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.
Most people can't retire. It is shocking how expensive life gets in retirement years and how little money people have. Even though I have a well paying job I am not sure how I am going to afford to retire. The numbers don't add up unless I'm able to get paid about 40% more and never lose my job over the next 20 years.
I don't understand what you are saying about life getting expensive when you retire. Are you referring to years of inflation raising the cost of living beyond what it was at the time of the person's retirement? If so, then I guess I understand. If you are saying that people spend more when they are retired, then I don't get it.
In general, my COL went down, way down, when I retired. I no longer pay $8-10 a day for lunch whenever I don't bring my lunch from home. I don't waste money on overpriced coffee at Starbuck's next door to my office. I don't pay for gas to commute 45 miles each way. I don't put the miles on my car, so I don't spend as much on tires, oil changes, etc. I had my insurance costs cut on the cars when I notified them that I am driving far fewer miles per year. I don't buy dinner out as much because I'm too tired from work to cook. I don't have to continue buying upscale outfits to wear to the office. In fact I donated 90% of them. Now I wear jeans, shorts and t-shirts almost all the time.Since I no longer have to live in that city for my career, I moved cross country to a lower COL state and pay much lower taxes, utilities, and mortgage. We took a 40% cut to our income when we retired, but we are still living at the same lifestyle level.
I don't understand what you are saying about life getting expensive when you retire. Are you referring to years of inflation raising the cost of living beyond what it was at the time of the person's retirement? If so, then I guess I understand. If you are saying that people spend more when they are retired, then I don't get it.
In general, my COL went down, way down, when I retired. I no longer pay $8-10 a day for lunch whenever I don't bring my lunch from home. I don't waste money on overpriced coffee at Starbuck's next door to my office. I don't pay for gas to commute 45 miles each way. I don't put the miles on my car, so I don't spend as much on tires, oil changes, etc. I had my insurance costs cut on the cars when I notified them that I am driving far fewer miles per year. I don't buy dinner out as much because I'm too tired from work to cook. I don't have to continue buying upscale outfits to wear to the office. In fact I donated 90% of them. Now I wear jeans, shorts and t-shirts almost all the time.Since I no longer have to live in that city for my career, I moved cross country to a lower COL state and pay much lower taxes, utilities, and mortgage. We took a 40% cut to our income when we retired, but we are still living at the same lifestyle level.
Well that's the thing really. I had a professor once that made the argument that after a given age you really stop having to impress people. Factoring out seasonality how many shirts does someone really need? How many jackets? How many suits? At what point do you simply have enough stuff?
Granted there are some serious decisions to make like medicare plans and not everything is covered like dental insurance and there is always supplemental.
My grandmothers (one passed) were opposites. One lived in the same house she grew up in that her parents made. Her husband passed and she had his pension but kept working I think another eight or so years. Didn't travel, didn't even have a garage. Over the air tv, a few magazine subscriptions/newspapers and that was it. People would come over now and then and she was totally content with her life.
My other grandmother who is living and this might be hard/personal to say but...she's a hoarder. Something crawled into her mind to shop at HSN or QVC in the mid to late 80's and she didn't stop. She buys things often times already having them. She buys clothing she'll never wear. She buys things thinking it is cool to impress people (she's in her mid 80's!!). She gives money to charities and frankly I think many are fake or prey on the elderly. She has cable and I don't know why. She recently bought a tablet that some how does not work and yet she pays for internet. There is probably three to four sets of dishes in her place and endless mindless small appliances. She was not always this way and it is just sad.
Some want to cling to endless consumption but I don't get it.
BTW I don't find starbucks to be that expensive. I just go for coffee not the whipped stuff. And if you have a card you generally get free refills which I use for the next day. So it's like getting half off. There's also what you can find in the drug stores/supermarkets and get on sale.
They continue to hold these high money making positions and STILL WON'T RETIRE
What is the problem? How do you expect the younger folk in their 20s and 30s to move up the ladder if the older folk won't call it a career and continue to enjoy the good money and perks?
Haven't they saved any money? Are their lives so empty, they wouldn't know what to do unless they went to work every day?
The only way positions are going to open is if the older folk retire.
I find this post offensive and, and, imho, reeks of a sense of entitlement.
I am now 62 and intend to continue working as long as possible for multiple reasons. As long as I am able to work and want to work, why shouldn't I? I am very good at my job, have 45 years of experience in the workplace, and have a strong work ethic. Why do you think my employer would be better off with you than with me?
It is not my responsibility to retire in order to allow others to move up the corporate ladder. If you feel constrained in your current position, join the club! Many people feel under appreciated, over-worked, and want to move up the corporate ladder. If you don't have the patience to work hard, build your resume, and create contacts, then you likely aren't right for that upper management position you want.
"Why do you think my employer would be better off with you than with me?"
I don't think the post really implied that but secession planning is a basic. Think about it from the employers perspective. If an employee has options then they have to have contingencies to maintain operations. If someone goes on family leave there's FMLA. If someone get sick there is sick time, if someone goes on disability there is STD, LTD, if someone goes back to school that can be scheduled.
But depending on the investment retirement vehicle once you cross into that then what is the plan of the employer? Eventually they have to sit down and ask what your intentions are. Like I mentioned before on the board 33% of superintendents for public schools in vermont are retiring this year. Now these districts are competing with one another for people and it has got to the point where administrators from neighboring states are coming in. Now with the public sector this is open and easy to understand. With the private sector there's no real way of knowing any of this.
It might not be your responsibility to retire to allow others to move up. But it is your responsibility to tell your employer your intentions. I'm not saying it has to be next month, next year or even ten years. But organizations do need to plan for this stuff.
Why is it that everyone wants to pick on Walmart? Target and other retailers are not doing so bad. If those that hate Walmart like Target then they are hypocritical. Both run retail establishments. As far as Walmart, I am a little down on them when I found out that they are all for the Affordable Care Act. What you may not know is why they would favor a Government program that cost so much to run. It turns out that they like the ACA because it will hurt their competitors.
You are aware that the government supplements Walmart's low wages, aren't you?
Yes, it doesn't hurt them, they've always been fine with the taxpayers paying for their employee's health insurance, not to mention utility subsidies, food stamps, etc. Note how they don't give a crap if their employees finally have health insurance, or not.
Walmart is the symbol of this to me because they are the biggest retailer there is, and the first to employ these strong-arm tactics. They destroyed communities and small business whereever they went. They are the ones who pretty much blackmailed companies into moving their operations oevrseas - no one else but Walmart had or has that kind of power. And people were excited to see them come to their towns, it's like the Music Man, and I find them to be a symbol of middle class decline much more than other companies. They put under small businesses and towns lost good jobs, then Walmart hired the same folks back at a poverty wage, with states picking up most of the tab for them.
"Wal-Mart is one of the key forces that propelled global outsourcing -- off-shoring of U.S. jobs -- precisely because it controls so much of the purchasing power of the U.S. economy," says Gary Gereffi, a Duke University professor who studies global supply chains.
"Wal-Mart continuously squeezes its U.S. suppliers
to cut their prices, leaving companies little
choice but to close shop in states like Ohio and
source goods from countries with lower produc-
tion costs and lax enforcement of labor laws.
6
Today, 60 percent of Wal-Mart’s merchandise is
imported, compared with just 6 percent in 1995."
Yup. Just ask Vlasic how they feel about hopping into bed with Wally
"You are aware that the government supplements Walmart's low wages, aren't you?"
Competition brings prices down and forces places to create more service. Where I live a small supermarket came into a suburban area. It doesn't have everything but guess what, it forced the drug store right across from it to increase their hours significantly. No more closing at 9 it closes at 10. No more closing on 6 on sundays..try 10.
As I stated before I worked for a box store for an number of years and we never put anyone out of business. At the same point though there is another chain that pays less (even less than walmart). Their managers make as much as our cashiers, their cashiers made just above minimum wage. There are places cheaper then walmart so to suggest they are the bottom of the barrel is a bit misleading. You can fight the box stores and win it happens all the time.
Some get brainwashed as if box stores are the only place to go. They are usually the only convenient place to go. If you want everything under one roof open 24/7 go ahead. But smaller ones still operate pretty well. The margin of a hardware store is about 40-50%. That is sky high. A small hardware store will easily have prices 30-50% more than a box store and yet how many complain about the prices?
As for a retailer squeezing suppliers pretty much all retailers do this. Case in point look at OEM's in the relationship with product lines. Price matching for most retailers exempts store brands. But if the consumer does not know that they are made by the same companies then it pretty much IS the same product, just with different cosmetics (think Chevy Prizm and toyota corolla back in the day). So in reality the argument of squeezing suppliers is nothing new. It might be cause for collusion.
The only people who complain about retirement years upping their cost are those who are sick as dogs, in debt, or don't really care about managing their money.
And of course more people can't retire now. It's taking longer for the average joe to land a job that could be considered career pay, which means they have to work in longer. Add in the fact banks and everyone are now tighter and giving loans, pensions and 401ks have been cut at some places, unemployment cut in half, and the "GOOD OLD JOBS" of the old days are gone and it's not even a question.
Now the "GOOD OLD JOBS" are tech based in some way or another (besides oil of course) that most people don't or aren't savy enough to break into. That includes me.
I find this post offensive and, and, imho, reeks of a sense of entitlement.
I am now 62 and intend to continue working as long as possible for multiple reasons. As long as I am able to work and want to work, why shouldn't I? I am very good at my job, have 45 years of experience in the workplace, and have a strong work ethic. Why do you think my employer would be better off with you than with me?
It is not my responsibility to retire in order to allow others to move up the corporate ladder. If you feel constrained in your current position, join the club! Many people feel under appreciated, over-worked, and want to move up the corporate ladder. If you don't have the patience to work hard, build your resume, and create contacts, then you likely aren't right for that upper management position you want.
What's good for the individual is sometimes not good for the collective. Your actions may benefit you personally, but whenever everyone does the same thing, structural economic issues arise.
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.
