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.
They can't "run you off" unless there is some specific performance problem or similar. Otherwise it would be age discrimination. Then you can sue them.
In my little section of education, you can work full time until you are 70. But at that time you have to get permission to work every year afterwards. Considering the costs to the district, its unlikely that the district will keep somone on who has 49 years of seniority, when they could get a replacement for $35,000 of salary less.
No one except for the exceptionally wealthy has this.
Not true at all. Many with pensions and their SS added to together with investments three times that amount. Pension and SS of 100K only requires 300K in investments. Your investments at 3% return gives you 9K annually which covers up to 9% inflation. Principal stays intact and a return greater than 3% in this scenario just increases your principal. 50K pension and SS you only need 150K. 20K in benefits and you need 60K. The principle is the same. No one moving forward can say they weren't warned to not count on a COLA. We need to adjust our planning appropriately. The hand writing has been there for years.
Boomers that weren't smart enough to save and invest for retirement when they were employed are looking at a very bleak life in their "after-employment" years...with no way to ever change things until the day they die, which could be decades of living a life they never dreamed. Well, maybe if they win a lottery or inherent money from a family member that was smarter than they have been. Well, maybe not - because they'd probably blow that too.
I think you are assuming all potential retirees have jobs that afford them the ability to save. There is a vast part of the population out there without college degrees that work for very meager wages and have a difficult time paying their monthly bills no less saving for retirement. There are single moms who have been left with kids to raise and no adequate income to do so. Are these people squandering their money? There are people who thought they would be able to save enough for retirement when they unexpectedly became disabled.
My point is not everyone is fortunate to have a good job and a mate for life, so you need to look at all people, not just people in your situation. It is one thing to feel sorry for these people. It is another thing to blame them.
Its liie every generatio i that some are prepared and will retire confortably otehr never prepared and wil not and then some had things happen like the 70's that means wrokig longer. With the markets at least most will have regained much of what they loss already.Every generatio of retireees face it coming sonner than they realised.
Hi
I agree with modhatter that some of us have not been so lucky. I was divorced when my girls were young. I found myself in enormous debt. I worked a lower paying job which provided medical benefits for us. It also allowed me to get home a bit earlier since childcare was an issue at that time also. However, it took years to work off these financial problems. There was no way I could save money. I think there are many people out there in the same situation. For them, living paycheck to paycheck is their only option.
We're in the vanguard of the boomers and retired a couple of years ago. We're making it just fine at ages 64 and 62. One thing many/most don't take into consideration is just how expensive it is to work taking into consideration commuting, work clothing, cleaning, meals, work-related social obligations, etc.
We're not living high off the hog and we made a 2,000 retirement move, purchased a house and basically started over but we're comfortable and secure and after all, that's what counts the most!
Unfortunately I don’t see savings from not working. My dress was business casual - dockers, sport coat, tie. Clothing and laundry costs have not changed. I suppose I save some on commuting but I seem to drive more than ever for errands and hobby activities. The only savings I see are reduced income taxes do to a greatly reduced income.
How did you manage to retire at 41 or 42? What kind of work did you do?
I retired at 42, after 4 years of college and 20 years in the military.
I began working full time at 15; once I was 18 I did not receive any further support from my parents.
I completed 6 years in the Navy, got out and then my college was paid for using GI bill benefits. After that I went back into the Navy.
I bought one apartment building at each different location where I was stationed, so by the time I retired I had amassed a collection of them.
After retiring I sold all of my apartments and used the cash to buy land, where I have built a house and a farm.
I am debt free.
My grandparents were farmers who lost their farms during the dust bowl. My parents 'came of age' as migratory farm workers, they saved enough to buy their own farm, and have always been focused on being prepared for the next collapse.
Excellent comments! Some of us saved and did everything right but lost much of it through layoffs, investments going sour, bankrupting medical expenses and all the other financial problems that have plauged Society for the last couple of decades.
Mine and many of my friends' parents warned us to save for a rainy day. These people lived through the Great Depression and were ever mindful of being prepared for the future. ...
I growing up with the constant references to the Great Depression and how easily everything can be lost ....
And as you mentioned with layoffs, investments that go under, I have had a bank fold when I had an account there. Medical expenses, there has been financial calamity all along for people all around us, our entire lives. It would take someone being seriously numb upstairs to have blissfully ignored all of this going on and not prepped at all.
Some of us boomers didn't live large when we were working and we're still "boring" in retirement. It had nothing to do with being frugal or consciously saving money, we just didn't enjoy the same things that other people did and that happen to cost a lot of money. You know, if your idea of a great vacation when working is driving to a cabin in the woods and fishing it's not the same as flying to Europe or taking cruise/resort vacations, monetarily speaking. I think you take your lifestyle with you into retirement. If when working, you were used to big splashy vacations, having the latest this and that, dining out frequently, going to shows, having the big house, giving the kids money, etc.., and there is nothing wrong with any of that, it's just your preference, you will probably feel cheated/disappointed if you can't have and do those same things in retirement. Meanwhile, driving to cabin in the woods fishing guy is probably still enjoying the same things in retirement that he did when he worked. He isn't deliberately frugal, he just happens to like doing cheaper things.
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.
