Why are there so many media articles telling people to wait to retire until they are 70+?

[brightdoglover]

Originally Posted by jaminhealth

I too say Retire when you financially can. Give the younger people more spots to find their way with jobs. I hear so many coming out of college and not being able to find adequate work.

No new RNs/younger workers want my hours (third shift!). And the stress in the job plus the shift work has had a lot of negative effects on me, more as I get older. I plan to retire four months short of 65,although my FRA is 66. My retirement plan is to try and regain some modicum of health and vigor and enjoy not going to work, like a day off or a vacation but with enough sleep. Yes, I'd have more money if I waited longer. And longer. Every year would be a boost. What is enough?

[JohnnyLackland]

Originally Posted by borninsac

I believe the modern media, particularly print media, isn't what it used to be. Internet news sources, staffed with a different kind of journalist crew, have to make the news and relies heavenly on those who feed it such via press releases. Then there's the domino effect. One media source covers a subject and then they all jump in.

Case in point is whether the Federal Reserve Board should or should not raise interest rates but also delaying collecting Social Security benefits as you state.

In my limited time hanging out at this sub-forum, the treasure chest of knowledge on the pros and cons of collecting Social Security benefits at what age far exceeds what I've read in the news.

Hear, hear!

[oldsoldier1976]

Yikes! A 2 year old thread revived telling me I should go back to work for 10 more years! Not on your life.

[nicet4]

Originally Posted by mathjak107

living poor aint a lot of fun either and can be pretty miserable . sweating every bill can be more stress then likely working so if you are underfunded the choice is yours .

Exactly correct.

I would rather live one year and a well-funded retirement then lived nine years sweating every bill that ever came in.

Waiting until I am 70 to retire and collect Social Security benefits, I have one more year to go, I was able to turn an underfunded retirement in the one where my wife and I will be very comfortable.

By working the extra four years, from 66 to 70, my benefit will go up by $800 every month and that is our entertainment budget. Without this we could survive but we would never be able to go anywhere or do anything. $800 a month is equivalent to having saved $192,000 over a four-year period. As an added benefit that $192,000 is exempt from federal and state income taxes.

[Beach Sportsfan]

Everyone has to make their choice and everyone has their standards in which they would need to live on. Many would choose to retire early and enjoy a healthier longer life even if that would mean less travel. Some could work until they are 70 to have more money so they can enjoy life snd travel only to find that they died before then or their health is so bad they can't enjoy the extra money.

So my newer has always been retire as early as you can with the money that will give you a satisfied retirement.

That's why I'm planning on 62 because I will have enough yo live the kind of retirement I would enjoy. Yes I could work to 70 and have even more but the chances are less that I would get there healthy enough to enjoy any of it.

It's a personal decision that is different for everyone.

[mathjak107]

our original plan was for me to retire at 59-60 . we had thought about retiring to where we had a 2nd home in PA.

but we decided that life was not for us so being we were staying put and i liked what i did so i worked part time until 62 .

this is our 3rd year in retirement and i still enjoy working 1 day a week training newbee's . it is stress free and i really enjoy interacting with others . last year just dabbling with the training or covering for key people on vacation if we had no plans brought in over 20k extra.

the nice thing is starting in january i can collect social security and special rules apply in the year you will be fra . i can earn as much as 45k and give no ss back .

[Serious Conversation]

Originally Posted by ABQ2015

My federal agency allows employees to work as long as they want and is willing to hire older, experienced subject matter experts. The benefits are relatively good but the pay will be less than what the employee made in industry or as a government contractor. However if the employee can work until age 62 with at least 5 years of service, they are eligible for health insurance in retirement and a pension.

At the start of the recession, we hired 5 older employees or about 15% of our office at the top of the payscale which meant limited salary increases although there was a provision for an extra bonus of a few thousand a year. After about 5 years most were grumbling about their pay but stuck it out to age 62. However, my agency is not interested in hiring managers from the outside, only those with specialized technical expertise. With the economy improving, we are no longer able to attract these experts.

To me, being able to essentially "start over" with a new employer at 57 and then be eligible for a pension and health insurance after a mere five years through that employer is mind-boggling.

Many people, even SMEs, are not going to be able to find a new job at 57, period. I'm assuming those folks were high level technical experts, probably making pretty good money, and can now sort of double dip with public sector bennies as well.

[ABQ2015]

Originally Posted by Serious Conversation

To me, being able to essentially "start over" with a new employer at 57 and then be eligible for a pension and health insurance after a mere five years through that employer is mind-boggling.

Many people, even SMEs, are not going to be able to find a new job at 57, period. I'm assuming those folks were high level technical experts, probably making pretty good money, and can now sort of double dip with public sector bennies as well.

The person asking the question of who will hire older employees was a manager for a large pharmaceutical company with experience as a psychiatric nurse so my response was geared to her situation, not to the general population of laid off older employees. The SMEs that my agency hired all had worked for technical consulting companies and were used to changing companies every few years as government contracts are constantly being rebid. Their pension will not be that large as it is based on 5-10 years of service, maybe $8-15K a year at most. The health insurance is the better benefit.

But a government job might be an alternative for other positions as well. Two of the recent posters are experienced psychiatric nurses. The VA has a proposed 6% budget increase and might be interested in hiring older, experienced nurses.