The "Flip Side" (of rosy retirement reports) (moving, 2015, retired)
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.
What makes you{the OP} think only "up beat retirement stuff" is here on C-D? I have seen many postings lamenting failed retirements.
It is true, statistics can be warped to say anything the author{s} want{s}.
It is all relative.
I know someone, retired many years, who complains of "being broke" all the time, yet owns: 10 pieces of real estate {rentals and some land, most likely easily over a $1.5 million value}, a bus-style motor home with 3 slide outs they travel the USA in, three newer cars {one luxury car,a luxury SUV, one small loaded tow-behind for the motor home}, and live primarily in a 2200 sf house. The properties are on both coasts, not exactly "cheap properties" either. They frequent the warmer properties in winter, the colder in summer, though they now claim to be "too old to travel much". They are not happy in retirement. No wonder they are broke!
I also know someone else, retired for many years, who is very happy with a paid for house, a nice pension-that was really nice about 23 years ago-now is marginal, a paid for 1996 car, and can 'adequately pay the bills with some left over",and has about a {previously casually mentioned} $500k portfolio. Never travels but to visit remaining relatives, and though could go to the warmer climes for winter, doesn't. Happy in retirement.
So, its all relative.
Who, above, would you say has the better deal?
Right now, I am struggling to play catch-up on our retirement, too, but we could end up happier in retirement, than we are now. which would be the better deal? happier now, or later?
I like being happy all the time . Most of those Marketwatch "10 Things"snippets are rehashes of info already around for a while. Nothing new. What I'd like to see, but I doubt that there is enough meaningful info on it, is how well people that retired at 55 or younger are faring at 80 vs those that worked longer, to say 65.
I think it is only human nature to overstate your perceived situation in your favor; if you HAVE TO live on less, but decided to retire early, because you hoped you had enough, then you "are doing fine", rather than admit you made a mistake and should have worked longer. Conversely, if you were forced to retire earlier, due to conditions beyond your control, then you are doing "worse" and wish you could have worked longer, rather than admit you could have saved more and and been financially smarter. And those than have saved and invested, again, paint a rosier picture of their projected income or NW, and come across as smug, because rather than admit they could have had more time off, they need to justify the time lost in dollars decision. This forum does not, in general, IMHO, are present the typical retiree,nor pre retiree. Rather, it represents, by its very nature, a subset of people that like to know where they stand and would like some validation for their situation, whatever that may be.
Most forums of any type draw those types of people (which includes me, but not my wife, for instance). We like to "know" and learn what we can, but it goes further than that if you are a regular past that point. At various times, I've belonged to perhaps 16 forums. Only rarely do I actively participate for more than a few months, usually because its an active hobby, or current situation.
Last edited by Perryinva; 08-10-2015 at 07:17 AM..
This forum does not, in general, IMHO, are present the typical retiree,nor pre retiree. Rather, it represents, by its very nature, a subset of people that like to know where they stand and would like some validation for their situation, whatever that may be.
This I agree with. The posters on this forum do not necessarily represent the vast spectrum of retirees today, so I expected that most here would not relate to, or would probably refute, the findings in the studies cited in the article. That's understandable; what we don't experience ourselves we don't tend to acknowledge.
Whenever studies are cited, I like to see how the sampling was taken. Without that knowledge, the veracity of the study is under question. Still, the article is a counterpoint to the overabundance of media images of very well-off retirees, which itself is a misrepresentation of reality.
Hmmm, my impression of the media's take on retirees is not a rosy one. The media loves to stir the pot, generate confrontation and controversy and get people going. It's what sells. No one reads or buys media sources that only print "everything is wonderful in the world". That's only thrown in to provide a "see, we're balanced". The meat and potatoes of any media junket is controversy . For retirees the captions are often about the haves and haves nots in retirement, and how it is somehow unfair and not right that some are much better off than others. That's life. It's been said a thousand times, "Man plans and God laughs", which actually is pretty insulting to God....
What I found the most interesting is that the average retirement age is 62, no wonder they are having problems. I'm a year beyond that and expect to work another 5 years or more to maximize Social Security, pension and 401k. My wife and I look forward to spending more time by ourselves, since we've both been working for our 41 years together. We have long-term care insurance, and with the equity in our home we expect to pay cash for a smaller one in a lower cost area and have no mortgage or rent, so no need to move in with the kids. No guarantees, but if our plan works out we will have the same or more money to spend than we do now, so we should be able to continue making a trip to Hawaii every couple of years.
What I found most shocking is the fact that 44% start collecting ss at 62 and over 50% start collecting at age 63.
Not complaining here because if you have $1.4 million in retirement savings I suppose you may as well start collecting early but unless a dire emergency, like being homeless, if you didn't save you will want to hold off as long as possible.
In my case I will readily admit I didn't save what I should have for a variety of reasons some of them my fault and some not. Life happens but what I discovered a while back is one way to make up for the sin of not saving is to keep working or put off collecting until full retirement age or even later.
The average benefit is $1,240 but I think that is a little misleading perhaps.
If my benefit at FRA was $2,000 I could expect $1,500 at age 62. My wife would be entitled to 50% of my benefit or $750 but if she draws early, I am not sure here but this is how I think it works, she would receive $562.50 at age 62. Our combined benefit would be $2,062.50 for an "average" benefit of $1,031.25. Just enough to buy a bullet....
I'm 67, still working and not drawing benefits. When my wife turns FRA, which is right around the corner, I will file and suspend so she gets 50% of my FRA benefit but I will not collect until I hit age 70.
I will go through our retirement savings first if that is what it would take. Starting when I was 66 every quarter I work beyond 66 there is an extra $50 I will receive in benefits. That is $200/month or $2,400 extra for every year I work beyond 66. It is now one down and three to go!
When I do make it to 70, it is surprising to me how few do not hold off until 70, my ss benefit alone will exceed $3,100 and my wife will get around $1,250 which includes a very small pension but that pension did cost her a bit (2/3rds) of her ss benefit.
I will have reached my goal of $1,000/week "after tax" in retirement income. The beauty of it is this is all tax free money not subject to either federal or state income taxes and if a couple with no debt and a home that is paid for can't survive well enough on $1,000/week in my opinion they have a spending problem and not an income problem. Yeah, New York City and San Francisco might be an income problem but for 90% of the country most couples should do reasonably well on $1,000/week net income.
And then there's articles on why you should take ss early to "maximize" your total "investment" blah, blah, blah. The way I accept it is I never invested in social security and I don't look at it as an investment at all. It's an insurance payout to insure I can live comfortably once I can no longer work. If my wife and I can collect a combined $54,000 tax free in social security alone then my insurance is paying off because we should not have to worry about money.
And then there is the wife and the kind of security she will have if the man dies first which most often happens. To many widows end up having to survive on $1,200/month because their idiot husband 1)didn't save for investment and 2)was a lazy ass and wanted not to work. Good going fella, leave your wife in poverty.
Sorry for the rant but our church helps widows in dire circumstances and I see first hand what happens and it really ticks me off.
Ouch, blame it all on the man. What about the widow's responsibility for her own financial destiny? She could have worked, too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nicet4
To many widows end up having to survive on $1,200/month because their idiot husband 1)didn't save for investment and 2)was a lazy ass and wanted not to work. Good going fella, leave your wife in poverty.
Sheesh...none of that article pertains to me, except the 'frisky' part and the 'working' part, which for me is nothing but a new business venture, which seems to run in my blood. I retired at age 65 and am only 68 now, so mebbe it just hasn't had time to catch up with me (?).
But I think retired life is pretty damn good, and I'll be out on the lake this evening again, seeing what's biting, and enjoying another ice-cold beer. What - me worry? (Alfred E. Newman)
Studies that just give averages always make me a bit suspicious. There's so much more to the story than "average". If half the people have $1MM, and half have $0, then the average household has $500,000. No one actually has that amount, but that's what gets reported.
For retirement surveys, especially, I think it would be interesting to separate the results between those who retired voluntarily and those who retired involuntarily (for health reasons, unexpected job loss, etc.). My guess would be that stats on financial and physical well-being as well as personal satisfaction would be dramatically different between those groups.
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.
