Article - Retire but don't quit your job

[shotgunner]

I found this to be an interesting article but to suggest that one could still be working full time and enjoy a retiree's lifestyle ignores a couple of really important benefits of retirement not the least of which is freedom. If I was to have kept working full time even if spending more I would not be enjoying a retirees lifestyle, not even close!

Retire without quitting your job - 1 - retirement planning - MSN Money

 

[ziggy29]

The problem is that you can only "retire" without quitting your job if (a) you still love to do it and (b) you can set your own hours and terms. If those things are the case, sure -- maybe it won't feel like w*rk and it's worth the added security and lifestyle upgrade. But that probably accounts for less than 1% of the people working today, it doesn't help the other 99% who want out, either because they don't enjoy what they do or they don't like having to do it on their employer's terms.

 

[audreyh1]

Yes, to live the retirement lifestyle you need to have the FREE TIME! Gee!

 

[Midpack]

I read the article, and it's an option. I guess having the extra spending money from 60 on makes working more tolerable for some people - could be. But I didn't follow this sentence at all though, not sure what I missed...must be relying heavily on Soc Sec, pension or both.

If you've saved an amount somewhere around five times your annual income by the time you're 60, this approach should work, said Christine Fahlund, T. Rowe Price's senior financial planner.

 

[NW-Bound]

When I first read the thread title, "Retire but not quit your job", I immediately thought of the character Wally in Dilbert's cartoon.

Wally "retires in place"!

I have seen a few Wally's in a previous megacorp, people who did little work, and just hung around waiting for pension, SS, or Medicare to kick in. Megacorp was afraid to fire them, because of the fear of age discrimination lawsuits. If the potential litigation cost was higher than the guy's pay for a couple of years, they would just wait for the guy to retire.

 

[jdw_fire]

When I first read the thread title, "Retire but not quit your job", I immediately thought of the character Wally in Dilbert's cartoon.

Wally "retires in place"!

I have seen a few Wally's in a previous megacorp, people who did little work, and just hung around waiting for pension, SS, or Medicare to kick in. Megacorp was afraid to fire them, because of the fear of age discrimination lawsuits. If the potential litigation cost was higher than the guy's pay for a couple of years, they would just wait for the guy to retire.

it is called ROAD (retired on active duty) in the military

 

[Amethyst]

I am dealing with a FIRE'd (apparently very well off financially) person who is pretending to "work" in my office. In fact, she is getting in the way of far more work than she accomplishes. I don't know why she doesn't just quit. Maybe it is all part of the passive-aggressive game-playing personality ("I don't really need to work, but I'll pretend to come to work anyway just so I can annoy people who actually do need to work.")

Amethyst

 

[Nords]

In the Navy this is referred to as the "ROADS" scholarship program: "Retired on Active Duty Service", or "might as well be retired for all the work that we get out of them".

Or even worse, "If they retired right now then we'd all have less work to take care of."

With more money to enjoy life, working doesn't seem like such a raw deal.

I think another phrase for this is "golden handcuffs" or "buffet line in the prison cafeteria".

So what does one of those wild-eyed rockin' hard-partyin' heavy-spending 60-year-olds get for annual leisure time, anyway: four weeks? Five? With perhaps a smart phone in case the office really really needs their help while they're on the beach?

I'm gonna have to reconsider Liz Weston's credibility.

 

[traineeinvestor]

Sounds like a fancy way of saying you can't afford to retire without compromising on lifestyle.

 

[Onward]

Next someone will do a study proving the benefits of w*rking to within five minutes of your dying gasp.

 

[okapi]

I plan on working five years after I die.Not.

 

[lark_L]

Interesting, but for myself, there's no way I can continue to do the work that I do if I want to live where I want to live. The options are just too limited. Sure, I could quit and get a job that pays 1/3 of what I'm making now. I have a couple of years to decide what to do. I may do just that - retire, relocate, then decide if I want a lower paying job.

 

[mystang52]

I disagree with the generally negative responses, here. This article is dated 2/29, but I saw something very similar to this a few months back, perhaps it's a retread. In any event, it provides practical advice to that tweener segment of people - making respectable earnings, have respectable savings, but not quite financially able to retire.
This provides a good middle-of-the-road approach to them, that allows them to enjoy "retirement" without endangering their long term financial solvency.

 

[Huston55]

I read the article, and it's an option. I guess having the extra spending money from 60 on makes working more tolerable for some people - could be. But I didn't follow this sentence at all though, not sure what I missed...must be relying heavily on Soc Sec, pension or both.

I'm not sure I understand it either. There must be some sporty return and inflation assumptions embedded in there.

Reading this article made me think that people who choose this path should start their own retirement web page. It's founding principle would be that the rules of math and market history for them are different, and so are the rules for retirement itself!

Live below your means? NO.
Save enough? NO
Use a SWR? NO
Retire early? NO
Retire at all? Well, right before you draw your last breath.

Instead of FIRE (Financially Independent Retired Early), they could be FERL (Financial Exceptionalism Retired Late).

You'll notice that this would be pronounced like "feral", which is likely what they'd be after 10+/- years.

 

[Chuckanut]

In effect, they are advising people to retire but not get the benefits of retirement. So.... This makes me think there may be an opportunity here for a new line of books - sort of like the Complete Idiot series.

How to XXXX without actually "getting the benefits". For example,

How to exercise and grow weaker.

How to cook at home while ordering at a restaurant.

How to lose weight and put on the pounds.

How to get a college degree without learning anything. (Wait, that has already been done!)

How to earn 120% guaranteed return on your money without any risk while your net worth goes down!

You get the idea....

 

[Chuckanut]

When I first read the thread title, "Retire but not quit your job", I immediately thought of the character Wally in Dilbert's cartoon.

Wally "retires in place"!

Bingo! My favorite line from Wally is his reply when asked his career goals - "To work myself into a position where I have no effect on anything."

 

[Chuckanut]

Next someone will do a study proving the benefits of w*rking to within five minutes of your dying gasp.

+1

 

[Midpack]

Next someone will do a study proving the benefits of w*rking to within five minutes of your dying gasp.

Grateful heirs, what else?

 

[growing_older]

So the plan they suggest is to stay working - that alone makes me think it is not retirement - then spend all the money you used to be saving towards retirement, so you get used to a higher expense lifestyle before you actually retire. If your savings weren't enough to support retirement before, what makes anyone think they will grow so fast if not added to, that they will support a more expensive retirement later.

Wally was also my first thought on seeing the title.

 

[ziggy29]

So the plan they suggest is to stay working - that alone makes me think it is not retirement - then spend all the money you used to be saving towards retirement, so you get used to a higher expense lifestyle before you actually retire. If your savings weren't enough to support retirement before, what makes anyone think they will grow so fast if not added to, that they will support a more expensive retirement later.

Wally was also my first thought on seeing the title.

This was, I thought, really the silliest point, even sillier than using the term "retired" for someone who still works and wished they didn't.

There's nothing better to prepare for retirement, apprently, than cranking up your "for the hell of it" spending just because they claim retirement savings in your 60s don't move the needle much. Is this how someone tries to buy consolation from the fact that they can't retire yet??

 

[Texas Proud]

I disagree with the generally negative responses, here. This article is dated 2/29, but I saw something very similar to this a few months back, perhaps it's a retread. In any event, it provides practical advice to that tweener segment of people - making respectable earnings, have respectable savings, but not quite financially able to retire.
This provides a good middle-of-the-road approach to them, that allows them to enjoy "retirement" without endangering their long term financial solvency.

I agree... it is a good approach IMO....

One of the problems is that you can focus to much on the savings side and not enjoy life today... and that can make you grumpy even if you are not working... enjoy life more today and maybe work does not suck as much...

I am actually looking at doing this a bit more... and in a few years I will probably move to part time to even delay it more...

 

[ziggy29]

One of the problems is that you can focus to much on the savings side and not enjoy life today... and that can make you grumpy even if you are not working... enjoy life more today and maybe work does not suck as much...

I don't disagree with this -- it's important to save for tomorrow but it's also important to enjoy today because we know we have today and we may not have the tomorrows we save for. But this article seems to be suggesting that one ramp up their spending just before actual retirement as a way to compensate for not yet retiring.

Maybe some people are wired for that. But I know how I'd be in that situation -- any time I spent money on "stuff" like that, I'd feel guilty and bad because I feel like I just delayed my retirement by a few days. And multiplied by enough purchases, that could become years.

 

[Andre1969]

I do see the point about how adding to your retirement later in life really doesn't affect things as much. Now, that's provided you've been saving all along, and had decades for some of your investments to compound. But, the last few years really don't seem to make that much difference.

For example, in my case, running the Firecalc numbers, I have a 90.4% chance of being able to retire in 2016 if I invest $20,000 per year until then. If I push it to 2017, I have a 98.8% chance.

But, if I cut back my investing to $10,000 per year, I have a 91.6% chance of success if I retire in 2017, and a 98.8% chance if I do it in 2018. (but only an 85.5% chance of success if I retire in 2016).

So, in this case, I'd have $10,000 more per year to play with and have fun with, at the expense of having to work one more year. If I quit saving altogether and used that $20K per year for fun money, I'd have an 89.2% chance of success retiring in 2018 and a 97.6% chance if I retire in 2019. So in this case, I'd have to work two more years.

Now in my case, I think the time is more valuable than the money, but others may not see it that way.

 

[MasterBlaster]

I believe that the article is misnamed. Clearly it's not retirement when one keeps working. Catchy headlines do sell newspapers and get online traffic though.

Personally though I can relate to the logic to keep working and live better than the little savor that you previously were. If working lets you live larger, and it's OK with you to keep working then that's OK with me too. Living large and having big dreams can be great fun.

Regarding the Wally references, I just might have some perspective on that.... Once you realize that you are financially independent your whole "toe-the-line, go-along-to-get-along" mentality changes. At that stage you can be yourself, speak your mind, and (to a degree) do what you want. If some of the other worker-slaves think poorly of you then so be it. Being financially independent is really quite enlightening and refreshing.

 

[ziggy29]

Regarding the Wally references, I just might have some perspective on that.... Once you realize that you are financially independent your whole "toe-the-line, go-along-to-get-along" mentality changes. At that stage you can be yourself, speak your mind, and (to a degree) do what you want.

Yep, I've mentioned here before that this happened to my dad when he turned 55 and became eligible to retire (and was financially able to do so). At one point he fully intended to retire at 55... but his bosses knew that and didn't want to lose him, so they shielded him from most of the corporate BS that he hated and allowed him to concentrate on the parts of his job he enjoyed -- and he stayed for more than 2 more years before an early retirement incentive he couldn't pass up came on the table.

We spend so much of out working lives dependent on our employers, and when (like now) they call the shots and can dictate their terms, they do so and make work suck even more -- more work, longer hours, lower real pay and an "if you don't like it, the door is that way" attitude are common. So it would certainly be nice to turn the tables, assuming your employer doesn't want to lose you and they know they will lose you if they piss you off. That's a leverage many of us can only dream of having.