Another...when to retire article

Gee! What’s your game? I just saw it on Google and thought it was interesting and passed it along. In case you were unaware, this is a financial forum. Move on if it upsets you. You really are joyless.
 
Thanks for posting! I retired early and agree with the "less stress" comment. I think the SS advice isn't bad. In my case if I take it at 62 .vs. 66 the crossover is at 78 yo. If you invest the amount between those times and earn 4%, the crossover is well into the 80's. So, in my opinion, it depends on how long you think you will live.
 
Gee! What’s your game? I just saw it on Google and thought it was interesting and passed it along. In case you were unaware, this is a financial forum. Move on if it upsets you. You really are joyless.


FTP; what the others are trying to say, is don't post a link, without a synopsis or short critique of the article. That is SOP on this forum.


Sent from my iPad using Early Retirement Forum
 
Did you find anything worthwhile in it to make a post about it?
If so, share what was it.

Or you just felt obliged to report any new retirement article here in order to keep us up to speed?

What's your game?

Did you find it worthwhile to criticize a post about an article, rather than just ignore it?

What's your game?

(Mine is pickleball these days)
 
This thread discussion would be much more enlightening if we knew something about the linked article in the OP.

Perhaps someone can share what the OP story is and why it is of interest to us.
 
Last edited:
FTP; what the others are trying to say, is don't post a link, without a synopsis or short critique of the article. That is SOP on this forum.

Here's my synopsis, for those who don't like to follow links for some reason, or who would rather that someone else do the reading for them:


Why put off retiring if you don't have to? 5 reasons to retire as early as you can

1. Putting off retirement can be risky

Here the author starts off with the obvious truism: "you don't know how long you'll live or how long you'll remain relatively healthy and active." Then they conclude with "For this reason alone, it's worth being more aggressive in saving for retirement, to build a fat nest egg sooner rather than later."

I have no idea what connection this has with "risky" or retiring as early as you can. Perhaps they needed to pad their word count in order to get the article published.

2. You hate your job

The author talks about how bad it is on your health if you have chronic stress and seems to imply that you will always have chronic stress if you hate your job.

Happily, they tell us that (shockingly) there is a solution to hating your job that doesn't actually involve retiring! "Retiring from a job you hate doesn't necessarily mean retiring from work altogether. It might just mean looking for, finding and switching to a different job – perhaps in a field you've always wanted to try."

Interesting that the term "retiring from a job" is used here. I guess that lets it fit in the article, and thus lets the author get paid.

3. You can be very productive in your retirement years

Here, the author talks about getting a different job (is that really retiring?) or volunteering.

I'm having a hard time imagining a reader thinking "Wow! I just leared that I should retire as early as I can because I can be very productive once retired!" Maybe that's just me.

4. You can avoid running out of money with annuities

Oh yeah. Now we get to the meaty part of the article. You could spend whatever money you have accumulated prior to retiring as early as you can on annuities! You'll never run out! Of course not ever running out isn't the same as always having enough. If I never spend that lucky penny I have tucked in my shoe, I'll never run out, either.

They do provide a fun table though that shows how you can get up to $14,256 per year via an annuity. Of course in their example you must wait until you are 75 to purchase the annuity. Is that really retiring as early as you can?

5. It's not worth delaying Social Security

Another gem: "It can be smart to delay, but that's not the best move for everyone".

I'm stunned. Such wisdom.
 
Last edited:
For those who don't like to follow links for some reason, or who would rather that someone else do the reading for them:

Or those who simple copy posts from one forum to another, without indicating as such. Sorry, I know it is not related, but it is just as annoying.

I have noticed that happening a lot l8ly between City Data Retirement and RE.org. Not sure where they originate first as I do not read all of them.
 
Last edited:
The byline is from Motley Fool which I have no respect for... by an author who I have no respect for... published in a "USA Today Network" newspaper which I have no respect for.

Didn't read past the first line.

I personally would expect users here to be more knowledgeable and considerate, than to merely post a link to such an article without any comment at all.
 
What a bunch of whiny babies I’ve never seen a forum quite like this.

Like a bunch of grumpy old men sitting around trying to find something to complain about.

Life is too short
Get off my lawn!
 
Can't read the drek anyway, doesn't like my adblocker
 
What a bunch of whiny babies I’ve never seen a forum quite like this.

Like a bunch of grumpy old men sitting around trying to find something to complain about.

Life is too short

This might have something to do with it.

From the Community Rules:

Posting standards: Forum members may use standard fonts available on the forum. The standard font size is 2. The use of bold, large or colored fonts should be used sparingly. Posts containing inappropriate formatting will be removed or modified at our discretion; e.g. all caps or excessive color. E-mail addresses, url's and business names are not appropriate forum user names. Please do not post “naked” links, defined as links posted without explanation, interpretation or context.
 
FTP, you've been a member here for five years, so it's hard to believe you haven't encountered this community rule before.

The first response to your OP was remarkably crude and uncalled for, but still I think you could have ignored the tone and edited your post to show a bit of context, which would have been appreciated.
 
Naked Links are fine IMHO as long as there is a "small" description as to content. If one is going to completely summarize the content or provide a thesis on it, there is no point in having the link at all.

In other words the request in the rules is somewhat ambiguous, and subject to interpretation, as for me a very brief intro is all this post needed. The statement in the Rules really only seems to be a request anyway. It does not say "Posting “naked” links, defined as links posted without explanation, interpretation or context is not permitted.

E.g: "5 reasons to retire as early as you can" would have been more than adequate.

For others, they would rather have the thesis than the link. Go Figure.
 
Last edited:
Naked Links are fine IMHO as long as there is a "small" description as to content. If one is going to completely summarize the content or provide a thesis on it, there is no point in having the link at all.

In other words the request in the rules is somewhat ambiguous, and subject to interpretation, as for me a very brief intro is all this post needed. The statement in the Rules really only seems to be a request anyway. It does not say "Posting “naked” links, defined as links posted without explanation, interpretation or context is not permitted.

E.g: "5 reasons to retire as early as you can" would have been more than adequate.

For others, they would rather have the thesis than the link. Go Figure.

Just to clarify for those who apparently cannot understand a polite request - naked links are not permitted.
 

Attachments

  • lynx clothes.jpg
    lynx clothes.jpg
    565.9 KB · Views: 33
Back
Top Bottom