Older women having too much fun to retire

[gcgang]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/11/...0s-are-having-way-too-much-fun-to-retire.html

Interesting retirement related article in 2/11/17 NYT.

Article says while more men 60+ are working than in the past, the increase is dwarfed by the increase by women. "Retirement is boring", and the fact that this generation of women is among the first to be able to enjoy advancement in professional careers, rather than the picture of a poor, need to work person, are listed as factors.

You go, girl!

 

[NW-Bound]

Fine! Nothing wrong with that.

I do not need more competition for airfare, lodging, and recreational accommodation.

 

[Amethyst]

As Khan used to say, "Yet more evidence that I am not actually a woman."

 

[Aerides]

I didn't burn one of my free NYT articles to read it, but I would guess that in that population the % of widows/single/empty nests is a high enough amount to be part of the push to stay working.

I think if I were 60+ and single for whatever reason, then the social center of the workplace might be more appealing (also if I was ever social at work beyond the very small network I counted as actual friends, but I was not the norm I know).

My dad used to supervise a group that fit the age description, and they all started their workday around 5:30 am, left around 2pm to help out with their grandkids and stuff, and were a very close knit bunch that had worked together for years.

 

[athena53]

I loved my work and it paid well, which is one of the reasons I was able to retire at 61. Heck, I'm even going to a meeting of my professional society in a few months because it's being held in Toronto, and I love Toronto (and retired members don't have to pay the meeting registration fees so I get all the breakfasts, cocktail receptions and a couple of meals for free).


But- I have plenty of other interests- I always have, but now I have time to pursue them. I'm glad some women like their work so much that they work beyond the point of FI, but it wasn't for me.


As for "you go, girl"- I hate that phrase. I am not a girl.

 

[ER Eddie]

Despite the headline, I don't think the data imply that "women in their 60s and 70s are having too much fun to retire!" That's one of those catchy headlines that doesn't actually reflect the data very well. Women are more a part of the workforce now than they were before, so of course the percentage rise is going to be higher, relative to men. It started out lower.

They point out that the increase in women working is true of almost every age category, not just the 60s and 70s. So it's not really about women enjoying work. It's about more women working in that age category -- and in almost all other age categories. It's just a general shift.

They note that twice as many men in their 60s work than women. I guess men are having twice as much fun.

 

[Gumby]

As in all things, each of us must follow our own star. For some, that is work. For others, retirement.

 

[ugeauxgirl]

Hmmm. You know- this sort of makes sense to me. Part of the reason I want to retire is that my job is stressful, and when I get home, I have to cook dinner, clean the house, help with homework, wash clothes, etc. Its exhausting. Two jobs is too much for me to want to do. (I could do it indefinitely if I had to, but at this point I don't have to.) In 10 years though, if I were divorced and my kids were gone to college, I can see where working might be fun and provide a social structure. But I have never been bored in my life- I have pages of bucket list items to tackle, plenty of friends, and I plan on keeping my DH, who is the most interesting man ever. I think I will enjoy being retired.

 

[Bestwifeever]

Some of them might think they need the money.

 

[FlaGator]

Current GF, 60+, has already gone on the record saying she's not going to quit her 30+ year career no matter what our time together might bring. Says she "needs the money", which I am skeptical of. My spidey-sense tells me it's more a matter of liking a job that she does well and enjoying the discretionary income after many years of being on a tight budget as an independent woman. Admire her for that.

Have a some time for her to see a different point of view, but if I'm unsuccessful, it will be OK. Best to have your SO happy.

 

[Sunset]

Some of them might think they need the money.

Right, because they are smart enough to realize they are on avg going to live quite a few years longer than a male... So they really need more savings.

 

[Danmar]

Despite the headline, I don't think the data imply that "women in their 60s and 70s are having too much fun to retire!" That's one of those catchy headlines that doesn't actually reflect the data very well. Women are more a part of the workforce now than they were before, so of course the percentage rise is going to be higher, relative to men. It started out lower.

They point out that the increase in women working is true of almost every age category, not just the 60s and 70s. So it's not really about women enjoying work. It's about more women working in that age category -- and in almost all other age categories. It's just a general shift.

They note that twice as many men in their 60s work than women. I guess men are having twice as much fun.

Agree. Didn't read the article but I doubt most women (or men for that matter) would state "having fun" as a reason to keep working. Some would of course.

 

[brucethebroker]

Some of them might think they need the money.

Or be too embarrassed to admit they cannot afford to retire..........

 

[Dawg52]

“I just have too much energy and too much intensity to not be engaged,”

This describes my SIL to a T. She's been a nurse for 40+ years in neonatal intensive care and loves it. She's 65... collecting pension money and some SS from my brother(deceased). My brother left her with a nice portfolio so she doesn't have to work. But she is a go-getter. Works something like three 12 hour shifts on average per week but has a ton of vacation time and her employer allows her to shovel her schedule around so she can travel and do other things. She has a working buddy who travels with her and they have gone all over the world. Last year they had a trip scheduled for every month of the year, not all outside the U.S. but many that were.

She's happy with her go go style and her work pretty much funds all her trips. Not for me as I'm just the opposite. Don't care to work and not into travel on that scale. But whatever floats your boat......

 

[kcowan]

DW was not ready to retire when I did. But she decided to give it a try. It took her 5 years to adapt but that was also the runway to fully develop our retirement friends network. Plus working part time was not feasible in her career.

I would say she was having fun in her career when she retired. Mostly from success and recognition.

I was also having fun but I kept the focus on all the other things I had to do that were not possible with a job.

 

[MichaelB]

How we love a narrative.

Actual BLS and census data point to a different set of conclusions. Here's (link) a good BLS analysis and projection of the US work force. It shows women as a % of the work force peaked in 1970 and women over age 65 as a % peaked in 2015 and will decline over the next few decades.

IIRC US Census data shows a large (and worrisome) % of single women over age 65 living at or near poverty, with low incomes.

At first glance, it looks like all people age 65 and older are are working to an older age, and it is because they have to. As for anecdotes, my DM worked to age 70. She really enjoyed her work and was very good at it. [-]I'm pretty sure[/-] I also suspect she didn't want to be home with DF. They definitely didn't save any money and she was the primary wage earner the last 15 years, and still managed to save a considerable sum. There's no doubt her retirement was financed entirely by her working late in life.

 

[athena53]

How we love a narrative.

Actual BLS and census data point to a different set of conclusions. Here's (link) a good BLS analysis and projection of the US work force. It shows women as a % of the work force peaked in 1970 and women over age 65 as a % peaked in 2015 and will decline over the next few decades.

IIRC US Census data shows a large (and worrisome) % of single women over age 65 living at or near poverty, with low incomes.

At first glance, it looks like all people age 65 and older are are working to an older age, and it is because they have to.

The examples in the NYT article were atypical- many were women in "you eat what you kill" fields such as real estate and law. You keep bringing in business, you can work as long as you want to. There may be need there, too. The realtor who worked with us in 2003 when we moved here, whom we used again in 2015 to downsize, told me she went through a lot of her retirement money in the financial crisis and will likely work till she's 70. Dawg's SIL is a nurse- there's a scarcity of nurses right now so they're probably thrilled to have a good one, especially for just 36 hours/week (PT so no benefits).

There's certainly a lot of "I don't want to be a bag lady/live on cat food" fear out there that keeps women working when they have that option. Many times the jobs dry up or poor health intervenes. Others may have gotten a late start in careers after raising children and want to make up for years of no savings/SS credits. I'm glad there are some who can still find work they genuinely enjoy.

 

[FUEGO]

Or be too embarrassed to admit they cannot afford to retire..........

+1 to this.

I imagine there are tons of 60-70+ women (and men, though not the subject of the OP's linked article) that just aren't subjectively financially well off enough to live the life to which they have grown accustomed, so they stick with a job to provide an income to fund their lifestyle (while possibly collecting SS, pension, annuity income, withdrawing from retirement funds, etc).

There are fun social and intellectual aspects to jobs that many find appealing, but I would argue those are positive factors outweighing the downside of jobs (stress, time consuming, inconvenient) that fit into the equation of continue working or retire fully.

My own mother is one who would fit into this article's headline. She retired 2 years ago at 62 but couldn't stay retired for long. After volunteering at a few places they quickly offered her paid employment ("hey, if you're doing this for free you might enjoy it more if you get paid and we can formalize the arrangement that way and come to rely on you more").

A part of it is social - my father is still working and I'm not 100% certain she wants to spend more time with him than she does know. She likes to get out and see other people, and it seems like me and my kids are her main social network (help!!!!! ), so part time work fills that void for her.

But she's also subjectively worried about finances (in spite of a million or possibly several million in investments, a nice state pension and a couple years away from unreduced SS x2, with expenses probably no more than $60,000-80,000/yr). These jobs basically provide pocket money so she doesn't have to touch her investments while still being able to spend on travel like she wants to. Objectively they could probably spend well over $100,000 per year with a 100% chance of portfolio survival, but I can only do so much to persuade them to spend my inheritance. As a result, she works in retirement.

 

[ER Eddie]

I'm sure some women over 65 work because they enjoy it. I'm sure many women over 65 work because they have to, financially. And some work because they wouldn't know what to do with themselves otherwise.

I'd bet the percentages are similar for men.

 

[Huston55]

The examples in the NYT article were atypical- many were women in "you eat what you kill" fields such as real estate and law. You keep bringing in business, you can work as long as you want to. There may be need there, too. The realtor who worked with us in 2003 when we moved here, whom we used again in 2015 to downsize, told me she went through a lot of her retirement money in the financial crisis and will likely work till she's 70. Dawg's SIL is a nurse- there's a scarcity of nurses right now so they're probably thrilled to have a good one, especially for just 36 hours/week (PT so no benefits).

There's certainly a lot of "I don't want to be a bag lady/live on cat food" fear out there that keeps women working when they have that option. Many times the jobs dry up or poor health intervenes. Others may have gotten a late start in careers after raising children and want to make up for years of no savings/SS credits. I'm glad there are some who can still find work they genuinely enjoy.

Small point but, 3x12hr shifts is likely "full time" for a nurse. My DS does the same & gets the equivalent of 40hrs pay and full benefits. Seems that's just the way it works in that career field.

 

[Philliefan33]

Small point but, 3x12hr shifts is likely "full time" for a nurse. My DS does the same & gets the equivalent of 40hrs pay and full benefits. Seems that's just the way it works in that career field.

+1. My DD is a nurse and has worked at three different hospitals. Always three 12- hour shifts, full benefits. Never works the same nights from week to week..

 

[Music Lover]

I didn't burn one of my free NYT articles to read it

Google the headline and go through that link instead of the NYT link and you can often bypass the paywall.

 

[NH Hiker]

I didn't burn one of my free NYT articles to read it,

You can use Private Window (Safari) or Incognito Window (Chrome). Use of a Private/Incognito Windows will reset your read article count to zero for most news sites. Of course, if you want to support the content, you would want to subscribe.

 

[Marita40]

I'm 60 and my intention is to work until full social security age at 66. Why? I have a job that is rewarding, not stressful, not long hours, close enough to home where I can walk to work, offers a social life (ie. many of my friends are here), and pays well. In short, I think I am in the catbird seat. Although I could retire now I'll feel a lot more secure financially by retiring in 6 years. The economy is just too iffy for me to do it now.
This all may change tomorrow but I doubt it. The only thing that would push me over the edge earlier is if my employer offers another buyout during this time, which might happen.

 

[Pilot2013]

Hmmm. You know- this sort of makes sense to me. Part of the reason I want to retire is that my job is stressful, and when I get home, I have to cook dinner, clean the house, help with homework, wash clothes, etc. Its exhausting. Two jobs is too much for me to want to do. (I could do it indefinitely if I had to, but at this point I don't have to.) In 10 years though, if I were divorced and my kids were gone to college, I can see where working might be fun and provide a social structure. But I have never been bored in my life- I have pages of bucket list items to tackle, plenty of friends, and I plan on keeping my DH, who is the most interesting man ever. I think I will enjoy being retired.

As my dearly departed MIL used to say, "sounds like there is trouble in the teepee".