Hi Jordan, I came away with a different perspective after reading Bill Perkins ‘Die With Zero’. I thought he was pretty clear that die with zero wasn’t literal, and that the goal wasn’t to spend money just on yourself, but to help others while they could benefit from the financial offer. I do agree that having funds for end-of-life healthcare is very important, especially in the broken US system. That is something unpredictable for many unfortunately. Best approach is to take great care of your health! Thanks for the post.
I absolutely loved the book and recommend it widely. The biggest takeaway for me is discussion about the loss of physical capacity and interest as we age. More than spending, the takeaway for me is doing physical things now, in my 50s. Another great point is to give to those you love earlier instead of later. I never read it as Bill literally wants me to die with zero. Thanks for another great post!
"While the philosophy sounds beautiful on paper, when you look at how human psychology and actual life play out, shooting for exactly zero is a deeply flawed strategy."
Perhaps you missed the point of Bill Perkin's book. Getting to $0 is not the focus. It's about living for today, not tomorrow. Money is the vehicle to achieve this aspirational goal.
Every criticism of Die With Zero seems to come from people who have not actually read the book (or didn’t pay attention). I don’t see anything here that isn’t directly addressed in his book.
This book is hot. The title is provocative. I encourage people to read it for themselves. If you are like me, and some here, you wonder if some reviewers actually read the book or just a summary. Maybe DWZ's message lies with the beholder. *I* certainty did not take it literally. Perhaps being 65, and while healthy (go to the gym 3-5 times per week) and perfectly content, I can more easily envision the future.
While I agree that the risks are asymmetrical, you conveniently ignore the real risk discussed in the book. Working far too long for money you don't need. Time (and attention) is our most valuable resource.
Time in your 50s and 60s, when you are *hopefully* healthy enough to enjoy the world in whatever context matters for you, is an enormous deal.
All of us have seen parents and loved ones slow way, way down in their 70s and especially their 80s.
While no one wants to run out of money in retirement, I don't want to live with the regret of not taking a trip earlier in my life when I had the physical ability and health to travel internationally.
The second critical point Perkins makes is that if your plan is to donate to charity or give money to your kids, do it NOW, while it is more meaningful for you and it makes a critical difference for your kids.
Our kids will benefit most from receiving money in their 20s and 30s. To travel, to help buy a first home, or start a business. Getting an inheritance when you are 50 or 60 makes much less of an impact.
You've written about this with your own family, Jordan, so I know this point resonates.
I hope to be able to leave some $ to my daughter, enough to provide a safety net for her. She's growing up in a world that seems more unstable (on all fronts) by the day, and it's hard to imagine she'll get out of college and enter a robust job market with lots of affordable real estate not to mention affordable/accessible healthcare.
Two retirements in, and I can tell you Point 4 is the one that doesn’t announce itself until you’re already in it. The spending question resolves itself. The identity question doesn’t. It just gets louder.
Think you missed some points- one main highlight from the book that I took away is far too many seniors wait to give their kids inheritance until they die, their kids will be 50-60 and have no utility for the extra $1m besides small changes at that stage. Why wait, give the $500k when they have their first kids and trying to buy a house 30-40. Far higher utility and that will change their life instead of hoarding the cash.
Listening to your response to Cobin on my walk today, made me think of how I both agree and disagree with you based on the words used. To me the whole concept of Die with Zero is less about spending money but more about knowing what is enough. It’s not about $5000 or $30000 on a trip, it’s about not worrying if you do end up spending your nest egg in ways that you see fit. When I think of Die with Zero it reminds me to not put off something that I can do today more than anything.
Hi Jordan, hmmm...based on your blog posts I am not sure that you actually read the book Die With Zero. The title is provocative (to sell books) but a literal interpretation is not what Bill Perkins wrote about and Bill does not encourage the readers to take the title "literally" as you suggest. The book is not about trying to time out spending your last dollar as you take your last breath, it is instead about spending most of your money in a purposeful way while you are alive. His examples are also not just about luxury travel, but about using your money to increase quality time with family and friends, bucket your money to spend during all of your seasons of life (not just the young time), and give money to family and charities with a warm hand (while you are alive and not after death). You say spending time with family is free, but for many, fostering relationships can and often does cost money. Often due to employment opportunities we live a long way from family, so money is needed for airfare to bring everyone together several times a year. Most people do not have (or need) the millions that you clearly do, so these thousands of dollars in airfare costs do make a difference in their annual spending. This spending is worth every penny as they leverage the pursuit and achievement of FIRE to break Tim Urban's math in his article The Tail End by enabling more time with loved ones and friends than they would while working full-time. In several of your other anti-Die With Zero posts you actually agree with Bill's assertions like giving freely to your children early and giving to charity. Let's give to charity now rather than after we are dead. Please stop misrepresenting the powerful messages in the book by the errant assertion that the book is based on spending down to the very last dollar on your death bed. Thanks!
My rough goal numerically is to die with a monetary legacy of roughly the same or less portfolio value in inflated dollars. We will spend and give robustly and intentionally in retirement. The goal is to live without fear of dying or running out of money while also creating a generational wealth nest egg. The fact is that we can’t die with zero as we need a “buffer” against the specter of longevity and long term care risk. The book Die With Zero is a preachy and self serving mantra of a billionaire that has nothing in common with common folk. It can be summarized in a few words.
“Make love, not war and memories (legacy dividends), not regrets with the people close to you and leave this world in peace having left it all on the table”.
I don't think Bill Perkins would suggest anyone implement Die With Zero in a way that when you're 85 you can't afford basic comfort. I think he would instead say, fund long term care insurance or pre-fund an assisted living set-up when you're younger so that you will have basic comfort when you're 85. Also, for the situation in the post here, even if there is no long term care insurance at work, is the choice really so binary as the post suggests - aren't there other options besides to either feast or famine at 85; where I grew up, at least, if you were 85 and destitute, you went to live out your years at the county old folks' home, so isn't that a third option, in between being being without care and being cash-flush and able to pay for private nursing? A fourth option might be to stay with family, if one has a large family.
Spot on! "Die with Zero" is a great rallying cry, and like most rules of thumb, it's more useful as a nudge than a literal strategy. The core message, spend intentionally and don't hoard out of fear, is absolutely right.
But as with most of personal finance, the reality is far more nuanced. Spending and enjoying today is critical, but so is saving for tomorrow. The goal was never to choose between the two. It was always to find the right balance for your specific situation, timeline, and definition of enough.
IMHO, "Funded contentment" beats "Die with Zero" every time.
It's a difficult balance between money being psychological security and financial anxiety. The numbers on the screen can become a safety blanket of sorts and like anything saving (or spending) can shift from prudent to compulsive. When someone can uncover their definition of "enough" it can be easier to center a plan around that.
One of the things that I've found helps people who are preparing for retirement find the right balance is helping them get past their negative fears about work. A lot of people can't wait to stop or can't imagine letting go. There are in-betweens and phasing intro retirement can help flex the spending muscle without feeling like you're out of control or accidentally overdoing it.
Working part-time or on contract is easier than ever and it's a great way to step into retirement with confidence.
Hi Jordan, I came away with a different perspective after reading Bill Perkins ‘Die With Zero’. I thought he was pretty clear that die with zero wasn’t literal, and that the goal wasn’t to spend money just on yourself, but to help others while they could benefit from the financial offer. I do agree that having funds for end-of-life healthcare is very important, especially in the broken US system. That is something unpredictable for many unfortunately. Best approach is to take great care of your health! Thanks for the post.
I absolutely loved the book and recommend it widely. The biggest takeaway for me is discussion about the loss of physical capacity and interest as we age. More than spending, the takeaway for me is doing physical things now, in my 50s. Another great point is to give to those you love earlier instead of later. I never read it as Bill literally wants me to die with zero. Thanks for another great post!
"While the philosophy sounds beautiful on paper, when you look at how human psychology and actual life play out, shooting for exactly zero is a deeply flawed strategy."
Perhaps you missed the point of Bill Perkin's book. Getting to $0 is not the focus. It's about living for today, not tomorrow. Money is the vehicle to achieve this aspirational goal.
Every criticism of Die With Zero seems to come from people who have not actually read the book (or didn’t pay attention). I don’t see anything here that isn’t directly addressed in his book.
This book is hot. The title is provocative. I encourage people to read it for themselves. If you are like me, and some here, you wonder if some reviewers actually read the book or just a summary. Maybe DWZ's message lies with the beholder. *I* certainty did not take it literally. Perhaps being 65, and while healthy (go to the gym 3-5 times per week) and perfectly content, I can more easily envision the future.
I'm going to push back on Point #1 pretty hard.
While I agree that the risks are asymmetrical, you conveniently ignore the real risk discussed in the book. Working far too long for money you don't need. Time (and attention) is our most valuable resource.
Time in your 50s and 60s, when you are *hopefully* healthy enough to enjoy the world in whatever context matters for you, is an enormous deal.
All of us have seen parents and loved ones slow way, way down in their 70s and especially their 80s.
While no one wants to run out of money in retirement, I don't want to live with the regret of not taking a trip earlier in my life when I had the physical ability and health to travel internationally.
The second critical point Perkins makes is that if your plan is to donate to charity or give money to your kids, do it NOW, while it is more meaningful for you and it makes a critical difference for your kids.
Our kids will benefit most from receiving money in their 20s and 30s. To travel, to help buy a first home, or start a business. Getting an inheritance when you are 50 or 60 makes much less of an impact.
You've written about this with your own family, Jordan, so I know this point resonates.
I hope to be able to leave some $ to my daughter, enough to provide a safety net for her. She's growing up in a world that seems more unstable (on all fronts) by the day, and it's hard to imagine she'll get out of college and enter a robust job market with lots of affordable real estate not to mention affordable/accessible healthcare.
Two retirements in, and I can tell you Point 4 is the one that doesn’t announce itself until you’re already in it. The spending question resolves itself. The identity question doesn’t. It just gets louder.
Think you missed some points- one main highlight from the book that I took away is far too many seniors wait to give their kids inheritance until they die, their kids will be 50-60 and have no utility for the extra $1m besides small changes at that stage. Why wait, give the $500k when they have their first kids and trying to buy a house 30-40. Far higher utility and that will change their life instead of hoarding the cash.
poll is not working
Listening to your response to Cobin on my walk today, made me think of how I both agree and disagree with you based on the words used. To me the whole concept of Die with Zero is less about spending money but more about knowing what is enough. It’s not about $5000 or $30000 on a trip, it’s about not worrying if you do end up spending your nest egg in ways that you see fit. When I think of Die with Zero it reminds me to not put off something that I can do today more than anything.
Hi Jordan, hmmm...based on your blog posts I am not sure that you actually read the book Die With Zero. The title is provocative (to sell books) but a literal interpretation is not what Bill Perkins wrote about and Bill does not encourage the readers to take the title "literally" as you suggest. The book is not about trying to time out spending your last dollar as you take your last breath, it is instead about spending most of your money in a purposeful way while you are alive. His examples are also not just about luxury travel, but about using your money to increase quality time with family and friends, bucket your money to spend during all of your seasons of life (not just the young time), and give money to family and charities with a warm hand (while you are alive and not after death). You say spending time with family is free, but for many, fostering relationships can and often does cost money. Often due to employment opportunities we live a long way from family, so money is needed for airfare to bring everyone together several times a year. Most people do not have (or need) the millions that you clearly do, so these thousands of dollars in airfare costs do make a difference in their annual spending. This spending is worth every penny as they leverage the pursuit and achievement of FIRE to break Tim Urban's math in his article The Tail End by enabling more time with loved ones and friends than they would while working full-time. In several of your other anti-Die With Zero posts you actually agree with Bill's assertions like giving freely to your children early and giving to charity. Let's give to charity now rather than after we are dead. Please stop misrepresenting the powerful messages in the book by the errant assertion that the book is based on spending down to the very last dollar on your death bed. Thanks!
My rough goal numerically is to die with a monetary legacy of roughly the same or less portfolio value in inflated dollars. We will spend and give robustly and intentionally in retirement. The goal is to live without fear of dying or running out of money while also creating a generational wealth nest egg. The fact is that we can’t die with zero as we need a “buffer” against the specter of longevity and long term care risk. The book Die With Zero is a preachy and self serving mantra of a billionaire that has nothing in common with common folk. It can be summarized in a few words.
“Make love, not war and memories (legacy dividends), not regrets with the people close to you and leave this world in peace having left it all on the table”.
I don't think Bill Perkins would suggest anyone implement Die With Zero in a way that when you're 85 you can't afford basic comfort. I think he would instead say, fund long term care insurance or pre-fund an assisted living set-up when you're younger so that you will have basic comfort when you're 85. Also, for the situation in the post here, even if there is no long term care insurance at work, is the choice really so binary as the post suggests - aren't there other options besides to either feast or famine at 85; where I grew up, at least, if you were 85 and destitute, you went to live out your years at the county old folks' home, so isn't that a third option, in between being being without care and being cash-flush and able to pay for private nursing? A fourth option might be to stay with family, if one has a large family.
Spot on! "Die with Zero" is a great rallying cry, and like most rules of thumb, it's more useful as a nudge than a literal strategy. The core message, spend intentionally and don't hoard out of fear, is absolutely right.
But as with most of personal finance, the reality is far more nuanced. Spending and enjoying today is critical, but so is saving for tomorrow. The goal was never to choose between the two. It was always to find the right balance for your specific situation, timeline, and definition of enough.
IMHO, "Funded contentment" beats "Die with Zero" every time.
It's a difficult balance between money being psychological security and financial anxiety. The numbers on the screen can become a safety blanket of sorts and like anything saving (or spending) can shift from prudent to compulsive. When someone can uncover their definition of "enough" it can be easier to center a plan around that.
One of the things that I've found helps people who are preparing for retirement find the right balance is helping them get past their negative fears about work. A lot of people can't wait to stop or can't imagine letting go. There are in-betweens and phasing intro retirement can help flex the spending muscle without feeling like you're out of control or accidentally overdoing it.
Working part-time or on contract is easier than ever and it's a great way to step into retirement with confidence.