tim harford - you're an idiot. that is, your comment on not worrying about retirement because lots of people are happy on a shoestring budget.

but then again, slate has never been known for its sagacious financial advice

here are my top 10 responses, from the real word, about your "don't worry - be poor and happy" retirement advice

10 - lots of people may earn less than $45,000 a year, but most of them feel financially constraied unless they're married to someone else who is also earning $45,000 a year.

9 - if you're a renter now, and you plan to be a renter in retirement, remember that today's $1,200 a month rent will be more like $3,000 at just 4% annual inflation ($36,000 a year for rent alone)

8 - don't think you'll have it easy if you're a homeowner instead of renter. ever heard of the term "house poor?" people in new york state pay an average of $8,000 annually in property taxes. in 25 years THAT will be more like $30,000 too.

7 - commodity prices are generally unpredictable. i bet if you asked Tim Harford, in 2006 "will gas prices double in the next 2 years, he'd have answered "don't worry be happy" to THAT question, too.

6 - do you think social security benefits will outpace inflation over the next several decades? if you answered yes, you need to have your medication adjusted

5 - ever hear of prescriptions that cost $1,000 a month? when you're over 65 you will. try googling "typical expensive prescriptions" to see why so many senior citizens are praying for socialization of health care (however, they don't realize that socialized medicine will be a form of triage, where you wait months for non-emergency services, and the most effective medicines will be too expense to be allowed)

4 - Tim Harford lives in a fantasy world if he can write about "the typical person earning $100,000-$125,000" today. this is not typical for americans, nor is it typical for slate's readers

3 - in 1977, when i was born, you could get "a big mac, fries, a soda, and change for your dollar". today that's a value meal that costs about $5.95 (six times as much)

2 - in 1977 a vw bug cost about $2,500. today it costs about $25,000 - a tenfold increase

1 - an "assisted living facility" for senior citizens already costs $2,000+ per month. pray you'll never need one, if you're planning on retiring at $45,000 a year, eh?

You are mistaken on some of your points.

It's "nice to have" the $1,000 a month medical pills- but humans for all of history prior to 30 years ago didn't have them. A lot of people get by without them.

Property tax is frozen for the elderly in my state when you retire. (Any where it is not frozen, you are screwed as a retired person).

The *average* income in america is $40-$45k a year. That's for people who are working.

My daughter's family (M,W,baby) has one earner under that and they do fine. The stay at home person spends a *lot* less than a working person.

I think you have set some "nice to have" income levels as "must have" and that is just not the case in the real world.

You say Any where property tax is not frozen, you are screwed as a retired person, but then fail to state how many states in fact freeze property taxes for seniors. California freezes property taxes for everyone (with allowable annual increases of 2%), but the state is going broke.

"The *average* income in america is $40-$45k a year. That's for people who are working."

That's misleading. You should have said, "The average household income in america is $40-$45k a year." The average (median) individual income in america is slightly below $35,000. And many of these people are also going broke. The bankruptcy rate is already approaching 2005 levels. B-A's point was about those who are earning $100,000, and still stands.

As far as $45,000 goes, it will see you through in the Midwest and in Texas, but not in New York and California.

In all honesty, though I've saved considerably through my entire professional life, I'd be happy to get by with considerably less income during my retirement.

We have no expectations of staying in our house through retirement. Once the kids are out of the house, we wouldn't need all the space nor the high utility rates. The only reason to stay would be purely emotional. We would be much better off selling it and investing the money we earned. We'd be happy with a small apartment somewhere warm.

It may be convenient but a car is also a luxury. We already rely heavily on public transportation. If we sold our car, we could just keep taking the bus and train, and then rent a car (or take a taxi) as needed.

It would be nice if we could live the same (or better) lifestyle when retired as we do while working but for the vast majority of us, it just isn't an option. Personally, I'd be happy with a decent apartment, close to my family. Right now, time is at a premium... I look forward to the day where I actually have plenty of time to spend with those close to me, even if it means I earn half of my professional income.