With many people saving approximately nothing for retirement and hitting 65 with roughly $0 to show for it, even his modified example of having $300-400k after 40 years is... a pretty damn good argument for saving $100/month.
Whether that $100 comes from lattes or apps/micro-purchases or junk food or brand labels or holding on to your car 2 more years before you replace it or cutting the cord on cable TV or more frugal vacations -- is all up to the individual.
Sorry but if you've literally got a billion dollars, you might be able to advise on growing your money, but you are (almost certainly) not able to advise on frugality. It's almost as if the argument is that if you spend $5 on lattes, you'll mysteriously be a much richer person who no longer has problems saving for retirement. That must be one damn good latte.
Does the US not have a compulsory savings scheme? In Australia, we have superannuation which employers must pay and it goes into a fund that is invested. My scheme gives me approximately 17% and after around 12 years of my working life, I have a couple hundred thousand dollars in my account. By the time I retire, it's likely to be worth around 1.5 million in today's dollars. I also invest some of my own money.
We do. It's called social security. Technically, it should be enough to pay the bare minimum of your needs upon retirement, if you're in a low cost-of-living area. It does not ensure a comfortable retirement, and we have enough problems in our government to erode our trust in getting the full payout from the system.
It's also "100%" paid out if you wait until 67, or 75% at 62. Also, I note you said "employers must pay"; we pay social security as a deduction from our paychecks in the form of a 6.2% tax. Employers also match that.
I just researched social security, it appears more like a pension plan. Our superannuation is entirely our money. When I reach retirement age then every cent I've paid (plus interest) is returned to me. If I run out of money I'm still eligible for the pension. I'm not entirely sure but I think my superannuation is more similar to a compulsory 401k.
Whether that $100 comes from lattes or apps/micro-purchases or junk food or brand labels or holding on to your car 2 more years before you replace it or cutting the cord on cable TV or more frugal vacations -- is all up to the individual.
Sorry but if you've literally got a billion dollars, you might be able to advise on growing your money, but you are (almost certainly) not able to advise on frugality. It's almost as if the argument is that if you spend $5 on lattes, you'll mysteriously be a much richer person who no longer has problems saving for retirement. That must be one damn good latte.