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.
If you plan your finances and everything around the theory that you're going to live to age 95, and you die at age 70, that's 25 years of waste of finances and everything. How much are you going to regret all that waste?
By the time you're 95, medical science is likely to be more advanced. You might be able to get new bionic innards as cheap as a new computer. Who needs a heart, lungs, liver, kidneys, etc., when you can get a fancy gadget to do all the work of all those combined, and just need a quick outpatient surgery to get it installed and get all that old garbage removed? You might even be able to get a new brain and copy the data from your old brain to it. But if you don't live long enough to see that kind of technology, how much are you going to care?
I think this inability to know the future is what keeps me working on something I do have a modicum of control over - myself. I can gather all the information possible, use my best rational abilities, seek others opinions, make the best choices I can manage and still am subject to a world around me that shifts with unpredictability.
But one thing I have learned while living is it matters less what happens to me and more how I react to what happens to me that makes the difference between personal satisfaction and unhappiness. The simplistic thinking that gets me there is actually difficult in practice but it goes like this: if it's going to rain on my parade the parade will still go on. So I can have a parade in the rain and learn to adjust to the rain and still enjoy the parade. Or I can let the rain "ruin" my parade and be miserable. I can't control the rain but I can control my attitude. The goal isn't having things work my way but rather life satisfaction in spite of circumstances. I can choose how I frame my experiences.
Because of this I doggedly pursue the bane of the elderly - flexibility. To avoid feelings of defeat plan plans, not outcomes. Others say, "One day at a time."
I'm chuckling at the example of moving to be with the grands. I have a relative who excitedly shared with me that they had purchased a vacation condo next to the one of their son and his wife.
"They're going to be so surprised!"
They certainly were. And immediately sold their own condo. Oops.
Doesn't hurt to learn how to take other people's needs and feelings into consideration when making plans either. A good-sized dose of "It's not all about me" helps to put my own life into healthy perspective.
You've written exactly what I've learned over the years. Having a good life is about moving forward and learning from events rather than staying stuck in the past and refusing to accept reality. I used to think I was lucky until I realized it was how I was taking the bumps and falls more than the actual bumps and falls that made the difference.
Expecting things to stay the same or insisting they do, is a recipe for unhappiness. People retire to new places and yet want it to be the same as where they used to live, just with maybe warmer or cooler weather and a better COL. Their spouses retire and they want them to be the same person. The stock market and housing should never have a downturn. People they interact with in public should never have a bad day. All of these are making it all about you and never looking beyond that. Read the unhappy posts on C-D, in the relationships, financial, retirement forums; many are some form of wanting a certain outcome and not getting it.
Planning is a good skill, but learning how to live with a different outcome is a better skill. For me, the best laid plans I ever had lead to the ones I never planned.
By the time you're 95, medical science is likely to be more advanced. You might be able to get new bionic innards as cheap as a new computer. Who needs a heart, lungs, liver, kidneys, etc., when you can get a fancy gadget to do all the work of all those combined, and just need a quick outpatient surgery to get it installed and get all that old garbage removed? You might even be able to get a new brain and copy the data from your old brain to it. But if you don't live long enough to see that kind of technology, how much are you going to care?
Haha, you ought to write science fiction novels in your retirement!
Planning is a good skill, but learning how to live with a different outcome is a better skill. For me, the best laid plans I ever had lead to the ones I never planned.
My H insisted I take the survivor option on my pension. Even though he was 5 years older than me, and male. Statistically speaking I should have outlived him. Well, H dropped dead at 61. And that's a bunch of money I will never get back! My alternate plan would have been much better. I wanted to invest that amount every month for the survivor.
But it's also true I could have bought the ranch going out to check the mail 5 years ago. You just never know.
THE time-honored mitigation strategy is to build a tribe within larger, existing institutions that have pre-dated you, and that will go on after you. A tribe is paramount!
Yes, belonging to a tribe within an existing institution is a great mitigation strategy to loneliness but I disagree that it is the supreme, most important thing for EVERYBODY. Some people may value their independence, and may prefer their solitude to an institution burden.
The single continuous institution that provides a Tribe (writ large) and a tribe (of your own, gathered from within the existing institution) is a church family. Doesn't matter what denomination. The institution - for older adults - provides a gathering place for people with common interests, just like college does for young people.
There are many other institutions and organizations to provides a gathering place for people with common interests besides THE CHURCHES.
There are those who pronounce, defiantly, that "I'm not religious". For those people, who are alone, elderly and lonely - they cannot afford their pretenses. A church can be a place around which to structure your time, since a church of any size provides a host of programs and interest groups, all of which meet weekly.
Do you think that atheists and agnotics are pretenders or do you think that if they are alone, elderly and lonely then they should pretend to be believers and join a church to get benefits?
I agree with everything you said about the function and benefits which a church can provide to a person. However, there are churches who offer help to all in needs without insisting that they have to belong to the church. There are also non religious, non-profit organizations which offer programs to the community.
If one does not need financial help and only need social contacts, one can find groups, organizations fitting one's interests and beliefs (be it religious or political) to join or volunteer.
THE time-honored mitigation strategy is to build a tribe within larger, existing institutions that have pre-dated you, and that will go on after you. A tribe is paramount!
The single continuous institution that provides a Tribe (writ large) and a tribe (of your own, gathered from within the existing institution) is a church family. Doesn't matter what denomination. The institution - for older adults - provides a gathering place for people with common interests, just like college does for young people. "Common interest" can be volunteering; chaperoning on trips; baseball games; knitting; READING!! - many denominations have deep scholarly traditions. Hence, if you're a scholar at heart (I am), you can find a tribe. The best bonus: your church family functions as extended eyes and ears in the event you need to find out "Where Can I Get X, Y or Z".
There are those who pronounce, defiantly, that "I'm not religious". For those people, who are alone, elderly and lonely - they cannot afford their pretenses. A church can be a place around which to structure your time, since a church of any size provides a host of programs and interest groups, all of which meet weekly.
Best to you!
This is an issue for me because I'm a religious skeptic (not an atheist who has issues with religion, just too immersed in natural science to be a believer), but have considered returning to the Catholic church again for social reasons. The thing is that I just feel that it would be hypocritical to do so. Maybe joining the local Episcopal or Unitarian church might work.
I'm still thinking about this dilemma, but in the mean time, I have joined the ladies auxiliary of a popular rod and gun club. I probably will join the Red Hatters, too. I also have an informal group of pals of all ages at the local dog park, and several already retired friends who are widowed, divorced or single ... we're sort of "the old bats club".
I'd rather buy it and not need it instead of the other way around.
Exactly this. I will not be retiring until April 1 when I'll be 66+ because I didn't want to live poor in retirement. I don't really care if I don't live long enough to "recoup" the four years worth of SS that I didn't collect between 62 and 66 because my choice to retire later means that I'll have about 50% more income in retirement.
Exactly this. I will not be retiring until April 1 when I'll be 66+ because I didn't want to live poor in retirement. I don't really care if I don't live long enough to "recoup" the four years worth of SS that I didn't collect between 62 and 66 because my choice to retire later means that I'll have about 50% more income in retirement.
Makes sense to me. I can think of only three situations in which taking SS at 62 is justified.
1. You have enough money at age 62 to live O.K. without the SS, you plan to invest the SS, and you think you will do better investing it yourself instead of waiting.
2. You are destitute and desperate at 62 and you need the money in order to live even a very frugal life. For some reason, working full time is not possible.
3. You have a serious health issue which makes you think you will not live to your statistical life span. Or mostly early deaths in your family make you think the same thing.
My H insisted I take the survivor option on my pension. Even though he was 5 years older than me, and male. Statistically speaking I should have outlived him. Well, H dropped dead at 61. And that's a bunch of money I will never get back! My alternate plan would have been much better. I wanted to invest that amount every month for the survivor.
But it's also true I could have bought the ranch going out to check the mail 5 years ago. You just never know.
Yellow
One thing some do is take the maximum pension and use some of it to buy a life insurance policy on the pension holder so the survivor gets the insurance proceeds when the pension holder goes first.
As you mentioned it is a bet on the odds. Historically women in my wife's family live a lot longer than men in my family but in our case the odds did not work.
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.
