One spouse continues to work

[Gumby]

Just for you 2 texting illiterates, I edited my post. Hopefully now you can just comment on the thoughts instead of the typing. BTW, I dont spell well either, hopefully you can overlook any spelling errors.

Thank you for the edit. I tend to go with Rich on this -- call your own situation whatever you want and Walt can call his whatever he wants. As far as I know, there is no ANSI-like central organization setting FIRE standards and definitions. Now if Walt were commenting on his expenses relative to his savings, it might be helpful to know that he also has non-passive income, but I'm sure Walt would make that clear should it ever come to that. In the context in which Walt posted earlier, however, it is irrelevant whether he has income from employment or not. So I am puzzled as to what motivated you to "call him out". It seems unnecessary.

 

[jdw_fire]

I tend to go with Rich on this -- call your own situation whatever you want and Walt can call his whatever he wants.

yes there is no law against using what ever word you want to mean anything you want. the problem is that when you do such you mislead the people who are reading what you wrote and you dont have full communication. so is what you are saying is it is ok to mislead or that you are in favor of miscommunication? as an example of the importance of understanding, there has been such controversy on this site over people with pensions giving advice to people in general (and people w/o pensions in specific) about starting their retirement that a new term was invented (SIRE) for people who retire early with a pension. from what i can determine this was done to enhance communication (or atleast understanding). but it seems that you think that calling yourself retired when in fact you are still working isnt misleading at all. hmmmmm i submit to you that someone who retires (without contiuned employment) with a pension is more FIREd than someone who is still working for money even if s/he is FI and yet for clarity SIRE was coined for the former and you seem to be in favor of calling the later retired. i think we all want to be clear and understood, at least i hope so. lets not play any games with words just because your ego doesnt want to admit that you are not or no longer retired.

for clarity and communication sake, why dont ya'll who think you are retired even though you are still working part time call yourself semi-retired on here (provided you actually cut back on work as a voluntary decision, otherwise it would be underemployed). you can call yourself retired everywhere else, ok?

So I am puzzled as to what motivated you to "call him out". It seems unnecessary.

i "called him out" on this particular thread because his tag line (so it shows up on all of his posts) proclaims that he is retired and it was in this thread where he stated that he is still working.

 

[haha]

If the purpose of this board is to attract traffic and therefore ad revenue, I would say people should be encouraged to do and say whatever makes them happy. They should post whatever they want, since it would all be make believe anyway.

OTOH, if the purpose is to understand, be understood, and to develop trust that one can accurately interpret what someone else is saying without having to research their posting history, it seems rather obvious that "retired" should mean only one thing-I don't work for money. If you work for money, to a greater or lesser extent you are a worker, not a retiree. You may be 80% retiree, and only 20% worker. This would be easy enough to state, at least in a rougly quantitative way. You may be doing it because you need the money,or because you want to feel useful, or escape Honey_Do's, or meet girls. It really doesn't matter for the purposes of this group, because what most of us want to learn here is "What does it take and how should I proceed, so as to become safely retired?" If your goal is to be safely semi-retired, a different set of questions arise. Like, "Do my skill set and certifications make part time, or intermittant, or return-to-work after retirement work possible? How likely is it? What sort of remuneration can I expect?

But how could we know any of these things without at least making an attempt to make our words and descriptions refer in some reasonably stable way to the world outside our heads?

From long experience on this board, I realize that there are the "professionally retired". By this I mean that for their true profession which is writing, promoting and selling retirement or travel related information., it is important in a PR sort of way for them to be perceived as retirees. The relatively small number of people with this need clearly have to do this, so it behooves the reader to figure it out for himself. But it is really a beakdown in authentic communication for a this kind of mis-identification to become commonplace.

Ha

 

[eridanus]

Using definitions that we all agree on makes discussions much, much, easier.

 

[Gumby]

JDW:

I suspect that where greater precision is required, it will be provided in good faith by those whose situations are not clearly in either camp (at least, I hope that people would do so). But I think you would agree that there are many, many instances where a precise delineation is irrelevant. For example, I doubt that you know at this moment whether I am employed full time, employed part time, laid off, on welfare, retired and sitting on the porch, or retired and now working solely for companionship and drinking money. Similarly, I don't know your status. For purposes of this discussion, those facts simply don't matter.

I do think that your post raises a good issue -- we should strive to be precise about the context for any advice we may give, so that others may appropriately judge whether it might be applicable to their situation. That said, ordinary prudence counsels that we take any advice offered by anonymous internet posters with a grain of salt in any event.

You ascribe differences of definition to ego. That may well be the case, but is is equally possible that others simply choose to define things differently from you and that ego plays no part. I don't know. Frankly, it really doesn't matter to me what people call themselves or why.

So my advice, as an anonymous poster of indeterminate employment status, is to try for a lower level of belligerence in your posting. I think people will respond more favorably to your message if you do.

 

[Gumby]

OTOH, if the purpose is to understand, be understood, and to develop trust that one can accurately interpret what someone else is saying without having to research their posting history . . .

A very good post.

One minor quibble -- Most people here don't have their employment status in their signature line, so unless you are familiar with them, it will be necessary to check their posting history (to the extent that knowing their employment status matters to the issue at hand).

 

[Nords]

yes there is no law against using what ever word you want to mean anything you want. the problem is that when you do such you mislead the people who are reading what you wrote and you dont have full communication. so is what you are saying is it is ok to mislead or that you are in favor of miscommunication?

Says the guy who couldn't be bothered to type out a full three-letter word.

If you're campaigning for clarity you'll probably get more message across with the standard language & tone used on this board. L33t and textspeak come across much less coherently.

for clarity and communication sake, why dont ya'll who think you are retired even though you are still working part time call yourself semi-retired on here (provided you actually cut back on work as a voluntary decision, otherwise it would be underemployed). you can call yourself retired everywhere else, ok?

This controversy is rediscovered every few months. Where do you want to draw the line? My pension doesn't pay for all of our spending, so am I fully retired or semi-retired? If I'm spending savings to pay for the excess expenses beyond my pension, am I not considered retired? If I fix a neighbor's leaky faucet for $25/hour, am I no longer retired? What if I'm paid in baked goods instead of money? What if the baked goods were made from scratch by my neighbor instead of being purchased from a retail outlet? What if I don't really see those baked goods as a necessity but rather a luxury? What if I don't eat them at all, but instead give them to my kid in exchange for yardwork?

I'd say that if you have enough money to do what you want, indefinitely but not infinitely, then you're retired. Otherwise you're taking an extended sabbatical or working for luxuries beyond the necessities.

i "called him out" on this particular thread because his tag line (so it shows up on all of his posts) proclaims that he is retired and it was in this thread where he stated that he is still working.

I think Walt has thoroughly documented the reasons that he's retired, the reasons that he's decided to go back to work, and the conditions under which he'll remain employed (or not). His thoughts & decisions are not the type of issues that can be reduced to a poster's profile bio, let alone a tag line. If you know him from reading his posts over the last year or so then you know his story. There's no apparent attempt to deceive, any more than your "calling out" should be interpreted as a display of hostility.

I think you could stand to lighten up a little.

Using definitions that we all agree on makes discussions much, much, easier.

Yeah, but on this board we can't even come to consensus on a straightforward definition of net worth...

 

[jdw_fire]

JDW:

I suspect that where greater precision is required, it will be provided in good faith by those whose situations are not clearly in either camp (at least, I hope that people would do so). But I think you would agree that there are many, many instances where a precise delineation is irrelevant. For example, I doubt that you know at this moment whether I am employed full time, employed part time, laid off, on welfare, retired and sitting on the porch, or retired and now working solely for companionship and drinking money. Similarly, I don't know your status. For purposes of this discussion, those facts simply don't matter.

my comment was the result of a tag line that appeared in EVERY post walt made and i am just suggesting that it be accurate and truthful so as to enhance communication and understandability

You ascribe differences of definition to ego. That may well be the case, but is is equally possible that others simply choose to define things differently from you and that ego plays no part. I don't know. Frankly, it really doesn't matter to me what people call themselves or why.

So my advice, as an anonymous poster of indeterminate employment status, is to try for a lower level of belligerence in your posting. I think people will respond more favorably to your message if you do.

i only mentioned ego as it seemed a reasonably possible explanation for making up a definition for a word that to the general population means something different than that poster's definition. i may be wrong, however i dont see how i was expressing "belligerence", and i am sorry you view it that way.

 

[Bestwifeever]

JDW, I believe the "tag line that appeared in EVERY post walt made" (hint: it's a default signature--you can create one too if you go to your profile page and it will appear with every post you make thereafter until you turn it off) was created by Walt eons ago before he started his part time gig that apparently funds his motorcycle/pickup truck obsessions and he just never modified it. You can PM Walt with your concerns if you want him to change it for you. But I believe he still packs heat in his semiretirement occupation so most of us let him use whatever "tag line" he wants. And if he relies on his pre-retirement skillset there'll be no hiding from him. Just a word to the wise

 

[jdw_fire]

Says the guy who couldn't be bothered to type out a full three-letter word.

If you're campaigning for clarity you'll probably get more message across with the standard language & tone used on this board. L33t and textspeak come across much less coherently.

at least all i am doing is using abbreviations and text speak, not redefining english words. btw is this you showing me how to "lighten up"? you start out your post by insulting me? fwiw i happen to spend more time chatting with people on the internet than i spend posting here. since i am a poor typist i use what ever shortcuts i can when chatting and that habit has spilled over here, PLEASE FORGIVE ME!!!!

This controversy is rediscovered every few months. Where do you want to draw the line? My pension doesn't pay for all of our spending, so am I fully retired or semi-retired? If I'm spending savings to pay for the excess expenses beyond my pension, am I not considered retired?

based on what i know of your financial situation, yes i would consider you retired. however you dont make any claims to your financial situation in your tag line either.

I'd say that if you have enough money to do what you want, indefinitely but not infinitely, then you're retired. Otherwise you're taking an extended sabbatical or working for luxuries beyond the necessities.

WTFO nords? you are describing FI (since you dont like abbreviations that means financial independence) not retired. i will repeat, was Bill Gates retired when he was a billionaire but still the CEO of Microsoft? i submit to you that he was FI but not retired. retired is not having a job that pays you money or owning a business where you work. are you trying to enhance communication or just attack me because i said something that you preceived as an assault on a friend of yours?

I think Walt has thoroughly documented the reasons that he's retired, the reasons that he's decided to go back to work, and the conditions under which he'll remain employed (or not). His thoughts & decisions are not the type of issues that can be reduced to a poster's profile bio, let alone a tag line. If you know him from reading his posts over the last year or so then you know his story. There's no apparent attempt to deceive, any more than your "calling out" should be interpreted as a display of hostility.

he may very well have but only his tag line is attached to EVERY ONE of his posts. and is it ok with you that he has a misleading tag line just because you know him (or his situation) better (more completely) than others? since you know him so well, you may not even read it anymore but what about the newbees on this site that havent read every post here and believe his tag line?

 

[jdw_fire]

JDW, I believe the "tag line that appeared in EVERY post walt made" (hint: it's a default signature--you can create one too if you go to your profile page and it will appear with every post you make thereafter until you turn it off) was created by Walt eons ago before he started his part time gig that apparently funds his motorcycle/pickup truck obsessions and he just never modified it. You can PM Walt with your concerns if you want him to change it for you. But I believe he still packs heat in his semiretirement occupation so most of us let him use whatever "tag line" he wants. And if he relies on his pre-retirement skillset there'll be no hiding from him. Just a word to the wise

he may very well have created it "eons ago" but he defended it as true in this thread. btw i fully support our law enforcement personel (as well as our military) but that isnt justification to be misleading.

 

[Nords]

Hey, JDW, you asked a lot of questions, you got answers.

You have a nice life now.

 

[jdw_fire]

Hey, JDW, you asked a lot of questions, you got answers.

You have a nice life now.

if you care to look, originally, i really only asked 1 question http://www.early-retirement.org/forums/showpost.php?p=797377&postcount=18

and ty, u have a nice life too

 

[haha]

I think one thing to remember is that Walt is not trying to deceive anyone. Many of us have been here for a while, and we more or less know one another's stories.

A more senior poster really has no responsibility to constantly reprise every new person who comes along.

Also, had you phrased your concern as something other than a challenge it might have gone better. He said now"", I imagine that he knows that most of us know that he is a man who retired, and then went back to work at some job other than that which he had retired from. Also remember that the topic was one spouse working, one "retired"". His post makes it clear that he is the working one.

If you look at the post you pointed to, you will see that Walt said

Originally Posted by Walt34
We're in that situation now - I'm working, she's not.

 

[Walt34]

Ok, I modified the tag line. Hopefully that'll clarify the issue.... lol

 

[harley]

As far as I know, there is no ANSI-like central organization setting FIRE standards and definitions.

You obviously forgot about IEEE 3.14159, otherwise known as the fipi standard. It's main component is security, although recently there have been exploits posted on CNBC.

Just to chime in, I'm on JDW's side, from a clarity point if not a popularity one. I like labels. I considered myself FI for 3 years before I was ER. Just hanging around for the medical benefits. Although, as someone up above said, this issue pops up fairly often. Even if a consensus is reached, it's pretty much igored. Just like most standards.

And to chime in on textspeak, I'm on the old fogeys' side. Give me that old time religion (spelling and grammar). It's easy to forgive poor spelling and construction. Nobody is perfect. However, the textspeak is just plain annoying.

 

[Westernskies]

Ok, I modified the tag line. Hopefully that'll clarify the issue.... lol

Walt, I modified my tag line, too. Hopefully it will prevent any further angst.

 

[haha]

You obviously forgot about IEEE 3.14159, otherwise known as the fipi standard. It's main component is security, although recently there have been exploits posted on CNBC.

And to chime in on textspeak, I'm on the old fogeys' side. Give me that old time religion (spelling and grammar). It's easy to forgive poor spelling and construction. Nobody is perfect. However, the textspeak is just plain annoying.

If you are looking for spelling and grammar, better find another board.

Ha

 

[Westernskies]

If you are looking for spelling and grammar, better find another board.

The bored don't spell too well?

 

[Notmuchlonger]

The bored don't spell too well?

Whut r u talken bout?

 

[CuppaJoe]

....

I said that I don't like my job but let me elaborate a little.
....

Also the plus side of this job is I get a TON of time off, can go home for 1.5 hour lunches, Get to work 4 day weeks in the summer months. The reason I say I don't like it is because it basically boars me to tears 90% of the time.
The fringe benifets are what keeps me around. Pay is decent for this area.

I know that another job may entertain my mind and body more throughout the day but would require much more of my time, and me likes my time off.

Basically I have decided that for me, right now, its better to spend my week looking foward to my 3 day weekend and 1.5 hour lunches than to have a job where I have to spend my weekends working on top of my week even if I would enjoy the work more. And in this area, what I get paid here is about the top pay for my age group, unless you own a business.
...

This is the crux of a problem many employed people express on this forum. Maybe you just need to find a way to entertain yourself during down times at work. You are right that a job you love can burn you out really fast. BTDT

 

[nnkrealtor]

WOW! an acutal reply to my post, I can't believe it!!! jk this has been very entertaining.
Cuppa, I try to entertain myself on forums like this one during down time and I can honestly say that I have learned more on the forums then I ever did in college. I make it a point to Google and learn a little bit about a different subject every day.

 

[W2R]

Thanks for all the replies.

I said that I don't like my job but let me elaborate a little.

My job is lots of sitting around down time punctuated by spurts of work that require specialized skills and some phisical labor.( no iam not a cop)
I do enjoy the times when the work is actually allowing me to get out of my chair.

Also the plus side of this job is I get a TON of time off, can go home for 1.5 hour lunches, Get to work 4 day weeks in the summer months. The reason I say I don't like it is because it basically boars me to tears 90% of the time.
The fringe benifets are what keeps me around. Pay is decent for this area.

I know that another job may entertain my mind and body more throughout the day but would require much more of my time, and me likes my time off.

Basically I have decided that for me, right now, its better to spend my week looking foward to my 3 day weekend and 1.5 hour lunches than to have a job where I have to spend my weekends working on top of my week even if I would enjoy the work more. And in this area, what I get paid here is about the top pay for my age group, unless you own a business.

Thanks again...

Thought I'd give you ANOTHER answer to your post!

While my job doesn't provide quite as much time off as yours (we have 30 minute lunches compared with your 90 minute, and so on), still I usually work 40 hours/week instead of the 90+ hour work weeks that some jobs seem to be demanding lately. At times, my job can be tedious, and the workload is very uneven - - some weeks there is very little to do, and other weeks there is an avalanche of work. It is the nature of this job. Anyway, when there isn't much to do I think about and plan my retirement. Keeps me busy, and once I retire I can do whatever I want to do with my time.

 

[youbet]

Using definitions that we all agree on makes discussions much, much, easier.

So true, especially when numbers are involved. I recall 2 - 3 years ago one of our senior posters, now aparently departed, took a position regarding withdrawal strategies that was new and controversial at the time. I wasn't aware that his younger, working spouse made a six figure salary, brought home nice benefits and planned to work for several more years. Once that was brought out and I looked at it from his point of view, his position on withdrawal strategies became very understandable....... at least as a viable strategy for him.

We get into this kind of thing when discussing managing retirement portfolios as well. Folks with significant pensions, expected large inheritances, etc., are in a different positon than folks retired on only passive portfolio income with perhaps a smidgen of SS to look forward to. And, of course, there are all of us somewhere in the middle with "small" pensions to look forward to.

In a discussion such as the one in this thread where the discussion topic is subjective and more related to lifestyle decisions than to financial strategies, background/situational disclosure is not so important. Opinions on these matters are more a case of "feelings" and personal choices and are less dependent on specific circumstances.

So, yeah, common definitions of things like "being retired," "retirement income" and the like are handy in understanding where the poster is coming from. I agree with Ha that a senior poster has no obligation to bring newbies up to date on their personal circumstances, although it is nice when a really brief mention is made: "My income is 50% pension/SS and 50% passive portfolio earnings and therefore my choice of AA is.......blaaah, blaaah, blaaah...... Or, "I'm retired at 50 but my spouse is 15 yrs younger and makes $300k/yr so my choice for AA is.......blaaah, blaaah, blaaah...... This as opposed to: "Everyone should have the following AA......."

Our decisions regarding reaching FIRE or living life after FIRE are our own and unique to ourselves. Few investment or lifestyle choices are so generic that they apply to all equally. So, it is helpful to know a few basics about the related personal circumstance leading the poster to his/her opinion and to be able to discuss those things within the framework of some generally understood definitions.

 

[old woman]

My roommate/boyfriend went to the unemployment office today to find out how it works. Now he says he will work another year then the next summer he will quit working Saturdays so we can go fishing. He can earn 14K a year on SS then let them know to quit paying him. The thing is since he will work hard one more year he makes a level at work that is something I wanted him to do. Once he gets there he only needs to work 1,200 hours a year to get medical insurance and will not be required to work 70% of available work or lose his job, and builds a bigger pension. I don't tell him what to do but wait for him to come across the answer on his own.
Now this summer he wants to take two long trips on his Harley to see his uncle. He may not get it done for lack of time but at least he can go once, maybe for NASCAR when all his cousins are going. That will take him all summer to decide when to go. When we are old the time flies so one or two events makes a year. A summer/fall bike trip and winter sturgeon fishing trip and it will be spring again.