Glad I'm not a millennial

[Amethyst]

People, especially women, who desperately want a baby and have struggled with brutal and expensive infertility treatments do not see it that way. The Kodak moments aren't the point for them. Some folks are just wired to want a DNA recipient they can hold and love! Still, different viewpoints are what make the world go 'round...

Amethyst

Quote:

Originally Posted by kombat Kids look like an expensive, exhausting, thankless endeavour, and for what payoff? A few "Kodak" moments here and there?

[Lsbcal]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amethyst ... Still, different viewpoints are what make the world go 'round... Amethyst

Amen.

Are you a hard worker? GOOD
Are you always working overtime? GOOD
Are you a 9 to 5er? GOOD
Are you a lazy ER person? GOOD
Are you ... ? GOOD

[jkern]

I remember thinking back in the early 70s that the younger generation had nothing and previous generations had it made. There were even lyrics by The Who (A young man doesn't have anything these days).

It feels like deja vu all over again.

[Big_Hitter]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jkern There were even lyrics by The Who (A young man doesn't have anything these days).

Young Man Blues

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9g30nwCpyaA

[W2R]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jkern I remember thinking back in the early 70s that the younger generation had nothing and previous generations had it made. There were even lyrics by The Who (A young man doesn't have anything these days). It feels like deja vu all over again.

I remember back in the early 70's, telling my late mother bitterly that I would never see one cent of SS because of being a Baby Boom child, and how unfair it was that all my money was going to support her and her generation who already had it made. She said SS would never be abolished and I'd get it too, and we went on and on about it.

OK, Mom, I'm 67 now and despite everything I said, I am getting monthly direct deposits from SS. You were right.

[meierlde]

Quote:

Originally Posted by W2R I remember back in the early 70's, telling my late mother bitterly that I would never see one cent of SS because of being a Baby Boom child, and how unfair it was that all my money was going to support her and her generation who already had it made. She said SS would never be abolished and I'd get it too, and we went on and on about it. OK, Mom, I'm 67 now and despite everything I said, I am getting monthly direct deposits from SS. You were right.

I recall hearing from my mother in the 1late 1960s that she did not expect to get any Social Security but she got it from 1984 for about 20 years. So I expect that one could find folks ever since the first recipient in 1939 who thought they would never get anything from Social Security.

[eytonxav]

History has a way of repeating itself; we're great and the younger generation are a bunch of do nothings. That thinking was wrong back then and is wrong now.

[Andre1969]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amethyst Still, different viewpoints are what make the world go 'round... Amethyst

I thought that was Fat-Bottomed Girls...

[jim584672]

I was on another message board and the Millennials were complaining about reverse mortgages. They are like those narcissistic baby boomers are spending what is ours! Talk about entitlement attitude. Like is is wrong to spend the money you worked for and not give it to them. No wonder everyone is on them for being useless and lazy.

[FI by 2024]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jim584672 No wonder everyone is on them for being useless and lazy.

As a millennial, I really don't understand this thread. Sure, Millennials shouldn't complain about their parents spending their own hard earned money, but I know some baby boomers who had FITS that they were making enough money to keep making their mortgage payments during the Great Recession and "it's not fair that kids these days get to declare bankruptcy and walk away from debt just because they can't get a job." So being bitter about money is not generational.

Amongst my group of friends, aside from the military folks who are looking at a pension, I have a wide swath of friends who are social workers, teachers, airline pilots, regional managers, lawyers, etc. Does that sound like a group of lazy and useless people? Even looking at the least ambitious of them I see people who work hard while at work, but once they leave work it doesn't cross their mind again until their next shift. What's so bad about that?

It's baffling to me that people on this thread appear to be disparaging workers who "only" work 40 hours a week. We aren't talking about leeches on society, we are talking about people who choose to earn less so they can spend their time elsewhere. As seen above, somebody who works 60 hrs a week and retires early works roughly the same number of hours as someone who works 40 hrs a week and retires at a normal age.

I always thought E-R.org was for people who realized there was more to life than working. I didn't realize that meant you could only have a life after finishing your career. We often have treads on here about how family and friends give people a hard time about retiring early and the general consensus seems to be that people should be allowed to live their life the way they want to. So if Millennials choose to work less hours each week but more years, what's the problem? They are going to live longer anyway. Geez.

Sorry for the rant. This struck a nerve.

[Sarah in SC]

FI by 2024, don't worry, there are plenty of folks here (Gen X, myself) who think a lot of the millennials we know. Haven't yet succumbed to the "get off my lawn" scenario...yet.

I only work 40 hours a week, sometimes less. No one's counting. I also take LOTS of vacation time, and don't regret it a bit. Nor do I think about work after hours. I worked longer hours in jobs I had in my 20s, and looking back, I don't think that it did me a whole lot of good, honestly. It helped the company, I guess, and I enjoyed working those hours with my work friends, but there wasn't some incredible epiphany that working more than other people garnered me.

I don't have trouble with people who work hard at work, and then leave at the end of the day. No matter what their age.

[Big_Hitter]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FI by 2024 Sorry for the rant. This struck a nerve.

Wasn't meant to. Sometimes these threads get off on tangents.


The OP was about "having" to work to 75 in order to afford retirement. I haven't checked any of the articles numbers....yet.

[Lsbcal]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FI by 2024 As a millennial, I really don't understand this thread. ...

On no, they are listing to us!

Please don't emphasize some of the negative comments here. Their are plenty of positive thoughts on millenials. It's probably a mistake to try to characterize any generation too closely. But we all have our biases -- just human nature.

[Options]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FI by 2024 As a millennial, I really don't understand this thread. Sure, Millennials shouldn't complain about their parents spending their own hard earned money, but I know some baby boomers who had FITS that they were making enough money to keep making their mortgage payments during the Great Recession and "it's not fair that kids these days get to declare bankruptcy and walk away from debt just because they can't get a job." So being bitter about money is not generational. Amongst my group of friends, aside from the military folks who are looking at a pension, I have a wide swath of friends who are social workers, teachers, airline pilots, regional managers, lawyers, etc. Does that sound like a group of lazy and useless people? Even looking at the least ambitious of them I see people who work hard while at work, but once they leave work it doesn't cross their mind again until their next shift. What's so bad about that? It's baffling to me that people on this thread appear to be disparaging workers who "only" work 40 hours a week. We aren't talking about leeches on society, we are talking about people who choose to earn less so they can spend their time elsewhere. As seen above, somebody who works 60 hrs a week and retires early works roughly the same number of hours as someone who works 40 hrs a week and retires at a normal age. I always thought E-R.org was for people who realized there was more to life than working. I didn't realize that meant you could only have a life after finishing your career. We often have treads on here about how family and friends give people a hard time about retiring early and the general consensus seems to be that people should be allowed to live their life the way they want to. So if Millennials choose to work less hours each week but more years, what's the problem? They are going to live longer anyway. Geez. Sorry for the rant. This struck a nerve.

Emphasis added

+1
Personally, I wouldn't listen to a bunch of old farts denigrating "the younger generation". As a boomer, I've been embarrassed by the absurdities of my own generation for about half my life . I worked with and supervised a variety of millennials before retiring and they were just like anyone else (although personally I preferred working with them because of their energy and commitment).

Ragging on younger generations is a centuries old practice:

15 Historical Complaints About Young People Ruining Everything | Mental Floss

[kgtest]

well let me tell you about MY generation... uphill, both directions, through a blizzard, in the dark...that's how we got to and from school.



Nowadays, the Denali's and mini-vans are parked at the bus-stop 1/2 a block away from their home, heat blaring, gas guzzling away.

[Shawn]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MasterBlaster 60% more money for 60 hours a week or 50% more hours at work than the average person. After taxes, I would suggest that you lost somewhat. Your after tax rate per hour worked is less than the average Joe.

This is not correct. The higher taxes are compensated by the discretionary aspect of the additional income over base needs. Financially, it is far better to work 60 hours a week and have extra income than to work 40 hours a week and struggle to get by. Most of my extra income has been invested at considerable growth. In essence, the 50% more work has produced over 100% more income.

But more so, I can retire 15 years earlier than the average Joe. I have complete freedom and flexibility in what I do.

Quote:

Yes you received more money and recognition but you gave up your life.

What is it with people on the internet. You don't know me. Why would you think I gave up my life?

Some of this may sound arrogant and self-serving but I don't care (it is what it is) ...

Over the last several years I've gone sky diving, scuba diving (certified), rock climbing, spelunking, mountaineering, sea and white-water kayaking, cross country and downhill skiing. I've taken a glacier traverse class. I've learned how to make igloo's.

I'm physically active and run and/or bicycle every day. Last week I rode 130 miles and ran 25. I also did about 20 miles of walks. I go hiking and backpacking. In the recent past I regularly participated in the sport of orienteering and trail races (running).

I'm 56. My resting pulse is in the low to mid-30's (it's 31 right now). My blood pressure averages around 95/65. Last August my cholesterol was 118, triglycerides 63, glucose 83. (Take that you out-of-shape smart-phone obsessed Millennials who only work 9/5.)

While I hate the overwhelming hassles associated with my job, for work, I've been to Turkey, Norway (multiple times), Sweden, Japan, Germany, the Netherlands, the UK. I've been on television 10 times and the radio twice (twice live, twice international). I've met two cabinet secretary's and a foreign ambassador.

I don't volunteer very much, although I often foster feral kittens/cats. But because I've worked hard my entire life and have extra money, I was able to give about $20K last year to either charity or people in need. I donated an additional $15K in appreciated mutual fund shares to my donor advised fund for future charitable contributions (this dropped me out of AMT). I'm in a financial position to provide significant care to my mother, step mother, and others in my life should they ever need it. For myself, I don't need to worry about issues such as long term care.

While I work a lot, I take full advantage of my available free time. Overall, I'm satisfied with how things have turned out.

So I don't understand. How exactly have I given up my life?

The point is, everyone makes choices. These choices have consequences. Working 9/5 has different consequences than working 60 hours a week. Such choices and consequences are neither good nor bad. But I object when people complain about having to work until they are 75 when a different set of choices could of have had them retiring at 55.

[Calico]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kgtest well let me tell you about MY generation... uphill, both directions, through a blizzard, in the dark...that's how we got to and from school. Nowadays, the Denali's and mini-vans are parked at the bus-stop 1/2 a block away from their home, heat blaring, gas guzzling away.

And don't forget - we were barefoot, too!

[Amethyst]

Nor to a bunch of younger ones, ragging on Oldpeople. Until you have walked in older people's shoes, you have no right to make assumptions about them. And there is no way to walk in older people's shoes (metaphorically speaking - not their actual shoes!) other than by growing old yourself.

(Note: I hate the way some people use fecal terminology - farts, poops, etc. - to refer to older people).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Options Emphasis added +1 Personally, I wouldn't listen to a bunch of old farts denigrating "the younger generation".

[eytonxav]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amethyst (Note: I hate the way some people use fecal terminology - farts, poops, etc. - to refer to older people).

LOL, I always considered the term old fart as a badge of honor.

[imoldernu]

10 more years...