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.
I'm kind of tired of people changing words or phrases because it doesn't suit their ideology/values/politics/you name it. If I hear about it a second time, I'll be "re-tired" of hearing it.
Anyione else tired of the catchy but meaningless titles?
I would be embarrassed if I were the editor who chose the title for the present lead article of this thead. Yes, I think we all know that private sector pensions are becoming rarer with each year that goes by, that wages have stagnated over the past couple of decades, that health care costs have been rising faster than inflation, that the Great Recession of 2008 caused problems for a lot of people in multiple ways, etc.
So some people will be at least trying to work longer or find part-time jobs and become semi-retired for a while instead of fully retired. But to "retire" the word "retired"? That's just absurd and silly. A lot of people will continue to retire before Medicare age (65), even if they represent a lower percentage than previously. A lot of people will continue to retire at the Social Security defined "full retirement age" (66 for most of us posting here), even if an increased number wish to keep going beyond that age. And most people will eventually be completely retired, even if at a somewhat later age than is common presently.
So the words are still good and will continue to be good. I usually get irritated by silly word games. Give me real sustance instead. (And yes, the article does have some real substance despite its title).
Our advertising-oriented society changes euphemisms as often as some people change socks... thinking, 'If I call XYZ, ABC - people will think I've come-up with something new. In truth, there is noting new under the sun.
As people age, they will inevitably 'stop working' by either choice or necessity. Calling it 'income-free leisure' instead of 'retirement' isn't going to change that.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,570 posts, read 81,147,605 times
Reputation: 57791
The real problem is medical care cost and affording what medicare doesn't pay for.
People I worked with in the 70s and stayed put are retiring at age 50-60 and getting pensions of 65% of their salaries. I chose to move and start over in another state, and I know anything can happen between now and then but I can start drawing a decent pension at age 65. If I stay until 67 and get SS at the same time, sell my house and buy another for cash in a cheaper area we'll be better off than now, with the exception of medical. My wife will also get both a pension and SS and out home still has equity of a$350k even after the drop, and is now climbing back up.
The real problem is medical care cost and affording what medicare doesn't pay for.
I've got good news for you. If you have a decent Medigap policy (and yes, there is a monthly premium to purchase one) or if you have a decent Medicare Advantage Plan in the area where you live, Medicare basically pays for everything but dental. So you pay your own dental and you're home free; the co-pays are genrally not draconian at all. I am 69 and have been a Medicare enrollee for a little over four years now. It would be hard for me to ask for more or better.
Oh boy, another dumb suggestion about semantics. Retire is a perfectly good word and it describes a perfectly good situation. Some people are doing it some people are not. So why change the description of something some people will or won't or are or are not doing?
The suggestions of replacing perfectly good words like "retire" or "retirement" with "longevity" (funds) or "re-engaging" reminds me of today's stupid buzz words like "trending" or the overuse of "sustainable" or the word "artisan" being slapped on everything from bread to pencil sharpeners.
Now if someone would replace that awful appellation "Baby Boomer" I wouldn't object. But please, let me retire, not dis-engage, in peace.
The real problem is medical care cost and affording what medicare doesn't pay for.
People I worked with in the 70s and stayed put are retiring at age 50-60 and getting pensions of 65% of their salaries. I chose to move and start over in another state, and I know anything can happen between now and then but I can start drawing a decent pension at age 65. If I stay until 67 and get SS at the same time, sell my house and buy another for cash in a cheaper area we'll be better off than now, with the exception of medical. My wife will also get both a pension and SS and out home still has equity of a$350k even after the drop, and is now climbing back up.
Dada Bing, sounds like a plan. Best of luck and enjoy when you retire. Many of us enjoy the success stories.
When I hear the word retired I think of a little old lady with gray hair and a bun - sitting in a rocking chair knitting all day. I detest that word.
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.
Anyione else tired of the catchy but meaningless titles?
