Brendan McNamar, a poker dealer who lives in Arizona, doesn\u2019t gamble when it comes to finances.<\/p>\n
Mr. McNamar made a living playing poker. But after getting married 10 years ago at 47, he began to reassess his financial situation. At the time, he said, he owned a modest house and his wife had significant student debt. \u201cWe looked at everything and decided that we really needed to plug some big holes in our retirement savings.\u201d And that caused him to rethink his career.<\/p>\n
\u201cThere\u2019s something called variance in playing \u2014 it\u2019s the same thing as the variance in stock market returns,\u201d he said in an interview. \u201cYou lose for an extended period of time, even though you are doing the right thing. Just like you can invest in stocks but be in a bad market.\u201d<\/p>\n
That variance \u2014 essentially the fluctuations in outcomes \u2014 led Mr. McNamar to switch from playing to dealing poker. He became a casino employee, which gave him income certainty and access, for the first time, to a 401(K) retirement account. \u201cIn dealing, while a lot of income comes from tips, I can predictably know what I\u2019m going to make,\u201d he said. \u201cThe variance goes away and paying bills becomes less stressful.\u201d<\/p>\n
Individuals are now grappling with a financial dilemma: the longevity bonus of an increased life span versus the longevity risk that an individual\u2019s finances won\u2019t cover those extra years, said Mark S. Walton<\/a>, an executive educator and journalist and the author of \u201cThe Longevity Bonus.\u201d<\/p>\n The Stanford Center on Longevity<\/a> suggests that planning requires a change in analysis. Rather than looking at a life span in three parts \u2014 education, career and retirement \u2014 the center suggests viewing life in quadrants, a concept proposed by the British professors Lynda Gratton and Andrew J Scott, authors of \u201cThe 100-Year Life \u2014 Living and Working in an Age of Longevity.<\/a>\u201d<\/p>\n But financial approaches to planning for a centenarian life vary. Charles Feeney<\/a>, the billionaire co-founder of Duty Free Shoppers, famously once said \u201cI want my last check to bounce.\u201d<\/a><\/p>\n While that view may still ring true for a small group, it\u2019s a sentiment that has not held up with financial turbulence, the pandemic and the unsettled global situation.<\/p>\n Or, as Martha Deevey, the associate director and senior research scholar at the Stanford center, said in an interview, \u201cWhile I may want my last check to bounce after I have helped my kids \u2014 it doesn\u2019t mean I neglect everything else. We need to be more comprehensive planners.\u201d<\/p>\n Erin Sheehan, who works for the State of New York, is well aware of the sentiment of leaving no money at death, but said she has \u201cno such intentions. My plan is to have the money there if I need it, and if I don\u2019t, to further the causes that I care a lot about.\u201d Although she has no children, she anticipates continuing to live a frugal life, leaving a sizable estate, which Ms. Sheehan, 56, and her husband plan to donate to a range of charities.<\/p>\n \u201cSaving means potential freedom \u2014 freedom of knowing that there\u2019s always a safety net,\u201d Ms. Sheehan said in an interview. \u201cIf the world implodes, we have our savings and we have resilience. We know we\u2019ll be OK. We know how to eke out an existence and enjoy it. I\u2019m not denying myself anything.\u201d<\/p>\n Approaches can be generational.<\/p>\n The Baby Boom generation has an outsized proportion of wealth, which is not surprising since they have had the longest time to amass savings. According to Federal Reserve statistics released in March<\/a>, Baby Boomers, those born from 1946-64, possess more wealth than older generations<\/a> (even if adjusting for inflation).<\/p>\n Those in Generation X, born from 1965-1980, have a lower net worth than the Boomer generation had at the same age, Mr. Walton, 75, said. <\/p>\n For example, Corinna Krauskopf, 47, a Seattle resident, said: \u201cAs a Gen X-er, my entire professional life has been one of catching up, but on other people\u2019s terms. Job opportunities, career growth, financial resilience, and even personal health have all depended on someone else making the decisions and packaging them as part of the work environment, culture, compensation and benefits.\u201d (Ms. Krauskopf was one of more than 200 readers who answered a questionnaire on The Times\u2019s site about longevity.)<\/p>\n After losing her job in 2024, she decided to start her own business, \u201cNow, I can work on my own terms for as long as I wish. It is my retirement plan on my terms. Is it perfect? No,\u201d she said. While she said it\u2019s difficult to find a suitable health care plan, \u201coverall, I can now set the course of my next chapter on my own terms instead of putting my faith into someone else.\u201d<\/p>\n Ms. Krauskopf, who founded Fearless Philanthropi to help nonprofits, said she hoped to \u201cbuild out multiple revenue streams, both active and passive, to support and sustain a robust business and a robust life.\u201d<\/p>\n The intention to keep working to some extent \u2014 whether for income or on a volunteer basis \u2014 reflects the sense that a long stretch of leisure time is not always the goal. Part of that is purely economic. According to research by the Pew Research Center<\/a>, a sizable and growing share of older adults over 65 continue to work \u201ceither out of necessity or according to personal preference.\u201d<\/p>\n (What is not yet reflected in the surveys about working past 65 is the potential impact of artificial intelligence on continued employment. ManpowerGroup<\/a>, a recruitment and staffing company, recently found that tech confidence<\/a> among the Baby Boom generation dropped by 35 percent, while that confidence declined by 25 percent among those in Gen X.<\/p>\n The amount individuals need for retirement \u2014 especially one where the retiree doesn\u2019t need to watch every penny \u2014 is not fixed, of course. But generally, most Americans have far less than is needed.<\/p>\n