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 12-31-2015, 07:26 AM
 
12,287 posts, read 15,181,947 times
Reputation: 8100

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jlawrence01 View Post
Life is a series of choices. And there are a LOT of us who are able to distinguish.

I have a lot of friends that don't travel. However, they visit all of the area attractions. They hike and camp at the state and municipal parks in the area. And they have fulfilling lives. So many "frequent travelers" never take the time to actually visit anything in the area.
How true. I have been to Central Florida many times and can tell you there is a lot more than Disney and Universal, the only places most visitors go. Don't cost as much, either.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-31-2015, 07:44 AM
 
13,872 posts, read 7,381,208 times
Reputation: 25351
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
while yes that is the average check , for retirees it is higher . the average numbers take in to consideration all those who collect pre 62 like children . it looks like most folks file early when you look at the raw numbers of those collecting at 62 .

but once you dissect the numbers you find retirees are actually taking it later then 62 as a group . the problem is there is no differentiation made .
So looking at that chart, you have 6% children collecting survivor's benefits and 15% under 62 collecting SSDI or survivor's benefits. 21% is not enough to move the average age to start collecting or the median benefit for retirees. That chart is showing the ages, not the age when they started collecting.


The Most Popular Ages to Claim Social Security - US News

From US News and World Report:

Quote:
62. A smaller proportion of people have been claiming Social Security at age 62 in recent years, but it continues to be the most popular age to begin receiving payments. Some 45 percent of men born in 1943 and 1944 signed up for retirement benefits at age 62, down from 50 percent of people born between 1938 and 1942, and a peak of 57 percent of men born between 1930 and 1934, according to a 2013 Urban Institute analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data. The share of women claiming Social Security benefits at age 62 has also declined over the past decade, but women continue to be more likely to claim early than men. Half of women born in 1943 or 1944 claimed at age 62, compared with 60 percent of those born between 1935 and 1937.
So it's still just about half.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-31-2015, 09:49 AM
 
Location: Tennessee
23,541 posts, read 17,525,434 times
Reputation: 27573
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlawrence01 View Post
Life is a series of choices. And there are a LOT of us who are able to distinguish between needs and wants.

I have a lot of friends whose wives are SAHM. It is not to be miserly but to provide a solid and strong foundation and education. That is just NOT an a service that they wish to outsource to some minimum wage employee in one of those kiddie warehouses. I find that MOST children prefer to have a mother at home as opposed to all the gadgets and cell phones that are common today.

I have a lot of friends that don't travel. However, they visit all of the area attractions. They hike and camp at the state and municipal parks in the area. And they have fulfilling lives. So many "frequent travelers" never take the time to actually visit anything in the area.
The kids aren't in school yet, but when they are, it's not like the SAHM can even spend much more time with them than someone working a standard work week.

I wasn't able to travel much as a kid because my family couldn't afford it. I don't necessarily feel shorted by it, but travel is enriching on a variety of levels.

Some areas have a lot more to do than others. It can be fairly easy to exhaust local things, especially if you live in a rural area or small town.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-31-2015, 08:30 PM
 
2,292 posts, read 1,558,471 times
Reputation: 2737
Quote:
Originally Posted by Linda_d View Post
Exactly this. You forego 20-25-30 years of higher wages to get that secured pension. Teachers, career military, law enforcement, game wardens, etc all do this starting in their 20s when they first sign up -- and they stick with it.

When I entered public service I was a single woman in my thirties in a new career. I stuck with it just for the pension because I could have easily made twice my salary in the private sector after a couple of years of experience. The attrition among young IT professionals (20 somethings) in public service before they vest in their pension systems has always been very high. Do those younger people squirrel away enough from their increased wages to replace the pension monies they walked away from? My guess is some do and some don't.
A few decades ago it was true that public sector employees earned significantly less than their private sector counterparts and took a pension to have security and make up for the lesser salaries.

That condition is no longer true. Public sector salaries have skyrocketed and so have pensions. I was a public sector employee and I made a good salary and have a great pension. There may be a few exceptions to my assertion, but the drift has been towards higher public sector salaries due to strong unions, etc. and also hereat pensions.

How many private sector folks do you know that make equivalent salaries or more who can retire in their 50's after 30 years of working in middle class jobs. Not many. I'm quite willing to debate this because most folks don't have a clue about it and I worked in this are for a living.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-31-2015, 08:57 PM
 
7,894 posts, read 5,024,944 times
Reputation: 13528
Quote:
Originally Posted by Burkmere View Post
A few decades ago it was true that public sector employees earned significantly less than their private sector counterparts and took a pension to have security and make up for the lesser salaries.

That condition is no longer true. Public sector salaries have skyrocketed and so have pensions. I was a public sector employee and I made a good salary and have a great pension. There may be a few exceptions to my assertion, but the drift has been towards higher public sector salaries due to strong unions, etc. and also hereat pensions.

How many private sector folks do you know that make equivalent salaries or more who can retire in their 50's after 30 years of working in middle class jobs. Not many. I'm quite willing to debate this because most folks don't have a clue about it and I worked in this are for a living.
Exceptions abound. The US Federal government drastically changed its pension scheme in 1983. Today's federal government retirees are almost all under the old system, which was indeed generous. They indeed have no "retirement crisis". The new system is a combination of defined-benefit and 401K. In my office, most employees plan on remaining in their cubicles well into their 60s; and we have plenty in their 70s. For incipient retirees under the new system, there may indeed be an eventual crisis, if they don't perform well as private investors.

The debate on public-sector vs. private-sector compensation can not be disentangled from political allegiances. Political loyalties are simply too intense. I will however say that the better one's marketable skills, presumably the more compensation one could garner in the private sector. There is a leveling-effect in the public sector. However, after some decades of public-sector employment, one finds oneself with "golden handcuffs", where it is financially unattractive to leave, even for a potentially much higher salary-offer. This is because pension-accumulation is nonlinear with service-time and age.

In the defense sector, it was until recently (~10 years ago) the norm for the larger private employers to offer generous defined-benefit pensions. Distinction between private-sector and public-sector was insubstantial. Globalization won't directly affect your job if it's covered under "ITAR" restrictions. But the compact of good-faith between employer and employee has largely collapsed in private-sector defense. Government employment hasn't gotten any better in absolute terms. Courtesy of the political rumblings of recent years, it's actually gotten worse. But private-sector employment has gotten more worse, making the public-sector look more attractive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-31-2015, 09:34 PM
 
14,253 posts, read 23,969,886 times
Reputation: 20030
Quote:
Originally Posted by Serious Conversation View Post
The kids aren't in school yet, but when they are, it's not like the SAHM can even spend much more time with them than someone working a standard work week.

I wasn't able to travel much as a kid because my family couldn't afford it. I don't necessarily feel shorted by it, but travel is enriching on a variety of levels.

As a person who has worked with a number of corporate type women who leave their kids with nannies from 7 am - 8 pm, I could not disagree more. There is a heck of a lot that goes on when a mother is at home from 2-5 pm when the kids get home from school. That was always our reading and tutoring time. And please don't start on the "quality vs. quantity."

As I said before, life is a series of choices.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-31-2015, 10:18 PM
 
1,734 posts, read 1,947,792 times
Reputation: 3901
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Siegel View Post
Excellent post.

To be exact, $1 million will get you an annual income of $67,009 with no inflation adjustments if you are a 65 year old American male.
I dunno, if we have a decade with flat to negative returns (like we just did this past year) I'm not sure I'm buying that - although I'd love to.


Based on one of JimandThom's posts this past week, I looked up Jim Otar and his asset multiplier thesis. In a nutshell, for every $1 of income, you need $24 saved.


Multiplying it out, Otar's claim is: for $67K income/withdrawal over a long period, you need $1.6 mill locked up tight and invested. His "aftcast" model shows 2.1% is the sustainable withdrawal rate.


(Man, am I EVER glad that my most cherished hobbies are reading and walking my dog, lol! My "stretch" retirement goal is a used Road Trek with which to go see the country while the seein's good! I could do all that on 2.1% interest and dividends).


If I need LTC, just shoot me. OK, maybe if I ignore the Exxon stock long enough it will throw off the "gap". Regrettably, that will be somewhat after I need it, lol!!!


I will draw down principle over my own dead body. Dynasties are founded on long term accumulation. The Chinese understand this. They admit what we observe: their "thousand year view" of things.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-01-2016, 12:49 AM
 
6,353 posts, read 5,153,746 times
Reputation: 8527
Quote:
Originally Posted by jane_sm1th73 View Post
I dunno, if we have a decade with flat to negative returns (like we just did this past year) I'm not sure I'm buying that - although I'd love to.


Based on one of JimandThom's posts this past week, I looked up Jim Otar and his asset multiplier thesis. In a nutshell, for every $1 of income, you need $24 saved.


Multiplying it out, Otar's claim is: for $67K income/withdrawal over a long period, you need $1.6 mill locked up tight and invested. His "aftcast" model shows 2.1% is the sustainable withdrawal rate.


(Man, am I EVER glad that my most cherished hobbies are reading and walking my dog, lol! My "stretch" retirement goal is a used Road Trek with which to go see the country while the seein's good! I could do all that on 2.1% interest and dividends).


If I need LTC, just shoot me. OK, maybe if I ignore the Exxon stock long enough it will throw off the "gap". Regrettably, that will be somewhat after I need it, lol!!!


I will draw down principle over my own dead body. Dynasties are founded on long term accumulation. The Chinese understand this. They admit what we observe: their "thousand year view" of things.
My quote is from immediateannuities.com and is for an immediate annuity where you give the money to an insurance company (not refundable) and they pay you an income for life. The number is much higher (about what you said) for self-managed withdrawals. The reason for the difference is that, with an annuity, people who die young help pay for people who live a long time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-01-2016, 02:29 AM
 
71,463 posts, read 71,629,249 times
Reputation: 49027
yep , it is amazing what the ability to invest in dead body's allows an insurer to do . that is why unless we have the most favorable outcomes we could never draw our own money out of our own accounts at the same draw rate we can pull our own money out from an insurer .

in effect that is all we are douing with the spia .

you give them a 100k and they give you back your own money but at at a higher flow rate . once you get all your money back you are on their dime .

even at zero roi it enabled you to draw more income then you could on your own with out taking excessive risk of running out of money before you run out of time .

while you could hypothetically have drawn 6.50% as a historical average from a 60/40 mix that would only be true if you cut off the 3 or 4 worst case scenario's the 4% safe withdrawal rate is based on .

so what you would have trying to match the spia cash flow is just a withdrawal rate , not a safe withdrawal rate .

basically betting you will have favorable outcomes .

the best proven success rates come from your own investing and a small piece of an spia .

in fact 70% of the time the highest cash flow and biggest pile left for heirs don't come from buying term life insurance and investing the difference .

that only holds true until you start spending the money down .

the highest cash flow and pile left for heirs actually come from your own investing , and if a couple , a single life annuity for one spouse and tax free life insurance for the other spouse instead of a joint annuity .

once again 70% of the time that combo was ahead under most scenario's . even one of you not living to average life expectancy did't change things a whole lot since odds are the other spouse will go on longer .

Last edited by mathjak107; 01-01-2016 at 02:44 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-01-2016, 08:22 AM
 
Location: Albuquerque NM
1,656 posts, read 1,521,066 times
Reputation: 3627
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlawrence01 View Post
As a person who has worked with a number of corporate type women who leave their kids with nannies from 7 am - 8 pm, I could not disagree more. There is a heck of a lot that goes on when a mother is at home from 2-5 pm when the kids get home from school. That was always our reading and tutoring time. And please don't start on the "quality vs. quantity."

As I said before, life is a series of choices.
My perception after working 30 plus years in the same engineering office has been very different. Most of my co-workers have children who are now young adults. Where my co-worker has a spouse who also has a career, their children are much more likely to succeed in school and complete college with a employable degree. These couples seem to be more concerned about their children's education, can afford private schools or to live in a good school district, can provide quality after school programs and support participation in sports and other activities, etc. None of the couples work 13 hour days except on rare occasions although they may travel as part of their job once or twice a month. Telework and alternate work schedules are available to provide more time at home. And they make it a priority for at least one parent to be available to take their child to after school activities and attend sports events.

Where the mother is a SAHM, it seems to be more of a mixed bag as to whether the child does well in school or gets in trouble. The women often coddle their children and the husband is frustrated by this but helpless to do anything about it. Several of my co-workers in that situation have 30 year old kids still at home or daughters with their own children but no husband or job to support the grandchildren. The career mothers tend to have higher expectations of their children which makes a difference. You could argue that doing well in school is not the only measure of a successful life but their young adult children appear to be well adjusted and have both a career and outside interests.

Last edited by ABQ2015; 01-01-2016 at 08:44 AM..
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
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