What is the age cutoff for "RE"?

[Nords]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JustCurious Based upon the initial replies, there does not appear to be a consensus on this issue.

That's about all you can expect on a board where we can't even produce a common definition of net worth or annual expenses, a balanced perspective on annuities, any unemotional recommendations on rent vs buy or mortgage vs debt free, and kids vs none.

But you can expect plenty of it!

[2B]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martha In my lawfirm, normal age is in your 70s. Or 80s. Or for the founder's son, in his 90s. If someone left at 65 that would be early.

It sounds like your law firm is like the engineering firm I'm with. I'm below the median age for process engineers and I'm chomping at the bit to bail.

[Rustic23]

It would appear to me that RE like FI are individual decisions and thus somewhat defy an exact definition. If you are FI and you still work have you missed RE? I assume Bill Gate’s kids are born FI, so if they ever go to work have they missed out on RE? If they work to 50 and then retire have they really RE’ed when they could have at 21? RE is in the eye of the beholder. I suspect that the younger you are the earlier you would set the age to qualify for RE.

I retired at 62. For me it was earlier than I had planned on. I started reading things on this board, did the math, determined I was FI, my wife wanted to enjoy the new lake house, so I quit, she quit, and we never looked back. I feel like we retired early because there are so many of my and her friends that are still working. I feel like we retired early because we could still be working if we wanted, which we don’t. I feel like we retired early because it makes me feel good to know I did!

[kcowan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rustic23 ...I retired at 62. For me it was earlier than I had planned on...

I retired at 59 because the timing of an event aligned with my idea to consider it. I was not FI and still am not (according to FIRECALC) but have been focused on the portfolio and the budget since then (4 years) and so far our portfolio is up 10% after expenses. Expenses are down 25% from working level. With each passing year we are getting closer to FI.

[yakers]

Another answer:

If you retire at a younger age than your father did.

My Dad retired at 62 mostly for medical reasons. I expect 56 or 57 will be enough for me. And I hope to stay in good enough physical shape that I enjoy some retirement years.

[Mr._johngalt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by yakers Another answer: If you retire at a younger age than your father did.

That's an interesting point of view. My Dad retired at 67 (he's 89 now).
Man, if I thought I had to work another 5 years before I could leave
I'd be hooking a hose to my exhaust pipe and duct taping the cracks in the garage door.

JG

[Dawg52]

My Dad retired at 58, although it was health related. So I guess I will qualify as an early retiree. 8)

[retire@40]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcowan I retired at 59 because the timing of an event aligned with my idea to consider it. I was not FI and still am not (according to FIRECALC) but have been focused on the portfolio and the budget since then (4 years) and so far our portfolio is up 10% after expenses. Expenses are down 25% from working level. With each passing year we are getting closer to FI.

I love it.

Even when it's not supposed to work, you figure out a way to make it work (no pun intended).

Where there's a will there's a way.

[tryan]

Where I left ER does not exists. I heard:

" Com'on what are you really gonna do"
" Ok, you're taking a break ... you'll be back at work when the severence ends"
" Yeah right ... Call me so I can get the refferal fee"

So I guess anytime before YOU retired is ER.

[JustCurious]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rustic23 It would appear to me that RE like FI are individual decisions and thus somewhat defy an exact definition.

I would have to disagree because from what I have read on this forum, it appears that there is indeed an exact definition of "FI", and it is defined as "having enough savings and investments to throw off a SWR to support your lifestyle without working." The magic number to accomplish this goal will be different for different people, but at least there seems to be a consensus on the defintion, whereas there is no consensus on the definition of "RE".

[bosco]

Quote:

Originally Posted by yakers Another answer: If you retire at a younger age than your father did.

not a helpful definition for some of us. My father retired from the planet at age 46. I consider myself lucky that I'm older than that and still walking around....

[kcowan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by retire@40 I love it. Even when it's not supposed to work, you figure out a way to make it work (no pun intended). Where there's a will there's a way.

DW and I also agreed that we would move to Mexico if we could no longer make it work financially. By living there from Oct-Mar, and travelling north Apr-Sep, we can further reduce our living expenses by 30%. Satellite TV, hi-speed internet and VOIP have made it even more attractive since we first devised that as a fallback plan in 2003...

Plus we could do home swaps during the summer to further reduce our nut as needed. Or rent out our place to school teachers and families. Finally, we have scoped out Uruguay as an even cheaper destination where owning beach property is still a deal and living cost are 50% cheaper again.

[kaudrey]

"Actually, last time I looked the average age of retirement in the Federal Gvmt was around 63 and rising. 55 with 30 years service is the age at which regular workers under the old civil service retirement system could retire without a reduction in their annuity."

-----

True. I'm under the newer FERS system, and I'd have to wait until 56 years 10 months to retire with full immediate pension and full health bennies. By retiring 5 years earlier (at age 52, with 31 years in), I'll still get my full pension, deferred to 56 years 10 months, but I lose my health insurance bennies.

So, for me, anything before 57 is early. That is, coincidentally, the age my father retired, so I'll match two of the ideas floating around here!

Karen

[Khan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kaudrey "Actually, last time I looked the average age of retirement in the Federal Gvmt was around 63 and rising. 55 with 30 years service is the age at which regular workers under the old civil service retirement system could retire without a reduction in their annuity." ----- True. I'm under the newer FERS system, and I'd have to wait until 56 years 10 months to retire with full immediate pension and full health bennies. By retiring 5 years earlier (at age 52, with 31 years in), I'll still get my full pension, deferred to 56 years 10 months, but I lose my health insurance bennies. So, for me, anything before 57 is early. That is, coincidentally, the age my father retired, so I'll match two of the ideas floating around here! Karen

Keep your eyes open for early retirement offers (20 years, age 50).

I took one at age 54 with 26.5 years with reduced pension (which increased at MRA (age 55.5 )) and I kept health insurance.

[trixs]

I belong in the young dreamers forum... My goal is to retire on my 40th birthday which happens to be ohhh.... 15 years away! Go military retirement!

I suppose I consider 50ish normal and 40s early.

[JonnyM]

I don't believe it's an Age number, but a realization that you've opted out, or are planning to opt out well in advance of your peer group, primarily in the work force, but also your social circle as well. In our case our decision was met with disbelief, and at first numerous comments of jelously and disdain, followed later by requests for "How can I join you?" and "Is this really possible for me?" conversations which continue to this day. Factoid, all of our peers (some 4 thousand) work(ed) under the same retirement system with the same rules and regs, they just for the most part never bothered to study them, or look into the possibility of anything short of a putting in at least 30 years baring health issues. The reality we discovered is the system we worked under was based on a sliding acutuarial table. The older you are, the sooner you'll die, the more we'll pay you to retire, mutiplied times your years of service to the organization, multiplied times the level of pay you are able to acheive near the end of your tenure. As a society, we are for the most part conditioned NOT to think of ER and FIRE as realizable goals, and certainly not as desireable outcomes, yet the opportunity is/was there for my peer working group. That's what is unique and so way-cool about the membership of this board. We are the tiny subset of folk that "get it" and thought outside the box enough to ER or are planning for it, but it is very obvious to me that we are the minority. 8) [img width=750 height=477]http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0Je5x92VzBF8TMBcy2jzbkF;_ylu=X3oDMTA4NDgyNWN 0BHNlYwNwcm9m/SIG=12843crfc/EXP=1160882422/**http%3a//www.outcastband.com/gallery/images/guitar.jpg[/img]

[yakers]

I like what JohnnyM wrote, I like it a lot. But, as also well stated earlier in this thread, I agree that there are two major threads in FIRE the FI & the RE. You have to get to FI to get to RE but I regard the FI as the more significant event. I kind of liked my job all along but it has positively blossomed since I hit FI and don't give a rats a%% about what the boss thinks. I have my target date set but will happily stay on as long as I want. I own my work more now that I chose to be there.

[Delawaredave]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kaudrey So, for me, anything before 57 is early. That is, coincidentally, the age my father retired, so I'll match two of the ideas floating around here!

As the US population lives longer and has less wealth, "retirement age" will keep pushing out, so I guess the definition of "early retirement" will keep pushing out.

I consider anything before 57 or 58 early.

10 years from now, people may consider retiring in your 60's "early" - never in my book.....

[rs0460a]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonnyM As a society, we are for the most part conditioned NOT to think of ER and FIRE as realizable goals, and certainly not as desireable outcomes, yet the opportunity is/was there for my peer working group.

So true. However, I still question "myself" if I can retire (even though the "evidence" will support my ER next spring) when those around me for the last 30+ years can't. I can't beleive I'm that "smart"... :

- Ron

[unclemick]

Circa late 1980's early 1990's - my graph paper/no 2 pencil showed 'early retirement' at 63 versus say regular at 66.

I was layed off at 49 - I was er ah unemployed until I discovered this forum and became a high class ER in hindsight.

heh heh heh heh heh - along with a few other labels.