why planning to work longer is not going to work (retired, diabetes)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
...
we purposely left a cheaper area when we had the house in the poconos ..
we couldn’t retire there surviving on gardening , walks around the lake and the high school football games .. there was just nothing to do all winter and the summers were getting boring as heck
The irony is that we're exhorted to "retire to" something, rather than just "retire from". You have done a fine job of the "to". But the consequence is higher costs. You probably could have retired years earlier, but then the "to" wouldn't have been as exciting.
This is a lesson of the thread. Sure, many of us are under no imperative to work longer, and can cease working sooner, for example if we lose our jobs and can't find adequate replacement. But then, our retirements will be more passive and improvisational.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yippeekayay
It's the time. Time is not on our side as we age past 45. We have done a proverbial turn so to speak once we reached 45 and on our way back in this circle of life and death.
Perhaps. For me, 45 was a low point in life. Graduating past 50 (fairly recently) was a welcome milestone. I am optimistic that pressures reduce, and capacity for enjoyment increases, as the years accumulate. Foremost is the reduced opportunity cost. It's much lower if one retires at 55 than at 50; lower at 60 than at 55. And so on. To the theme of the article linked by mathjak, it might be foolish for a 40-year-old to justify refraining from saving, by intending to work until 70... but if say a 56-year-old can manage to work just one more year, good things happen. The FI part of FIRE is advisable for nearly all of us. The RE part however is risky. Doing just a little bit more, delaying just a little bit more, has merit... especially if we retire to an action-filled life like Mathjak's.
only thing was i was surprised the guest , who is a phd and acknowledged expert on this stuff said at the end spend your 401k first as ss is giving you 6 to 8% in return , which is not true as most of us know .
its zero until well down the road an increase is not a return.
but other then that i agree with what she said .
working longer is not our choice . its a choice determined by our employer , the economy , our health and the health of those we are responsible for .
most who claim they will work longer or until they drop , for one reason or another cant
When I posted years ago I remember that you have a good reputation for being objective. I'm in my seventies now so I've been through it all. When corporations lay people off, they are obliged to choose an equal number under 40 and over 39. Depending on economics, those under 40 have a relatively easy time getting reemployed. Those over 40 have a somewhat more difficult time depending on their appearance and those over 55 are just spinning their wheels.
This leads me to speculate about the Social Security retirement age. Those who run this country are hell bent on making the retirement age 70. Economic realities of SS aside, what does that do to the poor Joe who gets laid off with less than a million in his 401K.
Retiring to something doesn't equate to higher costs unless you chose that. Unless you have famiy in the city then I understand staying put. Otherwise a life of self endulgance will result in consequences in the afterlife. It's also a more challenging life, mentally and physically.
There are plenty of low cost ways to travel which help people- Mission Trips for example. There is no need to live a life of excessive self indulgence, that is not the definition of retirement. JMHO of course
What is "self indulgence"? Are we appending moral dimensions now - and if we are, than by what metric, and with what standing? Not everyone cares for the bucolic life, nor even regards it as being a laudable way to live. Some eminently valuable contributions to Mankind require a hefty investment, both personal and financial. And yes, those lead to a "more challenging life", if one so arranges it. Challenges are more than just getting up at 5 am to milk cows.
And if we wish to debate how behavior in retirement affects the "afterlife", there's a different sub-forum for that....
This leads me to speculate about the Social Security retirement age. Those who run this country are hell bent on making the retirement age 70. Economic realities of SS aside, what does that do to the poor Joe who gets laid off with less than a million in his 401K.
Currently, Maximum SS retirement benefit age is 70. Minimum age to start retirement benefits is 62. "Full" retirement age is 67 for those born 1960 or later.
If full retirement age is pushed to 70, with 62 remaining as the earliest age to draw, then I don't foresee that much negative impact, especially if it only affects younger workers and those not born or working age yet (like it did in the 1980s when it was last raised). If 70 were to become the minimum age for retirement benefit eligibility, then I would expect it to have a significant impact.
Currently, Maximum SS retirement benefit age is 70. Minimum age to start retirement benefits is 62. "Full" retirement age is 67 for those born 1960 or later.
If full retirement age is pushed to 70, with 62 remaining as the earliest age to draw, then I don't foresee that much negative impact, especially if it only affects younger workers and those not born or working age yet (like it did in the 1980s when it was last raised). If 70 were to become the minimum age for retirement benefit eligibility, then I would expect it to have a significant impact.
When they monkey around with the ages the bottom line is significantly reduced benefits. Of course it doesn't change what people need to do and when they need to do it. It is nothing more than a reduction in benefits. People should not be confused about this.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,749 posts, read 81,656,775 times
Reputation: 58130
I only know one person who did that, she died 2 years ago at age 87, after working for 56 years ad retiring finally at age 85. She was an admin in the engineering department at a place where I worked for 17 years in the 70s-80s. She loved her job, her kids had grown and moved out, her husband had passed, and that's all she wanted to do. With just her pension plus SS she took home more than her highest salary during those 2 years of retirement.
I'm planning to retire in 2 months at age 71, and while I also really like my job I have too many fun hobbies that have been neglected and need to get back to them while still able. It's hard to give up a great salary and benefits plus SS but it's been fun to not have any money worries and build up savings over the last 2 years.
My boss retired a few months ago, her boss retires in September, and another of our directors is retiring next month. All of them are over 70, and that seems to be the current trend.
My planning to work longer is just going to cause me to pay huge penalties against my future SS income...I'm too young to start collecting now.
My income is too much to start taking SS at 66.5 when I'm eligible...they'll whack me in penalties.
Good problem to have, but I think it stinks not to give my my own money back because I'm still making a lot of money.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
