U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-05-2016, 11:36 PM
 
123 posts, read 73,991 times
Reputation: 141

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by RiverBird View Post
I am NOT attempting to stereotype here, but there are some women among those I personally know, like two of my sisters, who would be one step from dire poverty if their husbands did not provide a lion's share of the income since day one of the marriage.

These women are around my age. They typically held jobs not high-paying or career-track but some had jobs that did provide such things as municipal health insurance to allow their husbands to thrive in their own businesses.

One of my sisters has a teaching degree but because husband was in a high position she never worked more than PT in a library. They just didn't feel like they had to be a primary provider because the husband would do it all and they themselves would pay for the niceties like vacations/cruises, kid college funds, gifts, etc. If their high-earner spouse precedes them in death, they are typically left well-off. It does gall me when some of these entitled women (of my generation) have no clue that they're well-off because of their high-earning husbands. They feel their marriage choice made them worthy of that kind of safety. My observations are not sexist, just what is.

This personal observation also relates to frequent criticism aimed at single or divorced women who had to make it totally on their own and wound up close to being destitute in retirement (many after holding low paying jobs and caring for others, and often retiring due to health problems).

I admire the women I know around my age who actually fended for themselves, with or without their spouse.
To be fair, their marriage choice DID make them worthy of that kind of safety.

Their marriage was based on practicality, not feelings. They've earned this benefit because they married the right man.

It will be interesting to see what happens when my generation (millennials) age since almost no one marries for practical reasons anymore. I predict that we will have far more "elder orphans" than your generation, especially given the current economical climate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-05-2016, 11:44 PM
 
Location: We_tside PNW (Columbia Gorge) / CO / SA TX / Thailand
22,608 posts, read 39,974,527 times
Reputation: 23749
Most here are VERY smart... and lucky(?)!

not so Lucky, not so smart, but VERY grateful! (not eating out of a dumpster, yet...)

Lucky, as long as we can get to age 65 without needing healthcare (Don't tell Obama)

need to ALWAYS be watching over my shoulder (To stay 'stealth and lucky')
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-05-2016, 11:54 PM
 
Location: Las Vegas
13,890 posts, read 25,331,777 times
Reputation: 26388
Not everyone is in the pickle many of these women are experiencing. But the numbers of particularly women who retire drastically under funded is significant.

Some never married. Some were widowed young with minor children to raise. Many took a huge hit on their SS because they took time off to care for others. No they weren't base jumping or taking drugs. Most were doing the 'female' things that were expected of them. And later in life there can be huge penalties for performing those duties.

One thing that sticks out to me is on caregiving. I did it for free for more than a decade. But my parents had assets. They had more money when they died than they had when they moved in with me. Big mistake on my part! As long as they had assets they should have been paying me! After they died, I got half and my sister, who managed to fly in for a weekend now and then, got half. My parents should have been spending down their assets by paying me. Of course I would and I did do it for free, but in retrospect I took care of them and forgot about taking care of me! I think there are far too many of us who take care of everyone else and sort of wake up one day surprised there is no one who is going to take care of them!

Those of us who are fortunate enough to have family taking care of them need to make sure the people who care for them are as well taken care of as possible!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-06-2016, 01:45 AM
 
8,204 posts, read 11,918,472 times
Reputation: 18019
Quote:
Originally Posted by Indianapolis Jones View Post
My mother is in her 60s and will be retiring soon. She and all of her friends are doing very well and have no issues retiring. She did this despite caring for her elders and children.

So I have not seen what you are talking about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by matisse12 View Post
But you're not saying what has made your mother (and friends) "doing very well" financially and able to retire.

You didn't say whether she (and friends) have had jobs in the working world or her husband provided well for her financially.

Without knowing that, your statement makes no sense and is meaningless.

All you tell us is that she cared for elders & kids.
No, it's your reply that doesn't make any sense, not Indianapolis Jones' statement.

How could you possibly read the statement that someone is getting ready to retire and then ask if she had a job in the working world? What do you think Jones' mother and her friends are all retiring from? A mahjong group?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-06-2016, 03:02 AM
 
123 posts, read 73,991 times
Reputation: 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by matisse12 View Post
But you're not saying what has made your mother (and friends) "doing very well" financially and able to retire.

You didn't say whether she (and friends) have had jobs in the working world or her husband provided well for her financially.

Without knowing that, your statement makes no sense and is meaningless.

All you tell us is that she cared for elders & kids.
She's retiring from work.

I don't think one can retire from being a wealthy spouse.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MadManofBethesda View Post
No, it's your reply that doesn't make any sense, not Indianapolis Jones' statement.

How could you possibly read the statement that someone is getting ready to retire and then ask if she had a job in the working world? What do you think Jones' mother and her friends are all retiring from? A mahjong group?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-06-2016, 05:52 AM
 
Location: Near a river
16,042 posts, read 18,982,141 times
Reputation: 15649
Quote:
Originally Posted by cb2008 View Post
The husband cannot be successful AND happy if he did not have a family and social network to come home to.
And the female half of the equation? Is her husband typically waiting for her with a plate of dinner? She often comes home from FT work to find the house a mess, the kids needy from school, and she has to clean up just to be able to make dinner. (the above a bit 1950s?)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-06-2016, 05:56 AM
 
Location: Near a river
16,042 posts, read 18,982,141 times
Reputation: 15649
Quote:
Originally Posted by Indianapolis Jones View Post
To be fair, their marriage choice DID make them worthy of that kind of safety.

Their marriage was based on practicality, not feelings. They've earned this benefit because they married the right man.

It will be interesting to see what happens when my generation (millennials) age since almost no one marries for practical reasons anymore. I predict that we will have far more "elder orphans" than your generation, especially given the current economical climate.
Sorry, that's a throwback to the 1950s and a gross generalization about both men and women, and their "roles." The right man? Reread in_newengland's post, above. So many "right men," like my husband's father, brought home the bacon as a CEO, got notions as he rose to the top, and dumped my husband's mother for his secretary right around middle age. Yes, the secretary chose the "right man." My MIL lived out her life in subsidized housing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-06-2016, 08:05 AM
 
Location: Central NY
4,674 posts, read 3,248,729 times
Reputation: 11961
Quote:
Originally Posted by RiverBird View Post
Sorry, that's a throwback to the 1950s and a gross generalization about both men and women, and their "roles." The right man? Reread in_newengland's post, above. So many "right men," like my husband's father, brought home the bacon as a CEO, got notions as he rose to the top, and dumped my husband's mother for his secretary right around middle age. Yes, the secretary chose the "right man." My MIL lived out her life in subsidized housing.
That last line really hit me "between the eyes" so-to-speak.

I wonder what is missing in the man's brain to allow his first wife to live in subsidized housing while he and his new wife live in luxury? It's hard to wrap my brain around that.

Anyone else feel dumbfounded by this?

Please do not get me wrong. I know people do it all the time. Even some women do it, the reverse. But if you've "loved" someone for 20+/- years, raised kids together (or not), how can you do this without feeling remorseful?

I don't know if this is coming out the way I mean it to. Still drinking my morning coffee and not totally awake yet. it's just that one sentence. Wow.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-06-2016, 08:29 AM
 
6,321 posts, read 5,061,406 times
Reputation: 12838
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clemencia53 View Post
Not to be mean, but could be a scam.
I have to take this back. I read the post and she doesn't sound like she is scamming or even desperate at all. Just very thankful that she found this resource - a community food bank.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-06-2016, 09:07 AM
 
Location: Near a river
16,042 posts, read 18,982,141 times
Reputation: 15649
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYgal1542 View Post
That last line really hit me "between the eyes" so-to-speak.

I wonder what is missing in the man's brain to allow his first wife to live in subsidized housing while he and his new wife live in luxury? It's hard to wrap my brain around that.

Anyone else feel dumbfounded by this?

Please do not get me wrong. I know people do it all the time. Even some women do it, the reverse. But if you've "loved" someone for 20+/- years, raised kids together (or not), how can you do this without feeling remorseful?

I don't know if this is coming out the way I mean it to. Still drinking my morning coffee and not totally awake yet. it's just that one sentence. Wow.
There is nothing wrong with subsidized housing. It's just the contrast that's the killer. She wound up with nearly nothing after picking the "right man," and after 20 something years of being the domestic wife in a frou-frou apron handing him a martini on his return from work and then dinner and everything else, secretary sailed in and got it all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top