I'm in a similar place to you, and I've resigned to it being an impossible feat. I'm pretty close to the number for 40, but the curve is flattening. There's no way I retire at 65 with enough to survive to 80.

Those numbers were established during boomer economy years and assume a few things that aren't true anymore:

• infinite 7-9 percent stock market growth, but the modern market crashes every decade or so now.
• linear year over year wage increases that outpace inflation. Really is either flat wages or OP situation of huge jumps. The former makes saving impossible, the latter throws the x percent by decade curve off.
• you should count your home equity in that number, but fewer people own homes, or are underwater on them for far longer.
• the x/decade number assumes a certain amount of income from social security, but that's likely to be stolen by the time we retire.
• those numbers were made before the entire American population was crushed with debt. Student loans and medical, even just modern insurance premiums dig deep into the ability to hit retirement goals.

Basically, good luck OP. We're all going to work till we die.

Income is the wrong focus for retirement, and I'd be suspicious of any benchmarks that talk about replacing income. Spending is the number you need to pay attention to, because you're not going to be paying as much in taxes, and you're not going to be saving for retirement after you retire. Those tend to take a pretty big bite out of your nominal working-life income, and the difference can make retirement seem like an even bigger hurdle than it actually is.

The FIRE way is 25x the salary you want to have in retirement. If you're in the US, make an account with the SSA to check your estimated social security benefits. Take the number with a large grain of salt.

Truth be told, it's all pretty bleak. I save and invest 50% of my income but when I do the numbers for retirement I'll still be retiring ~65. Personally I'm a skeptic and don't factor in social security, though. The depressing reality is if you're saving for retirement then you're already better off than most.

This advice is kinda strange in my opinion .The easiest way for me to think of it is that 4% withdrawals are considered safe and you could do them forever. So take the income you want in retirement and multiply by 25. That's what you'd ideally have saved. You probably need less considering you don't live forever and you'll likely collect social security or some other pension.

I’ve never got any of those milestones and I think I’m on track with my career/retirement planning. Every situation is personal. You might be doing other things that are not showing up on that score card, but never the less has a huge impact on your ability to retire.

I think this depends on your lifestyle. These calculations contain an assumption that your lifestyle lines up with your income and that you will want to continue spending at the same rates when you retire.

Many people (especially in the US) will get a raise and buy bigger houses, cars, etc. If you're disciplined about living beneath your means then a raise just means you can save more.

I bought a house at 23 and paid it off in 10years. (Maybe not the best financial decision given what happened in the stock market over that same period). When I retire I plan to have another paid off property and rental income from the first. I won't have a mortgage, and should have rental income instead. Things like that change the picture in ways that these targets likely don't account for.

I’ve always found James Shack a good intro to the subject: https://youtu.be/Jm6d7UdSCsk?si=Sj5WECVllkfI1A27