I would prefer to save more and retire earlier. That would increase my chances to enjoy the retirement and make the person enjoying the retirement more similar to the person who saves the money. Also, the sooner I retire, the more chance I have to make money while retired -- so I could just make a plan to retire as soon as possible after I have enough money to survive; and then optionally make some more money and add them to the retirement.
As a programmer, these days I make more money than I need, but I find it hard to imagine doing this job at 60. Not because I wouldn't have valuable skills, but in my experience during job interviews most employers only care about familiarity with the few most recent frameworks -- there is not much competitive advantage I could have against someone who just learned that at university; and in addition the young competitor will probably be willing to do a lot of cheap overtime.
Unfortunately, I don't know how to do that. In my country, the rules for retirement change after almost every election. The money in the retirement funds is taken to repair some other part of economy, or is simply stolen. The state is willing to support old people with some small amount of money after a given age (which is gradually increasing), but beyond that, the rule of thumb is that the state will punish those who try to help themselves (e.g. have savings, have other income, etc.). The money paid "for retirement" is effectively redistributed, only a very small part or my "retirement saving" would actually influence how much money I get when I retire. (I am not even going to calculate how small part that is, because in five years the rules are going to change again, anyway.)
Okay, my point is... if I lived in a country with transparent retirement laws, and if I could put some money into a retirement fund and expect with high probability to get that money back, protected from inflation... I would invest as much as possible. And retire as soon as possible. And then, use the additional 8 hours a day to do something awesome (which could -- but wouldn't have to -- bring some more money).
I need money to survive, but I need time to enjoy life. The dilemma is not just between "having money while young" and "having money while old". It is also between "having no free time while middle-aged" and "having free time while middle-aged". Sure, as a young person you will get more enjoyment of your new helicopter, than as an old person. But if your expensive helicopter remains locked in your expensive garage, while you spend your daylight at work, you are not enjoying it anyway.
I concur with your sediment. I posted this on the munckin thread, but it bears repeating MMM Simple Math of Early Retirement. Going purely on your investments and saving(i.e. no government programs) you should be able to retire in 51 years if you save 10% of your income annually. However, if you save 20% of your income, it drops to 37 years.
MMM and Early Retirement Extreme advocate investing 50-75% of your income, if not more. This will let you retire between 7 and 17 years, leaving plenty of time to enjoy your retirement.
I know I said I'd be gone... but this was just a comment originally, and I noticed it may actually be relevant.
Elharo said in Munchkin Ideas:
I'm interested in the following:
Why should people invest in retirement? Or, instead, why should someone invest as much as most do in retirement.
Few facts that make it a boggling question for me:
You are 10% to 20% likely to die before you enjoy even your first retirement year.
People adjust much more to harsh economical conditions than they believe they would. They remain happy, as many studies by Seligman and others show.
People who retire are only happier as retirees if they retired by choice (I lost the paper, sorry).
Most people here live in rich countries - darn, hate to be the exception! - , and their state would happily provide them with at least the maximal retirement plan legal in my country (aprox 2000 dollars/month). And surely would provide them with double the minimal (about 200/month) if they needed.
If you have descendants, they may support you in case you are still alive, and if you are not rich enough to keep a house, you have a good excuse to be in company of loved ones (you have nowhere else to go).
Last, but not least: That person is not even you that much anyway.
Given all that, I have no clue what the whole fuss about retirement plans, and being 60% of a rich old person with a crappy body is all about, specially if you are in the grave.
I mean, in the cryopreservation chamber, of course.
Edit: A related question not worth its own post, but maybe worth discussing, is Should inheritance "jump" a generation. Everyone inheriting from grandparents, instead of parents? Just the abstract ethical question. Regardless of implementation procedure.