‘$1M? That's it? No, thank you': Ramit Sethi challenges the retirement advice most Americans follow
It's the advice you hear passed around like a family recipe: Work hard, save consistently, and one day you'll retire comfortably. But what if this so-called tried-and-true advice is far from a recipe for success and more like a blueprint for disappointment?
Ramit Sethi, bestselling author of I Will Teach You to be Rich and Money For Couples, didn't hold back as he reflected on what he considers the worst financial advice he has ever received.
A near-record number of Americans are grappling with $1,000 car payments and many drivers can't keep up. Here are 3 ways to stay ahead
5 ways to boost your net worth now — easily up your money game without altering your day-to-day life
Cost-of-living in America is still out of control — use these 3 'real assets' to protect your wealth today
'Get a job at an industrial company and work there for 40 years so that I can retire with $1M in the bank,' he told Moneywise. 'I was like $1 million? That's it? No, thank you!'
The old axiom about saving $1 million for retirement hasn't changed much.
Today, many Americans think they'll need $1.46 million to retire comfortably, according to a Mutual Life study. But Sethi rejects any such advice.
Sethi says the issue isn't just oversimplified math but the mindset it fosters: grinding away for decades only to scrape by on a fixed budget in retirement.
For one thing, he argues that by focusing solely on saving and not spending money meaningfully, people miss out on living a rich life. He thinks it's too long to wait till retirement, especially when the average age of retirement is creeping up, standing at 61, up from 57 in the 1990s, according to a 2022 Gallup poll.
When many Americans finally do retire, their visions of their golden years — leisure, frequent travel, and freedom from the constraints of a 9-to-5 — clash with financial reality. According to the Federal Reserve, households headed by those aged 45-54 have an average retirement account balance of $313,000, far from what's needed for a secure and fulfilling retirement.
This disconnect is why Sethi encourages people to rethink their financial approach, shifting the focus from reaching milestones to developing a strategy that builds wealth over time.
Read more: Rich, young Americans are ditching the stormy stock market — here are the alternative assets they're banking on instead
While a $1-million retirement goal might seem out of reach, there are steps you can take to build a stronger financial future. One approach Sethi encourages is harnessing the power of compound interest
'The power of compounding is something that is truly hard to understand until you see it over and over again,' Sethi explains.
Compound interest works by allowing your money to grow not just on your initial contribution, but on the accumulated interest as well – creating a snowball effect over time. For example: A 35-year old investing $300 per month with a 6% annual return would have $301,355 by the age of 65. But if that same person started earlier, at age 25, investing the same amount every month, they'd end up with hundreds of thousands more: $597,337, nearly double.
Even though the late investor only contributed $36,000 less in total, they lost out on the exponential growth that comes with compounding over decades.
However, it's not just about starting early. Maximizing contributions to tax-advantaged accounts like 401(k) or IRAs, taking full advantage of employer matching programs and diversifying your investments can boost your retirement savings. Taking full advantage of employer matching programs is practically 'free money' that can supercharge your savings.
Don't minimize the value of budgeting , which can free up more cash to invest.
With consistent effort, thoughtful planning, and focus on long-term growth, building the retirement of your dreams is well within reach.
I'm 49 years old and have nothing saved for retirement — what should I do? Don't panic. Here are 5 of the easiest ways you can catch up (and fast)
'Savers are losers': Robert Kiyosaki warned that millions of 401(k)s and IRAs will be 'toast' — here's his advice for older Americans who want to protect their wealth
Suze Orman: If you think you're ready to retire, think again — 4 critical money moves to avoid a financial crisis in retirement
This article provides information only and should not be construed as advice. It is provided without warranty of any kind.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
40 minutes ago
- New York Post
Mayor Adams' ‘emergency' spending is out of control — now NYC must hit the brakes
New Yorkers, like all Americans, tend to stock up when any crisis is about to hit: We fill up our gas tanks, empty the bread and egg shelves at grocery stores and buy enough toilet paper to last for months. It's human nature — and for far too long, New York City's government has been behaving the very same way. But City Hall's panic reaction is far worse, and does far more damage. Advertisement In recent emergencies, like the COVID-19 pandemic and the asylum-seeker influx, city government kept on 'crisis buying' for more than a year, without ever comparing prices or rooting out contractor abuse, fraud and waste. It's time for drastic change: We must reform the city's out-of-control emergency procurement practices and add vital checks and balances. Currently, when the mayor declares a state of emergency, the city's comptroller and corporation counsel suspend their ordinary oversight regarding contracts and procurement. Advertisement In theory, this allows City Hall to respond quickly and obtain necessary goods and services to alleviate the crisis. In practice, it means the city can award no-bid contracts for up to one year — contracts that, having bypassed the competitive bidding that's normally required, can be rife with waste and abuse. Imagine purchasing a car or searching for your next apartment without competitively price-shopping for those big-ticket items. That's what City Hall does whenever the mayor declares an emergency. City agencies aren't even required to send 'emergency' contracts to the comptroller for auditing before laying out taxpayer cash. In fact, 84% of such contracts filed between January 2022 and September 2023 were submitted more than 31 days after the contract start date. Advertisement Both Mayor Eric Adams and former Mayor Bill de Blasio spent billions of dollars on the asylum-seeker and COVID crises, respectively, drawing multiple allegations of corruption and pay-to-play politics. This uncontrolled spending was especially acute during the pandemic, as de Blasio extended 'emergency' contracts a whopping 100-plus times and spent nearly $7 billion on emergency supplies with no oversight or limiting guardrails. In the private sector, affordability is a prime factor when choosing bids on contracts. The city's emergency procurement process throws such considerations to the wind, leading to reckless overspending. During COVID, City Hall paid top dollar for ventilators and N95 masks it never received — and in one case, paid an absurd $7.50 apiece for cloth masks. Advertisement Its fire sale of nearly $224 million worth of COVID-era surplus items, from ventilators to face shields, only recouped $500,000, a downright outrage. The current administration is no better, awarding a $432 million emergency contract for asylum-seeker services to an untested company called DocGo. Its dreadful performance — with problems like chronic food waste, moldy hotel rooms, unlicensed security guards and an uncredentialed CEO who was forced to resign — resulted in an investigation by the state attorney general. Even in non-emergency circumstances, the city has never reined in city contractors who utilize loopholes to enrich themselves. Take the company owned by David Levitan, listed as one of New York City's worst landlords. For over a quarter century, the city has repeatedly used Levitan's properties as homeless shelters — buildings with rotted floors, broken elevators, rat infestations and peeling lead paint. Levitan has even required some of the nonprofits operating shelters within his buildings to subcontract with his own maintenance or extermination companies to service the properties — reaping even more revenue from our tax dollars. It's time for reform, top to bottom. Advertisement Emergencies, by their very definition, are short in duration. Accordingly, they should necessitate a strictly time-limited use of no-bid contracts, for instances when competitive bidding will truly hinder the city's response. That's why I am introducing two bills in the New York City Council this week to update our lackadaisical, irresponsible procurement processes. These bills will limit all emergency contracts to 30 days, unless both the comptroller and corporation counsel approve of an extension. If passed, the laws will require all contracts be sent to the comptroller for auditing within 15 days of signing, and will increase subcontractor transparency with fines of up to $100,000 for not disclosing to the city any conflicts of interest or competing contractual obligations. Advertisement New York's broken contracting system has price-gouged our taxpayers for far too long — and recent mayoral administrations have shown no appetite to follow good-government procurement practices. It's up to the City Council to advance this vital legislation, saving precious fiscal resources, restoring responsibility and rooting out corruption. City Council Member Julie Menin (D) represents the East Side of Manhattan and chairs the Consumer and Worker Protection Committee.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trump bill pledges $1,000 contribution for babies. How much would that be in Tennessee?
Another addition to the President Donald Trump's tax bill is a program to provide financial support for children born in the United States. The program would create the Money Accounts for Growth and Advancement program, or MAGA accounts. Through the program, there would be a one-time contribution of $1,000 from the federal government to the child, and parents, churches, or private foundations are also eligible to contribute financially to the account. House Republicans changed the name of the program from "MAGA accounts" to "Trump accounts" before the bill's passage last month, offering the president a tangible benefit for working-class Americans that he can put his stamp on. Here is what current and future parents can expect from the program. The program for American children born during Trump's current term would involve a one-time contribution of $1,000 per toddler from the federal government into a mutual fund or index fund tied to the performance of the stock market. The legislation touts the program as "a new kind of savings account designed to incentivize education, entrepreneurship, and homeownership while promoting financial security." The accounts are eligible to all future children born and all children under the age of eight by the time Jan. 1, 2026, rolls around. The bill also allows parents, churches, and private foundations to make contributions of up to $5,000 annually during childhood, which the child can access upon turning 18 to pay for education, training, or a first-time home purchase. Contributions to these accounts from tax-exempt entities, like private foundations, are not subject to the annual $5,000 limit but must be provided to all children within a qualified group, such as all children in a state, a school district, or an educational institution. The full balance would be available at age 30. CEOs of several large corporations said they would make billions of dollars in additional investments into accounts for the children of their employees. Dell Technologies, Salesforce, Uber, and Goldman Sachs were among the companies the White House said would participate. According to the University of Tennessee's data center, there were 83,742 live births in Tennessee in 2024. This was the highest number of children born since 2008, when 85,560 babies were born. The program pertains to children under eight years old as of Jan. 1, 2026. There were 489,884 live births in Tennessee between 2019 and 2024, the most recent year for which data is available. Taking into account the rising birth rates, a low estimate for 2025's live births would be 83,000, which would increase the total children eligible to 572,884. This would amount to $572,884,000 for Tennessee alone, assuming every child eligible is signed up for the program. In 2023, Tennessee had a fertility rate of 58.9 per 1,000 women of reproductive age. This is the 14th highest fertility rate in the country. This article originally appeared on Memphis Commercial Appeal: Trump bill sets up cash accounts for kids. How much would TN get?
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Is Trump's ‘big beautiful bill' good for US consumers?
The bond market is sending Washington an unmistakable message: The U.S. budget deficit is a problem we can no longer ignore. Yet, the GOP budget bill seems to do precisely that. If the ballooning debt persists, long-term interest rates will stay elevated and could continue to rise. While politicians celebrate tax cuts, bond investors, the people and institutions lending money to the U.S. government, are far less enthusiastic. They're demanding higher returns to make U.S. debt attractive: The 30-year Treasury yield briefly surged past 5% in May. This milestone hasn't been reached since 2007, with the exception of a quick spike in 2023, when high inflation sent the entire yield curve higher (the 10-year yield also breached 5% during that period). With the 10-year yield hovering around 4.4% today, the spread between the 30-year yield and 10-year yield is near 0.5%—much higher than it was in 2023—implying the market is pricing in significant risks for the very long term. Range says these aren't just fleeting worries; they reflect deep-seated concerns about long-term inflation risks, fiscal sustainability, and the future value of long-dated dollar assets. We've always believed credit markets can be a more reliable economic indicator than equity markets. During the tariff uncertainty earlier this year, credit spreads barely widened while equity markets gyrated wildly. The credit markets called it right when they didn't overreact to tariffs, unlike equities. They remained stable in a time when other market indicators did not. But now those same credit markets that rarely overreact are flashing warning signals about something far more fundamental: our deficit spending. The new budget bill includes several pieces of popular legislation, such as extending tax cuts, eliminating taxes on tips, and pre-funded tax-advantaged savings accounts for newborns. But this bill in its current form is also projected to add $2.4 trillion to the national debt over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The response from bond investors has been unforgiving, reflected in rising long-term interest rates: 30-year yields were up 18 basis points in May, more than 22 times the average monthly change over the past year. Here's what this means for actual Americans trying to buy homes or fund their businesses: Mortgage rates are climbing: The average 30-year fixed mortgage rate hovered close to 7% in May, peaking at 7.02% on May 27, up from 6.62% in mid-April. Anyone waiting for rates to come down is facing an uncomfortable reality—deficit concerns are keeping them elevated. Corporate borrowing gets expensive: When the government needs to issue more debt to fund spending, it crowds out private borrowers. As debt becomes more expensive thanks to an oversupply from the government, companies find it harder and more expensive to access capital, which slows hiring and economic growth. The Fed can't save you: The Federal Reserve controls short-term rates, but long-term rates are set by market forces. Even if anticipated Fed rate cuts materialize in the second half of 2025, the combination of the tax bill and uncertainty “sets the stage for a higher term premium,“ according to the Institute of International Finance. This means rates on mortgages, auto loans and student debt, may stay elevated even as the Fed cuts. Let's walk through the mechanics of how this gets ugly: When deficit spending rises (the government spends more than it makes), the Treasury must issue more debt to fund operations. More supply of bonds means investors demand higher interest rates (yields) to absorb all that debt. Higher yields make the debt more expensive to service, which requires ... more borrowing to pay the interest. Eventually, this forces painful choices: Either slash spending (austerity that nobody wants, similar to what countries like Greece and Italy went through after the Great Financial Crisis), or have the Fed step in to buy bonds with printed money. That second option leads to currency debasement and persistent inflation—exactly what we saw in the 1970s, dubbed 'The Lost Decade' for U.S. markets. Back then, Fed Chair Arthur Burns caved to political pressure from Nixon to lower rates despite rising deficits and increasing inflation. The result? A lost decade where equity markets went nowhere, the dollar was significantly devalued, inflation spiraled out of control, and American consumers watched their purchasing power erode year after year. What made it particularly brutal was that people couldn't escape through traditional investments—stocks were flat, bonds got crushed by rising rates, and cash lost value to inflation. While today's robust economy and the Fed's strengthened independence distinguish our current situation from the 1970s, that era serves as a stark reminder of how deep economic damage can run when policymakers chase short-term political gains at the expense of lasting economic stability. Our debt-to-GDP ratio would hit nearly 200% by 2055 if current tax provisions are extended, up from today's ratio of about 120%, according to the Yale Budget Lab. To put that in perspective, only Sudan and Japan currently have debt burdens that high. National debt interest payments made up the second largest spending category in the past fiscal year's Federal Budget: That's a 13% slice of the $6.9 trillion budget, with only Social Security costing more. That's right—we spent more on debt interest than on our entire Defense or Medicare budgets. Given this administration has talked explicitly about lowering long-term rates, there's hope these red flags will prompt policymakers to come together and address the rising deficit. We've done this before. In the 1990s, policymakers on both sides of the aisle worked to cut spending, strategically increase tax revenues, and implement pro-growth policies to address growing deficit concerns. The result: By FY1998, the U.S. budget was in surplus for the first time since 1969, and surpluses continued through fiscal year 2001. This tax bill, as currently written, is not a step in the right direction—while it does cut some Medicaid and food stamp spending, the potential revenue losses from its tax cuts far outweigh these savings. Now is the time for policymakers to take the deficit seriously. We're not in crisis yet—the economy is still healthy, unemployment is low, and that gives us agency: While it's always hard to cut back on spending, it becomes much more painful to do it when the economy is hurting. Acting now, from a position of strength, gives us the flexibility to make thoughtful changes rather than being forced into drastic measures later. Real deficit reduction would require the kind of politically toxic medicine that Washington has avoided for decades: fewer tax breaks, lower spending on widely used programs, or both. It's a long, uncomfortable process that involves telling voters hard truths about fiscal reality rather than promising easy wins. This environment makes diversification crucial. Not all markets face the same pressures: International exposure makes sense: Interest rates and deficits aren't rising everywhere at the same rate as we're seeing domestically. Having exposure to other markets can provide a hedge against U.S.-specific fiscal risks. Equities still have a role: The S&P 500 is a nominal asset that can perform well during inflationary periods. People get scared when they see equity markets react to hot inflation data, but over longer horizons, equities can serve as an inflation hedge. Short-term bonds look attractive: If you can stay short on duration—meaning bonds that mature in a few years rather than decades—you could earn attractive yields much higher than averages we've seen in almost two decades. If long-term interest rates continue to go up, the price of short-term bonds won't fluctuate as much, so your principal will face less risk of losing value. Tax cuts might sound appealing, but 7% mortgage rates and elevated corporate borrowing costs aren't. The credit markets are essentially telling Congress: Do better on deficit reduction, or consumers will pay the price through higher long-term interest rates. This isn't about politics—it's about mathematics. The bond market doesn't care about party affiliation; it cares about sustainable fiscal policy. Right now, the numbers don't add up, and interest rates reflect that reality. For investors and consumers, the message is clear: Prepare for a higher-rate environment that may persist longer than many expect. The easy money era is over, and fiscal discipline matters more than ever. This story was produced by Range and reviewed and distributed by Stacker. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
