Aw Ted, you can't go! You're an oldtimer here, and I always enjoyed reading and thinking about your economic posts (and I think I've said that in the past, too
). And you have helped me, and many many others here. So walk around the house 10 times, and come on back!
I agree with you on the idea of being able to wind down work as a transistion to retirement. I certainly would have liked to, like working 2 days a week, or something like that. Alas, when an industry crashes and thousands and thousands of people are going out the door, there was no alternative.
In good times, the corporate world would have to make a lot of structural changes to do it. Many issues to be addressed, like:
Vacation Benefits - None? - or scaled-down?
Same for Holiday pay
Same for sick days
Effects on Retirement Plan elegibility/$ inflow in part-time work?
401k plan effects
All the mandatory classes on no harassment, etc. etc. become a bigger expense per-person if hours are reduced.
Can the work still be done per-schedule if a person is part-time?
Or is there enough work that is not time-critical that part-time people could do those tasks?
Right now, I don't think many companies are in a mindset to create another class of employees, and work out these issues. I think they should, but it may take a "full employement economy" again, and a shortage of skilled workers to nudge them to think about it. I think it may take a leader company, someone very profitable to do it. Then others may follow as the "right thing to do".
My experiences with the corporate "Human Relations" people is that they do the least possible work. They were the ones I saw putting in 8 hours a day max (really, they usually came in late, and often left early!). These people would be the ones to research and implement a plan, with all of its adjustments. I just don't see them being interested in the concept.
Overall, I think it could be made to work, if the number of transitioners is very small. But the culture will need a major overhaul to make it happen.
Different topic - One time Financial Planning for a fee. I think that is a better idea for people than going to "Financial Advisors" whose ulterior motive is to sell what they have in their stable, (all with "no fees" to the user, of course
).
I have learned a lot since I got started in this, and I got started in an emergency. I had enough sense and gut feel to steer out of the worst clutches, but there are many things I would have done differently if I knew then what I know now.
An unbiased person who could have laid out some plans of action, with well-reasoned backup, would have been a big plus. But I would really have to feel that they were working in my best interest. Something better than a financial doc-in-a-box program. And if they really are working in my best interest, with no kickbacks from the investment choices, then my paying them a fee is the only inducement they will have to take the job on.
In contrast to the above, a fee-based planner who collects 2% of someones portfolio each and every year to "maintain" it sounds more like a leech!
