Most workers assume they will retire at 65. The actual median is 62. That three-year gap can blow a hole in a retirement plan built around delayed Social Security, continued 401(k) contributions, and employer-provided health coverage.

New survey data from the Employee Benefit Research Institute shows up to half of American workers are pushed into early retirement by forces outside their control. For anyone whose financial plan depends on working to a fixed date, the risk is not theoretical. It is the single most common planning failure in retirement finance, and it has direct implications for how much purchasing power a retiree actually carries into old age.

Personal finance commentator Suze Orman flagged the problem in a recent blog post, as reported by Moneywise, warning that planning to work until 65 is itself a risky strategy. The reason is simple: restructuring, a health diagnosis, or a family crisis can force the timeline forward with little notice. And when it does, the financial plan that looked solid at 64 suddenly has to cover three or more additional years of expenses with fewer years of contributions behind it.

The Gap Between Plans and Reality

EBRI’s 2026 Retirement Confidence Survey found that most people plan to retire at 65, but the median actual retirement age is 62. The institute has been running these surveys since 1990, and the gap between intention and outcome has persisted for decades.

Craig Copeland, EBRI’s Director of Wealth Benefits Research, put it bluntly in an interview with Moneywise:

“It happens to one in two people, but most people think they’re going to be the one to work longer.”

Related Posts
Ultra-rich investors cut stocks and build cash reserves

That is a striking cognitive mismatch. Workers build their savings targets, their Social Security claiming strategies, and their healthcare assumptions around a date they have roughly a coin-flip chance of reaching. The EBRI data suggests up to 50% of Americans are forced into early retirement, not by choice, but by circumstance.

A separate Allianz survey reinforced the tension from a different angle: one in two respondents said they would retire immediately if they won a lottery. The desire to stop working is widespread. The financial preparation for an early exit is not.

Why Three Years Matters More Than People Think

Retiring at 62 instead of 65 does not just subtract three years of income. It compounds in several directions at once. Three fewer years of contributions to a retirement account. Three more years of drawing down savings. And a permanent reduction in Social Security benefits for anyone who claims early rather than waiting until 67 or later.

Social Security benefits increase the longer collection is delayed, from age 67 through age 70. A worker forced out at 62 faces a choice between claiming reduced benefits immediately or burning through savings to bridge the gap. Neither option is painless, and both erode long-term purchasing power in ways that are difficult to reverse.

This is the arithmetic that makes early-sixties retirement targets so dangerous for anyone without a substantial cushion. The plan looks reasonable on paper until the date moves forward and the numbers no longer work.

Healthcare adds another layer. Workers who leave before Medicare eligibility kicks in must find coverage on their own, often at peak cost. The assumption that employer insurance will carry you to 65 is itself a bet on continued employment.

Orman’s Warning and the Planning Fix

Orman acknowledged in her blog post that working longer has real advantages. “Working longer can make great sense,” she wrote. “You can keep your retirement savings growing longer, tap into less earlier, and perhaps even continue to save more.”

But her point was that counting on it is the mistake. The benefits of extended work are real only if you actually get to keep working. And the data says half the workforce does not.

Copeland’s advice to Moneywise was practical: “Don’t fix your plan on one retirement date.” Instead, he recommended running financial scenarios for earlier retirement dates and working with a financial advisor to stress-test the plan against involuntary departure. The goal is not pessimism. It is resilience.

That framing matters for anyone who has built a retirement strategy around a single number. If your plan only works at 65, it is not a plan. It is a hope.

What This Means for Capital Preservation

For readers of this site, the retirement-timing risk connects directly to the question of how assets are structured and what they are designed to withstand. A portfolio built entirely around the assumption of continued earned income until a fixed date carries a hidden fragility. When that income disappears early, the portfolio must do more work, sooner, with less margin for error.

The challenge is compounded by inflation. As retirement savings targets keep climbing, the gap between what retirees need and what they have saved widens. A three-year acceleration in the retirement date does not just reduce contributions. It also means spending down assets during a period when inflation may still be eroding purchasing power.

This is where asset allocation decisions made years before retirement start to matter most. A portfolio heavy in equities may look adequate at 60 but could face a drawdown at exactly the wrong moment. As we have noted in our coverage of stretched equity valuations, a significant market correction in the years just before or after retirement can permanently impair a plan that had no margin built in.

Hard assets, including physical gold and silver, serve a different function in this context. They are not growth instruments. They are stores of value that do not depend on an employer’s solvency, a bull market’s continuation, or a government program’s schedule. For someone facing the prospect of involuntary early retirement, the question is not whether gold will outperform equities over the next decade. The question is whether the portfolio can absorb a shock without forcing liquidation at the worst possible time.

The Practical Takeaway

Copeland’s core advice deserves repeating: run the numbers for retirement at 60, at 62, and at 65. See which scenarios survive and which ones break. If the plan only works at 65, the plan needs more work.

For those who discover their savings have already fallen short, the options narrow but do not disappear. Adjusting spending, reconsidering asset allocation, and building a more durable income floor are all steps that can be taken before the decision is made for you.

The broader lesson is one that applies across every market cycle and every policy regime. Plans built around a single assumption are brittle. Plans built around a range of outcomes, including uncomfortable ones, tend to survive. That principle applies to retirement dates, to portfolio construction, and to the question of how much trust to place in any single institution’s promises.

Many retirees report they are managing fine even with savings well below conventional targets, as our earlier coverage explored. But managing fine in a benign environment is different from managing fine after a forced early exit, a healthcare surprise, or a bear market that arrives at the worst possible moment.

The EBRI data does not predict who will be forced out early. It simply says the odds are even. For anyone building a financial plan, those are not odds to ignore.

A plan that only works if everything goes right is not a plan. It is a bet. And the house edge, as the data keeps showing, belongs to the unexpected.