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.
Of course you still save for retirement. Otherwise, what happens if you get to retirement healthy and happy, and have $0 in the bank. You won't be happy, because you won't be retiring.
Get a good size life insurance policy, marry a good woman and live the best you can. Have a plan in case you do live a long life and have a plan in case you don't. Nothing is guaranteed be it health or an accident.
Let's say your immediate family has a history of early deaths (e.g., cancer, heart disease, high predisposition to certain illnesses, etc.). The longest that any of your family members has lived to is in the 50-60 year range.
At this point, would you even bother saving for retirement? Why or why not?
I would, because you never know, you could be the one to start a new trend in the family and break the cycle. Also with more advances in medicine these days by the time you reach 60 they may have more cures than when previous family members were alive. Plus we're more educated on how to eat healthy and live healthy than previous generations and that could be the thing to break the cycle. So yes I would save.
as the old debate about whether or not god exists concluded:
if you live your life like there is a god and no god exists at best you would have led a more righteous life than you may have otherwise and went to a few more sermons.
but if you lived your life like there was no god and one exists then you could burn in hell forever.
sooooooo the point is it would be wise to plan around the fact you may outlive methusela when everyone else in your gene pool died early or face the consequences of being wrong.
I would, because you never know, you could be the one to start a new trend in the family and break the cycle. Also with more advances in medicine these days by the time you reach 60 they may have more cures than when previous family members were alive. Plus we're more educated on how to eat healthy and live healthy than previous generations and that could be the thing to break the cycle. So yes I would save.
My father had a triple bypass and a stroke at age 65. Yesterday, he was out planting his garden ... having just celebrated his 84th birthday.
My FIL was diagnosed at age 54 with colon cancer. At age 80, he still works 50 hours weekly on his farm.
People are surviving illnesses and conditions that would kill them in the past. So, yes, you should plan in the future.
If possible one should save for retirement as with medical advances it is possible to outlive/surpass/live longer in terms of age than one's parents did.
My family is short lived (55-70ish) and I don't see much point in saving but my husbands family is the opposite. I save for retirement to humor him. For my own peace of mind I took out a large life insurance policy to take care of them should I bite the dust early.
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.
Yup, you never know. 
