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)
 
Old 01-10-2017, 11:24 AM
 
2,450 posts, read 2,085,390 times
Reputation: 5733

Advertisements

My sons are doing very well.


Oldest son David is with a very successful band called 'Bread'


Youngest son Bill started a company called Microsoft.


As for me I semi retired at 70 and fully retired at 80.


None of the above is true but hey I want to keep up with the Joneses on internet forums too.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-10-2017, 11:38 AM
 
Location: RVA
2,179 posts, read 1,278,314 times
Reputation: 4506
It's called being frugal and smart with their money. My wifes ex-MIL was a single secretary and her mother and son lived with her. She has a paid off house in Miami, now worth maybe $250k, near the airport, had a couple of hundred k saved, and has a pension as well. Now, she retired in 1994, at age 65, when pensions were more prevalent, but she collects a $1600/mo SS check and it is the only job she ever worked. So she was not making big bucks by any stretch. In her case, her denial of any real luxuries is over the top. She used to rinse and reuse paper towels and paper plates. She still uses no hot water 3/4s of the year, and only uses AC for 2-3 hours in the hottest part of the year to cool down her bedroom right before she goes to bed. Despite her electric bill of only $40. In summer. In Miami. She treats a dollar likes it's a $50 bill. While many may be poor, too many are poor because they refuse to live at a level that their income can justify. Television makes one think one can work in a coffeehouse and live in a nice 2br apt in Manhattan, and stuff along those lines is justification for spending.

1 in 5 housholds makes over $100k a year. Not exactly Elysium by any stretch. And the majority of those will be understandably in higher COL areas. The gross amount means much less to ones standard of living with out comparing COL. How much you save and invest are what counts, and the higher wage means more SS and more pension (if it exists). Once you reach a certain level of savings, then in retirement you can relocate to a lower COL area, where that higher SS, and maybe pension will really pay off. Thats how my parents and many, many others retired.

Last edited by Perryinva; 01-10-2017 at 11:50 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2017, 01:15 PM
 
Location: A safe distance from San Francisco
8,625 posts, read 6,184,632 times
Reputation: 8639
Quote:
Originally Posted by Perryinva View Post
It's called being frugal and smart with their money. My wifes ex-MIL was a single secretary and her mother and son lived with her. She has a paid off house in Miami, now worth maybe $250k, near the airport, had a couple of hundred k saved, and has a pension as well. Now, she retired in 1994, at age 65, when pensions were more prevalent, but she collects a $1600/mo SS check and it is the only job she ever worked. So she was not making big bucks by any stretch. In her case, her denial of any real luxuries is over the top. She used to rinse and reuse paper towels and paper plates. She still uses no hot water 3/4s of the year, and only uses AC for 2-3 hours in the hottest part of the year to cool down her bedroom right before she goes to bed. Despite her electric bill of only $40. In summer. In Miami. She treats a dollar likes it's a $50 bill. While many may be poor, too many are poor because they refuse to live at a level that their income can justify. Television makes one think one can work in a coffeehouse and live in a nice 2br apt in Manhattan, and stuff along those lines is justification for spending.

1 in 5 housholds makes over $100k a year. Not exactly Elysium by any stretch. And the majority of those will be understandably in higher COL areas. The gross amount means much less to ones standard of living with out comparing COL. How much you save and invest are what counts, and the higher wage means more SS and more pension (if it exists). Once you reach a certain level of savings, then in retirement you can relocate to a lower COL area, where that higher SS, and maybe pension will really pay off. Thats how my parents and many, many others retired.
And the vast majority of those households are in New York, Wash DC, San Francisco, and other coastal metros with stratospheric housing costs. Where 100k is nothing like 100k. So it is a meaningless statistic.

Those of you who continue to attempt to brush aside the economic calamity that has befallen millions of average Americans over the last 30 years with individual anecdotal examples and happy faces might just as well set out to climb Niagara Falls. Far too many people know better. And they're not, for a moment, going to sit still for the argument that they've done it to themselves because they didn't re-use their paper towels and squandered their nest-egg on hot water.

On the surface, it is very difficult to understand the degree of denial that still floats around out there on this and other closely related topics. But dig a little deeper and it perhaps becomes clearer. I think it's safe to say the denial comes from two main groups. 1) Those who are too young to have seen it any other way and have no idea what we've lost. 2) Those who are old enough to know better, but have milked the system, gotten theirs while they could - at the expense of many others, and are doing their damnedest to raise the moat behind them just ahead of the angry mob.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2017, 01:15 PM
 
2,132 posts, read 1,019,381 times
Reputation: 8673
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightengale212 View Post
I don't know of too many people that frequent this retirement forum that have shared some info about their assets that are filthy rich, will retire filthy rich, or had parents that were filthy rich.

Being angered and envious towards another group of individuals is akin to you taking poison and waiting for them to die. You may want to consider dropping the anger because it will have no positive outcome for you, and instead invoke the expertise of those you so envy because they likely have a great wealth of knowledge and experience they could share with you in how they overcame their own financial challenges which may be prove to be very valuable to you towards having a brighter financial future.
Well THAT was totally unwarranted. The OP has a point - though it is not limited just to today's young people. We have an entire generation of people who have lost their manufacturing jobs and/or their savings (in various financial crises) who are not going to have the resources to actually "retire", and/or who will be living in poverty soon, if they're not already.

It is a real problem and not to be shrugged off with unfounded accusations of "jealousy".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2017, 01:38 PM
 
3,113 posts, read 835,407 times
Reputation: 1776
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtovenice View Post
How does a secretary afford to own a house debt-free and then amass $125K in savings? And then have a pension on top of that? ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Perryinva View Post
...My wifes ex-MIL was a single secretary and her mother and son lived with her. She has a paid off house in Miami, now worth maybe $250k, near the airport, had a couple of hundred k saved, and has a pension as well. Now, she retired in 1994, at age 65, when pensions were more prevalent, but she collects a $1600/mo SS check and it is the only job she ever worked. ...
That this surprises us reinforces OP's point that there have been some seismic shifts in how we organize our economy. The woman in Perryinva's example would have started work right after World War 2 when the need for administrative support was provided by highly capable employees even though they may not have been college-educated. Women frequently held these jobs and, in keeping with that era, it was not at all unusual for them to spend their "career" at one firm ending up with a pension.

Today secretarial-type work is most likely done by the principal using various forms of technology but with added workplace stress and time required to do the job. No paid overtime. If outside support is provided, it is frequently sourced through temp agencies staffed by the college-educated who may hold considerable educational debt. No pensions for them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2017, 02:06 PM
 
12,825 posts, read 20,201,499 times
Reputation: 10914
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigiri View Post
Believe it or not, the choice of living in that "high COL" area probably tells a lot of tale.

It doesn't matter that you were raised there - it is a finite amount of land in a certain climate and in proximity to certain things and therefore everything is different.

My Daughter lives in the "ghetto" in the bay area in a 600K house that would cost $60K (no kidding) in Pittsburgh. She has friends bringing home 130K who cannot make it.

So it does matter - and it's a decision you made and you continue to make.
According to you macroeconomics play no role in anything.

It's not so much that I grew up in high COL and decided to remain (imagine that - something about the jobs thingey, the family thingey, etc .... oh, but as a bowling alone, highly mobile, rootless murican I'm supposed to care nothing about family and home turf). All things (including income / expense ratio, etc) being equal, and being of an educated upper middle class background, it really should not have mattered. Thing is, the income piece, in real terms, for most middle class people (upper, middle and lower thereof) declined since the early 1970s. This is true in high COL, and low COL. People in Pittsburgh have their own version of these issues, especially in light of the lower pay there vs. here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2017, 02:09 PM
 
Location: Tennessee
23,800 posts, read 17,725,620 times
Reputation: 27872
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blondy View Post
I agree wholeheartedly. The key to financial success is living below your means imo. And even believing that as I always have, I cannot tell you how much "stuff" we threw away or donated when we retired and relocated. Thousands of dollars worth.

I now have an aversion to stuff lol. Truthfully, if people give me stuff, it ticks me off.
Not saying you two are wrong at all - of course, living below your means aids in retiring early, as well generally financial security throughout life.

However, again I think people are forgetting that this advice really applies to middle income people on up. I've for seven years come May - for four of those years, I made around $30,000 on average - I made a little over $40,000 one year (but had to move cross-country to get that then moved back, so a lot of moving expenses) and the next year made about $21,000. Did I make errors? Of course, but it's life.

If you're a single person, even in a low cost of living area and no children, you aren't going to be living that well on $15/hr. You can probably afford a cheap apartment, drive a decent older car, and afford a very simple few extras here and there, but you can forget about traveling, a new car, eating out beyond places like Applebee's, significant retirement savings, and probably homeownership. It's a simple lifestyle. Of course, two people making $15/each can live a lot better.

If you're single and making $10/hr, you're screwed - plain and simple. There's no "cutting" when you cannot even pay basic bills on your meager salary. You have to be making enough to have some extra in order to live below your means.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2017, 02:09 PM
 
12,825 posts, read 20,201,499 times
Reputation: 10914
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrownVic95 View Post
And the vast majority of those households are in New York, Wash DC, San Francisco, and other coastal metros with stratospheric housing costs. Where 100k is nothing like 100k. So it is a meaningless statistic.

Those of you who continue to attempt to brush aside the economic calamity that has befallen millions of average Americans over the last 30 years with individual anecdotal examples and happy faces might just as well set out to climb Niagara Falls. Far too many people know better. And they're not, for a moment, going to sit still for the argument that they've done it to themselves because they didn't re-use their paper towels and squandered their nest-egg on hot water.

On the surface, it is very difficult to understand the degree of denial that still floats around out there on this and other closely related topics. But dig a little deeper and it perhaps becomes clearer. I think it's safe to say the denial comes from two main groups. 1) Those who are too young to have seen it any other way and have no idea what we've lost. 2) Those who are old enough to know better, but have milked the system, gotten theirs while they could - at the expense of many others, and are doing their damnedest to raise the moat behind them just ahead of the angry mob.
Anyone who thinks even a little bit about this past election cannot help but see what you are alluding to. Whether they were frustrated Bernie voters, pumped up Trumpettes, or others voting out of anger for other "protest" candidates, the message was clear as day.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2017, 02:14 PM
 
Location: Tennessee
23,800 posts, read 17,725,620 times
Reputation: 27872
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtovenice View Post
How does a secretary afford to own a house debt-free and then amass $125K in savings? And then have a pension on top of that?

That is not poor. Not even CLOSE to being poor. Not even in the same continent as poor.

I'm beginning to wonder about these posters.... and what they are posting. Hmm ...
This forum skews heavily coastal and affluent. There's nothing wrong with that, per se, but the reality is that people who are doing well (top 20% or so) in prestigious, coastal, urban centers are probably "five to of couple of %ers" overall in the country.

Maybe by the standards in their area, or even just their own minds, they're middle to upper middle class, but would be quite affluent in many other areas.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pyewackette View Post
Well THAT was totally unwarranted. The OP has a point - though it is not limited just to today's young people. We have an entire generation of people who have lost their manufacturing jobs and/or their savings (in various financial crises) who are not going to have the resources to actually "retire", and/or who will be living in poverty soon, if they're not already.

It is a real problem and not to be shrugged off with unfounded accusations of "jealousy".
And you can ball these concerns up the age chain from kids just graduating college to the retired and nearly retired.

The people who were in their mid 50s on up, but were not yet able to retire, when the recession hit were pretty much screwed. Maybe they stupidly raided retirement savings at the market trough in an attempt to maintain a lifestyle they could no longer afford. Whatever. By the time the economy recovered enough to where they might have a chance of being hired, they were in their 60s and could probably get on SS anyway. The odds were even worse in hard hit areas or if the person was in a hard hit field.

Kids graduating from college from 2007-2012 or so were really disadvantaged due to the economy. Some of those, like me, have had things turn out OK, but others are permanently stunted.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2017, 02:35 PM
 
Location: Tennessee
23,800 posts, read 17,725,620 times
Reputation: 27872
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrownVic95 View Post
And the vast majority of those households are in New York, Wash DC, San Francisco, and other coastal metros with stratospheric housing costs. Where 100k is nothing like 100k. So it is a meaningless statistic.

Those of you who continue to attempt to brush aside the economic calamity that has befallen millions of average Americans over the last 30 years with individual anecdotal examples and happy faces might just as well set out to climb Niagara Falls. Far too many people know better. And they're not, for a moment, going to sit still for the argument that they've done it to themselves because they didn't re-use their paper towels and squandered their nest-egg on hot water.

On the surface, it is very difficult to understand the degree of denial that still floats around out there on this and other closely related topics. But dig a little deeper and it perhaps becomes clearer. I think it's safe to say the denial comes from two main groups. 1) Those who are too young to have seen it any other way and have no idea what we've lost. 2) Those who are old enough to know better, but have milked the system, gotten theirs while they could - at the expense of many others, and are doing their damnedest to raise the moat behind them just ahead of the angry mob.
You've absolutely nailed this.

I'm not saying that two adults making $50,000 each annually is a really high mark to hit - in midsized metros, even ones in the South and the Midwest, it's not uncommon. Still, in my little small town in the middle of nowhere, I'd say $50,000 for a single income earner makes you a top 15%-20%er - median household income is just in the mid $30k range. Manufacturing, mining, and tobacco are either gone or have dramatically contracted, and what we're left with are mostly low wage junk jobs - food service, retail, call centers, and a lot of low end jobs in home health and elder care, but even that's going to dry up as that generation dies off and the younger generation moves out of Appalachia due to lack of opportunity. I have a good job, for now, but if something happens to it, I'm probably going to have to move to Nashville, Raleigh, or Charlotte to make more than $12-$15/hr.

When I was growing up, a man with just a high school education could work in the mines or factories and provide a decent, though not flashy by any means, life for his family here. Those folks often got overtime and had benefits. Today, that's all but gone for the low end worker. If he can find a job, and hasn't turned to drugs, crime, or SSI, he's having to bust butt for low wages relative to the past and few if any benefits. Most of the guys I know my age who are still with just a high school education are what I'd consider a basket case.

I know this forum has a lot of wealthy people and college educated folks who have done quite well, but it's disheartening sometimes.
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