The Goldman Sachs Retirement Survey & Insights Report 2025 puts a hard number on what many workers already sense: the bar for retirement keeps moving higher. The estimated total cost of retirement for a unisex retiree is projected to reach $2,569,000 by 2043, up from $1,747,000 in 2033. That climb reflects two forces working together. The first assumes a 4% annual growth rate in the total cost of retirement. The second is a steady increase in the length of retirement itself, from an average of 17.5 years in 2000 to 19.2 years in 2023, with projections reaching 21 years by 2043. More years and higher annual spending combine into a much larger lifetime bill.
The report also shows how the annual spending side has evolved. Average expenditures for households age 65 and older have risen from about $60,000 in 2000 to roughly $122,000 in 2023, an annual growth rate of 3.6%. When that spending level is multiplied by a longer retirement period, the result is the projected total cost curve that climbs from hundreds of thousands of dollars at the start of the century to more than $2.5 million by the early 2040s. The math is not driven by a single shock, but by steady compounding over time.
The Savings Side Is Moving the Wrong Way
While the cost target rises, the survey shows that many households feel their ability to save is constrained. Goldman describes this as the Financial Vortex, a structural squeeze created by rising costs in essential categories that now consume a larger share of income than they did in 2000. The report’s cost‑of‑income chart shows home ownership rising from 21% of income to 36%, renting from 18% to 29%, childcare from 10% to 25%, public college from 8% to 16%, private college from 9% to 33%, family healthcare coverage from 12% to 33%, and student loan repayment from 3% to 12%. These are not discretionary luxuries. They are the fixed claims on income that shape what is left for retirement saving.
Workers describe the impact of those claims in the survey questions about competing priorities. Too many monthly expenses affect 67% of respondents. Financial hardship, such as home repairs or unexpected bills, affects 64%. Caring for and financially supporting family members affects 62%. Credit card debt affects 58%. Paying down existing loans affects 57%. Time out of the workforce for caregiving affects 55% of workers. These numbers explain why “just save more” often fails as advice. The room to increase contributions is being squeezed by structural costs that have been rising faster than wages for decades.
The Gap, and Why Portfolio Design Matters
Against that backdrop, the report argues that portfolio design and income structure matter as much as raw contribution rates. Goldman’s modeling shows that integrating protected lifetime income into a retirement plan can increase the amount of income generated from a given pool of savings by about 23% compared with relying solely on traditional portfolio withdrawals. The analysis also finds that this blended approach improves wealth preservation and narrows the range of negative outcomes, because a portion of income is guaranteed rather than fully exposed to market swings.
The survey’s broader findings support this emphasis on structure. Retirees with a personalized retirement plan report a savings‑to‑income ratio of 5.92x, compared with 4.68x for those without a plan, a planning premium of about 27%. Among workers, 83% of those with a personalized plan believe they are on track for retirement, versus 41% without one. Planning is not just a document. It is a framework that shapes how assets are allocated, how income is layered, and how households respond when markets or budgets become stressful.
What Actually Closes the Gap
Goldman’s survey isolates several levers that move outcomes in measurable ways. Saving earlier adds about 14% to retirement results, because contributions have more years to compound. Having a personalized plan adds about 27%, as the savings‑to‑income ratios of retirees demonstrate. Financial Grit, the report’s term for consistent, resilient behavior in the face of volatility and competing priorities, is associated with 49% higher retirement savings. Integrating protected lifetime income into the mix can increase retirement income by about 23% relative to portfolio‑only strategies.
Stacked together, these are not minor adjustments. They are the difference between a plan that tries to chase a rising cost target with contributions alone and a plan that uses both pace and design. The survey data describe two trends moving in opposite directions: a rising total cost of retirement and a set of structural pressures that make saving harder. Closing the distance for most workers will require higher contributions where possible, as well as a deliberate income structure that uses planning, protected income, and disciplined behavior to do the work that raw savings rates alone cannot accomplish.
Top Gaining Stocks
Top Losing Stocks