Article: biggest decline in retirement is in the 55-59 age bracket

[cyber888]

Looks like early FIRE is in decline.

"From 1991 to 2022, the biggest decline in retirement came from folks in the 55-59 and 60-64 age ranges. Only 11% of 55- to 59-year-olds are retired, down from 19% in 1991, while 32% of 60- to 64-year-olds are retired now, down from 41%, according to the Gallup survey."

https://www.yahoo.com/money/america...r-ages-will-the-trend-continue-193917714.html

 

[cathy63]

I guess it's a good thing I've never cared about keeping up with the latest trends!

 

[Bigdawg]

Those #'s are surprising to me. Thought they would be much higher.

 

[ShokWaveRider]

Me Thinks it is simply because people do not have enough dough. So many articles indicating Americans have a lot of debt and little retirement money, I honestly am not surprised at all.

 

[RobbieB]

Glad to get out at 59!

 

[disneysteve]

I'm a bit surprised by that decline, though when I think about it, pensions have become increasingly less common which I'm sure feeds into that decline. 30 years ago many more workers had pensions and could retire after 30 or 35 years on the job when they were in their 50s or 60-ish. Today more and more of us are totally self-funded.

 

[JoeWras]

Pensions have got to be the major factor.

 

[jollystomper]

I'm a bit surprised by that decline, though when I think about it, pensions have become increasingly less common which I'm sure feeds into that decline. 30 years ago many more workers had pensions and could retire after 30 or 35 years on the job when they were in their 50s or 60-ish. Today more and more of us are totally self-funded.

I agree. I believe pensions are a huge factor. There were more jobs with pensions, and the pension amount was higher. People worked at the same company longer, and in many cases you were eligible to retire after 30 years with a pension.

At my Megacorp, I recall going to many retirement parties in the 80s and early 90s were the retiree was in their early 50s. I recall the pension amount at that time, after 30 years, was a much higher percentage of one's salary. If Megacorp had not redone and then frozen the pension plan in the late 90s and early 2000s, my pension would have been 30% higher.

Also, retiree health care insurance was much better - free or very inexpensive, and for life, even after Medicare. So the biggest retirement expense did not have the same impact as it does today.

 

[JoeWras]

Yep jollystomper. When I started at Megacorp, I was amazed watching my coworkers all bail in their mid 50s.

My old 80 something friends are never surprised at my late 50s retirement. My peers are perplexed and call me "lucky". (Another topic we all know too well.)

There's no doubt that there was a brief (about 25 years) window where good pensions and generous health insurance in the private sector created this bump of retirees.

 

[jgman]

Stay single and don't have kids

 

[Gumby]

Stay single and don't have kids

I'm not sure about the stay single part. Two people working together can generally do better than each could do on their own. Just pick well the first time and don't get divorced. Kids definitely add to the financial burden, but they are most certainly a joy, and I'll bet there are few who regret their choice to have them.

 

[CaptTom]

I did my part to keep the numbers up! But yeah, only because I got in under the wire and still had a pension and some help with health care. Albeit nowhere near as generous as previously.

 

[Major Tom]

I'm not sure about the stay single part. Two people working together can generally do better than each could do on their own. Just pick well the first time and don't get divorced. Kids definitely add to the financial burden, but they are most certainly a joy, and I'll bet there are few who regret their choice to have them.

I think that being married, or at least being in a long-term partnership of some kind, is a great idea if you choose well and are also a good partner. I don't doubt that few regret having children, but I think this issue is a bit more complex. Most of us are hardwired to love our kids. Even if they don't turn out so well and are a royal PITA, they are our royal PITA. It takes a lot for most parents to actually regret having their kids.

 

[Teacher Terry]

I definitely don’t regret having my kids. They bring me much joy and company. They are also out of all the people I love the most likely to outlive me. That brings me comfort.

 

[Mr. Tightwad]

I'm not sure about the stay single part. Two people working together can generally do better than each could do on their own. Just pick well the first time and don't get divorced. Kids definitely add to the financial burden, but they are most certainly a joy, and I'll bet there are few who regret their choice to have them.

"Pick well and don't divorce".

Did you know that when there is a divorce involving a college educated woman, 90% of the time it is the woman that files? That's a lot of men that never saw it coming.

Sylvester Stallone has just joined the list. About to lose 200 million.

Tom Brady is an inch away himself. 7 Super Bowl trophy's. An all time great. And....his wife is unhappy. He's not picking the kids up from school enough. It shouldn't be long before he gets his paperwork.

I prefer to keep my alimony paying chances at zero. By not getting married.

 

[DrRoy]

I was in the earlier bracket when I RE'd, and am in the later one now. Wonder if they counted me.

 

[scrabbler1]

Stay single and don't have kids

+100.

Remember, the question is not "Do you regret having kids?" but instead, "Does being childfree help one retire earlier than would have otherwise?" Many here have kids and retired early, and I commend them. But my claim is that someone who is childfree will be able to retire earlier than if s/he had had kids. I retired at 45 and would never, ever, have been able to do that if I had kids.

 

[Aerides]

Only 11% of 55- to 59-year-olds are retired, down from 19% in 1991, while 32% of 60- to 64-year-olds are retired now, down from 41%, according to the Gallup survey."[/url]

These are late-end boomers, and early Gen-X'ers. They saw the removal of pensions - after they'd started working, and the early days of 401k which were not as competitive with matching as now. This is also the era when staying at the same company forever became not-a-thing anymore. Outsourcing and offshoring surged after they hit 35. Many corporate dynamics were different from 2000 on vs. prior years.

2008/9 impacted them when they were already well into their careers. They took layoffs, paycuts, and pay freezes in their prime earning years. They likely had mortages under-water homes for years as well. Many probably sold out what was left of their 401ks at the wrong time.

(So, while the child/marriage approach might be useful for general planning, it doesn't explain why this group is retiring at far lower levels than those before them.)

 

[JoeWras]

These are late-end boomers, and early Gen-X'ers. They saw the removal of pensions - after they'd started working, and the early days of 401k which were not as competitive with matching as now. This is also the era when staying at the same company forever became not-a-thing anymore. Outsourcing and offshoring surged after they hit 35. Many corporate dynamics were different from 2000 on vs. prior years.

Welcome to generation Jones. Some say GenJones is defined by war experiences, television, computers and so on.

I say we'll ultimately be defined by the changes Aerides mentions.

 

[VanWinkle]

Stay single and don't have kids

"It's a wonderful life......."

 

[DJRR]

These are late-end boomers, and early Gen-X'ers. They saw the removal of pensions - after they'd started working, and the early days of 401k which were not as competitive with matching as now. This is also the era when staying at the same company forever became not-a-thing anymore. Outsourcing and offshoring surged after they hit 35. Many corporate dynamics were different from 2000 on vs. prior years.

2008/9 impacted them when they were already well into their careers. They took layoffs, paycuts, and pay freezes in their prime earning years. They likely had mortages under-water homes for years as well. Many probably sold out what was left of their 401ks at the wrong time.

(So, while the child/marriage approach might be useful for general planning, it doesn't explain why this group is retiring at far lower levels than those before them.)

Pretty much my story. My Dad worked for the Feds and used his accumulated sick leave to retire at 53 (55) with inflation adjusted pension and healthcare. Took a cut for my mom but think it was in the $40k range or so plus TSA. It was paying $77k per year when he passed last year.

I graduated college in 1986 and got a job making $8 an hour in the savings and loan industry - oops if you know. Took me 10 years to get a stable corporate job and my job was downsized twice and sent to Guatemala once. I was eventually able to outearn the circumstances, but the lost 15 years of investing cost me. Will finish a little early, but nothing like I could have if I had known more about it and had more stable earnings.

 

[tmitchell]

Yay I made the 11%! Maybe even better since I officially quit at 54

I can vouch as a Gen Xer that the corps and policy makers did nothing to help me grow my NW (other than giving me jobs). In fact my last corp cut my bonus which made up for 25% of my salary. I was in sales and had the most successful year out of the 8 I put in. They cried covid as an excuse. When their fiscal year ended in March they bragged about their most profitable year to date. By then I was already gone.

I’m so grateful for this community who gave me the tools to outrun this kind of hypocrisy and total disregard for the humans they churn & burn out.

 

[Chuckanut]

+100.



Remember, the question is not "Do you regret having kids?" but instead, "Does being childfree help one retire earlier than would have otherwise?" Many here have kids and retired early, and I commend them. But my claim is that someone who is childfree will be able to retire earlier than if s/he had had kids. I retired at 45 and would never, ever, have been able to do that if I had kids.

I have to agree with the above.

I also have to add that for me my quality of life is far greater thanks to my family.

To each his/her own. YMMV. Who am I to judge?

 

[jfn111]

I "retired" at 55 only because I had the pension and retiree health care. I was grandfathered in but both those disappeared in the late 90's for new employees.

 

[CaptTom]

The other side of the economic equation with kids is having more family when you get old. Nobody wants to burden their kids, but that's gotta beat dying alone and unable care for yourself.