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.
I'm really tired of hearing about all the poor souls barely scraping by on disability because -- guess what? That's about the amount I'll draw as a pension after working almost thirty years. It's not "retired," in my book, because you didn't earn it, but it's certainly enough to live on, or at least I hope so. Plus, you get all the other government freebies along with it (subsidies for this, aid for that) that I WON'T get as a bona fide gov't retiree. Kind of sucks!
"...perhaps it is supporting aging parents & relatives..."
You're lucky if you're retired by the time your parents need your help! I cut hours for years and then took a leave of absence to care for mine; luckily, I still had a job to return to at the end of it. As I've said elsewhere or maybe even here (not reading back to check), I think we should work from 20-40, retire from 40-60, then return to work at 60. But no one asked me!
That is an interesting out-of-the-box concept, and I remember your proposing it previously. Your thinking was that we are young and energetic enough from 40 to 60 to really enjoy an active retirement doing things like skiing, long bicycle trips, and on and on, whereas at age 60 some people can still do those things but some cannot. And that is true.
But of course where your idea fails is practicality, not desirability on the part of the individual. To wit:
1. Job skills and knowledge would atrophy and wither during those long 20 years between 40 and 60, thus complicating re-entry at age 60. Often we are just getting experienced and knowledgeable enough at age 40 to be of enhanced value to our employers.
2. Apart from #1 above, employers would be reluctant to re-hire people at age 60 on the grounds that declining health after that age might limit the tenure to a small number of years and declining energy and declining mental acuity might limit the employee's effectiveness.
3. After being retired for 20 years (ages 40 to 60) how many people woud WANT to return to work, leading to the problem of how to finance such a scheme.
Nice dream, Otterhere, but it will remain just a dream as far as any widespread application goes.
As I've said elsewhere or maybe even here (not reading back to check), I think we should work from 20-40, retire from 40-60, then return to work at 60. But no one asked me!
otterhere,
Yes, you had suggested this work-retire-work scenario several times. The reality is that for many people, their peak earning years are between 40-60. It would be an extreme rarity for anyone who quit working at 40 and return to find a good paying or satisfying job at the age of 60.
It's hard enough for worker over the age of 50 to find equivalent or skill/education-commensurated jobs after being laid off. It is even harder for people who are out of the workforce for a long time (both old and young!).
Another practical issue is that how do you fund yourself during the nonworking 40-60 year interval? Not many people have jobs with pensions or a decent pension with only 20 years of working. I very much doubt that many 40 years old would have saved enough to afford 20 years of not working. What about health care coverage during that period?
If one has children, the 40-60 years old period can also be expensive if you want to send your kids to college. This is definitely not the time to take a break from work.
You are very lucky if it was the scenario that you had successfully executed.
Yes, you had suggested this work-retire-work scenario several times. The reality is that for many people, their peak earning years are between 40-60. It would be an extreme rarity for anyone who quit working at 40 and return to find a good paying or satisfying job at the age of 60.
It's hard enough for worker over the age of 50 to find equivalent or skill/education-commensurated jobs after being laid off. It is even harder for people who are out of the workforce for a long time (both old and young!).
Another practical issue is that how do you fund yourself during the nonworking 40-60 year interval? Not many people have jobs with pensions or a decent pension with only 20 years of working. I very much doubt that many 40 years old would have saved enough to afford 20 years of not working. What about health care coverage during that period?
If one has children, the 40-60 years old period can also be expensive if you want to send your kids to college. This is definitely not the time to take a break from work.
You are very lucky if it was the scenario that you had successfully executed.
Our kids were in college from the time we were 49 until we were 58. I know someone whose kids probably will be in college from the time she is 56 until she is 62 or so. Taking off from age 40 to 60 certainly wouldn't have worked for us, while we were raising children and I doubt that it would work for very many other people either.
Well, kids should finance their own college educations and, for that matter, college is overrated. We need to realize that trade schools, vocation/technical training, and community colleges (from which you can emerge with marketable skills like an RN or AS in drafting) are the way to go. But, as I say, I tend to think outside the box!
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.
