More people are working past age 65

Or maybe they saw their parents (who may have had good pensions and retiree health insurance) retire comfortably without much savings and just figured they could do the same. But the rules are changing...

I think this part is undoubtedly true. Granted that pensions are a way of the past, unless something sets the economies of the world on fire again. I think that friendly aliens landing would do that. :cool:

But while I didn't choose to save for retirement more than the 9.5% that was taken out of my take home pay, many of my associates who were on double incomes did. I only wish that I'd taken the 5000 disbursement that I got from TIA-CREF on my leaving that job and put it into a 401K or whatever 33 years ago. During the volatile 16% bank interest 80's even that small amount could have risen considerably. My aunt bough 30 year cd's at 15% interest in 1986. If she were still alive they would still be paying her 15% when everyone else is getting 1 %. To tell you that the bank was happy that she died was an understatement.

Z
 
The two jobs I liked the most, were jobs I had before I graduated from college. Most people would consider them beneath my current status (at my age, that's irrelevant to me), but I may well go back to something similar because I actually enjoyed the work, and I don't have to work or care about how much it pays anymore. Just one of many benefits/options to FI.
Agreed. There's a point when FI is reached that you really don't need to *care* what the job pays. You either enjoy it or you don't. And if you don't, you don't do have to it. That's the beauty of FI.

I suspect more of these senior "Wal-Mart greeters" at $8/hr don't *have* to work than many people assume.
 
I doubt that many of them gave you a thought at all while you (and I) scrimped and saved, and spent time studying books on investments, diversification, efficient portfolios, and tax optimization, while they were on a beach sipping an umbrella drink.

OK, that's a gross generalization, but seriously - what is the difference between you and some of your co-workers who are unable to RE? You probably had similar incomes and benefits, the difference is you put your mind to it. I can't feel sorry for someone if they chose a different path. It was their choice. There is something to be said for beaches and umbrella drinks, too.

-ERD50

How many of these over 65 workers made some/all of the following bad choices:

-Married the wrong person
-Did not get a good education but rather "partied" in their early life
-Did not live within/below their means
-Got caught up in the R/E mania
-Did not take advantage of work retirement matching plans

I have zero sympathy for these people - these are the same ones who criticize as to why I save so much and don't "live it up"
 
this is an alarming number!!!!

My daughter is getting ready to do this right now...

She claimed on her facebook account that she wishes someone had told her ten years ago that she couldn't make any money in work world with the idiotic major she had in college.

I guess I was not "someone" or even "anyone", since i repeatedly asked her how she could possibly earn a living wasting my money on a college major that gave her absolutely ZERO skills. And she told me that she knew better. :banghead:

I'm now persona non grata to her so she won't even talk to me. So I can't tell her how the husband in a week is really not the marrying kind. Geez, I'm a guy. I can recognize who has a stable life and who is only good for a romantic relationship. He's a fun guy for romance. He's unlikely to be appropriate for marriage and children. I have dreams of her showing up on my doorstep with bedraggled child in hand looking for a place of refuge to live.

Z
 
The last thing I want to do is have another job after I quit at 62 (in July).

I keep telling my younger IT co-workers (who are making more money than I am, a lot of dual income people) to max out the 401k - and they look at me like "how can we afford that"? Well, you don't buy as many clothes and you don't eat lunch out and you do Netflix instead of going to the movies... and Costco is your food store for a lot of stuff...

I haven't had to give up anything I thought was essential, to save money for the past 10 - 15 years. I max out a 401k and a Roth IRA every year - including this year. The 401k will be maxed out in early June.

We don't buy a lot of furniture, We don't redecorate unnecessarily (we can paint the walls). But anything we want, we do get. We just keep "wants" down to a reasonable level. We bought a 50" TV in 2005 or so - and Netflix - and stopped going out to the movies. But I bought a new Volvo wagon in 2003 - for cash - and plan to keep it until it dies - hopefully in 2020 or so. It has low mileage. I feel safe commuting. Decent gas mileage. :whistle:

SO it's not like we're living poor, we're just not shoppers or spenders for the joy of it - because it isn't joy for me.

I buy good cooking pans - and we redid the kitchen counters and got new appliances - but we didn't rip out the kitchen.

Anyhow the point is that some people never will learn. And they will be working until they are 75 or whatever. Better them than me!
 
But what will these part time jobs be? Sure, anybody can do something stupid like being greeter at the Wal-Mart - but at $7/hr, would it be worth it? As a displaced software engineer, I am in a similar situation - I can't get the good work making $50/hr anymore (or even $30/hr), and that as a lower middle aged person, I can get only a stupid job at $7/hr at Best Buy. I would rather live a more spartan lifestyle (and abroad) than only have an extra $10K/yr and go back to the dark days of waking up everyday to punch the clock.

People need to plan for part-time work before leaving the workforce. I know a few people who do part time work as consultants in the same company that they worked for. Networking is important. Planning for this isn't any different from planning for ER - so the same kind of people will do well, and the rest will suffer. C'est la vie.
 
I know quite a few people who in their fifties were downsized by their companies. They never found comparable employment and now in their sixties are working at low paying jobs or contract employment with no benefits. They have to buy individual health insurance with large deductibles. There is nothing extra in their budgets for funding retirement; they are going to be totally dependent on SS and Medicare.

Some of these people were women who found themselves divorced in their mid-fifties. Certainly, these women COULD have planned for the worst and expected their marriages to fail; but who has an infallible crystal ball? And who among the married right now are doing financial planning in case your marriage fails? Probably none.

It's a very sad situation to see elderly people working in the kitchen at some Orlando resort or standing for hours as a cashier at Target, both situations I have witnessed. These menial jobs are physically very hard on the body. I would expect that the lifespan will diminish as a result. Is this the society we want? In many third world countries, the culture is such that younger people expect to take care of their elders when they are too old to work. I don't think many have that expectation here. I read comments by young people that they resent the fact of paying for social security because they don't expect to recieve it themselves.

I think we have a very difficult situation developing in our country.Social security is not going to be adequate for many elderly and they will not be able to get jobs that they can do that will support them. There will not be relatives to take care of them either. And, younger people will resent paying ever higher taxes.
 
Oldbabe, that was a great post. I couldn't agree with you more. Retirement seems to be pretty iffy for many of those in the early baby boomer generation. People think that they can work forever. I remember when I thought that, too. Now that I am 61, I am beginning to understand that many do lose the physical capacity needed to perform many jobs as they age. Young people think they will never grow old, no matter how many years pass.

Oldbabe said:
Some of these people were women who found themselves divorced in their mid-fifties. Certainly, these women COULD have planned for the worst and expected their marriages to fail; but who has an infallible crystal ball? And who among the married right now are doing financial planning in case your marriage fails? Probably none.
This is so true. When you think about the divorce rate, and the strains on marriages that can occur during a couple's 50's and 60's, it's just plain scary.
 
+3

Oldbabe, you raise an interesting question:

And who among the married right now are doing financial planning in case your marriage fails? Probably none.

As a single gal, I've taken matters into my own hands. I don't think being married absolves a woman from that responsibility.
 
Oldbabe, that was a great post. I couldn't agree with you more. Retirement seems to be pretty iffy for many of those in the early baby boomer generation. People think that they can work forever. I remember when I thought that, too. Now that I am 61, I am beginning to understand that many do lose the physical capacity needed to perform many jobs as they age. Young people think they will never grow old, no matter how many years pass.

This is so true. When you think about the divorce rate, and the strains on marriages that can occur during a couple's 50's and 60's, it's just plain scary.

I no longer believe I can work past 62 at my current job. I'm about to turn 62. I can't take the stress, and I'll never find a job that pays as well - if I have to work I want to get paid well.

Physically I look very young but I'm developing unwelcome aches and pains of aging -

Add me to the list of applauders of oldbabe's post.

I'm not married, happily living with a man. I've taken care of my own finances for a long time. And I learned long ago that I might not live forever so I'd better figure out how to get out of the rat race with money saved.

I think women especially who always depended on a man (for money and for decisions) are going to be in terrible shape. Sometimes it's financial, sometimes it's emotional bondage. But when the husband dies, they truly can't figure out how to go on. It's tragic, and I'm not being sarcastic. I have seen what they write about it.
 
I know quite a few people who in their fifties were downsized by their companies. They never found comparable employment and now in their sixties are working at low paying jobs or contract employment with no benefits. They have to buy individual health insurance with large deductibles. There is nothing extra in their budgets for funding retirement; they are going to be totally dependent on SS and Medicare.

Some of these people were women who found themselves divorced in their mid-fifties. Certainly, these women COULD have planned for the worst and expected their marriages to fail; but who has an infallible crystal ball? And who among the married right now are doing financial planning in case your marriage fails? Probably none.

It's a very sad situation to see elderly people working in the kitchen at some Orlando resort or standing for hours as a cashier at Target, both situations I have witnessed. These menial jobs are physically very hard on the body. I would expect that the lifespan will diminish as a result. Is this the society we want? In many third world countries, the culture is such that younger people expect to take care of their elders when they are too old to work. I don't think many have that expectation here. I read comments by young people that they resent the fact of paying for social security because they don't expect to recieve it themselves.

I think we have a very difficult situation developing in our country.Social security is not going to be adequate for many elderly and they will not be able to get jobs that they can do that will support them. There will not be relatives to take care of them either. And, younger people will resent paying ever higher taxes.

Do you really think that this situation describes why many elderly folks are not financially prepared to retire? I understand 50% of marriages end in divorce, so 50% of the population don't end up desitute because of divorce. Of the 50% that do divorce, I suspect a good number of those husbands and wives are both employed in a capacity that would allow them to financially survive independently, and of those that divorce, a good number liley get remarried, thus possibly recreating a two wage earner home. I do think people can get themselves into financial situations that are genuinely beyond their control that can put people in situations they don't deserve. But I don't think that describes why most people in this country are not (will not be) ready/able to retire at what was a traditional retirment age.
 
I just got through reading through this thread. Kudos to those that can separate the issues instead of being snotty. I sometimes wonder just how much people really think about "there but for the grace of God".

I'm one of those early boomers. My father, 8th grade education, had a good pension because he was able to get a job with a major oil company doing manual labor. He had a pension because he was just at the right age to take an early out offer when that oil company closed in his home town. My family had a policy of not talking finance with their children thinking that children didn't need to worry about adult matters. However there was never a question that his children (girls) would attend college and train in a career that insured against dependence on marriage as a career. I suppose the increase in divorce over their lifetime caused this thinking.

So to the boomer daughters. My sister married a very successful man, stayed married, and had her own career. My husband married a successful woman, stayed married and had his own career (chuckle). My sister is the richest but both families have two pensions and lots of savings. My BIL planned his rise to riches. My husband and I just muddled along without questioning or planning the future.

What could have happened? Well, I could have had a head-on collision that killed me or left me unable to continue to work.

What did happen? Well, I had a head-on collision that only crippled me. I took over a year to get repaired enough to go back to the office every day. I worked in a profession that did not need to be in the office every day and didn't require someone who could walk. I worked for an employer who understood my situation and let me work from home until I could return to my office.

Another thing happened. After the event, I took a serious look at what would have happened to my husband financially had I died. The answer was dismal. I spent the next ten years fixing this problem and will soon retire. Now if I were to die, my husband should have a secure future if he continues the lifestyle we have adopted.

So, what's my point?

This story is not complete but, with the snippets, people should be able to identify the difference between choice and luck. Take my father. He dropped out of school for no good reason - bad choice. He recognized the responsibility of providing for his family - his good choice, my good luck. He chose a job with a good employer - good choice. A good employer was available in a small town - good luck. His employer closed down before he retired - bad luck. His age was appropriate to early retire and get that pension - good luck. Keeping that good job no matter how hard it got - good choice.

This is the life of more real people than some want to see. Even if people try to prepare for bad luck, no one expects a perfect storm of bad luck. It is this "in between" perfect and irresponsible that I imagine most boomers prepared for, not the series of really bad storms that occurred. I could be wrong about that but I grew up with ordinary people and ordinary people try to meet the definition of responsible that they know. Back then, in the 40-60's, the parents of the boomers understood saving, as in bank accounts, for the water heater busting, and if that didn't happen ended up with the savings. Most retired and were not rich but were OK, even though a great percent were one worker households.

Myself, it took a major life event to wake me up but, luck again, I wasn't too old to fix the problem. It was the knowledge of living without that I gained from my childhood that made the transition from spender to saver totally painless since I grew up with a sense of "not wanting" instead of "not getting" or "giving up" things. So I consider it more good luck than good choice.

I am old now and my observation is that life isn't alway a choice. More than one wants to admit to oneself, each day of life places a bit of luck into the mix. Overall, I have been lucky but not so much so that I don't know that tomorrow can only be secured by my choices to the extent that bad luck can be overcome.
 
I just got through reading through this thread. Kudos to those that can separate the issues instead of being snotty. I sometimes wonder just how much people really think about "there but for the grace of God".

...

I am old now and my observation is that life isn't alway a choice. More than one want to admit to oneself, each day of life places a bit of luck into the mix. Overall, I have been lucky but not so much so that I don't know that tomorrow can only be secured by my choices to the extent that bad luck can be overcome.

Outstanding post. I agree, "life" has more control than any individual... if it seems otherwise than it is only one of "life's" little teases or it is not quite time.
 
What a quality thread this one turned into, Oldbabe, Tadpole, etc.! I wish it pointed to some new answers though.

We must all do all we can to prepare, that's a choice. It's very well understood on this forum, but seemingly not so for the mainstream.

For those who are unlucky (a significant number, but less than those who choose poorly IMO), I don't believe the answer can be for society to provide for them beyond the basics. I can elaborate, but probably not necessary for this audience.

What is the answer for the unlucky?
 
I believe some will continue to work full-time after 65 (as they do today). But I think you will see more work part-time to supplement SS and whatever other resources they have saved.

The big determinant for working full-time after 65 might be debt load.
 
What a quality thread this one turned into

Absolutely!

What is the answer for the unlucky?

I suppose, in the broadest sense, it's insurance. To FIRE, one must self insur against running out of money over time. Most of us choose insurance products based on our perception of risk. Disability insurance, critical accident insurance, even longevity insurance make sense. Life insurance makes sense if you have dependents. For those people who cannot wither self insure or purchase insurance, there are social safety nets. For those who could insure, but choose not to, I have less sympathy.
 
Heck - just wait till you reach 62 (like me :LOL: )...

Oof! I am not looking forward to it. I just have 51 days before I get there. :LOL: But hey, it's better than the alternative and I am enjoying ER immensely. When I was 40, I thought I would be young forever.
 
Oof! I am not looking forward to it. I just have 51 days before I get there. :LOL: But hey, it's better than the alternative and I am enjoying ER immensely. When I was 40, I thought I would be young forever.

Ugh...I just turned 40 on April 2, and wish I had that "young forever" feeling. I went to the Kings Dominion amusement park in VA on my b'day with some friends, and those damn roller coasters beat me up! :eek:

The main thing that bugs me though, is how fast the 30's went past. I remember my 30th like it was yesterday.
 
I would like to see our society make part-time employment a real option for people.

Currently, our health care system rules part-time employment out for a large portion of the workforce. If you need health insurance you pretty much have to work 40 hours a week. Most jobs beyond cashier and fry cook require you to work 40+ hours a week because they provide health insurance and wouldn't be cost effective to the employer at fewer hours per week.

If we ever get our health care untethered from our employment, I expect that we will see an explosion of people working part time as they get older, rather than the current full-time to zero cutoff that we currently have.

I think that this would be a very good thing.
 
I think that there certainly people who are genuinely worthy of sympathy and that most people would agree some financial support or help is appropriate.

I think the vast, vast majority of people who are unable to fund their retirement have (or had) a life style problem--they spend (or spent) more than they should have when they were working. Most people who are (or will be) working beyond "normal retirment age" are not in that position because they had things that happened to them that were beyond their control. They did it because they bought 50" flat screen plasma tv's, granite counter tops, hihg end, stainless steel appliances, I-Phones with $100+ per month data/communication charges, and leased new cars every 3 years.

I am sorry these people are in the situation they are in, but for the most part, this was a choice they made.


This was my way of thinking as well, but this line of thinking is not backed up by any data. It is just popular opinion and anecdotal evidence. If you looked what Elizabeth Warren found through her studies of the middle class as an aggregate, it is not the discretionary spending that is driving the increasing financial instability. It's the competition for housing in better school districts, college education, health care cost, and the lack of flexibility from having two incomes fully committed to these fixed costs that's putting middle class families in a more precarious position.

If you watch her lecture below, you'll see that she drove the government statistician nuts having him re-do the data analysis several times because when he first came back with the fact that spending on clothing, food, cars, and electronics actually consume a smaller percentage of family income now than it did 30 years ago, she questioned him thinking that he had made a mistake.

 
Back
Top Bottom