Scott Burns Column on OMY

[rdy2go]

Maybe this will help push someone over the edge that is thinking about going one more year.

Link: Should you work longer? | Dallas Morning News

 

[fosterscik]

Interesting read - Thanks

 

[jjquantz]

Exactly the analysis that DW and I did. As a result, I'm retired now and she's out when she decides that w*rk isn't fun for her anymore. The problem with the article, for many people, is, as one of our members says, "numbers is hard." It constantly amazes me that my golf buddies really don't have any understanding of their financial situation. They retired when, "My guy said I had enough money, so I retired."

 

[MBAustin]

Good article, thanks for sharing. Just sent it to my sister whose SO is suffering from OMY (he'll be 66 this year).

 

[pjm-7]

Sounds a lot like the rational of the book "Your Money or Your Life". What really is the value of your additional time at work.

 

[Rustic23]

In his analysis, he considered the increase in SS, but in the $1.22 per hour, he adjusted 15% for Income taxes but not the reduction in hourly wage for payroll tax. I think, but not sure, the $1.22 is even lower.

 

[DrRoy]

I'm doing OMY to boost my RE income by about 3.5%, but I'm 56.

 

[rodi]

What struck me is that Burns was surprised his friend wanted to retire at age 62.... even though his friend could collect SS, had no debt, and had savings. Why is it surprising?

 

[Senator]

Like millions of others, he had faced a serious decision: Work a bit longer or retire now?

The conventional wisdom is quite clear on this question.

Forget retiring. Work away; you won’t regret it!

I never heard that this is conventional wisdom. I am having trouble focusing on reaching my 7/5/16 goal...

 

[imoldernu]

Figuring work beginning at age 16 and retirement at age 53, that totals 37 years. Now entering 27th year of retirement imoldernu's opinion is that OMY ain't worth it.
Long and short, the earlier retirement provides a safety net of being young enough to go back, or to supplement w/part time employment, if there's a problem.
For DW and me, it wasn't necessary. Not a minute of regret.

 

[Moneygrubber]

Nice article.


Sent from my iPad using Early Retirement Forum

 

[Senator]

Figuring work beginning at age 16 and retirement at age 53, that totals 37 years. Now entering 27th year of retirement imoldernu's opinion is that OMY ain't worth it.
Long and short, the earlier retirement provides a safety net of being young enough to go back, or to supplement w/part time employment, if there's a problem.
For DW and me, it wasn't necessary. Not a minute of regret.

You are my inspiration!

 

[Katsmeow]

What struck me is that Burns was surprised his friend wanted to retire at age 62.... even though his friend could collect SS, had no debt, and had savings. Why is it surprising?

Burns obviously loves his work. It can be hard to understand someone who wants to retire for reasons other than ill health.

 

[razztazz]

Burns obviously loves his work. It can be hard to understand someone who wants to retire for reasons other than ill health.

I retired for medical reasons. I was sick of working

 

[Spanky]

Burns obviously loves his work. It can be hard to understand someone who wants to retire for reasons other than ill health.

Obviously, he fails to recognize that there are better things than work!

 

[REWahoo]

I retired for medical reasons. I was sick of working

I also retired for medical reasons having to do with my vision. I could no longer see my @ss going to work.

 

[Shawn]

I'm 56. Depending on the starting date, I may be in OMY x 5. So I think about this all the time. One recent way of thinking goes like this ...

How much of my net worth would I pay for a miracle pill that extended my life by 1 quality year? Would I pay 1%? Heck yeah. That's in the noise. Would I pay 99%? No way. That would turn Top Ramen into a luxury food for the rest of my life.

So I'd pay somewhere between 1% and 99% of my net worth for a miracle pill that extended my life by 1 year. That large range doesn't tell me very much, so let me be more specific. Would I pay 8%? That's pretty close to what OMY means for me, and it's the same percentage Scott Burns uses in his article (although he casts it as income, not net worth).

If I retired today, my net worth at some point in the future would be 8% less than it would be if I retired 1 year from now. I'd give up 8% of money but gain 1 extra year of "life." 8% isn't trivial. It can do a lot of good for me and/or for others.

Of course, this analogy isn't perfect. Just because I work an extra year doesn't necessarily mean I give up 1 year of life. I can still find enjoyment in life while I work - at least to a point.

The weather was nice today so I went on a 4-hour bicycle ride up in the mountains. Deserted road. Little traffic. Peaceful and quiet. Relaxing. Great ride. However, I kept thinking about work on the way back - talking to myself about stressful events during the past week. A lot of negative emotions.

And it was worse last Wednesday. Wednesday was a particularly bad day at work, and I brought my agitation home with me. That's when the neighbors cat stopped by my house looking for his regular evening snack. While I was fixing his treat, he began meowing. He has a most annoying ear-piercing meow. Finally, I yelled at him, "Shut Up!" I picked him up, yelled at him again, "Nothing For You!," and put him outside. He looked so confused. And although I gave him his treat 2 minutes later, I felt so bad. At least he has forgiven me. He spent three hours in my living room last night watching television. He slept. I watched.

But still. One shouldn't let stressful events at work be taken out on the neighbors cat. It says a lot when that happens.

So I keep asking. Is it worth it?

 

[unclemick]

I was canned/er layed off. At age 50 and after some jobshopper work and unemployment periods the jobs offered and working conditions lost their appeal.

The big shift took place between my ears going from 'unemployed slacker' to 'high class ER'.

heh heh heh - and a proud and conceited - 'rally cheap SOB' living expense wise in the early years of ER.

 

[Music Lover]

I also retired for medical reasons having to do with my vision. I could no longer see my @ss going to work.

The correct medical term is anal glaucoma.

 

[Midpack]

Good advice, Scott Burns has always been a good source for investing/retirement reading. I was fortunate, because I lived there, to start reading his column in the Dallas Morning News well before he was known more broadly.

 

[Daniel J]

Thanks for sharing. I'm staring at another OMY right now and this thread really helps.


Sent from my iPhone using Early Retirement Forum

 

[mickeyd]

OMY?

 

[Midpack]

OMY?

http://www.early-retirement.org/for...slang-frequently-used-on-the-forum-34884.html

 

[Running_Man]

Forgetting for a second whether the individual has enough money for one more year, the hourly earning for the one more year is totally wrong as you have to multiply it by the number of years, you cannot take a some of money and only give one years income from it! I hate it when an article makes a point using totally wrong math as the justification. Just the increase in Social Security alone will be worth $21.00 per the hour worked to enjoy for the remainder of their retirement. You addd on the $36,000 (4% of portfolio withdrawal) and 20,000 they saved you get an additional $14.00 per hour, the gains or losses otherwise would have been the same whether they worked or not for a total additional of $35.00 per hour worked not $1.21.

 

[ABQ2015]

Forgetting for a second whether the individual has enough money for one more year, the hourly earning for the one more year is totally wrong as you have to multiply it by the number of years, you cannot take a some of money and only give one years income from it! I hate it when an article makes a point using totally wrong math as the justification. Just the increase in Social Security alone will be worth $21.00 per the hour worked to enjoy for the remainder of their retirement. You addd on the $36,000 (4% of portfolio withdrawal) and 20,000 they saved you get an additional $14.00 per hour, the gains or losses otherwise would have been the same whether they worked or not for a total additional of $35.00 per hour worked not $1.21.

Scott Burn's oversimplistic arithmetic also annoyed me but I thought perhaps that he was intending to be humorous? I've heard of him but his column is not available in my local paper.