I am not so confident about Steve Utkus's conclusions, Hannah. Today's cohort of retirees has generally not had 40 years of accumulation, and, in the case of those who are delaying retirement or are semi-retired but trying to have enough for the future, the effect on them of the gig economy, the non-payment of super on income of less than $450 p.m. from any one employer, under-employment, and stagnant wages, has made for doubtfully adequate balances. It is too easy for speakers in forums of various kinds (where oysters are often shucked and sucked and champagne quaffed to gee up the vibe in the room) to make the statements Steve does to lose sight of the relatively low median balances of 'ordinary Australians' who, having their feet solidly on the ground, see little alternative but to save. What also muddies the water is that statements like Steve's make the huge assumption that the individual is one of two super accumulators (partnered), and is a home owner. The last time I looked the percentage of retired or semi- or about-to-be semi- or full retirees who were renters was over a quarter of all in that category. For those with large balances (a relative term, of course), and for the upcoming cohorts with longer investment times, well... sure, spend. For them it should not be a problem. Good luck...everybody.