Quote:
Originally Posted by Pineapple Guy
OK - those check with roughly what I was calculating. So $142k (in today's dollars) is deemed insufficient to retire on? Fair enough. But that's a long way from eating cat food, as so many of our peers proclaim....
And, BTW, as a reminder, your original assumptions assumed both you and DAL put in ZERO dollars between now and age 60-65. Put in DAL's 12-14%, and those numbers will go up substantially. Sounds like you're gonna do just fine in retirement, even without the PBGC and without SS and without any payraise....
Yeah, I've noticed the same thing with a lot of guys acting as if they would have to eat cat food in retirement. I've been saying for a long time that our current setup is actually better than what we had with the pension. Of course, that becomes less true for those older than I am who lost their pension even later in their careers than I did. And my assumptions are, of course, just assumptions. I feel pretty comfortable that I'm going to continue getting a 12% annual yield, but there are no guarantees. If I were to get substantially less than that, then the final result would be substantially lower.
And, of course, you are correct that the company contributions will positively affect the outcome. I just left that out to keep the math simpler. (Which, as everyone has seen today, is essential for me!
) My main purpose was to illustrate the significant difference an additional 5 years can make to the bottom line retirement income. In the example I used, it's over a $1 million difference to the total value of the portfolio.
Now, as far as the overall value of the career... that's another story when you look at how much less we are all earning than we should be. By the time we get a new contract with substantial restoration of our pay rates, it might be almost a decade since we took the massive cuts. Talk about a "lost decade"! That's pretty hard to overcome when you're looking at the overall value of your career.