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 really do not think that everything is 'relative'.
No one 'needs' $5000 or $10,000 per month in retirement. That is in the realm of grandiosity.
That is an absolute. And to think otherwise is not realistic thinking.
A persons debt to income ratio along with how and where they want to live in their retirement years determines what they do or don't need. To some $1400-$2000 a month is more than enough, for others, not so much.
Sorry to veer off-topic, but the title of this thread reminded me of the Texas politician who descrbed himself as " too young for Medicare and too old for women to care."
And I am off topic, but every time I see the thread I hear Tull's Too Old to Rock and Roll and Too Young to Die!
It is high time to open up the 401k to all private sector employees. No waiting periods. Contract employees eligible. Part timers eligible. And make investment advisors compete for the business.
I really do not think that everything is 'relative'.
No one has a necessity of $5000 or $10,000 per month in retirement. That is in the realm of grandiosity.
... That is an absolute. And to think otherwise is not realistic thinking.
...
One does not need to entertain grandiose wishes or desires. And plenty of people are living on $25,000 or $30,000 per year in retirement and some are living on Social Security of $16,500 or $20,000 per year. Nothing relative about it.
....
It is ridiculous that anyone takes the flamboyant jokesters on City-Forum seriously who spout nonsense about needing or wanting $10,000 per month in retirement. And anyone posting that $5000 per month in retirement is scary should rearrange their needs and wants in life and simplify if they cannot provide that amount for themselves. Retirement can be a scaled down time of life and still be very enjoyable.
matisse12,
I agree that one can enjoy a scaled down life in retirement. I also agree that many people in this country are living fine on $25K or $30K a year or even less.
Everybody is entitled to his or her opinion. I do not see any problems with posters who think that they need a lot more than $30K in their retirement. IMO, there is nothing absolute about what is the minimum amount that one THINKs that one NEEDs to retire comfortably. Everything in life is RELATIVE! If a person has enjoyed an affluent lifestyle and has the means to continue the same standard of living in retirement, why should he/she scale down to live within the means defined by other??????
Of course, you are free to think that the people who needs more are being grandiose or flamboyant. It's their life, their wealth, they can do whatever they want with what they have. If a person has grandiose wishes or desires which could never be fulfilled, it's their problems. IMO, why should anyone want to shake a finger at them and tell them to stop day dreaming or stop torturing themselves with unfulfilled desires ??
I really do not think that everything is 'relative'.
No one has a necessity of $5000 or $10,000 per month in retirement. That is in the realm of grandiosity.
That is an absolute. And to think otherwise is not realistic thinking.
And $60,000 in a working life is plenty to live on. And $56,000 in retirement is way more than anyone needs to live in retirement.
One does not need to entertain grandiose wishes or desires. And plenty of people are living on $25,000 or $30,000 per year in retirement and some are living on Social Security of $16,500 or $20,000 per year. Nothing relative about it.
And repeating and quoting Serious Conversation's $60,000 in Los Angeles is actually $40,000 in Indianapolis is not an absolute. Some people buy a condo in Los Angeles making $60,000 per year as a working person and have it fully paid for in their retirement. And there are plenty of people of modest means living in the outlying suburbs of Los Angeles, as there are people of modest means living in the outlying areas of New York City and the outer boroughs.
It is ridiculous that anyone takes the flamboyant jokesters on City-Forum seriously who spout nonsense about needing or wanting $10,000 per month in retirement. And anyone posting that $5000 per month in retirement is scary should rearrange their needs and wants in life and simplify if they cannot provide that amount for themselves. Retirement can be a scaled down time of life and still be very enjoyable.
I agree with the observation that for people who are happy on $2K/mo, $10K/mo is flamboyant extravagance. Thank goodness, there is a place for everybody on this spectrum.
In my case, I am in the (*cough*) targeted age demographic, and my (formerly) flagship company is (once again) offshoring as fast as it can. If I get tapped on the shoulder (knock on wood), I am going to have to make some sprightly moves, lickety-split! Activate the LCRMOS (Low Cost Retirement Move on Steroids). And get my head into a different frame of reference.
Right now, I am living on the high end of the spectrum, although saving a lot. In Metro DC, saving is hard to do unless you rent. So I don't have a paid-off house, or paid-off new car - both recommended prior to pulling the plug. I'm determined to postpone SS till 70 and live off cash savings.
I'll adopt my former starving student lifestyle, in which I was very happy for many years! Ascetic scholar, burning the midnight oil, trusty dog snoring by my side kind of thing. I agree with Matisse - IMHO, you CAN be happy as a clam with very little money. In my case, I'm living off cash savings until age 70 SS and RMDs kick in. Squeezing every dime till it bleeds. Haggling like an old world fishwife for a couple of cents off. In my imagination, I think I'd be quite content! - It just requires a different perspective.
I can envision how the elderly travelers in the OP's article might be doing just that. Living on very little, giving it a different air.
In my LCRMOS, I'll be in Central Virginia near family. I believe I can develop a tribe to kvetch and kibitz with, an essential ingredient in retirement.
N.B. - should I catch expensive hobbies from my new kvetching-and-kibitzing buddies, I predict I will be back here on this thread extolling the virtues of spending a lotta dough, lol! $10K a month!! Double-plus good!
I really do not think that everything is 'relative'.
No one has a necessity of $5000 or $10,000 per month in retirement. That is in the realm of grandiosity.
That is an absolute. And to think otherwise is not realistic thinking.
And $60,000 in a working life is plenty to live on. And $56,000 in retirement is way more than anyone needs to live in retirement.
One does not need to entertain grandiose wishes or desires. And plenty of people are living on $25,000 or $30,000 per year in retirement and some are living on Social Security of $16,500 or $20,000 per year. Nothing relative about it.
And repeating and quoting Serious Conversation's $60,000 in Los Angeles is actually $40,000 in Indianapolis is not an absolute. Some people buy a condo in Los Angeles making $60,000 per year as a working person and have it fully paid for in their retirement. And there are plenty of people of modest means living in the outlying suburbs of Los Angeles, as there are people of modest means living in the outlying areas of New York City and the outer boroughs.
It is ridiculous that anyone takes the flamboyant jokesters on City-Forum seriously who spout nonsense about needing or wanting $10,000 per month in retirement. And anyone posting that $5000 per month in retirement is scary should rearrange their needs and wants in life and simplify if they cannot provide that amount for themselves. Retirement can be a scaled down time of life and still be very enjoyable.
Like someone else already wrote in responding to your post above, where to even start? I'll start with how I bought a townhouse in the Los Angeles area while making less than $60,000 a year, since you seem to be hung up on that, having mentioned it twice. I bought it in 2001 when it cost me only $190,000. These units are selling today for about $380,000. Yes, that was lucky for me, but it does not prove your unstated but implied point that a $60k salary is a lot even in Los Angeles.
Second, it is not "ridiculous" to take seriously "flamboyant jokesters" who spout "nonsense" about their wants. People's wants are their wants and if those wants are within their means then it is not "nonsense" and they are not "jokesters" just because you and I live happily on less.
I think we all know that there are "plenty of people" living on a shoe string. That is one end of the spectrum. There is no legitimate call for the invective directed against people located further along on the spectrum.
When distinguishes a want from a need? It's relative. Most of us in our society would consider indoor plumbing a need, but to an illiterate peasant in India it may seem like a wild extravagance. Are you a flamboyant jokester because you want/need indoor plumbing? Real needs are actually rather few: enough food to sustain us, shelter and clothing adequate to keep us dry and warm, and access to modern medical and dental care. In your eyes it seems to be a great sin to strive for more than that, to which I say "baloney".
There is actually a point of agreement - your final sentence. I agree that "retirement can be a scaled down time of life and still be very enjoyable". However, methinks thou dost protest too much. (Witness the angry and strident language).
I do see any angry or strident language in my post. I think that is your interpretation. I am not angry. Nor am I strident. I think you're interpreting it that way because I disagreed with you.
I also do not believe that it is a sin to strive for more.
And certain degrees of wants or perceived needs can be excessive on a scale of necessities for a good and enjoyable life.
And BellaDL's interpretation of what I'm saying is not accurate to my thoughts or meanings.
I was presenting some opposing ideas.
Last edited by matisse12; 02-07-2016 at 12:26 AM..
I really do not think that everything is 'relative'.
No one has a necessity of $5000 or $10,000 per month in retirement. That is in the realm of grandiosity.
Spoken like a true Marxist. From each according to his ability. To each according to his need. And guess who determines what you need.
That is an absolute. And to think otherwise is not realistic thinking.
So sayeth you..
And $60,000 in a working life is plenty to live on. And $56,000 in retirement is way more than anyone needs to live in retirement.
Your opinion.
One does not need to entertain grandiose wishes or desires. And plenty of people are living on $25,000 or $30,000 per year in retirement and some are living on Social Security of $16,500 or $20,000 per year. Nothing relative about it.
If they are, it's because of choices they made.
And repeating and quoting Serious Conversation's $60,000 in Los Angeles is actually $40,000 in Indianapolis is not an absolute. Some people buy a condo in Los Angeles making $60,000 per year as a working person and have it fully paid for in their retirement. And there are plenty of people of modest means living in the outlying suburbs of Los Angeles, as there are people of modest means living in the outlying areas of New York City and the outer boroughs.
It is ridiculous that anyone takes the flamboyant jokesters on City-Forum seriously who spout nonsense about needing or wanting $10,000 per month in retirement. And anyone posting that $5000 per month in retirement is scary should rearrange their needs and wants in life and simplify if they cannot provide that amount for themselves. Retirement can be a scaled down time of life and still be very enjoyable.
Again, your opinion. If I had to live on $10,000 a month, it would require some serious belt tightening. And we have no long term debt other than one house and two cars. But I have no interest in living the poverty level existence that defined the old Soviet Union and is espoused by today's egghead college professors.
AlaskaErik, you just gave me a smile, from the humor of it!
It's true, I'm a progressive and a Democrat. And I was even long time married to a college professor!
I'm probably not a Marxist, but perhaps a socialist. Definitely leftist.
ha! thanks for the smile. "espoused by today's egghead college professors" is giving me some good humor
and "living the poverty level existence that defined the old Soviet Union" is a good one!
I do believe in the public good.
Last edited by matisse12; 02-07-2016 at 02:06 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.
