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 11-06-2011, 10:22 AM
 
Location: earth?
7,288 posts, read 10,856,609 times
Reputation: 8956

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZDesertBrat View Post
I am unable to fully retire. I never planned on my SS being my only survival but then I never planned on being divorced/single at my age either. If I have to work, at least part time until I die, so be it. Luckily for me I love my job and don't mind making money doing something I enjoy doing.

I have no desire to do any of the things you mention to "survive". Becoming a personal assistant, cook, nanny, etc. IS working, isn't it?
Yes, it is. I guess I was thinking if a person were really destitute, how could they enjoy an abundant life and those ideas popped into my head as possibilities . . .(as opposed to working some corporate or really labor intensive job or other unenjoyable jobs) . . .so was just thinking of the big picture: How to have nice housing, an uplifting environment, good food, etc.

I didn't list every possibility in the universe, obviously . . .just did a couple of seconds brainstorming to try to put some alternative ideas on the table - there are millions of other ideas . . . like someone said, leasing land, etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-06-2011, 09:01 PM
 
Location: Whereever we have our RV parked
8,786 posts, read 7,704,486 times
Reputation: 15074
I don't know if or when I can completely retire. Not for some time. Its not that I couldn't and live very frugally, but partly because I like the idea of staying active, I've always enjoyed working and would like to keep doing so as long as possible. The idea of having no job, just sounds boring. Filling my days with golf or other meaningless fun just feels like a waste of time. I'd like to be productive and contribute to making the world a better place, not sucking off others and letting them support me if I can still be productive and support myself.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-06-2011, 10:51 PM
 
Location: Oklahoma(formerly SoCalif) Originally Mich,
13,387 posts, read 16,738,045 times
Reputation: 4611
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prairieparson View Post
I don't know if or when I can completely retire. Not for some time. Its not that I couldn't and live very frugally, but partly because I like the idea of staying active, I've always enjoyed working and would like to keep doing so as long as possible. The idea of having no job, just sounds boring. Filling my days with golf or other meaningless fun just feels like a waste of time. I'd like to be productive and contribute to making the world a better place, not sucking off others and letting them support me if I can still be productive and support myself.
There's no arguement about that. I'm in complete ageement.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2011, 12:26 AM
GLS
 
1,985 posts, read 4,847,217 times
Reputation: 2408
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkfarnam View Post
Your exactly right.
It's poisonous to dogs. To be specific, they're refering to "pure milk chocolate". But I still don't take any chances.
Despite my normal penchant for kidding on CD posts, I need to correct your perception. The toxic component to dogs present in ALL chocolate is theobromine. It is a CNS stimulant in the xanthine class, of which most of you are familiar with the related compound: caffeine, or 3,5,7 trimethylxanthine for you medicinal chemists out there. The toxicity to dogs vs humans is the inability of the dog to adequately excrete theobromine. It stays in their bodies for approximately 18 hours depending upon hepatic and renal function of the individual dog.

The salient point in your post that needs clarification is that different types of chocolate have different concentrations of theobromine. "Pure milk chocolate" has only about 10% of the theobromine contained in bittersweet chocolate. White chocolate has very little theobromine, and although it is not healthy to give white chocolate to a dog, the risk of seizures and CNS overstimulation are far less with white chocolate than other types of chocolate.

I guess this long post is my penance for trying to make a subtle joke that chocolate should be saved for us humans.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2011, 12:29 AM
GLS
 
1,985 posts, read 4,847,217 times
Reputation: 2408
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tek_Freek View Post
I met a woman when I went to play poker last week. Older and retired. She is living on SS and told me that she lost her husband 7 years ago after a lengthy illness. They had saved enough for a good retirement, but the costs associated with his illness stripped them of everything they had, except their house, which they had paid off before he got sick. Her only entertainment is playing poker once a month. Their prescriptions alone were $600 - $700 a month.

To be blunt, that pisses me off. There is no excuse for a couple that has worked hard to be drained dry by a bunch of vampires. Something is terribly wrong with our country.
Was she a good poker player? Maybe she was bluffing you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2011, 01:09 AM
 
Location: Oklahoma(formerly SoCalif) Originally Mich,
13,387 posts, read 16,738,045 times
Reputation: 4611
Quote:
Originally Posted by GLS View Post
Despite my normal penchant for kidding on CD posts, I need to correct your perception. The toxic component to dogs present in ALL chocolate is theobromine. It is a CNS stimulant in the xanthine class, of which most of you are familiar with the related compound: caffeine, or 3,5,7 trimethylxanthine for you medicinal chemists out there. The toxicity to dogs vs humans is the inability of the dog to adequately excrete theobromine. It stays in their bodies for approximately 18 hours depending upon hepatic and renal function of the individual dog.

The salient point in your post that needs clarification is that different types of chocolate have different concentrations of theobromine. "Pure milk chocolate" has only about 10% of the theobromine contained in bittersweet chocolate. White chocolate has very little theobromine, and although it is not healthy to give white chocolate to a dog, the risk of seizures and CNS overstimulation are far less with white chocolate than other types of chocolate.

I guess this long post is my penance for trying to make a subtle joke that chocolate should be saved for us humans.
I appreciate you pointing this out. The information I posted was given to me by a Vetenarian.......as of now, "former".

Thank You
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2011, 02:12 AM
 
Location: We_tside PNW (Columbia Gorge) / CO / SA TX / Thailand
22,582 posts, read 39,952,759 times
Reputation: 23707
Quote:
Originally Posted by newenglandgirl View Post
LOL--my dog and I have been known to eat the same thing on many a night such as: ....

Like tonight... I got new glasses, set wrong oven temp...burnt the 'double crust pizza', dog is HAPPY, he really enjoys the charred morsals that I can't even chew!, I figure it is good for his teeth/ jaw .

OT: My main struggle w/ retirement today (as always) is prolonged affordable healthcare. ( + Serious case of wanderlust, that is not always cheap or ez to treat)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-07-2011, 08:25 AM
 
28,242 posts, read 39,895,668 times
Reputation: 36747
Quote:
Originally Posted by GLS View Post
Despite my normal penchant for kidding on CD posts, I need to correct your perception. The toxic component to dogs present in ALL chocolate is theobromine. It is a CNS stimulant in the xanthine class, of which most of you are familiar with the related compound: caffeine, or 3,5,7 trimethylxanthine for you medicinal chemists out there. The toxicity to dogs vs humans is the inability of the dog to adequately excrete theobromine. It stays in their bodies for approximately 18 hours depending upon hepatic and renal function of the individual dog.

The salient point in your post that needs clarification is that different types of chocolate have different concentrations of theobromine. "Pure milk chocolate" has only about 10% of the theobromine contained in bittersweet chocolate. White chocolate has very little theobromine, and although it is not healthy to give white chocolate to a dog, the risk of seizures and CNS overstimulation are far less with white chocolate than other types of chocolate.

I guess this long post is my penance for trying to make a subtle joke that chocolate should be saved for us humans.
Thanks, and don't laugh too hard at my klutzy attempt to rep you. Some days fingers and brain are NOT connected.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-09-2011, 06:34 PM
 
Location: USA
4,980 posts, read 8,437,915 times
Reputation: 2506
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jammie View Post
(Jammie waves hands to get your attention)

We're in exactly the same situation and I'm not ashamed to admit it. We have saved throughout our lives, but realistically we just don't have enough money that we will be able to totally retire. DH just turned 62 and I am 52. We will be leaving the jobs we've had for several years because we are relocating after spending our entire lives here. I need warmth and sunshine.

Health insurance is probably the number one issue for us.

We've never had high paying jobs, but have always settled in and after a few years have gotten a liveable wage. I feel that we are fortunate because we have no debt and neither one of us have the desire to keep up with anyone. Of course we have a bit in savings and a bit in our retirement plans, etc. But it would never be enough to actually live on for years. Without employment we would have an astronomical health insurance premium and it's just not feasible for us.

On the flip side, since we don't have the money to do any worldwide traveling or exciting things, working is probably very healthy for us.

We? I don't have the luxury of another person to contribute or lean on.
The reason you're doing well is there are two of you under one roof.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-09-2011, 07:15 PM
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
3,745 posts, read 4,217,509 times
Reputation: 6866
Quote:
Originally Posted by nebulous1 View Post
We? I don't have the luxury of another person to contribute or lean on.
The reason you're doing well is there are two of you under one roof.
You may not have a spouse, but why can you not get a roommate?
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
Similar Threads
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