AN– I attack your example because it’s ludicrous and a poster child for your typical approach. It’s not off by the cable bill, or even childcare. It’s so atypical that it’s meaningless.

We’ve had this discussion countless times, but you generally tend toward the outer bounds. In this case, someone who consistently tucks away a full third of their gross income (and half of the net). Then, even if it can be granted that some extraordinary miser socks it away, you dial it up and say that a typical long term return is 8% like that’s easy to pull off.

Why do you do that? Because if you were to say someone saving $1,000 a month and 4% for 15 years would only have $250K. Certainly not as compelling, but decidely more realistic.

And if your “point” is to demonstrate the power of compound interest and regular contributions, then say it. You “tempering” your crazy numbers by dialing down the contribution, but then suggesting they can still get 8% annually over an even longer period, just increases the ludicrousity.