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 will inflate your savings away. A better plan would be to acquire the skills to do work you love, and keep doing it forever. What makes most people unhappy is having work they don't really like. So they look forward to retirement, expecting to enjoy it more than their work. If it doesn't meet their expectations, they're screwed, because they have no plan B.
General statement I'm sure. My husband likes his work, maybe even loves he work but they don't love him back. But he is lucky he is employed. But his boss and him have agreed that he has been under utilized.
But the commute is what did most people in or at least did us in. While I would never quit or retire on my job, I don't dislike or like it, but I hate the commute. So I retired early at age 55.
So, Joe Sixpack only gets $1,000/month because he started collecting at 62. Don't want to come off as a hard ass but whose fault is that?
You're right. I see a lot of older people working minimum wage jobs. What the hell did these people do all their lives? People make bad choices and bad choices have consequences. I made a lot of good choices and I don't have to worry about money because all my good choices resulted in a five figure monthly retirement income. When I turn 62 I'm not going to apply for SS because I simply don't need it. And I got to this point without living a life of deprivation, although I certainly didn't live a life of excessive or conspicuous consumption. Hard work and preplanning can take you a long way.
you seem to be confused. Pensions ARE a saving mechanism.
As someone who has a (state) pension, about 9% of my gross income per paycheck goes toward my pension benefit. My employer also contributes.
This money goes into an actively managed fund that generates interest year over year through a variety of investments from bonds, to stocks, to commodities, to real estate.
The only difference between a 401K and my pension is that with a pension the benefit is defined. I can estimate my payout (provided my career path doesn't drastically change) fairly precisely. With a 401K you're more at the whim of the market- if the market overperforms during your investment period your payout will be higher. if it underperforms it will be lower.
There is no reason for retirement savings on top of my pension contribution. With social security (assuming its still there) I'll be well over 100% of my final average salary into retirement in perpetuity- with no kids and a paid off house. this is overkill- I can put those funds to better use in the present.
Not confused and not anti pension. Wife and I each have good pensions aliong with sizable SS benefits. We also have investments greater than the norm and appreciate the liquidity it gives us. We know many similar and others with pensions wishing they had liquidity. Also we were able to retire without having to wait do for SS because of investments and I am able to defer SS until 70 with having retired at 59.
Many people like to diss on Baby Boomers but the fact is, they spent the money we gave for SS and now tell us we have to wait longer.
Wife and I didn't trust government and made enough savings to live on in case they screw us out of what they promised and we paid for.
Please...they are collecting exactly what they are supposed to, based on the amount they paid in for all their working lives. Yeah - 100% of the blame goes to the politicians, NOT the recipients.
Please...they are collecting exactly what they are supposed to, based on the amount they paid in for all their working lives. Yeah - 100% of the blame goes to the politicians, NOT the recipients.
You need to become knowledgeable about how the system works before making inaccurate comments that highlight your ignorance.
There aren't many, but they are out there. Many folks think only people from the Depression era would have this mentality, but there are always some folks on the opposite side of the spectrum who are obsessed with saving every penny for the future, and deferring things that they could do now for the future. I know a couple like this where the dad is a cop, they live in a high COL era, she's a SAHM, and everything goes toward retirement.
Even as frugal as they are, there just isn't a ton of income coming in. They really don't take the vacations, buy for the kids, etc., in the way that many people do when they are young and healthy. Sure, they'll be more financially secure than most, but both the kids and parents will likely miss out on a lot of things over the years.
There's a happy medium between charging headlong into excess for the here and now and being a miser planning for a future that may never happen.
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 thread title is the title of an article in today's Washington Post. It says, among other things:
And,
The article also suggested (backed by data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) that when government retirement programs like Social Security offer more generous benefits, people tend to do less -- in addition to those government retirement programs -- to prepare financially for retirement.
Quote:
The total incomes of Americans age 65 or older are equal to 92 percent of the national average income, according to the OECD.
This is playing games with the word "average". The median household income for retirees is $36,895. The bottom half isn't exactly stylin'. The numbers are getting worse, not better. Far more current retirees have defined benefit pensions now than will be the case when late-boomers and GenX-ers retire. The top-20% and those fortunate few with defined benefit pensions will do fine. Most of the rest are F'ed. The 70th percentile for household wealth for 65+ is about $330K. The income data looks great now when there are a large number of retires with defined benefit pensions. It will look far less rosy when most retirees are surviving on a Social Security check and drawing 5% from their $200K to $300K IRA/401(k) portfolio. Go try to buy an annuity at age 65 that pays 92% of your income. It ain't $200K.
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.
