Many of Us Won't Be able to Retire Until Our 80s

[Retire Soon]

This is an interesting article that explains how many of us in the 3 lower income quartiles won't be able to retire until age 65 or older, and some believe it or not until our 80's.

Many of us won

 

[Sarah in SC]

Interesting. But I guess I'm thinking that anyone doing a job where they are getting paid $11,700 a year aren't going to be able to work into their 80s, because those are probably retail or fast food jobs at that pay and I simply don't think you can be on your feet those hours at that age.

 

[ziggy29]

From the article:

To be sure, many Americans haven’t figured out how to make working later a real option, instead of just a fantasy. And for them, Nelson has this advice: “You need to pay attention to your career and your health.”

“First, for your career, do some in-depth research and planning. Second, for your body, take a health risk assessment. You may need to keep both of them in shape longer than you thought,” he said.

I understand the point about health (being healthy keeps you physically and mentally able to w*rk longer), but won't it also increase the chances of outliving your money when you *do* finally retire?

 

[REWahoo]

I understand the point about health (being healthy keeps you physically and mentally able to w*rk longer), but won't it also increase the chances of outliving your money when you *do* finally retire?

If you don't retire until age 80, probably not.

 

[ziggy29]

If you don't retire until age 80, probably not.

Fair point, especially since if I had to work until I was 80, I would have put a bullet through my skull long before I got there.

 

[REWahoo]

Fair point, especially since if I had to work until I was 80, I would have put a bullet through my skull long before I got there.

+1

 

[WB52]

While then article encourages us to feel bad for those that can't retire, it does reinforce the mathematical fact that Living Above Your Means= No Retirement.

 

[haha]

This article is just one more piece of stupidity feeding the endless desire for Americans to be told what's up.

No sane employer would employ 75 year olds in preference to 25 year olds. Therefore, for this to happen it must be made impossible to fire an older person.

Therefore yonger people will not find jobs, will not be able to set up households, get married, have children or to grow up in any normal way.

Now will they just meekly go along, or will they do what frustrated youth have always done and seek a political solution?

I know which path I would have taken, and I feel confident that the young people of today and tomorrow are no more passive victims than we were.

Ha

 

[Skimmer]

No sane employer would employ 75 year olds in preference to 25 year olds. Therefore, for this to happen it must be made impossible to fire an older person.

I have to disagree. I work at a place where we have people in their 70's, lots of them, and they want to leave, but the company won't lay them off because they don't want to pay them their severance packages. So we lay of the younger folks, who have families to feed and support, and let the old timers sit around and watch TV and play crosswords while collecting full social security and pensions from other jobs. It's disgusting!!

 

[haha]

No sane employer would employ 75 year olds in preference to 25 year olds. Therefore, for this to happen it must be made impossible to fire an older person.

I have to disagree. I work at a place where we have people in their 70's, lots of them, and they want to leave, but the company won't lay them off because they don't want to pay them their severance packages. So we lay of the younger folks, who have families to feed and support, and let the old timers sit around and watch TV and play crosswords while collecting full social security and pensions from other jobs. It's disgusting!!

Wow!

Can I take it that looking good is not part of the job description around your company?

Ha

 

[MasterBlaster]

This is an interesting article that explains how many of us in the 3 lower income quartiles won't be able to retire until age 65 or older, and some believe it or not until our 80's.

Many of us won

We need a another government program to redistribute (your) money to those without.

Those poor people who spent all their money.

 

[BigNick]

I work at a place where we have people in their 70's, lots of them, and they want to leave, but the company won't lay them off because they don't want to pay them their severance packages.

This seems to be a usage of the phrase "want to leave" with which I was heretofore unfamiliar.

 

[GaryInCO]

It's **** frustrating to me that in over 30 years of working, I've mostly had good paying j*bs -- equivalent of a high-5-figure income now. Plus DW and I were frugal and lived below our means. (Except for a nice house and the occasional big vacation.) And yet because I stink so badly at the stock market, I'm almost 55 and still not close to being able to retire. The fact I have two kids still in high school doesn't help. Nor does the fact that DW has recently decided to end our relationship and walk with her half of our net worth. But I compare my relatively meager retirement savings to others (e.g. Nick's above, geeze) and I think I screwed up somewhere, badly. If we hadn't paid off all our debts I'd be much worse off than I am.

I'm likely to be w*rking until I'm at least 66 and start drawing SS. But at least I think I WILL be able to retire, eventually.

 

[haha]

The fact I have two kids still in high school doesn't help. Nor does the fact that DW has recently decided to end our relationship and walk with her half of our net worth.

That is usually a big help. I suppose you will also have child support, likely to include college, and perhaps even some sort of payments to your former Princess?

I remember when my lawyer told me that although the state cannot force a parent to pay his or her childrens' way in college, an ex-wife certainly can. Always best to get those kiddies to age 18 before you p*ss off your wife beyond repair.

Ha

 

[GaryInCO]

DW and I are parting very amicably. (In fact we're still living together, and probably will for a while, for several reasons.) We haven't finalized the legalities but our current working plan is that we've split all our liquid assets 50/50. There will be no alimony because she generally made more than I did. We have our house (paid off) and two rental houses (one paid off). At first she insisted rentals were all hers (long story, connected to her making more $$) but she has since given up on that stance and we'll be splitting the houses 50/50 too. We'll also split child expenses equally. We've already started telling the boys they don't get a free ride in college from us, but I expect we'll help them some.

I have no pension or health care except eventually SS/Medicare. My IRAs and my half of the real estate puts me up around $600k, but I have to live in some of that real estate. I expect to eventually inherit about $200-300k from my mother, which will definitely help. So I think I'll be OK once the boys are out of college, but that's 8-10 years away.

Maybe I shouldn't hang out around here. I was resigned to w*rking another 10 years, but after reading some of the stories here I'm getting less and less happy with the idea...

 

[REWahoo]

Maybe I shouldn't hang out around here. I was resigned to w*rking another 10 years, but after reading some of the stories here I'm getting less and less happy with the idea...

True, this place can be toxic to some individuals encapsulated in the working world.

 

[HFWR]

Maybe I shouldn't hang out around here. I was resigned to w*rking another 10 years, but after reading some of the stories here I'm getting less and less happy with the idea...

Just trying to help...

I've been hanging around here for a number of years now, but I already had a bad attitude. I really had hoped to retire right about now, but a layoff and great recession later, I'm resigned, no pun intended, to working until early SS kicks in. All divorces, child support, etc. are long in the past!

 

[GaryInCO]

Another reason to work a bit longer is to beef up my SS check. DW and I have been self-employed for 20 years. Between all our creative accounting to minimize our taxable (and thus SS-reportable) income, and her making more $$ (and claiming the lion's share of the income on SS reports), I'm currently looking at a $2k SS check at 66. Maybe if I put in 5 or 10 years of getting full credit for my income, I might be able to boost that some.

 

[eytonxav]

Fair point, especially since if I had to work until I was 80, I would have put a bullet through my skull long before I got there.

Maybe a Walmart greeter that stands there with their walker for support.

 

[Sarah in SC]

Just trying to help...

I've been hanging around here for a number of years now, but I already had a bad attitude. I really had hoped to retire right about now, but a layoff and great recession later, I'm resigned, no pun intended, to working until early SS kicks in. All divorces, child support, etc. are long in the past!

Another one who already had a bad attitude, also kicking around here even though my retirement is probably at least 10 years away. Unless we run away and join the ashram, in which case I can leave tomorrow.

 

[Ally]

This is totally depressing reading. Thank God for my husband having a govt. pension (Joint and survivor), plus we both will have SS and savings. Without the pension, it would be much harder. I'm going to thank him tonight for all the crap he has put up with at work to make that possible.

 

[Running_Man]

I do not believe the assumption of the article that large percentage of Americans will be unable to retire.

It states few can afford retirement at 65 while at the same time stating only 17.2% of people over 65 are working. Of that number a great number would continue working no matter what as they hate the thought of not working. Most people fit their lifestyle into their income available once full age social security becomes available. As long as Social Security pays at today's level people will continue to retire and live on the money they have available to them.

 

[East Texas]

While then article encourages us to feel bad for those that can't retire, it does reinforce the mathematical fact that Living Above Your Means= No Retirement.

I don't [-]will never [/-]understand why most people do not realize living below their means is as simple as consistently spending less than you bring home. The rest of the money goes towards an emergency fund, paying off debt, and retirement.

I specifically did not say "less than you make" because there are tons of fools out there who spend less than their gross; but, more than their net. In their minds, they're "spending less...."

 

[GregLee]

The article contends that working an extra 3 years at the end -- retiring at 68 rather than 65 -- tends to make a surprisingly large increase in retirement income. That's the way it worked for my wife and me (both retired at 68), partly because we both have state DB pensions calculated using a "high 3" rule, so that our pay raises from ages 65-68 strongly influenced our pension amounts.

 

[W2R]

I suspect that the author of the article is going by old fashioned, "pension era" assumptions. For example, an old "pension era" rule of thumb was that a retiree needs 80% of their working salary.

Many (most?) new retirees these days without a pension do not expect to spend 80% of their annual working salary each year in retirement - - they were already spending a lot less than that even while working, because they had to save more money for retirement either by maxing out the 401K or saving in taxable investment accounts or both.

A pension is part of the compensation package, and a salary with a pension is effectively larger than the same salary without one, as I see it. This is because the need to save for retirement is lessened if one can expect a pension.