The Goldman Sachs Retirement Survey & Insights Report 2025 shows that working Americans aim for an average income replacement rate of about 57% in retirement. A large share of respondents expect to live on less than half of their working income, and only a minority target levels above 70%. The survey does not prescribe a benchmark, but the contrast between what savers target and what retirees actually report creates a meaningful gap. Retirees in the survey receive roughly 60% of their pre‑retirement income, and 71% say they are satisfied with that level, which suggests that many households may be underestimating what they will need or overestimating how far a lower replacement rate can stretch.
The survey also makes clear that this shortfall has roots that go beyond simple preference. Workers face a set of competing priorities that consistently pull savings off course. Too many monthly expenses affect 67% of respondents. Financial hardship affects 64%. Caring for and financially supporting family members affects 62%. Credit card debt affects 58%. Paying down existing loans affects 57%. These pressures form the Financial Vortex that Goldman describes, a structural squeeze created by rising costs in housing, healthcare, childcare, and education. When these categories take a larger share of income, the replacement target tends to fall, not because it is optimal, but because it feels achievable.
Why 57% Replacement Falls Short
The report highlights two forces that make a low replacement target risky. The first is the rising cost of retirement itself. Average expenditures for households aged 65 and older have grown by about 3.6% annually since 2000, and the estimated total cost of retirement is projected to grow by roughly 4% per year.
The second is longevity, as the average retirement length has increased from 17.5 years in 2000 to 19.2 years in 2023, with projections indicating further increases. A plan built around replacing only half of pre‑retirement income has to stretch across a retirement that is both longer and more expensive than it was a generation ago.
Retirees in the survey offer a useful reference point. They report receiving about 60% of their former income and describe their lifestyle as the same or better than before retirement in 82% of cases. These numbers show that many households can live comfortably on less than the traditional 70%-80% rule of thumb, but also that a 57% target leaves little margin for rising costs or unexpected longevity.
The Layered Income Floor
Goldman’s analysis points toward a layered income structure rather than a single withdrawal rule. The report models how integrating protected lifetime income with traditional investment withdrawals can increase retirement income by about 23% while also improving wealth preservation and narrowing the range of negative outcomes. The idea is not to replace market exposure, but to build a stable base that supports essential spending and allows the investment portfolio to focus on long‑term growth.
This approach aligns with the broader themes of the survey. Workers face structural headwinds that limit how much they can save. Retirees face rising expenditure paths and longer lifespans. A layered income structure addresses both sides of the equation by combining stability with growth potential.
How a Layered Plan Looks in Practice
The report’s framework breaks retirement income into coordinated components. One component is the guaranteed base, which includes Social Security, any pension benefits, and protected lifetime income products sized to cover essential expenses such as housing, utilities, food, and healthcare premiums. Another component is the investment portfolio that supports withdrawals and provides the growth needed to offset rising costs over time. When a portion of income is guaranteed, the remaining portfolio can be managed more deliberately for long‑term objectives rather than being forced to cover every short‑term need.
The behavioral findings in the survey reinforce this 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, compared with 41% without one. Planning correlates with both higher savings and higher confidence, and the layered income approach is one of the tools that supports that structure.
Closing the Gap
The survey makes clear that many workers are setting income replacement targets that may be too low for the environment they will retire into. At the same time, it shows that targeted interventions can move the numbers. Saving earlier adds about 14% to outcomes. Personalized planning adds about 27%. Financial Grit, the report’s term for consistent, resilient behavior, is associated with 49% higher retirement savings. Integrating protected lifetime income can increase retirement income by about 23%.
Taken together, these findings point to a practical takeaway. Closing the gap between a 57% target and a sustainable retirement is less about finding a single benchmark and more about combining several levers: setting a realistic income goal, structuring a layered income floor, sequencing competing priorities over time, and writing the plan down so it survives the next bout of volatility or budget pressure.
The survey’s message is straightforward: Replacement rates are not just a number, they are the result of structure, behavior, and planning that begin long before the first retirement check arrives.
Top Gaining Stocks
Top Losing Stocks