Your Money

Most people think of Social Security as a simple timing decision. Take it early, get paid longer. Wait, get paid more.

But the real question is where those two paths intersect. That is the break-even point. For many retirees, it falls somewhere in their late 70s to early 80s. Live longer than that, and waiting often pays off. Fall short, and taking benefits earlier may have been the better choice.

What makes this more complex is that it is not just about life expectancy. It is about income needs, tax impact, portfolio withdrawals, and how the rest of your plan is structured. Spousal strategies add another layer, where coordinating two benefit streams can meaningfully change the outcome depending on timing and longevity.

That is why the decision is less about guessing how long you will live and more about how each option fits into the broader plan. It is no longer as simple as “delay if you have longevity in the family.” Delaying shifts more of the early income burden onto your portfolio, which means the higher future Social Security benefit needs to outpace what those portfolio dollars could have earned over that same period.

At PWM, we view Social Security as one of the few income sources that is guaranteed, inflation-adjusted, and not directly tied to market performance. That makes its role in the plan especially important. These decisions are considered as part of a broader planning process that ensures each income source is working together through retirement. The goal is not to “win” the break-even math. It is to align income sources in a way that supports the long-term plan.

How to Calculate Your Social Security Break-Even Age
by Rebecca Lake

Your Life

While older generations can remember a time before smartphones, today’s college students have grown up with them as a constant presence. Which might make it even harder to imagine stepping away from these devices, even briefly.

A group of students recently decided to test that idea, voluntarily giving up their smartphones for a week in what they called a “tech fast.” Some limited only social media, while others went further, avoiding most connected devices altogether. The immediate challenges were practical. Without phone alarms, they relied on knock-on-the-door wakeups. Without texting, they turned to landlines, handwritten notes, and even a shared message board to track each other down. But what they found went beyond logistics. Many realized just how much time their phones had been quietly consuming, especially in moments of boredom or stress.

As the week unfolded, that time began to fill differently. More in-person conversations, more shared experiences, and a noticeable shift in attention toward the people and environment around them. At the same time, the experiment revealed how embedded these devices have become, from coordinating schedules to completing everyday tasks. Most returned to their phones by the end of the week, but not without a different perspective.

If a group that has never really lived without smartphones can step back and see the tradeoffs more clearly, it raises a fair question for the rest of us. The time doesn’t just disappear. It gets redirected. And for many adults, the bigger opportunity may simply be recognizing how much of it is being spent without intention.

These College Students Ditched Their Phones for a Week. Could You?
by Callie Holtermann

Complexity Simplified

Reducing phone use sounds simple. In practice, it rarely is.

The challenge is not just habit. It is how smartphones interact with the brain’s short-term motivation system. Many apps are designed to deliver frequent, unpredictable rewards, which reinforces the urge to check them again and again. Combine that with constant proximity, and the phone becomes a default response to even brief moments of boredom or discomfort.

That is why small “hacks” often fail. The environment has not changed.

A more effective approach is to change the structure instead of relying on willpower. Removing apps that are built to capture attention reduces the number of triggers. Keeping the phone in a fixed location, rather than always within reach, adds friction to each interaction.

The mechanism is straightforward. When access is slightly harder and rewards are less immediate, the automatic behavior begins to weaken. Over time, that creates space for more intentional use.

What Neuroscience Teaches Us About Reducing Phone Use
by Cal Newport

Trivia