Gentleman Of Leisure In The Making

[beanctr88]

I always wonder when threads like this come up why people feel like if the man retires first there will be problems, but rarely is that an issue if the wife retires first. My wife only recently started working part time just before the kids left for college. It is for her to have something to do, not for the money certainly. I've never had a problem during our marriage with all the years she didn't work and wouldn't if she stopped again now. It is easier on me knowing only one of us has had real work BS all these years and could always be available for the kids and extended family issues.
Seems like this issue is a double standard, like the husband is seen as lazy if he retires first, but the wife isn't.

[CardsFan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gumby When spoken by a woman to her husband, the word "fine" usually means anything but.

+++3

[pb4uski]

I worked part-time for may years before retiring... for our firm, all benefits except healthcare were generally proportional except health insurance which was the same as FT for 50% or more and nothing for less than 50%.

I would suggest that you run a scenario where you both retire and adjust taxes (do a tax return calculation without your wage earnings to get an idea of your post-retirement taxes), no work-related expenses, and other appropriate adjustements. If a scenario that you are comfortable with is allowign your DW to retire now or in a few years, then you are golden... she can always retire earlier if she grows to dislike her job... meanwhile you can hold down the home-front and treat her like a queen.

[Scuba]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pb4uski I worked part-time for may years before retiring... for our firm, all benefits except healthcare were generally proportional except health insurance which was the same as FT for 50% or more and nothing for less than 50%. I would suggest that you run a scenario where you both retire and adjust taxes (do a tax return calculation without your wage earnings to get an idea of your post-retirement taxes), no work-related expenses, and other appropriate adjustements. If a scenario that you are comfortable with is allowign your DW to retire now or in a few years, then you are golden... she can always retire earlier if she grows to dislike her job... meanwhile you can hold down the home-front and treat her like a queen.

+1
I think this is great advice. I was very open with DH and we agreed we would both wore until we could ER together. I was the primary career/breadwinner but even so, I would have resented him stopping work before I did. But if your wife is supportive of your ER, that's great! Sounds like you are financially and emotionally ready.

[Rambler]

I wouldn't even consider ER while my DW was still working. We do lots of things together...running, exercise, walking the dogs, traveling whether by car, RV or airplane. About the only thing we don't do together is the finances...she has no interest at all, which is scary in and of itself since I expect her to outlive me. But my point is, I'd be bored to tears if I retired FROM work and not TO fun and enjoyment with my DW.

My DW stopped working to be a SAHM 20 years before I retired, and before that she "nod, nod, wink, wink" worked in her family's business. That meant that she'd go to their home/place of business in the morning, take an hour off at 9am to take the kids to daycare/preschool even though down the street and back was a 5 minute deal, and then the same in early afternoon. Then she'd go shopping for dinner for the family, then go to our apt. So her workday may have been 3-4 hour per day incl shopping for the family, but it allowed her to work a little, and be with her family, which made her folks happy. By the time we had to move because of my work transfer, I made plenty to support our little family, and since we moved to a different country, her skills and certifications were useless. Besides that, the kids needed her support, and she stayed very busy doing that.

What I'm saying is that, when our nest became empty in 2009, she probably felt the same as I described that I'd feel if I retired before her...lonely, bored, useless. She was able to bounce back though as during her SAHM days, she developed friends and hobbies that she could further develop. I had none of those...no time for any of it.

So, for me, I'd rather stay engaged at the office than retire to an empty, lonely house...I feel sorry for those years my wife did it just thinking about it (and I traveled half the time on top of it all).

And as Gumby says..."fine" does not really men fine.

[Golden sunsets]

I'm female and am finally retiring this year. DH retired in 2008, and I have never resented his years of RE status. He worked very hard and travelled constantly during his career. I worked for 10 years, then became a SAHM for 10 years and then returned to work and started a consulting business and have been self employed for the last 22 years. Fortunately my self employed status has allowed me to work from home since his retirement and work remotely from a warm climate during the winter months. I've loved my work. Chore distribution involved hiring services though. DH is not very domestic and I love to cook , but cleaning-not so much.



Sent from my iPad using Early Retirement Forum

[joeea]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vincenzo Corleone I've grown over the years to despise the field I'm in, which is a shame because I love the work I do.

You despise your field, but love your work. This is rather confusing.

Sounds like you need a new field, rather than no field. And you needn't restrict yourself to a field that pays a lot. You could even consider volunteer or part-time work.

Since you are set financially, why don't you find work you love in a field you won't despise? It's always a shame to give up something you love when you don't have to.

[Vincenzo Corleone]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gumby When spoken by a woman to her husband, the word "fine" usually means anything but.

The word "fine" was mine, not hers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by walkinwood ...I assume you've looked at health insurance costs for yourself or do you get that through DW? You need to figure out what you're going to do with your time after ER. Will you be fine with DW at work? What will you be doing while DW is at work?

DW's employer-provided health insurance is not very good. We have not looked in detail at health insurance costs. We just assume an annual premium cost of $20,000 for the Supremo/Platinum coverage option. Not sure why we came up with that figure, to be honest.

As for what I'll do while DW is at work, I have hobbies. My OP mentioned that I play guitar (and piano). I work 10+ hours a day now and I don't have a whole lot of time to practice the guitar. RE will free up a whole lot of time for practicing. Eric Clapton, watch out!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rambler ...What I'm saying is that, when our nest became empty in 2009, she probably felt the same as I described that I'd feel if I retired before her...lonely, bored, useless. <snip> So, for me, I'd rather stay engaged at the office than retire to an empty, lonely house...

I appreciate your response. But DW's and my mindset is not the same as yours. We can't imagine staying with our jobs if we had the means to leave it all behind. I honestly don't think I'll feel lonely, bored or useless. I have my hobbies, and, being an introvert, I can be comfortable living inside my head during those moments when I've nothing to do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by joeea You despise your field, but love your work. This is rather confusing.

H-1B visa. There is rampant age discrimination in my field. In my field, you're "too old" when you've reached the age of 35. Plus I never had the desire to get into management.

Update re DW: She is now, without me mentioning it, encouraging me to RE. There's just one condition - she doesn't want me to sit on my buttocks the entire day. You see, I'm quite sedentary now - I drive 2+ hours round trip to work every day, sit on my behind at work for 8+ hours (only getting up to use the boys room and for lunch, which I eat at my desk), then come home to sit some more because I'm so tired. DW wants me to promise her that if I RE that I'll go out every day - whether it's to a park or just for a walk. She doesn't want me to be idle 100% of the time when I'm not doing chores. That's a condition I can live with. The thought of getting healthy is very appealing to me.

But I'm now a little nervous. I listen to financial news every day on my long commute to work, and I hear that the yield curve is flattening. I've learned that when the yield curve inverts, that usually signals a recession. I really don't want to RE into a recession. And, as you know, it's difficult to walk away from a higher-than-average salary. I don't know yet. Maybe the answer is to find a low stress job near home to at least get the health insurance. (Did I mention my DW's employer-provided health insurance is crap?)

Anyway - thanks for all the feedback. I appreciate it.

[OddGuy]

There are two themes seen frequently in these threads:

1.) The assumption that the man retiring while the woman works will be problematic. This has already been debated here ad nauseum. Why is this perpetuated?

2.) Substantial expected inheritances being 100% disregarded. This appears overly conservative. Sure, things can change, but by the same token, the stock market could also crash precipitously and never recover within one's lifetime (as "past results are no guarantee of future returns"). Why do we assume the market will continue to be stable just as it has been in the past, but also preach to assume every inheritance will be zero dollars, even as we see people getting actual large inheritances?

[Racer X]

I retired last year. DW wants to continue to work for a little bit. We have 48x annual expenses, so it's not like she has to do so.

DW would say her life has become exponentially easier since my retirement. When she gets home the chores are done, projects are getting tackled, we have fresh groceries, etc. She says life is so good she might just keep working. I keep reminding her she can leave at any time, but she's happy, so what am I gonna do? I'm pretty self entertaining, so I guess it's working out.

[daylatedollarshort]

Quote:

Originally Posted by beanctr88 I always wonder when threads like this come up why people feel like if the man retires first there will be problems, but rarely is that an issue if the wife retires first. My wife only recently started working part time just before the kids left for college. It is for her to have something to do, not for the money certainly. I've never had a problem during our marriage with all the years she didn't work and wouldn't if she stopped again now. It is easier on me knowing only one of us has had real work BS all these years and could always be available for the kids and extended family issues. Seems like this issue is a double standard, like the husband is seen as lazy if he retires first, but the wife isn't.

After we had kids I usually either went to school part-time or did contract work. DH kept a full-time job for the benefits, pre-ACA, and never resented me not having to work full-time. I remember one day when I was still kind of new to not having to work full-time some neighborhood moms called me and asked me to go to Six Flags with them for the day. I'd never had the free time to just go off like that on week day for the day on a whim. It seemed kind of decadent to go to an amusement park while DH worked all day. I called DH at work and his response was "Seize the day!". I went and had a great time.

After that it got really easy to go off for the day on mom's group outings while he worked. But I did go to school nights and weekends and did contract work once the youngest started school. We saved all my net contract income some side business income we both worked at and then he was able to retire 10 years early so it worked out for him in the end.

[haha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by OddGuy There are two themes seen frequently in these threads: 1.) The assumption that the man retiring while the woman works will be problematic. This has already been debated here ad nauseum. Why is this perpetuated?

Obviously because while this is not always true, neither is is it always false.

Since it is a risk that can be avoided at no cost by el hombre continuing to toil until la doña also wants to retire, many choose to avoid the risk. Many men would prefer to go on working at the office to tackling the lady's list of things to do. At least they can leave this boss at the office, unless they have very demanding and usually important jobs.

Ha

[brokrken]

Quote:

Originally Posted by OddGuy There are two themes seen frequently in these threads: 2.) Substantial expected inheritances being 100% disregarded. This appears overly conservative. Sure, things can change, but by the same token, the stock market could also crash precipitously and never recover within one's lifetime (as "past results are no guarantee of future returns"). Why do we assume the market will continue to be stable just as it has been in the past, but also preach to assume every inheritance will be zero dollars, even as we see people getting actual large inheritances?

I agree that it is strange that we completely disregard this. I also have a sizable inheritance that will be coming our way. I guess the reason I disregard it in my planning is that I guess there is always some minute chance that it's not there, although I don't know what that would be.

[OddGuy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by brokrken I agree that it is strange that we completely disregard this. I also have a sizable inheritance that will be coming our way. I guess the reason I disregard it in my planning is that I guess there is always some minute chance that it's not there, although I don't know what that would be.

Thanks...in my case, a sibling and I are listed as co-executors on an estate to be split three ways, and we receive monthly statements from an advisor. The July 1 statements amount to a low 8 figures. Year to date appreciation has been over $700k...that's how much it's grown from Jan 1 to June 30.

Planning for that eventual income to NEVER arrive, to be depleted to zero despite its continual growth (which has been growing much faster than any medical bills, despite major medical issues,) to have wills rewritten and approved by fiduciary controls that have been put in place to avoid just that...makes as much sense to me as ignoring my Fidelity funds, because there is a possibility of nuclear war that will obliterate all corporations. (In other words, it could happen in one possible future...but it doesn't make sense to plan that way.)

Didn't mean to derail the thread, I'm just thinking the OP could consider how solid the inheritance is...if you've had frank discussions about accounts, taxes, estate planning, etc., it stands to reason that you have a very high likelihood of receiving what you expect - you just don't have control of the timeline, and you may not be comfortable thinking about this as yours, since it won't be until the actual transfer.

[socca]

Quote:

Originally Posted by OddGuy Why do we ... preach to assume every inheritance will be zero dollars, even as we see people getting actual large inheritances?

An inheritance received is a gift. A promised inheritance is just that - a promise of a future gift. Is it a good idea to retire or semi-retire in a state of financial insecurity and assume that a promised future gift will fill the gap? I don't think so.

You won't find 'gifts received' in either my annual budget or my retirement plan, and I'm comfortable with this approach. Why? (1) Human promises are unreliable; and (2) wealthy elderly folks are like fattened sheep surrounded by wolves. No amount of careful planning may prevent a wolf from getting through your defenses and devouring your favorite sheep.

[ExFlyBoy5]

Just my .02 as to a DW that continues to work after the DH retires...that is my case. We are going on year 3 of this arrangement and there isn't any resentment, just the occasional "ribbing" that would occur, anyway. For me, as long as I keep busy and don't let the household chores/management fall to her, then there aren't any issues. The DW doesn't have to work and she knows this, but it's just not in her blood to retire SO early (she's not even 40 yet).

However, I would hypothesize that if you became an "extreme man of leisure" (sleeping until noon and expecting your wife to fold your underwear and cook dinner for you) then you just might run into some issues.

[spectrallight]

My thoughts on why counting on inheritance is imprudent:

(1) I believe that in all states in the U.S., it is perfectly legal to disinherit anyone, for a valid reason, or on a whim, except for one's spouse.

(2) A testator would usually disinherit someone for a reason. I.e., anger; loss of affection; belief that the heretofore heir became undeserving or improvident. So, going from a bequest of $500,000 to a bequest of $0 would seem more likely than a $100,000 haircut on the bequest (unlike stock volatility in a nest egg).

(3) Legal challenges to wills within families are ugly, ugly, ugly, and usually they fail (see #1)

(4) Inheritance taxes (state or fed) could skyrocket

Still -- it would be interesting if someone did a broad-based, longitudinal study, of anticipated vs. actual inheritances. Discounting them 100% for retirement planning does seem somewhat conservative.

[iloveyoga]

My DH retired 9 years before me. I was lucky and liked my job almost to the end. He made it work by doing everything he could at home and taking that off my shoulders. When I was ready to go, I did without looking back.

[Sunset]

Quote:

Originally Posted by spectrallight My thoughts on why counting on inheritance is imprudent: (1) I believe that in all states in the U.S., it is perfectly legal to disinherit anyone, for a valid reason, or on a whim, except for one's spouse. (2) A testator would usually disinherit someone for a reason. I.e., anger; loss of affection; belief that the heretofore heir became undeserving or improvident. So, going from a bequest of $500,000 to a bequest of $0 would seem more likely than a $100,000 haircut on the bequest (unlike stock volatility in a nest egg). (3) Legal challenges to wills within families are ugly, ugly, ugly, and usually they fail (see #1) (4) Inheritance taxes (state or fed) could skyrocket Still -- it would be interesting if someone did a broad-based, longitudinal study, of anticipated vs. actual inheritances. Discounting them 100% for retirement planning does seem somewhat conservative.

There is always the classic re-direction of a will by the effect of a nurse or trusted confident/advisor.

I knew of a fellow who literally on his death bed, married a woman who certainly enjoyed all the benefits a spouse gets upon death, which occurred days later. Sort of put his children at the end of the line suddenly.

[OddGuy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by spectrallight Still -- it would be interesting if someone did a broad-based, longitudinal study, of anticipated vs. actual inheritances. Discounting them 100% for retirement planning does seem somewhat conservative.

Precisely my point.

We all rely on the NYSE, NASDAQ, bonds, pensions, real estate, etc, even though we know nothing is 100% certain, because we have empirical evidence to suggest improbability of failure.

Yet for inheritance, we preach avoidance of any reliance at all, based on conjecture and unsupported anecdotes.

It would be very interesting to see what you propose, though I imagine it would be taxing for a researcher to compile.