FREE NEWSLETTER
Go to main Forum page »
I’m seriously sticking my neck out with this speculative, non politically correct observation and expect to get it chopped off by someone. And deservedly so!
Last week, my wife, Suzie, spent a considerable sum of money on hair care, nail salons, and other female-focused purchases. Certainly enough to make my right eyebrow twitch slightly. I only highlight this for the sake of my speculation, not as a manly moan about female spending choices. But the spending got me thinking about retirement calculators. I know I really need to get a life!
Is there an argument to be made that single females need a bigger portfolio size upon entering retirement due to nuanced societal differences around discretionary spending between the sexes than a male looking for the same lifestyle? It’s an interesting, if not too serious, point to consider. And if so, what does that say about general financial advice aimed at everyone?
When you consider this possible spending pattern and then combine it with the statistical probability of a longer female lifespan, we start getting to the point that generic financial advice might give misleading answers. This is because I’m reasonably sure these calculators don’t take these factors into account and don’t question the stated age of the person. To keep the thought slightly balanced, I admit to knowing a few male friends—actually, a lot—who possibly spend more on their tech gadgets and latest hobby obsessions… and they all lie about their age.
So, where was I… This touches on broader societal expectations. Women are often implicitly encouraged to invest in their appearance in ways men aren’t. These discretionary expenses, while seemingly minor, can really add up, especially in retirement. A woman might genuinely feel these expenditures are essential for her well-being, whereas a man with a similar lifestyle might not have comparable costs (generally because they are slobs). Although this is very much a broad overgeneralization, I’m using it for the sake of the muse. My wife, Suzie, will hit me on your behalf… you only need to ask.
Now, if we put all this totally unacceptable gender stereotyping, brought on by a raised eyebrow, together, the cumulative effect of these factors—potentially higher discretionary spending over a longer lifespan—could significantly impact how long a retirement portfolio actually lasts. If a standard calculator suggests a person needs “X” amount to retire comfortably, that figure might be an underestimation for a female. This could be a potential oversight in generic financial planning tools that could inadvertently disadvantage single women.
Perhaps future financial models could incorporate adjustable “lifestyle multipliers” that account for gender spending norms, allowing for more personalized and accurate projections for everyone.
And perhaps you should just ignore all the above, considering it was the result of a slightly raised eyebrow and a lot of rambling speculation over the cost of, according to my wife, Suzie, “a few essential ‘make me happy’ items.” My sample size of one person is dubious at best. I promise to keep my thoughts under better control in the future and try to provide evidence for my musings.
Mark…
Absolutely NO Apology necessary!
I thought our piece was just fine. I got the point, and I chuckled while reading the piece. Those who don’t agree are welcome to their opinion, as well. After all, most of us still live in states that espouse freedom of speech.
My provocative thought regarding “discretionary spending on appearance” was really supposed to be an entry point, or hook into the article. While suggesting “beauty spending” as the reason for portfolio shortfalls is plainly silly, its intent was comic effect and I admit I’ve misjudged its reception. The core concern is supported by real-world data. This includes the well-documented gender pension gap, where women consistently accumulate less wealth for retirement. Women’s longer life expectancy means their funds must stretch further—a particular challenge for single individuals. Research consistently highlights the heightened financial vulnerability and lower median wealth of single older women, leading to greater proportional spending in retirement. My speculation about generic retirement calculators disadvantaging single women was based around these factors. My regret is that these challenges got overshadowed and lost because of my poor choice of delivery. I apologize that the comic narrative vehicle I employed is perceived as offensive and agree in hindsight I should have used a different approach to the issues. I guess I just got carried away by the eye twitch.
Mark, this might have been a highly entertaining and informative personal conversation over a glass of wine.
What I’ve learned over the years is that such conversations, especially in a humorous tone, generally do not come over well in writing. Irony is frequently lost in written communication. I learned the hard way that it’s best avoided unless the reader knows you very, very well and fully understands the humor. Seems you’ve absorbed the same lesson.
Mike I’ve learned a humble lesson!
“… is perceived as offensive …”
Appreciate the attempt at a reset, but it sounds like you don’t understand why it was offensive. Ask Suzie.
I truly do understand. If you have another look at my apology, in that sentence I haven’t used ‘perceived’ as an adjective. It’s been used as a past participle and essentially means ‘understood’ or ‘understand’.
I realize that. As worded, it says you understand some readers were offended, not that you understand why they were offended or that they had reason to be offended. “I apologize that … was offensive” would work better.
I don’t understand why the writer continued past the first paragraph. If he realized what
he was saying was offensive, he should have stopped right there. The “hair and nails” statements are not at all original or amusing, and women readers of this forum should not have to defend against them.
I agree that women – on average – live longer than men. Aside from that…
I can’t imagine using a retirement projection that doesn’t include the length of the retirement. Personally, I’ve always planned on the basis I would live to 100.
Have you compared Suzie’s discretionary expenditures to your own? A recent post suggests yours are high.
Women are over 50% of the population. Why, why, would you assume we all spend money the same way? Do you make that assumption about men? Talk about othering.
For the record, I haven’t worn make up in decades and I hate clothes shopping. I used to spend money on books but now I rely on the library. I do spend more than strictly necessary on food and wine. I’m none the less female.
Oh, and why would only single females need a bigger portfolio?
I have no intention of engaging in any gender-specific spending discussions. But I do think the idea of considering more individualized longevity projections is worthwhile in evaluating retirement plans. It’s nit just gender based actuarial projections. There are differences based on race, education, health, and geography. Mike Piper’s Open Social Security calculator allows you to investigate the impact of different mortality tables. The default is the SSA’s period life table. With this table, a male currently age 62, median age at death is about 82; for a female, it would be about 85. If you chose the CSO super-preferred Non-smoker table, the median ages would be 87.5 and 90, respectively. When I ran that through the tool, the greater longevity projects an additional 17% in lifetime benefits.
On a completely different tangent, I find it useful to remember that one person’s luxury purchase is another person’s income. I don’t feel compelled to buy luxuries, but if I do I try to use a local business when possible. That being, said, I did just pick up a case of a nicely priced French SavBlanc from the local mega-liquor store. It was too good to pass up, and I really needed it.
“If you chose the CSO super-preferred Non-smoker table, the median ages would be 87.5 and 90, respectively.”
Even this mortality table does not work for my wife situation. He grandmother died “young” I her early 90s, her mother at 103 1/4, and her great aunt at 103 1/2. I have told her I will use 100 for her longevity for our financial planning. I have also told her if she lives >100 it’s up to her and our children to figure it out as with my families’ longevity I’ll be long gone.
That’s amazing longevity. I would definitely plan for the long term.
I don’t think I agree with the specific premise–women “cost more” because of spending on their appearance–but the larger one, that retirement calculators can overgeneralize, seems obviously true.
I get my hair done professionally and have regular salon pedicures (though I should add that my husband has started accompanying me for those–seriously, guys, you should try it), but I’m not a big shopper for clothes or jewelry or accessories and I wear little makeup. If anything, my big weak spot is kitchen gadgets. If you ever see me heading into a Williams-Sonoma store, be a friend and come get me back out!
I do spend money on regular massages (I have cranky shoulders and consider it needed maintenance), am a member at a Pilates studio, and we pay $44/month for our Peloton All-Access membership. But none of those things are especially limited by gender, and self-care is a good expenditure, in my opinion.
My wife spends way more on hair care and cosmetics – personal appearance products – than I do.
Also on clothing.
But why shouldn’t she buy and do stuff that makes her feel better about herself?
She worked extremely hard both taking care of her family and working a paying job. Blessedly she feels I contributed lots too.
I don’t begrudge even a single penny my wife spends oh herself. She’s the love of my life and seeing her happy is a fantastic feeling.
….
As for us guys getting pedicures and massages … I agree 100%. It’s amazing how much better they make, even a 70 year old man as I am, feel.
Connie wants me try a pedicure. I’m thinking I’d like to try those little fish nibbling at my feet first. Last time I picked her up at her visit she had the lady trim my nails because I didn’t have them even. No charge, but a larger tip.
Seems to me the difference is spending reflects a difference in the concept of shopping. Men do so with a purpose -in, buy it, get out whereas ladies go beyond that and make it an enjoyable event.
Go ahead 🔻
You should really try a professional pedicure.
When done right it’s worth every bit you pay for it.
My husband was dealing with an ingrown nail on his big toe that he thinks he caused by trimming his own nails, which is what led to him accompanying me to the nail salon. Now he asks me when “our next pedicure appointment is”!
I think Dear Dickie got pilloried for beginning one of his rants about costs incurred by his better half.
I’m reminded of a scene from Pulp Fiction where John Travolta and Uma Thurman are in a nightclub. Uma ordered a milkshake, and John commented on the price, $5 (it’s an older move). Uma says “it’s a really good milkshake”.
John says “it’s 5 bucks, it’s a milk shake”.
Chris and I were recently shopping. Chris put a bottle of shampoo in the cart. I saw the price, $35, and in my best Travolta voice said “It’s 35 bucks, it’s shampoo”.
I just spent $400 on a CD player for my vinyl resting place. I’m pretty sure Chris was thinking “400 bucks, it’s a CD player”.
Please have Suzie smack you upside your head now, I will have Chrissy do the same to me.
I got smacked repeatedly when Suzie read my article!
LOL Mark, I’m sometimes inspired to compose a groundbreaking post while under the influence of alcohol. I will usually share my drafts with Chris, whose reply is something like “yea, no, you’re not posting that.
Having said that, while we may sometimes offend, I know that guys like you, and I, and Quinn would jump in front of a moving train for our wives.
Take a look at the cost of makeup.
Re the shampoo point I am aware that some of the highest gross margins in consumer products (and consequent marketing spend to reinforce market share) occur in such products. Generally my rule of thumb is the heavier the TV advertising the more likely there are exceptional margins in a product. See also the perfume blitz around Christmas/Valentines.
I’m not sure it’s a gender thing. Some of it comes with the how externally benchmarked people are and some of it comes with how they’ve always been. I’m sure makeup and hair pale into insignificance compared with what some men spend on cars, tools, bicycles, golf gear etc.
Normalising anything ony goes so far – I find it helpful to look at what the assumptions are made around spending studies at various levels of comfort in retirement but know that none of those fact patterns will match me exactly.
Mark, you should have stayed with the actuarial differences. Who is it that you said just gives money away?
Connie spends money on hair and nails and I spend money on golf, it all works out. She spends more on clothes but whatever makes her happy is fine with me. Those expenditures are essential as is the cleaning lady every other week.
That’s why each month a payment from my pension goes into a checking account and savings account we have labeled Connie’s.
And now you have another reason I wanted 100% base pay replacement. 🤗😁😎
This post, along with Quinn’s recent “Dear Dickie” post, both make me cringe.
I have never had my nails done. I buy my clothes at Costco. I cut my own hair. I haven’t worn make-up in years.
Will I need more money over my lifetime than a man? Perhaps. My grandmother lived to be 101 and my overall health at this point in my own life is very good. But virtually all of the retirement calculators and tools I’ve ever used take life expectancy into account.
I’ll eventually convert a portion of my retirement funds into an annuity. In the fine print, it explicitly mentions there are differences in payouts based on gender.
Hey what did Dickie do to make you cringe?
No nails, no make- up, bargain clothes, no hair salon, but four pups which I suspect run a few grand a year.
We all have our little luxuries we define as essentials. Women/ men no differences it’s all spending of one type or another.
And still I get 🔻
While I take your point—hobbies/pets are expensive—dog ownership is hardly a gender-marked phenomenon. Furthermore, I’m guessing that Kristine’s husband would say that the dogs are theirs and not hers. It’s not quite the same as the hair/nails/makeup point that Mark is making.
I was only trying to point out that while Kristine doesn’t spend on the typical female things, it doesn’t matter because she spends as much or more on what she enjoys.