Learnings from a contrarian view on saving money

Source with thanks from marketwatch.com

From our youngest days we have been constantly advised about the importance of saving money. Most of us give saving a good shot and turn out alright in our later years. However, there are many among us who probably over save foregoing adventures and experiences. Check out the point of view the author shares, in the article below, about not behind too much when you pass on. Team RetyrSmart

Learnings from a contrarian view on saving money

Everybody knows they should be saving for the future and investing their savings so the money grows into a plump nest egg in time for retirement. Likewise, we know we should have a rainy-day fund, too, even if millions of Americans who, either out of necessity or sheer carelessness, live pay check to pay check.

But consider the flip side: overly prudent savers who end up saving up more than they’ll ever need in retirement, and at a high cost to their present selves. Maybe you’re one of them.

To find Retirement friendly inputs in your Inbox

Subscribe to our Newsletter

The extra money you save isn’t free. First, it comes from somewhere (usually your hard work). Second, assuming you would have worked for that money anyway, you could have spent it much more intelligently and enjoyably. Put another way, the “extra” money represents fun, fulfilling, and memorable experiences you could have had but didn’t.

We will all die—so would you rather die with tens of thousands of dollars to your name, or die with zero after having spent the money on additional adventures or generous gifts during your lifetime?

Put that way, most people would pick option No. 2—even the thoughtful, self-disciplined people I am calling overly prudent.

When I first moved to New York City after college, I was like that, too, taking pride in how much money I was managing to squirrel away on my meagre salary as a peon on Wall Street.

Luckily, my older and much wiser boss set me straight. In the unvarnished language of Wall Street, he explained why I must be the worst kind of idiot to be saving that money. I was on track to earn much more in the coming years, so it was stupid to rob my poor young self to give that money to my older, richer self, he said.

This slap in the face was one of the biggest turning points in my relationship to money.

Even if you doubt that your future income will be higher than it is now, being overly prudent sets you up for living a life of unnecessary levels of personal sacrifice. Sure, it’s smart to save some money now so you can enjoy more in the future—but past that point, delay amounts to diminished gratification and missed opportunities.

Regrets that can’t be undone

For example, in my 20s, before I fully saw the light, I passed up a chance to backpack through Europe with my roommate, who travelled for two months and had the adventure of a lifetime. Missing out on that trip is one of my greatest regrets. Yes, I’ve travelled in Europe since, but there was no re-creating my friend’s trip; as a middle-aged guy, I’m too old and too boogie to enjoy staying in youth hostels even if they’d let me!

If you have similar regrets of experiences missed, you know that delaying gratification can mean no gratification at all. At the extreme, if you save your whole life for a dream trip to Paris, you might find yourself too frail to actually travel to Paris, or to enjoy the great city at all once you’re there.

The ultra-rich, who you may not think of depriving themselves, nonetheless suffer from the consequences of over-saving. No matter how generous they are, they are bypassing opportunities for doing even more good in the world—unless they plan to give all their wealth away while they’re alive. What’s more, if they continue to exchange their time for even more money, they are foolishly depriving themselves of many wonderful experiences they could be having with the money they already have.

Being overly prudent isn’t a problem for just the ultra-rich, of course. Americans’ median net worth keeps climbing into their 70s. (Some may say they are saving for unexpected medical costs, a nursing home, and the possibility of a very long life, but that makes them an insurance company with a client of one—a needlessly costly way to manage risk, considering alternatives that include annuities, long-term care insurance, and the various safety nets your tax dollars pay for.)

So it’s no surprise that a large percentage of Americans die with far more than zero, as we can see from inheritance data. The median inheritance is more than $60,000. That’s some serious over-saving, particularly because the median age of getting an inheritance is 60. Is it really wise to save so you can give money to a 60-year-old?

I’m determined to die with zero, or as close to it as humanly possible, so any money I want to give to my loved ones I’ve either already given them, continue to give them, or put into a trust for them to get at an age when they’re young enough to get the most out of it.

So how do you avoid the pitfall of over-saving without leaving yourself high and dry in your old age? My best suggestion is to know what you need to save for necessities. I’m talking about the basics you need for survival: groceries, not restaurant meals, for example, and a decent roof over your head, not a mansion on the beach.

This isn’t to say you can’t and shouldn’t save more for a better lifestyle; it’s just that the whole point of figuring out how much you’ll need to survive on is to know what it takes to avoid the worst-case scenario and to allay your direst fears about old age. Once you’ve got those basics covered, you can start adding money for what you actually want.

To read the original article in full Click Here

To find Retirement friendly inputs in your Inbox
Subscribe to our Newsletter

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments