the argument to: use a rule of thumb to set your minimum savings, then use Monte Carlo to stress-test and look at any special circumstances, and make a case to save more. You're right that the rule of thumb bakes in tons of assumptions (great list btw). A typical 15%-works scenario could include: If any of those big assumptions don't apply to you (or you don't want to rely on them) you'd have to re-evaluate. It sounds like you're assuming 4-5% investment returns? As you say that's probably the big difference, 4-5% is lower than most would assume. 6-7% (real return) is maybe a middle-of-the-road assumption and 8% is maybe an unrealistic one. Many of the assumptions you list (such as married/kids, cost of living, spouse's income, paying for college) can maybe be bundled up into one assumption (percentage of income you will spend). Set a percentage budget and as you go along, stay within your means by sacrificing as required. Also smooth out income across layoffs and things by having an emergency fund. By staying on-budget as you go you can remove some of the unpredictability. The reason I think the rule of thumb is still good, despite the assumptions, is that I don't think a ""more accurate"" number based on a lot of unpredictable guesses is really better; and it may even be harmful if you use it to justify saving less, or even if you use it to save far too much. See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precision_bias Many (most?) important assumptions are not predictable: investment returns, health care inflation, personal health, lifestyle creep (changing spending needs/desires), irrational investment behavior. I agree with you that for many scenarios and people, 15% will not be enough, though it's a whole lot more than most save already. In particular, low investment returns over your time horizon will make 15% insufficient, and some argue that low investment returns over the coming 30 years are likely. Without a doubt, 20% or more is safer than 15%. Do consider that ""saving enough"" is not a binary thing. If you save only 15% and it turns out that doesn't completely replace your income, it's not like you're out on the street; you might have to retire a few years later, or downsize your house, or something, but perhaps that isn't a catastrophe. There's a very personal question about how much to sacrifice now for less risk of sacrifice in the future. Maybe I'd better qualify ""not a binary thing"": some savings rates (certainly, anything less than 10%), make major sacrifices pretty likely... so in that sense there is a binary distinction between ""plausible plan"" and ""denial."" Also, precise assumptions and calculations get a lot more useful as you approach retirement age. You can pretty much answer the question ""is it reasonable to retire right now?"" or ""could I retire in 5 years?"" (though with a retirement that could last 30 years, plenty of unknowns will remain even then). I think at age 20 or 30 though, just saving 15% (20% if you're conservative), and not spending too much time on a speculative analysis would be a sound decision. That's why I like the rule of thumb. Analysis paralysis (saving nothing or near-nothing) is the real danger early in one's career. Any plausible percentage is fine as long as you save. As your life unfolds and you see what happens, you can refine and correct, adjusting your savings rate, moving your retirement age around, spending a little less or more. The important thing earlier in life is to just get in the right ballpark." When you say: I am 48 and my husband is 54. We have approx. 60,000.00 left in our retirement accounts. We want to move our money into something so our money will grow. We've   been looking at annunities. We've talked to 4 different advisors about   what is best for us. Bad mistake, I am so overwhelmed with the   differences they all have til I can't even think straight anymore. @Havoc P is correct: ...It's very likely that 60k is not nearly enough, and that making the right investment choices will make only a small difference. You could   invest poorly and maybe end up with 50K when you retire, or invest   well and maybe end up with 80-90k. But your goal is probably more like   a million dollars, or more, and most of that will come from future   savings. This is what a planner can help you figure out in detail. TL; DR Here is my advice: I think you understood much of what I say, in general. Unfortunately, I didn't follow Patches math.  What I gleen from your summary is a 1% match to the 10% invested, but a .8% expense. The ETF VOO has a .05% annual fee, a bit better than SPY.  A quick few calculations show that the 10% bonus does offset a long run of the .75% excess expense compared to external investing. After decades, the 401(k) appears to still be a bit ahead. Not the dramatic delta suggested in the prior answer, but enough to stay with the 401(k) in this situation. The tiny match still makes the difference. Edit - the question you linked to. The 401(k) had no match, and an awful 1.2% annual expense. This combination is deadly for the younger investor. Always an exception to offer - a 25% marginal rate earner close to retiring at 15%. The 401(k) deposit saves him 25, but can soon be withdrawn at 15, it's worth a a few years of that fee to make this happen. For the young person who is planning a quick exit from the company, same deal. "I'd encourage you to use rules of thumb and back-of-the-envelope. Here are some ideas that could be useful: The problem with any kind of detailed calculations is the number of unknowns: There are some really complex calculators out there, for example see ESPlanner (http://www.esplanner.com/) (caution: horrible user interface, but seemed to work), that will include all kinds of factors and run monte carlo and the whole thing. But in my opinion, it's just as good or better to say save at least 15% of income until you have 25x what you spend, or some other such rule of thumb. Here's my little blog post on savings and investing fwiw: http://blog.ometer.com/2010/11/10/take-risks-in-life-for-savings-choose-a-balanced-fund/ Another note, there's sort of an ""ideology of how to live"" embedded in any retirement recommendation, and you might want to take the time to reflect on that and consciously choose. A book on this topic is Your Money or Your Life by Robin & Dominguez, http://www.amazon.com/Your-Money-Life-Transforming-Relationship/dp/0143115766 which is a sort of radical ""you should save everything possible to achieve financial independence as early as possible"" argument. I didn't go for their plan, but I think it's thought-provoking. A newer book that may be more appealing is called The Number  and it's about your question exactly. It's more designed to get you thinking, while Your Money or Your Life has a particular answer in mind. Both have some math and some rules of thumb, though they aren't focused on that. A kind of general takeaway from these books might be: first think about your expenses. What are you trying to accomplish in life, how would you like to spend your time? And then ask how much money you absolutely need to accomplish that, and focus on accomplishing your goals, spending your time (as much as you can) on what you'd like to spend it on. I'm contrasting this with a generic recommendation to save enough to spend 80% of your income in retirement, which embeds this idea that you should spend as much as possible every year, before and after you retire. Lots of people do like that idea, but it's not a law of the universe or something, it's just one popular approach."