Search

"I Want to Retire, but My Wife Is Too Scared": A $6.1 Million Couple Who Can't Agree They Have Enough

I Will Teach You To Be Rich · ▶ 1:54:11 · 33 min read
English日本語
Open on YouTube ↗
Overview

In this episode of Ramit Sethi's I Will Teach You To Be Rich, Sethi talks with Meg, 63, and Jo, 58, a married couple who have been together for more than 20 years. Their net worth is just over $6.1 million. They have spoken to three financial advisors, and Meg says the advisors told them they could retire. Even so, they remain stuck on whether they can. Meg is ready to stop working and worries that Jo's nervousness will keep her at her job "longer than necessary." Jo, who earns more and has always managed the money, is not really doubting the math. She is afraid of carrying the financial decisions alone for the rest of their lives.

33 min read

Before the conversation starts, Sethi states his guess: the question is "less about the numbers and more about how they feel." For most of the session, Sethi does not analyze their portfolio. Sethi asks about their childhoods, their relationship dynamics, and their fears, and only then walks through three retirement scenarios prepared by the episode's sponsor, Facet.

The Presenting Problem: Resentment and Hesitation

Meg wrote on her application that she was ready to retire and afraid that Jo's nervousness would hold her back. She explains that advisors have said "you're good to go," but Jo hasn't believed them. Jo's answer tends to be some version of "maybe we can, but maybe that means I'd have to work longer than I want to," and the conversation stops there. Meg calls this "very frustrating and a little demoralizing." Sethi asks what it would mean to her to work longer than necessary. She says she would feel resentful "towards the world, but also Jo."

Jo says hearing this "feels terrible." She wants Meg to have everything she wants, "maybe to a detriment to our relationship sometimes." She also reveals that she wants to retire herself, at 60, which is two years away. When Sethi pushes for a yes or no on whether they can retire, Jo says not tomorrow, but yes in two years, with the caveat that the question is really about "the level of retirement." Meg says yes, because she is "willing to have a lower standard of living in order to retire." Sethi notes that they already agree they could retire in two years. The open question is what kind of retirement they would have.

How Jo Became the Gatekeeper

The couple got together in 2005, married in 2012 and again in 2013 when same-sex marriage was legalized, and have no children. Asked how they work as a team, Jo says bluntly: "I don't believe we're a team around money." She describes herself as the gatekeeper. Meg would say she wanted to go on vacation, Jo would ask whether they could afford it, and Meg would say she didn't know, because she had very little to do with their finances.

The division of labor started when Meg moved in. Meg is a social worker. Jo works in finance and earned about three times what Meg did. Jo's finances, with property and taxes, were much more complicated than Meg's. Meg describes her own life then as simple: "I balanced my checkbook and that was it." Jo took over, and Meg was happy to let her. Sethi says the pattern is "reminiscent of every straight couple that I talk to."

Moving into Jo's lifestyle made Meg uneasy at first. She calls herself "a do-gooder" and a Quaker, and her faith emphasizes simplicity. Before the relationship she was living paycheck to paycheck and weighing every purchase. At Jo's house, Amazon boxes arrived daily, and Meg was "flabbergasted at the ability just to spend money because something caught your eye." Jo remembers a date on the beach in Santa Cruz when her TV broke and she said she'd just buy a new one. Meg replied, "Well, that must be nice." Sethi calls it a profound example: the TV isn't the point, the point is "how we were raised, what money means to us."

Today everything is joint. Both paychecks go into a joint account, Jo manages the money, they discuss purchases over $200, and since building a Conscious Spending Plan (CSP) they set aside guilt-free spending pots. Jo handles the investments. When she tries to talk about them, "Meg's eyes kind of glaze over." Meg admits investments are "not my jam," perhaps because she doesn't understand them.

"I Need You to Be a Partner"

About six months before the recording, Jo told Meg she needed her to be more of a partner in their finances and asked her to learn about personal finance. Meg thinks Jo was stressed and wanted Meg to have something to back up her insistence on retiring. Meg says she didn't go in enthusiastically. It felt "a little bit of an ultimatum," though not a threat of divorce, and she did it because it felt required of her as a partner. They read Money for Couples together and Meg read Finance for Dummies, which left her with "a very rudimentary knowledge of investments."

Jo agrees with Meg's account and says going through their spending together is now helpful, but adds: "Meg has made a good start and I fear that Meg thinks she's done."

Sethi stops to praise both of them, calling the exchange "incredibly mature" and "very rare." Jo said plainly what she needed, which Sethi notes most people never do. Meg heard it, even though it doesn't feel good to hear, and acted on it. Sethi says there is more to do, but so far is impressed.

Sethi then turns to the camera to explain why retirement can be hard even for people with plenty of money. After working for decades, people like being good at what they do, being needed, and getting a paycheck every month. Losing all of that at once is scary, so many people keep pushing retirement back "just one more year." Without a clear definition of enough, "it's never enough." Sethi describes the approach for the session: instead of the binder-and-drawdown analysis many advisors provide, ask so many questions that the couple feels deeply understood and discovers things about each other. If people say honestly and specifically what they want, Sethi says, the numbers can almost always be made to support it.

Jo's Real Fear: Thirty Years of Lonely Decisions

Asked whether they are working toward the same goal, both hesitate. Meg says the goal is a nice retirement. Jo names a different goal: that Meg stays engaged. She doesn't trust that will happen. Meg will get a pension, "basically she's going to keep getting a paycheck." Jo will have to draw down their investments, and that involves many decisions. That, she says, is where most of her anxiety about retiring comes from. Without more engagement from Meg, she expects to spend the next 30 years alone with "that emotional labor of like dealing with the fear and dealing with like advisors." In her words, "the thought of doing that by myself feels very lonely." Resolving it would take a lot of pressure off. Spending a paycheck is easy. "The next phase feels hard."

In a later aside, Sethi says this reaction puzzled them. Worrying about managing a drawdown for 30 years is, in Sethi's comparison, like worrying about painting the porch every day for 30 years, when someone else can paint it and it only needs doing once a decade. Sethi's view is that "deep down Jo just is worried about money" and is "finding ways that seem rational to keep her stuck." Others can help her, or the process can be automated. Sethi offers a framework for any obstacle like this: ask "What if this were easy? How would it feel? How would it look? What would I do?"

Meg's Childhood: "If You Have a Dime, You Should Be Able to Buy a Coke"

Meg's money education was thin. Her mother taught her to write a check when she got a bank account at 15 or 16. Her father, born in the 1920s, told her, "If you have a dime, you should be able to buy a Coke." Meg took that to mean that if you have money, you should be able to spend it. She was never taught to save, and nobody taught her about credit cards, "which got me in a lot of trouble in my 20s."

Her mother had grown up very poor and worked as an accountant, but didn't teach her about money. Asked why, Meg says: "Well, you're supposed to find a husband, right?" Her mother's lessons were about getting men interested in her, such as learning about sports so she could talk basketball with them. Meg didn't realize she was a lesbian until late high school and says she mostly brushed off her mother's advice as weird. Sethi finds it almost refreshing that her parents didn't pretend to preach saving, but points out the result: she reached adulthood unable to manage money.

Her parents managed their own money well and had a decent nest egg, but outlived it. They moved into a residential facility with a continuing care contract, which Meg describes as a bet that residents die before their money runs out. If they don't, the facility pays. Her mother "won the bet." Jo later mentions that Meg's mother died at 98. Meg's lesson was that they need a lot of money because she may live a very long time. Sethi points out that this is exactly Jo's concern.

This leads to one of the most candid exchanges in the episode. Jo once told Meg, "I think you feel entitled to retire," and Meg answered, "Yeah, I do feel entitled to retire." She has worked all her life, and her parents retired and lived a long time. When Meg suggests they could cut back, Jo says she doesn't think they can. Cutting back gives her "a little panicky feeling," and she isn't sure Meg really wants to. Their past attempts at drastically reduced spending months didn't last long. They managed a month without DoorDash, then decided they couldn't give it up.

Since building a CSP, though, they say they have stuck to their chosen spending levels, which vary month to month but even out. Sethi treats this as evidence that when they set a specific intention, they follow through.

Jo's Childhood: Secrecy, Frugality, and "$100,000 Is Nothing"

Jo's parents are immigrants, her father from Germany and her mother from Ireland, and she describes them as "extremely dysfunctional around money." They have kept separate money their entire marriage. Her mother now has dementia, and her father asked Jo to take over her mother's finances. She went through boxes and walked into banks asking whether her mother had accounts there. That is now sorted out, but she still has no idea what her father has. He won't say. He just says, "We have enough."

Her father grew up solidly middle class as a child at the end of World War II. Her mother grew up poor in Ireland and was extremely frugal. Her mother's advice also said a lot about the marriage: don't marry until you're at least 30 (she married at 29), don't marry until you can fully support yourself, and don't have kids, because "kids will ruin your life." She then added, "Oh, I don't mean you."

The refrain of Jo's childhood, around 1980, was that "$100,000 is nothing," meaning $100,000 a year. Her father was a chef and her mother a waitress, so this was an amount they could never earn. Jo reads it as an indirect message to prioritize security: go to college back East, become a lawyer, get a high-paying job.

Jo says she brings that into the relationship. She has worked at the same job since 1993 and makes safe choices. She calls Meg "a very safe partner" for her. Her parents "never told the truth. Like everything was a lie. Everything was gaslighting." Meg, as a Quaker, does not lie. Sethi finds this beautiful and unexpected. In an aside, Sethi observes that Jo is confident at work but has brought scarcity into her relationship with money, and relabels it as "security," which Sethi calls "a slightly more elevated form of scarcity."

Class, Quakerism, and Two Visions of a Rich Life

Meg says she brings a middle-class attitude: stable and privileged, with little desire for expensive things because she "wasn't trained to want them." She admits she has often been wrong about her optimism that she could afford things: "I really have the feeling that the money is going to be there." Asked how they would describe themselves now, Meg says "mildly wealthy." Jo says "rich most places," but "upper middle class where we live."

Meg describes her Quaker practice: members sit in silence in a circle for an hour, with no single minister, and speak when they feel called. The tradition emphasizes testimonies of simplicity and nonviolence. That was part of her discomfort moving in with Jo. A Quaker friend visited, saw the huge TV on its huge stand, and started laughing. Jo used to drive her BMW to pick Meg up from meeting while everyone else had Priuses.

Their shared rich life includes comfortable travel, fewer worries, feeling safer as their net worth grows, and freedom to do fun things like taking any class Jo wants, which is limited now mostly by time. Sethi asks each to describe a Wednesday in their late 60s. Meg would wander a botanical garden looking at birds, have lunch with a friend, have dinners out with Jo once a week or a couple of times a month, get down to one car, and volunteer, perhaps with a mentorship program that helps middle schoolers write. Jo pictures month-long stays in big European cities, in an Airbnb she estimates at about $5,000 a month, doing one thing a day. At home, she pictures the gym, woodworking, tea or walks with friends, in their current house, which is half renovated and which she'd like to finish.

Both notice their visions don't require a huge amount of money. Meg calls them "low-key." Sethi finds them congruent with everything else they've said.

The Renovation Disagreement and "Vibes"

Sethi asks them to name something they disagree on. Meg brings up the house. She has been talking about moving into a rental and leaving homeownership behind, because she doesn't think renovating is worth the money and doesn't like the upkeep. Jo wants to renovate. Jo then says: "As the person who's historically made the decisions, we're not moving out." Meg says she had never heard that before and finds it funny. She says they'll discuss it, notes Jo had said she was open to renting, and says she wouldn't force a move if it meant that much to Jo.

The discussion shifts to household labor. Meg says Jo believes that since she holds the finances, Meg should hold the household. Meg handles the cars, the cats, and most of the house. She thinks Jo struggles with holding many things in her head, and that this is part of why Jo wanted help with the finances. Jo agrees and names what she sees as one of the biggest issues in the relationship: she feels she does more of the emotional labor, and she feels "a little resentful when I feel like Meg just kind of skates through."

In money terms, this goes back to the vacation arguments. Meg would propose a trip, Jo would ask if they could afford it, Meg would say of course, and when Jo asked what that was based on, Meg would answer: "I don't know. Vibes."

Sethi then "rotates the camera" and narrates Meg's point of view in the first person. She grew up not learning about money or needing much, moved in with a partner who earns three times as much and has a different lifestyle, felt vaguely uncomfortable, but came to enjoy Amazon and restaurants. Now she's older, tired, surrounded by evidence of wealth, disconnected from the portfolio, and sure there's money, so why discuss it? Meg says most of it was accurate and it felt "a little uncomfortable." She adds that advisors have told them they can retire, but agrees they still need to talk about it. She embraces the part about liking to spend money, and Sethi says women especially tend to be too timid about money and should be unapologetic. Jo's reaction to the retelling: "Yes." She describes an old tension in which Meg didn't need to pay attention because she didn't need nice things, yet wanted to stay at Post Ranch Inn. They still debate that. Jo thinks "anything over St. Regis is a waste." Sethi notes the teasing seems affectionate, and both confirm it is.

"If I Didn't Have to Learn More, I Wouldn't"

Meg makes another candid admission: "If I didn't have to learn more about our finances, I wouldn't." She is doing it because it matters to Jo, and she thinks she needs an attitude change. Sethi adds another reason. If something happened to Jo, Meg would be left with a complex financial situation that her middle-class upbringing didn't prepare her for. Sethi relates this to their own marriage, recalling telling their wife early on, "with love, with affection, like this is a problem. It's causing us problems and you have to get good at this." Sethi's wife took it on and attended a money psychology class. Sethi says the motivation wasn't only wanting a partner but knowing she needed to be prepared if something happened.

Jo says this was the subject of a recent fight. They had signed up for Sethi's coaching program, Meg had agreed to drive it, and it hadn't happened. On a drive back from Los Angeles, Meg said she was too busy, and when Jo asked whether she'd do it once things calmed down, Meg said, "Probably not." Jo argued it would at least walk Meg through how everything is set up in case something happened to her. Meg's instinct, which she confirms, is a "stubborn optimism" that she'd figure it out. They have been paying for the coaching and haven't attended a single session, and Meg admits that was her job. Sethi says that close to retirement, with real money involved, "the days of like, well, we'll figure it out later... they're sort of here," and that Meg telling Jo concretely what she has done and will do next would go a long way.

In an aside, Sethi says same-sex couples challenge assumptions about gender and money. In this couple, the higher earner took over the money and the lower earner deferred, a pattern Sethi usually sees in straight couples. Sethi suggests the pattern may be about who earns more rather than about gender, and encourages couples to choose their roles deliberately instead of copying their parents.

The Optimist, the Worrier, and the 2008 Crash

Asked for a word describing their money mindset, Meg says "happy." Jo says she swings "wildly back and forth between terrified and elated." Both accept the labels of optimist and worrier, and both agree those roles won't work in retirement. Jo wants them both closer to the middle, and wants herself to be "both less elated and less terrified."

Sethi asks Jo whether she worries about work. She doesn't think about her job when she isn't there, says she is "very" good at it, and adds that she's bored. She is also, objectively, good with money. So why worry? Jo explains that she works in compliance at Bank of America, a job about where things can go wrong.

Meg then adds context she thinks they skipped. The couple had been on and off for about four years when the 2008 crash hit. Jo had just been through a breakup and was carrying the full mortgage on her house. Meg started contributing her rent toward it when they moved in together. Meg describes the crash as "pretty traumatic" for Jo and believes she lost savings then, and felt a sense of failure as she struggled to pay the mortgage. Jo describes buying the house near the top, taking a $100,000 pay cut, living through waves of layoffs in which she could have been let go at any moment, and the uncomfortable forced acquisition of and merger with Merrill Lynch. She suggests her caution may be "a little bit of a trauma response" to nearly losing her house, as someone for whom stability matters. Sethi says experiences like this, whether from childhood or 20 years ago, can stay so vivid that people still act as if they happened yesterday.

The Numbers

Jo reads the net worth summary. Assets are $2,173,000, investments $4,397,368, savings $133,300, and debt $510,000, for a total net worth of $6,193,268. Her reaction: "I won capitalism." The unafraid part of her thinks she did as well as could be expected. Meg says she feels "a little flabbergasted." She never imagined being in seven figures, and says the number "means Jo did a lot for us because this is mostly Jo." She sees her own role as small, her 401(k), where she has put away "a couple hundred thousand," and being a good emotional partner who supported Jo. Sethi notes she invests $20,000 a year and says partnership doesn't require equal earnings. Pushed past "good," Jo says she feels proud. She made many financial mistakes when she was young: "I spent for dopamine. I gambled like an addict," including "crazy stuff in the stock market." A big salary solved a lot, she says, and Meg's stabilizing influence helped things not go badly.

The CSP shows gross monthly income of $34,166. Meg admits she has only known it for about three months, which Sethi says doesn't count. The household nets $236,000 a year. Fixed costs are 71%, which Sethi finds a little high, but that includes a home equity line of credit that will be paid off in 16 months, after which Jo expects fixed costs to drop to about 41%. Sethi calls that among the lowest they see at that income. Investments show as 5%, but they also contribute $4,000 a month to their 401(k)s. Savings are 15%, including $650 a month for vacations, money for family travel, and money for large purchases, which is the remodel and a car they expect to need within three years. Guilt-free spending is 9%, or $1,845 a month. Jo says the 15% miscellaneous buffer, about $1,800, absorbs some slop. Sethi says that above about $150,000 in income, tracking small items doesn't matter as long as the major buckets are hit.

Meg says the buckets helped her most. A lump of $400,000 meant little to her, but a $5,000 vacation fund tells her what they can spend. Meg points out that they have debt. Sethi responds that a mortgage and a soon-to-be-paid-off HELOC against $6.1 million is nothing like someone earning $55,000 with $20,000 in credit card debt. Sethi has "no critiques" and says they can take the CSP off the screen because there's nothing to discuss.

Asked again, Meg says yes, they can retire. Jo says "100%" that Meg can, and that the question is when Jo can, maybe in a couple of years with "fingers crossed," and definitely in five. If she worked until 65, she says, "we'd have more money than we knew what to do with," and neither of them wants that.

Why They Saw Three Advisors

Sethi asks whether they are advisor shopping, like patients who keep seeing doctors until one gives the diagnosis they want. Jo explains the history. They liked their first advisor, who moved out of state. They consulted a second when Jo got serious about not working until 65. The third is an eMoney subscription, which she doesn't really count as an advisor, used for access to the software. Sethi asks why they don't hire a real advisor. Jo says that is next, though good ones are hard to find. Elsewhere, Sethi advises that people with complex, multimillion-dollar situations may benefit from an advisor, "just don't pay AUM."

Three Scenarios, All Viable

Sethi's team gave Facet the couple's CSP, portfolio breakdown, Social Security statements, and loose retirement goals, and asked for three scenarios. Sethi says every one is financially viable. The shared assumptions were that the plan runs until Jo is 95 (chosen because of their parents' longevity), Meg's pension starts when she stops working, both claim Social Security at 70, spending follows the current CSP and grows 3% a year for inflation, and the mortgage cost disappears once it is paid off.

Scenario one: each retires at 65, so Meg in about two years and Jo in about eight. Spending stays at the current $16,800 a month. Net worth when Jo is 95: $14.1 million. Meg can't see how it could grow instead of shrink. Jo: "That's dumb. I don't want to die with $14 million." With no children, the money would go to nieces, nephews, and charity, and they don't need $14 million. Sethi calls this the most financially responsible option but also the one most likely to produce resentment, since Jo would work eight more years for money they'd never use.

Scenario two: Meg retires at 65 and Jo at 60, both in roughly two years, and they add $60,000 a year in discretionary spending starting next year, about $21,800 a month in total. Net worth when Jo is 95: $5.6 million. Jo says it feels pretty good, since their families live long and her mother has dementia, and the cushion works like insurance for good end-of-life care. Sethi notes that Jo's bonuses in her final working years would cover one-time costs like the HELOC, a car, a big trip, and the renovation.

Scenario three: both retire at the end of this year (2026) and add $90,000 a year in discretionary spending, about $24,300 a month. Net worth when Jo is 95: $3.5 million, plus home equity. Jo could access her 401(k) through the rule of 55. Sethi flags the risks: heavier withdrawals in the early years before Social Security at 70, and the danger of a market downturn during that period. Sethi lists levers: cutting spending in bad years, claiming Social Security earlier, part-time work, or reducing discretionary spending. Assets decline over time in this scenario, but still end with millions. Jo smiled before the numbers were even shown. Meg looked anxious at first, then happy, because other advisors had told them the same thing.

Sethi says the scenarios deliberately raised spending and shortened time to retirement to make one point: "The only thing preventing them from retiring, it's not the numbers, it's how they feel."

"God, I Wish You Were a Partner in This"

Meg says she always assumed their money would shrink and possibly run out, as her parents' did, and doesn't understand how they can spend more and still end with millions. Jo explains that the assets grow faster than they're drawn down, "kind of like a snowball." Meg's follow-up: then why is Jo worried?

Jo clarifies something that changes how Meg had understood their past arguments. She never doubted Meg could retire. When she dragged her feet and asked whether they could afford it, she was trying to get Meg involved. She wanted Meg to "pitch it to me": work out her net pension and the effect of expenses that would disappear. Meg heard it as "maybe we can't." What Jo meant was: "God, I wish you were a partner in this and not just like asking me if it's okay." She doesn't want to be the one who gives the final yes or no. Meg says she hears that.

Sethi says the couple is usually very direct, but that exchange was very indirect and Sethi wouldn't have caught it either. Sethi adds that expecting Meg, given her background and 15-plus years of Jo handling the money, to produce pension and drawdown scenarios on her own was unrealistic. Jo's direct request to be a partner worked. Sethi tells them they are at their best when they are direct, and both agree.

Choosing a Timeline

Meg says all three scenarios are "really cool": "all of them work." Jo says they balance her wish to retire, live well, and feel safe. Meg doesn't feel ready to leave at the end of this year because she has things to finish at work, and chooses retiring at 65, about a year and a half away. Jo chooses scenario two. She says they need time to plan for a big change, including what they'll do all day, what their lifestyle will be, whether to renovate now or later, and whether they're emotionally ready "to embrace this new chapter." They are starting couples counseling the next week specifically to prepare for retirement. Sethi says it's no surprise they've done well financially, since successful people plan before they need to, and that they probably would have found their way without the show.

Meg asks whether the scenarios can be fleshed out. Sethi says more details can be sent and encourages them to run their own. Sethi explains that close to retirement the questions get specific: when to claim Social Security, and whether to withdraw from 401(k)s or Roth accounts first. On Jo's fear of 30 years of drawdown labor, Sethi points to Facet's simulated paycheck, which pays them monthly from their own money. "If you have a problem that money can solve, you don't really have a problem." Sethi says Jo should not leave thinking she faces decades of emotional labor.

"Step Into Your Wealth"

Asked whether anything could derail the plan, Meg admits she has "been known to drop the ball" and suggests calendaring money meetings and tasks. Sethi asks how someone with more than $6 million would behave. Meg says she would ask Jo more at their money meetings and look at all the accounts, but gets stuck there. Sethi offers a metaphor. Growing up, if Meg had friends over, she'd serve sandwiches or salad. With $6 million she could make sandwiches, get catering, or hire a chef. "Now apply the same thing to your mind." Meg draws a blank. Sethi explains that she has been acting as if she must "make the sandwiches" herself. She could hire a coach, use the coaching program, read books with an accountability buddy, run questions through AI, or talk to an advisor, and then bring Jo her own scenarios to stress-test. Sethi says doing this would show Jo that Meg is taking initiative. Jo agrees she would love that. Sethi calls this "step into your wealth" and says it is time for Meg to spend money on her own education.

Jo adds to the homework. She wants to know Meg could step in if something happened to her, because "the thought of you muddling through while like grieving is just terrible." Understanding the portfolio would respect the assets and the work that built them, even if Meg wouldn't manage it the way Jo would. As a concrete step, she proposes a standard operating procedure: a record of accounts, passwords, and whom to call, and enough grasp of basic terms and concepts to avoid dumb mistakes. Meg asks, "Do we need a trust?" and Sethi praises the question, adding others like what happens if Jo is unconscious in a hospital and bills need paying. Sethi tells Meg to ask 50 more questions like that, says neither of them has to answer them alone, and recommends running through the SOP once a year.

How They Left

Meg says she feels "a lot less nervous." She had walked in feeling a little adversarial and worried someone would get yelled at. Now she sees "an opportunity to move forward with a shared understanding of our money," while acknowledging she has work to do. Jo feels "much more at ease." She was surprised how easy it was to get "on the same page, or at least in the same chapter" once a third party reframed things. Meg was surprised by how large their possible financial future is. Sethi suggests they haven't yet grasped what's possible and could enhance the life they already want, for example with a $2,500 donation to the local garden or a guide on a trip. Meg says she wants to give more, and Sethi suggests she become the couple's "chief philanthropist." In closing narration, Sethi says the hope is that the gatekeeper-and-asker dynamic gets recalibrated into two partners bringing each other proposals.

Follow-Ups: "More Money Than Time"

Three days later, Meg said her biggest surprise was that they have enough to retire when they want without worrying about running out of money, even if they live a long time. Her takeaway was Sethi's invitation to "step into my wealth," which she thinks of as owning it. Her next step is to become conversant with all their finances and investments so she can be a competent co-manager.

Jo said she learned that her "thoughts don't always match my reality." She wants to let her fears keep her sharp while having her decisions governed by a strong plan. Since her job isn't her passion, she says it would be a shame to work much longer than necessary: "I think we finally reached the point where we have more money than time." Meg will retire next year when she turns 65. Jo, "rather than relying on vibes," has set her retirement date for her 60th birthday, a little over two years away. Knowing there is a firm date, and that she could leave today if she wanted to, makes going to work easier. She plans to map out what needs to happen before she stops working, get professional input, and then plan "a massive vacation."

About eight weeks later, Meg said the main lesson was that she needs to be an equal partner. She has been listening to the coaching sessions and to basic finance classes, and finds it liberating to understand what Jo is talking about and to have agency. Jo reported that Meg had recently explained what a Roth conversion is, "very exciting in the evolution of our financial relationship." They had a session with an advisor at Facet that built on the psychology discussed in the episode. Jo found it useful to explore what would make her comfortable and how she'll know what is enough, which she says gave her a lot to think about. They have gone back to couples counseling ahead of the transition, which she calls hard at times but also a lot of fun, and say they are leaning into the idea that "the biggest part of our rich life is having a rich relationship."

Article published