U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-06-2015, 01:53 PM
 
12,825 posts, read 20,144,092 times
Reputation: 10910

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by cb2008 View Post
Aging in place concept has been oversold, professor argues - The Washington Post

What are your thoughts on where and how to live as you age?
My contra argument is, look how much it costs to not age in place. Anecdote - there is a place that has the phased approach. I think just to reserve a spot it's 100K a head, non refundable once you move in.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-06-2015, 01:56 PM
 
12,825 posts, read 20,144,092 times
Reputation: 10910
BTW - I still consider down sizing or relo'ing to a normal house (as opposed to a community / facility) to be "aging in place." That was my take on the article. Staying in your own place versus other alternatives.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2015, 02:07 PM
 
Location: Sierra Nevada Land, CA
8,399 posts, read 9,145,702 times
Reputation: 13036
We moved to where we intend to retire in 2002. I got two more years at age 67.

One big plus to aging place is that you don't have to start over in a new locale. You have friends. connections, a support system and know where to have your car fixed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2015, 02:10 PM
 
1,780 posts, read 2,167,266 times
Reputation: 5877
I'm in the process of reading "Being Mortal," and it's a GREAT read. I highly recommend it.

The author makes the point that when it comes to old people, we no longer care about their joy, or their feelings of self-worth, or their feelings of independence, we just want to make them safe, and in making that our #1 goal, we have DESTROYED their quality of life.

If a three-bedroom brick ranch in the suburbs makes a 92-year-old woman happy and brings her some joy, why should she abandon that?

IMHO, the bigger problem is we've got to move away from this idea that old people have to be safe, no matter what, and look at the bigger issue, which is, what can be done to make sure that old people have a little happiness in their lives?

The article states, "Every survey we have says that's what people prefer to do" (remaining in their own home), said Susan C. Reinhard, senior vice president at AARP and director of its Public Policy Institute.

So why don't we leave the old people alone, and let them stay in their own homes. Let them have the joy and contentment of staying in the place that provides some comfort, familiarity and peace.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2015, 02:24 PM
 
Location: North Idaho
2,172 posts, read 2,083,611 times
Reputation: 2599
We're planning to live our dream when we retire. We're moving to a home on 20 acres in rural north Idaho. We'll be about 15 miles from the nearest town. I'm sure this seems crazy to many people, but as I said it's our dream. We're lucky enough to be able to retire somewhat young (61 for me, 52 for my wife), and are in good health, so we should get some time there while we are still healthy and active.

I think we are realistic enough to recognize that our dream of living there forever may not work out. Given our age difference and a home layout that is friendly to people with mobility issues, there is a pretty good chance we can live there for the rest of my life. Since there is a very high probability my wife will outlive me by a good margin, it's likely she will move into town at some point.

None of us can know how our retirement is going to play out in advance, so I think it's important to stay flexible and adjust along the way.

Dave
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2015, 02:27 PM
 
Location: Near a river
16,042 posts, read 18,978,143 times
Reputation: 15649
Quote:
Originally Posted by RosemaryT View Post
If a three-bedroom brick ranch in the suburbs makes a 92-year-old woman happy and brings her some joy, why should she abandon that?
All very well and good, but what does it take on the part of the adult kids/grandkids to keep her there? I speak from experience.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2015, 02:29 PM
 
Location: Sierra Nevada Land, CA
8,399 posts, read 9,145,702 times
Reputation: 13036
Quote:
Originally Posted by RosemaryT View Post
I'm in the process of reading "Being Mortal," and it's a GREAT read. I highly recommend it.

The author makes the point that when it comes to old people, we no longer care about their joy, or their feelings of self-worth, or their feelings of independence, we just want to make them safe, and in making that our #1 goal, we have DESTROYED their quality of life.

If a three-bedroom brick ranch in the suburbs makes a 92-year-old woman happy and brings her some joy, why should she abandon that?

IMHO, the bigger problem is we've got to move away from this idea that old people have to be safe, no matter what, and look at the bigger issue, which is, what can be done to make sure that old people have a little happiness in their lives?

The article states, "Every survey we have says that's what people prefer to do" (remaining in their own home), said Susan C. Reinhard, senior vice president at AARP and director of its Public Policy Institute.

So why don't we leave the old people alone, and let them stay in their own homes. Let them have the joy and contentment of staying in the place that provides some comfort, familiarity and peace.
You'll be happy to know that in my part of the country the philosophy of Adult Protective Services is to let people die in their in their own homes (so to speak). Putting old folks in facilities just to keep them safe is old school thinking. Now if said old person is so demented that they can't manage the basics of life and they are beyond being helped by In Home Services designed to help people remain in their home, then yes APS will place that individual.

Views are changing. This is 2015, not 1980.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2015, 02:34 PM
 
Location: Sierra Nevada Land, CA
8,399 posts, read 9,145,702 times
Reputation: 13036
Quote:
Originally Posted by newenglandgirl View Post
All very well and good, but what does it take on the part of the adult kids/grandkids to keep her there? I speak from experience.
This if they are poor:
In-Home Supportive Services

This if they got some money:

Turlock Home Health Care

One does not have to depend on one's kids or grandkids, if that doesn't work.

There are tons of agencies out there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2015, 02:36 PM
 
Location: Omaha, Nebraska
7,316 posts, read 4,160,046 times
Reputation: 18323
Quote:
Originally Posted by newenglandgirl View Post
All very well and good, but what does it take on the part of the adult kids/grandkids to keep her there? I speak from experience.
This, in spades. Most suburbs require a person to own a car in order to get anywhere, and most ordinary houses are not built to be disability-friendly. If the 92 year old lady can't safely drive anymore and she needs to use a wheelchair or a walker that won't fit through the doorways of her house, what choice does she have except to move?

Aging in place would be a lot more feasible if houses were designed to be more disability friendly. Many houses just can't be retrofitted at a reasonable cost - but could have been affordably built to accommodate aging in place had the builder just thought about that possibility in the first place.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2015, 02:43 PM
 
1,780 posts, read 2,167,266 times
Reputation: 5877
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr5150 View Post
You'll be happy to know that in my part of the country the philosophy of Adult Protective Services is to let people die in their in their own homes (so to speak). Putting old folks in facilities just to keep them safe is old school thinking. Now if said old person is so demented that they can't manage the basics of life and they are beyond being helped by In Home Services designed to help people remain in their home, then yes APS will place that individual.

Views are changing. This is 2015, not 1980.
Yes, I noticed we moved into a new century about 15 years ago. I'm pretty observant on that kind of thing.

I've got two old people in my world, and I'm fairly involved in their life. The "professionals" with whom I've dealt are all about making sure the old folks "stay safe, no matter what."

From my "boots on the ground" experience, I'd say that the medical professionals I've dealt with didn't get the memo about these changes you speak of.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top