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.
When anyone typically posts anything about having enough to retire on, it appears everyone on this board has enough, whether through pensions, double social security checks or larger portfolios. Yet statistically, many more people do not have enough to retire.
So how is it we never hear from them? Does the subject matter of this forum "Retirement" only attract people who are in a position to retire? Are there not people on here who would like to retire, but feel they can't? Are they afraid to speak up, or are they just not interested in the subject matter so they never come on this forum?
Hmmm...the questions were.... I just read he whole thread...advice, insinuations and reasons given about why they don't have a lot, but only a very small number of posts as to why they won't post here.
There are quite a few posts that might indicate why the bolded part could be a reason.
Some of the advice may be good but far too late for the 'missing' posters , some are just oh so humble backslapping for having 'done it right' and damn few that cared about answering the op.
I've admitted a few times about why my "required-for-living until-90" 2 million isn't sitting here but am reluctant to discuss it anymore because I'm still apparently not doing what I "should" .
Well, according to many posters, I certainly do not have enough to retire on.
I'm retiring this December. I'll be 64. I should have about $50k in a savings account, plus about $20k to live on before I apply for SS at age 66.
Is that enough? Probably not. I do own my home and a newer car outright.
Do I care what others think? Hell, no. Telling me what I *should have done* 40 years ago is no help at all. Can't go back and change it. I feel no shame. I feel no guilt.
The posters who always bring up *bad decision making* do not affect me in any way. I have made my life; you don't know me; and there is nothing to be done about it anyway.
I grew up poor and have been relatively poor for most of my life. What I have now is a blessing compared to earlier years.
It's not as much as others have, but it's mine, and I am quite happy to be in the position I find myself in.
To answer the OP's question: I feel that people who cannot afford to retire just don't want to read about people who CAN. It could make them feel inadequate, or make them depressed. I remember being a kid and at times being so hungry I would look at pictures of food in magazines! It didn't help my hunger, though, just made me feel more deprived. Maybe that's how people who cannot afford to retire feel, reading this forum.
You may be right Fox Terrier on all counts. It matters not what others think. It can rankle that others have more, so why expose yourself to that, when it will do you no good.
As far as the direction that this thread has taken, I would consider it a natural progression from the OP. "Where are they", led to "why" and that led to hurt feelings and here we are. If this had stayed true to topic, it would have been over in about two pages. Most threads probably would. We could have just had a poll, in that case.
I do feel that there are a lot of people who like to think that they are reasonable, compassionate, "convinceable" people and so they ask for evidence. But in reality there is almost no amount of evidence that will ever convince them . In this case it wouldn't matter how hard someone worked, how much of the "right" things the did. If they end up in a situation where they don't have enough to retire they still didn't do something right. Short of maybe a string of major catastrophe's like earthquakes, fire followed by cancer, heart attack and a losing a limb or something. Some of those people are on this thread. People like that can't hurt my feelings.
Hmmm...the questions were.... I just read he whole thread...advice, insinuations and reasons given about why they don't have a lot, but only a very small number of posts as to why they won't post here.
There are quite a few posts that might indicate why the bolded part could be a reason.
Some of the advice may be good but far too late for the 'missing' posters , some are just oh so humble backslapping for having 'done it right' and damn few that cared about answering the op.
I've admitted a few times about why my "required-for-living until-90" 2 million isn't sitting here but am reluctant to discuss it anymore because I'm still apparently not doing what I "should" .
The way I see it . . . what the hell does it matter if we are doing "what we should" at this point. There is only so much to be salvaged by the time one is looking at 70, especially if there are health issues.
We live our lives and that journey is often filled with unpredictable occurrences.
No one can indemnify themselves against everything that is going to happen.
Nor do I wish to live my life in fear of all the "what ifs."
I know folks who are so wrapped up in circuitous fearful thinking about "how to keep themselves solvent and alive til age 100" . . . they don't enjoy the moment. They are afraid to take that trip because that will use up some of the $$$$ they have socked away so they can . . . um . . . what? Comfortably pay to have someone bathe them and adjust their feeding tube daily at age 95?
The question posed was - where are the folks who don't have enough to retire?
My feeling about that is right along the lines of what old_cold has said. What advice or direction have any us really been able to give to those who are struggling financially . . .and what advice IS THERE on this planet that would help, other than providing links to social service safety nets?
Frugal living . . . okay. Sharing ideas. That is helpful. Resources for group living and sharing and combining assets . . . that can be helpful.
But most of what folks share is info that MIGHT have been helpful 20 years ago. It often comes off as condescending (or patronizing) - EVEN IF THE PEOPLE WRITING THAT INFO DO NOT MEAN IT THAT WAY.
The truth is simple: Folks don't always choose to retire. Folks who feel they don't have enough money saved to retire and are healthy enough to keep working will do just that. Folks who have health issues -- from Alzheimers to chronic or terminal illness -- (or who have spouses dealing with those issues) -- don't always have a CHOICE. It is what it is.
I have said this many times, on this forum and elsewhere, there are many people across this country getting by on less than $1000 a month. Their situations vary greatly. Some may have assets they aren't touching while they survive off social security. Some have nothing. Some rely on living with family members. Some have roommates. Some are in subsidized housing. Some own their own homes.
People survive within whatever parameters they are dealing with at that point in time.
The key is . . . how to live within your means and do so with some joy. It doesn't matter how wealthy or impoverished a person is. There is no reason to continue living if there is no joy in life. This time on the planet is not meant to be an endurance test -- just a gauntlet we run to prove we can do it.
Attitude is everything. The reason we don't hear from folks who are just "getting by" is because too often, reading the "advice" on this forum is not geared to enhancing lifestyle and uplifting the downtrodden . . . but it doesn't have to be that way.
We have created terms to refer to our elderly years that indicate that they there is something wrong with us if we don't see the last decades of our lives as "golden." Well, if that means "precious" (as in - fleeting and to be treasured) . . . then I can certainly agree with that. But if it means everyone is supposed to be sailing into the sunset with cash-in-hand, a gleaming "Net Worth" statement, great health and a spouse who is joyfully holding our hands til we die in the comfort of our paid off home, surrounded by children and grandchildren and the contracted home health team . . . then most folks are delusional.
In the end, we come into this world with nothing and we will leave with nothing. How we figure out to sustain ourselves in between those two points is as much a matter of attitude as it is accumulating wealth.
We would do everyone a big service if we stopped for a moment and recognized that everyone's situation is different. Everyone's. There may be similarities, but everyone's path is individual. For those who have been blessed with financial rewards - I commend you. For those who have been impacted by circumstances that none of us would have chosen, I commend you, as well. You are alive. You survived. No one can make us happy or take away our happiness. There is joy to be found in very simple things -- a good book, a walk in the park, a task completed.
Life is not a race. No one "wins." We all die. Have some empathy for those who are having a tough time. And reach out. If not on a forum such as this one, in your community. A little compassion and a can of soup might make the difference in someone else's day. Flaunting your Net Worth statement definitely won't.
asking where are those that don't have enough to retire is a very vague statement . retire when and where is the question ?
retiring at 62 takes alot more money than at 70. few americans are really prepared to retire at 62 although many think they are, reality says nay nay. they usually end up with a very financially stressed life sweating every unexpected bill and never living their wants and dreams for retirement.
working longer is the great fixer:
not only is the social security check almost 2x larger but:
you do not spend down for 8 years from savings
you may be adding to savings
your savings and investments are still compounding
you have 8 years of life less to support .
much less is needed from savings at 70 with almost 2x the ss check
there is a huge difference between having enough at 62 and having enough at 70.
most folks will have to work longer if they can and they will be just fine.
perhaps we should change the name and call 70 full retirement age and everything else is just called early retirement.
waiting to retire is the biggest boost anyone can give to their retirement plan.
retirement is a priveledge not a right and there is nothing that says at a certain age you just do not work anymore.
retirement is letting your money work for you as opposed to you working for your money anymore. so you need a way to let that happen and waiting to retire may be the answer where health is not a factor.
^ This post is excellent. We should call 70 full retirement. Changing the dialogue would help people understand. The average life expectancy for men went from 62-63 to about 84. We still feel 62 is a good age to retire. Somehow it got into our heads that when medicine and general health were able to be improved, the entire increase in longevity should require absolutely no work because people were entitled to stop working at 62.
the topic is "Where are the people who don't have enough to retire". I don't think judging those people is appropriate here. And we are here, if you mean the ones who don't have a million in the bank or whatever. Perhaps the OP just missed us.
Not meaning to pick on you mathjak but you do seem to have an axe to grind in this thread
We don't have anywhere near a million in the bank, and IMO mathjak isn't grinding an axe.
I think people also forget that the average person on the C-D retirement forum is probably more affluent than the average man on the street, probably considerably so. I doubt you're getting anywhere near an accurate sample of society on these boards.
I think people also forget that the average person on the C-D retirement forum is probably more affluent than the average man on the street, probably considerably so. I doubt you're getting anywhere near an accurate sample of society on these boards.
Probably true and possibly why some shy away from some threads and not others. Want to see people discuss limited means? Try the frugal forum or thread.
just a question ? there is not one diversified mutual fund that would be in a 401k that lost money to date over any long term period of time so why the lost money ?
usually the reasons are overly aggreesivly invested , mismatched long term investments with short term needs for the money , instead of rebalancing and staying the course as investing requires , they bailed out and ran.,.
just curious why you lost money ?
I know your MO mathjak from reading your many posts over the years. I know when it comes to financial matters, you are usually there eager to try and share your knowledge with others and often times give good advice. But put yourself in the poster's place who was brave enough to post, saying, "ok, I'll come out of the closet and say I don't have enough to retire, and I think I did everything right.
Your opening sentence above in essence, said to him/her "Well apparently you didn't, because no one could have in this market." The reality of this might be true, but starting the conversation like that can immediately shut the poster down. Wouldn't it have been better to just inquire about the funds he held in his 401K fund and suggest you may be able to help him with that if he would like to share that information with you. I know everyone seems to be picking on you, and I don't agree with that as there are others who are much more guilty of "shut down responses" than you are. I am only using the most recent post to refer to where a new poster has put themselves out there, only to be greated with accusatory statements (true or not)
If it were me responding to the poster in addition to asking about the funds he was holding, I might engage him further by asking him what he plans to do. Has he come to any decisions of how he may make it work.
Basically engage him to open up more so others might be able to make some suggestions of things he should look into, or share their stories of how they made it work for them. Do you get my drift? It's not so much about your statement being right, but about how you present it, and are you really interested in engaging this person in conversation, or just pointing out what you know?
Quote from DaveinMtAiry's
DaveinMtAiry "I was just about to ask the same question. It's really hard, almost impossible really, to lose money in a 401k. If this is the case then you could certainly say that was on the poster for either making bad choices (too much cash) or trying to time the market by going in and out too often."
I don't think saying this will do anything to encourage the poster to continue to engage anyone further either. An awful lot of people are not knowledgeable about stocks and when handed a sheet to pick from initially, don't make very educated picks. There is obviously more to the story, so why not find out what it was first, and try and help instead of saying things like: "It's on you for either making bad choices or trying to time the market." Are we on here to just show people how smart we are, or we on here to help each other out?
There are a lot of unpleasant truths out there. When you are introduced to a very over weight person, do you say "Boy are you fat. You must be eating all the wrong food." That is my point.
Last edited by modhatter; 03-07-2015 at 11:37 AM..
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.
