Mathematically—and I had a successful career as an entrepreneur providing mathematically-savvy financial advice—there is nothing to complain about. Logically,it embeds a slew of assumptions that I think are harmful to readers' understanding of the retirement-savings opportunities; that'll reduce their quality of life AND the social cohesion necessary to make the assumptions work. So it's “not credible” by assuming its conclusions (begging the question), in a way that distracts from superior approaches. First, the author fails to mention alternatives to her go-it-alone “Take Control of Your Own Financial Future” mantra. For example, even self-employed entrepreneurs stand to collect Social Security, a benefit that pays an individual or couple until death. At the income levels mentioned, SS provides a good chunk of the target spending power; telling readers to trust in their savings but ignore government programs is tantamount to saying to plan on the corporate sector to continue while we let the government sector collapse. Another key absence is that of financial annuities. These insurance products pay a fixed amount over one's retired life (terms can vary), and guarantee you won't run out of money because you live too long. By purchasing an annuity at retirement age—converting one's market savings, for example—an individual can limit exposure to high fees. Also, many employers offer annuity-type pensions to their retirees and these are an excellent way to ensure the maximum spending power over any individual's (couple's) lifetimes for the money set aside. My third gripe is that the author omits all mention of how changes in our incomes, spending life events all matter. Trying to save “10%–17%” of one's income while you have kids at home can mean depriving them of growth opportunities: travel, socializing and maybe even having enough for good schools. It also impoverishes the adults' lives, by putting off enriching opportunities, possibly until they can't be enjoyed. Finally, the math omits the reality that investments earn returns. A 25-year-old, even a 45-year-old, has decades to recover from stock market drops, and typically enjoys a high-enough return that investments can actually *increase* in value once they enter the “draw-down phase” of spending one's savings (as I have enjoyed). Of course, an article like this cannot consider personal issues, individual risk-aversion and the like. But its pretense that risk-minimizing, risk-sharing and even more reliable savings strategies don't matter, encourages over-saving that is likely to harm the typical reader's financial, emotional and social well-being.