DH asked what the original link was. The original link was an NYT article: <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/27/business/27money.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5090&en=d8c9b4a0bec7f24c&ex=1327554000&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss"> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/27/business/27money.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5090&en=d8c9b4a0bec7f24c&ex=1327554000&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss</a> That story echoed out to several other news sources. Most cite the same study by Kotlikoff, who is actually just peddling a retirement savings calculator program. The research is here thought. <a href="http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~scholz/Research/Optimality.pdf">http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~scholz/Research/Optimality.pdf</a> However, I first heard this argument about two years ago talking to actuaries, and I wonder if there is any real case to be made for the oversaving argument. I have always treated it as beside the point, as in, saving enough of not very much is still not very much. Part of the hook of the story is management fees of mutual funds and other capital accumulation funds, etc.