| Your minimum salary required and career advice |
|
|
|
| Written by Wilfred Ling | ||||||
| Saturday, 08 November 2008 | ||||||
|
Many people choose their career or studies based on interest. They also choose it based on the potential salary that the job can command. I would like to give an alternative view on what is the minimum salary required when considering a career or academic qualification. Assume a person who is aged 25 with a monthly expense of $1,000 (today’s value). We assume an inflation rate of 5% per annum and retirement age of 62. We also assume a life expectancy of 90 and that this person keeps her money in an (almost) risk-free instrument generating 2% per annum (technically it means that the discount rate is 2%) after retirement. This is quite reasonable because fixed deposit earns between 1% to 2% pa and many retirees like to keep their money in fixed deposits. The retirement fund required at age 62 will be $3.1 million. Before anyone thinks this is an impossible amount, this is merely equivalent to $511,000 in today’s value. Certainly this is a very small amount of retirement funding we are looking at. But how does one achieve this $3.1 million? Assuming an investment return of 5% pa (reasonable for a balanced portfolio), she needs to save $2,400 every month. A few points to note:
Therefore, the benchmark salary that I propose should be $4,800 using the above assumptions and parameters. It is quite common for new entrants to the job market to earn much less than this. Having $2000 to $3000 of starting pay is quite common. This is all right as long as there is a future prospect of an increased pay that can more than compensate for the previously lower pay. However, if the job is known to cap the salary at say $5,000 then this is the wrong job to be in. A cap of $5,000 means that the person would have to work for very long before achieving this cap. Thus the previously lower pay will not be sufficiently compensated. Other considerations are married couples. It is quite common for one of the couple to look after the family full time. For the sole-breadwinner means that the salary required has to be doubled. Using the above examples and assuming both husband and wife have identical expenditure, age, life expectancy, than $4,800 of monthly saving is required. Again, assuming a saving rate of 50% than the salary required will be $9,600 per month. This is a scary figure and that is why many married couple decides either to delay their family planning or to maintain dual income. Some people thinks that by increasing the investment return it can solve the problem. This is a feasible way but there is a catch. A higher potential investment return means greater the risk. There is no free lunch. If the risk is so high, what happens if the retirement fund ends up too little due to massive losses? I would to suggest increasing one’s salary being a safer way to fix this problem. Here are some of my suggestions:
Finally, retirement planning does not start when you have a family or when you earn your first income. Retirement planning starts the day you select your university course and your first job. Choose the wrong one and your retirement is in jeopardy.
Only registered users can write comments!
Powered by !JoomlaComment 3.26
3.26 Copyright (C) 2008 Compojoom.com / Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved." |
||||||
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|



