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 completely agree that being rich isnt what bring happiness. Of course it is nice as one poster put it very well to have enough fr the simple pleasures of modern life a car, going out to dinner etc. other than that it brings alot of the rat race out in people and alot of garbage like what happened to Prince or Michael Jackson, Elvis, Robin Williams, the list goes on. Be kind, be productive and you are living a good life.
Millions of retirees say they will never fully recover from financial losses during the Great Recession, new data show. Yet the vast majority say they are happy. That's not as contradictory as it may sound. For most retirees, having the time to do what they want is far more satisfying than having money to live well.
That's one thing I saw. My low level (Low wage) job stayed consistent and the highly paid positions dried up like a body left in the desert and never revived. Sure, it took a few months to get reemployed, but I did and the 4 year degree people are working beside me and cussing out the schools or companies they worked at and blaming them for their sad state.
It was a Recession. People lost their jobs. We lost all of our renters, unable to carry a mortgage on my pension, the bank foreclosed on us, and we lost the one remaining apartment complex that we had planned to carry us through retirement. For me the Recession meant bankruptcy and the loss of our portfolio.
Cripes. I am so sorry to hear that. You are in a very different position than me and my husband - but I hate to hear when people who plan carefully like you did run into a brick wall - like you did.
You'll be voting for Trump or Sanders - yes? Lots of angry US citizens these days - yes? Count me as one of those angry voters. What about you? Robyn
It depends on the cost of living where you live. 70k/yr. would not provide much enjoyment in the San Francisco Bay Area.
folks always dream up numbers and while they may apply to some they don't apply to others .
the fact is we all make do on what we have and if we hit the lottery and had a whole lot more the bar just gets raised and now that is the amount you need .
it is just as stupid shooting numbers out as to how much is enough for retirement as it is when we are all working and earn different amounts and live different lifestyles in different places
It depends on the cost of living where you live. 70k/yr. would not provide much enjoyment in the San Francisco Bay Area.
I have cousins that live in the Bay Area, I used to own a home near there. I do understand how some areas have very high COL and you need a lot more to live there.
At the same time, there are other areas where the opposite rings true. There is a township near me where the 2010 US Census data shows a per capita income of $8,385.
My township has a per capita income of $14,359.
So as you can see there are also many areas where a retiree can settle on a low income and still be among the top income earners in the town.
I have cousins that live in the Bay Area, I used to own a home near there. I do understand how some areas have very high COL and you need a lot more to live there.
At the same time, there are other areas where the opposite rings true. There is a township near me where the 2010 US Census data shows a per capita income of $8,385.
My township has a per capita income of $14,359.
So as you can see there are also many areas where a retiree can settle on a low income and still be among the top income earners in the town.
A very interesting contribution to perspective on the whole matter, Submariner. Even though "per capita income" includes every child, those figures are still amazingly low! For the "$8,385" township, if we posit a husband, wife, and three children, that per capita income, multiplied by five, gives us $41,925, which doesn't sound quite as horrible, although it would still require very frugal living for five people.
I was quite aware when I retired that my California teachers' pension would go much further in a number of other places. The thing was, I didn't want to live in any of those other places; I wanted to continue to live in the greater Los Angeles area for a number of reasons. Since I could indeed afford to live here in reasonable comfort in a modest sort of way, I gave no consieration whatsoever to relocating. Nearly 11 years after retirement, I can verify I was right. In other words, my choice was the right choice for me.
A very interesting contribution to perspective on the whole matter, Submariner. Even though "per capita income" includes every child, those figures are still amazingly low! For the "$8,385" township, if we posit a husband, wife, and three children, that per capita income, multiplied by five, gives us $41,925, which doesn't sound quite as horrible, although it would still require very frugal living for five people.
I was quite aware when I retired that my California teachers' pension would go much further in a number of other places. The thing was, I didn't want to live in any of those other places; I wanted to continue to live in the greater Los Angeles area for a number of reasons. Since I could indeed afford to live here in reasonable comfort in a modest sort of way, I gave no consieration whatsoever to relocating. Nearly 11 years after retirement, I can verify I was right. In other words, my choice was the right choice for me.
My 20-year military pension is less than $41k, a lot less. But I can easily support myself and my wife. My pension gives me just a hair above the 'per capita' income in our township. Another $5k/year and we would be able to be raising children once again.
Different places require different incomes to be thriving.
A fair number of seniors I've run across were heavily invested in "safe" high dividend stocks - like financials. Many of those that are still around (some went under) are still far below pre-2008 highs. E.g.:
Two couples I know had non-diversified portfolios (suggested by brokers). In addition - both couples wound up bankrolling/bailing out children. One of the two couples had taken back a mortgage when they sold their house - to move into a senior place. And the buyer defaulted. Etc. So it wasn't just one bad decision. Robyn
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.
