Well, I'd say if you look at what I wrote it was a savings rate of $10,000/year so my underlying assumption is that goes into the market, which will be liquid. You could choose to do a Traditional 401k or Roth 401k. Both are liquid enough.

My point wasn't to really give a breakdown of all savings forms, but just to show that saving $10,000/year with historical returns will net you close to $900,000. You don't even have to put it in a tax-advantaged account. Though you should.

And that amount is plenty to retire on and be independently wealthy at least today and for the next 5 or so years. Though I guess maybe that's not the best choice of words since what I mean to say is that you can just live pretty comfortably without working - more financially independent than "wealthy".

Certainly economic conditions can change, so the more the better.

And just to be clear, you could take $1mm right now with 0 assets and buy a decent enough house for <$200,000 and pay pretty low taxes. You'd still have $800,000 left over to appreciate with low cost of living in the vast majority of America.

Retirement accounts aren't liquid at all if what we're talking about is reaching financial independence and retiring really early (in your 30s or 40s say), which is what I thought we were talking about. But if you're strictly talking about being financially independent enough to retire at the normal time (when you can access retirement accounts), then I agree with you.

On the house point, people always seem to forget that people already live someplace and also often have families. No, it is not possible to find a house for a family of four where I live for less than $200k.

Sure they are. For example your Roth IRA contributions can be taken out at any time. You’ve already paid taxes on them. The interest though has to wait until I believe 55 years old. You should do your own research (you as in anyone reading this) to see what investment options are right for your personal goals.

> No, it is not possible to find a house for a family of four where I live for less than $200k

Well we weren’t talking about you specifically, but Americans in general. If you need $10mm retire in the Bay Area or something g ya know that’s just what you’ll personally have to work on. I don’t have an answer for you. You can buy affordable houses and live comfortably in almost anywhere in America. In fact there are people who retire and move to other countries, or live very frugally on much less, like $400,000.

You're right about the principal in Roth accounts, but most people (especially high earners at time of contribution) put their savings in traditional retirement accounts, for good reason. The age to withdraw without penalty (for both types of accounts) is 59.5.

200k is unrealistic in most population centers in the country, not just the Bay Area (I don't live there).

Why are you shifting goalposts? You don’t need to live near a population center. Even so, it depends on what you mean by population centers. If you’ve got a million dollars you don’t need to work, so you don’t have to incur the higher expenses. You can live 30 minutes or so outside of MCOL cities like Columbus and get houses for $200,000 or $300,000. That might be unrealistic for you but that doesn’t generalize to the vast majority of people in America.

> but most people (especially high earners at time of contribution) put their savings in traditional retirement accounts, for good reason.

Not so clear cut. So first if you’re a high enough earner you’re adjusted family income is >$200,000 or so before the Roth IRA starts being phased out for you. So we’re already talking about the top 10% or so of all income earners in the U.S.

Second, you tend to put the money in a traditional IRA, but you might withdraw (probably actually) less than you were making with your income. So if you’ve been phased out and can only contribute to a Traditional IRA, depending on when you want to retire you might withdraw $100,000/year (or less) and potentially pay a lower tax rate on that income then your marginal contribution rate on a Roth.

Lastly, you can still contribute $19,000 to a Roth 401k which doesn’t have contribution challenges related to income (at least for the income the vast majority of people would ever make - idk what happens if you make $1mm or something).

I don't think I am shifting goal posts? Most people don't have enough of their savings in liquid assets to retire early was, I think, the original goal posts. You haven't convinced me that this isn't true...

Your point about housing (and mine) would benefit from actual data. My contention is that for greater than 50% of people in the US, that they cannot, without moving (say the concrete metric here is a move that doesn't require children to switch schools), purchase a home for $200k or less. This is my intuition based on experience with housing markets and a general sense for how the population is distributed in the country, but it may well be wrong.

On the retirement account front, what I'm saying is that most professionals in their 40s will have a large amount in traditional 401k/IRA accounts, and much less in Roth or non-tax advantaged accounts. I believe this is accurate.

I think the confusion in our conversation is that you seem to be talking about what people can do, if they're focused from an early age on accumulating liquid savings, whereas I'm making a descriptive point that most people, even with large net worth, do not have most of it in liquid assets.

> Most people don't have enough of their savings in liquid assets to retire early was, I think, the original goal posts.

This must be a misunderstanding. I never made this claim so now this wasn't the original goal posts. Apologies if I somehow gave off that interpretation. I actually was pretty explicit I think when saying you could save $10,000 (this is cash) via a 401k or other investment vehicle and the math works out to be around $900,000 saved.

> Your point about housing (and mine) would benefit from actual data. My contention is that for greater than 50% of people in the US, that they cannot, without moving (say the concrete metric here is a move that doesn't require children to switch schools), purchase a home for $200k or less. This is my intuition based on experience with housing markets and a general sense for how the population is distributed in the country, but it may well be wrong.

Again, not a claim I've made. I've simply stated that you can buy a house for less than $200,000 and live just fine (this was based on accumulating a million dollars and that there was an assertion that you couldn't live off of that). It's trivially easy to see for yourself on Zillow or via another product that you can buy an affordable enough house and live just fine in most of the U.S..

> I think the confusion in our conversation is that you seem to be talking about what people can do, if they're focused from an early age on accumulating liquid savings, whereas I'm making a descriptive point that most people, even with large net worth, do not have most of it in liquid assets.

Yea that about sums it up. So I'm not sure where you're really going with any of this. I guess it's cool as a general assertion (and I think it would be interesting to discuss) but I'm bewildered as to why it would used as a rebuttal to something I've said. That's why I asked why you were shifting goalposts.

I understood your claim to be that most people on a typical salary in our industry can be financially independent prior to retirement age. My point was merely that this may seem true on paper if just looking at net worth, but that liquidity is important if you actually want to live off savings (ie. be financially independent).

So in my original post I said you could save $10,000/year. That savings can be liquid if you do choose, and even 401ks can be liquid. If you are a typical software engineer in America you can contribute to a Roth 401k and withdraw contributions penalty free. You’re liquid if you want to be.

Then on top of that $10,000 maybe you buy a house or something. You have the rest of your money to do stuff with too.

The financially independent thing really depends on individual circumstances and desires. For some, $1mm isn’t enough. For others it’s more money than they can spend for the rest of their lives.

I went back to my very first comment in the thread. I quoted this:

> > At $1mm you really are independently wealthy in most cases.

Firstly, my working definition of "independently wealthy" is when you can stop working and keep living. I think this is the common definition, but it's possible you're using a different one.

So from that quote and that definition, what I have been saying is that I don't think it is true that "in most cases" people with $1m are independently wealthy. I think that in most cases, those people have most of that $1m net worth tied up in their house and in illiquid traditional retirement accounts, and could not actually live off of just the remaining liquid wealth once those are subtracted. That's really all I've been saying. It's based on just that one quote that hinges on "independently wealthy" and "in most cases".

Using this definition:

> Firstly, my working definition of "independently wealthy" is when you can stop working and keep living. I think this is the common definition, but it's possible you're using a different one.

You are independently wealthy in America at $1mm and do not need to work. It takes very little time to see that hit is the general case. You can buy a cheap house, and buy groceries and probably actually grow the principle amount.

Now from here you can say like it’s not enough money for you, or you don’t want to leave California (or wherever) but you can easily live off of that amount of money in the vast majority of America. You can also say that people accumulated that money in some distribution and all of that too. But even if you had that amount in a house + retirement you can sell the house and move to a different location or downsize or something. If you have a million in assets you’re making a choice to work. Period. There might be some thing you don’t want to give up, or some place you want to live. That’s fine, but you’re making a choice after you’ve become independently wealthy.

At this point you are willfully failing to understand my point. It's extremely simple, many mid career people with $1M dollars in net worth are not able to retire, because their net worth is not liquid, and liquidity is necessary to pay for things. If you do not understand the concept of liquidity, then I really can't help you out. Cheers.

> many mid career people with $1M dollars in net worth are not able to retire, because their net worth is not liquid

It really depends on the assets and the choices you want to make. Generally speaking, if you have $1mm worth of assets, you do not need to work. That's it. Period.

If you find that you need to work, you're making some other choice to work because of some factor that's overriding your desire to not work.

The liquidity of the assets is only relevant if you want to talk about specific cases, and even then it's likely not an issue. You can sell your house. You can withdraw from an IRA or 401k. Etc.