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.
The big difference, whether one owns outright, has a mortgage, or rents, is the variance in housing costs. Sometimes I think members here who live in high housing costs areas, don't know, or don't want to believe the low costs of housing in other areas. The end result is that many seniors of modest means, don't need the government subsidized housing that is often discussed here. If they want to go on some 5 year waiting list in some megalopolis, that's their choice. But it's not the only option.
...or it's a self-image issue about location or size or type/condition/quality of the housing. If you've lived your life paycheck to paycheck propping up a big plastic box in the suburbs, your self-image would struggle having to retire to a studio apartment in an iffy neighborhood.
I certainly recognized that my self-image about my housing was important to me. It's a small house on a small lot but it's in a location I feel good about and it's been completely renovated. I ran the numbers at age 50 and concluded that I needed paid-for housing with low cost of ownership once I stop working.
I once considered teaching after retiring from my military career. A 10 year career is what I ran the numbers on. In Illinois in a rural school district, starting at an entry level salary, 10 years would yield about a $500 per month pension. Plus under the SS' Windfall provision, my SS would've been cut. The net return on the pension/SS would've been about a $300 a month gain over my military retired pay and SS alone. It wasn't worth 10 years of effort IMO.
Boy do I ever agree with you!!
Disclosure: not a veteran or a teacher, never have been, so I do not speak from experience.
This ^^^ negative x 1,000,000. Most retirees way under estimate what it takes to have a comfortable retirement! This forum is chock full of threads and spouting just that. The ONLY people saying its easy to live comfortably on just say $2k/mo are those that were frugal their whole life, have a paid off house, are single and have no one but themselves to be concerned over and live in a low COL area. OR that amount (or less) is all the fixed income they will ever have in retirement, so they have to believe it's true, or it means they are screwed, and would rather avoid the issue. As has been pointed out many times, only a relatively small percentage, maybe around 15% now,mand less later, will have a retirement as good as or better than their employed life. My 77 yo father lives quite nicely on his SS income of only $1400 a month. His average expenses are about $800 a month and he lives in a nice retirement community in Ft Pierce, FL. With his girlfriend. In her paid off house, she inherited from out living her last 2 husbands that died from cancer. After they sold their highly appreciated house in NJ. And her SS income of $1600/mo. And my father sold HIS paid off house of $160k, and pays "rent, with benefits" of $500/mo. And HE inherited $200k from his parents.
Anything is possible with enough IFs. I AVOID counting on IFs. And anticipate WHAT IFs? instead.
Sorry, but I didn't work and study, save and plan, endure thousands of hours of OT, in dangerous environments to then spend my retirement years "making do", without the rewards of the fruits of my labors because I should have the government take it away and give it to others that decided sacrifice is too hard, or they weren't smart enough, or for whatever reason. If life deals me a death blow before I enjoy those rewards, then so be it. My wife is taken care of, and I'll be dead, so I won't have to listen to the old women clucking "See, I told you so...all that hard work and he hardly enjoyed it at all". Of course, we're flying Business Class to Venice, Tuscany, and Rome, for two weeks, for our second time in 10 years, after spending 12 days in Paris in 2012...so I'm enjoying life now as I see fit, while still amassing what I and only I can define as "needs for retirement" on my terms..Not "just fine" on someone elses.
Last edited by Perryinva; 02-08-2016 at 06:07 AM..
I did not read the article yet.
I notice in this particular thread there are some who seem to assume that those who are in very difficult financial situations have more or less "asked for it" or did not do a very good job of planning for their future. How easy it is for many of us to point a finger. We don't even need to know the whole story. It seems like the attitude is "well, gee, I've got a good retirement, I worked hard for it, I just don't understand why these people were so careless." It's easy to think that way when you have money in your wallet, food on the table, a decent roof over your head and a bank account.
If we would take a better look at the reasons why some of these people are in the bad situation they are in, we might discover a myriad of problems that the rest of us should be so grateful we do not have. Loss of job, illness, expensive medical costs, taking care of elders who have no resources, handicapped children who will remain the parents' responsibility until parents die, etc. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out. If we had just a few of the many problems other people have, we wouldn't do very well ourselves.
Please stop blaming it all on the individual. I am not saying there aren't some who really did mess up their lives. But do not assume it is all of them.
That first story was just too sad. How could a 79-year-old woman in such dire circumstances not qualify for assistance?
She appears to have an affinity for the life of a nomad, along with a few other eccentricities. Nonetheless, it's sad. And the thought of that woman belittling her because of her job made me sick.
An important factor to consider in regards to pay is that the rich and near-rich are taking more and more for themselves and paying less and less. And then saying 'let them eat cake' while grumbling about the necessity of the likes of Obamacare.
In the 1960's the average CEO salary was about 20x the average employees salary:
Today, the average CEO salary is about 300x the average employees salary.
They're taking more, paying less because they can. And then, some of the very richest, such as Bill Gates and Warren Buffett seem to be oh-so-philanthropic as they give away money, and dodge taxes, so they can feel good about themselves and choose to help where they want to help. But they don't want to dip into their billions to pay a fairer wage: Better Than Raising the Minimum Wage - WSJ Instead, they want to mess with taxes. Again.
To heck with their "causes" and manipulation.
Let's acknowledge that going from earning 20x the average worker's salary to 300x is obscene. KISS.
It's capitalism. Those CEO's employ a lot of people, even if you don't think they pay enough. I never met one civil servant who employed anybody.
...or it's a self-image issue about location or size or type/condition/quality of the housing. If you've lived your life paycheck to paycheck propping up a big plastic box in the suburbs, your self-image would struggle having to retire to a studio apartment in an iffy neighborhood.
I certainly recognized that my self-image about my housing was important to me. It's a small house on a small lot but it's in a location I feel good about and it's been completely renovated. I ran the numbers at age 50 and concluded that I needed paid-for housing with low cost of ownership once I stop working.
If the "iffy" neighborhood refers to crime, that issue goes away upon relocation to smalltown mid-America.
But, there are people who won't live anywhere other than a metro area with a million or more population. I understand and respect that. Just don't go on internet forums and talk about free market $1000+ a month 1 bedroom apartments, and without federal subsidy of that amont, seniors are doomed to a lifetime of peanut butter sandwiches.
BLS2753, I am not understanding exactly what you are saying at post #398. Could you explain a little more?
GeoffD, perceptive comments at #391 about self-image connected to size, location, and type of housing.
Also, it can also involve a dose of keeping up with others, how one looks to others, and expectations of social class for some people, besides having comfortable accommodations.
Last edited by matisse12; 02-08-2016 at 05:51 PM..
That first story was just too sad. How could a 79-year-old woman in such dire circumstances not qualify for assistance?
She appears to have an affinity for the life of a nomad, along with a few other eccentricities. Nonetheless, it's sad. And the thought of that woman belittling her because of her job made me sick.
She wouldn't have to scramble for part-time jobs if she settled in an apartment in an area with a modest COL. She gets $1200+ from SS (after Medicare Part B, I'm assuming), so most of her medical is paid, and if she picked her state carefully, she would likely get Medicaid to cover the remainder. She also has a modest pension ... I think her total income was almost $1500/1600 a month. That's not a fortune but she could live on that. She's supporting a nomadic life-style that just sucks up $$$ like a vacuum cleaner (including payments on her dying RV), but it's her choice. She could have also stayed where she was when she couldn't sell her house trailer.
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.
