Hey, I'm with you. I was being tongue-in-cheek. A few yrs ago there was a debate going about this same subject probably with regards to raising the Social Security age. One observation was that almost all of the extended life years of the past several yrs had gone to the top 2% or top 5% of wage earners. Someone made the statement that we were telling the janitor he can't retire because lawyers are living longer
World's 2nd richest man recommends working longer
- Thread starter Ronstar
- Start date
Hey, I'm with you. I was being tongue-in-cheek. A few yrs ago there was a debate going about this same subject probably with regards to raising the Social Security age. One observation was that almost all of the extended life years of the past several yrs had gone to the top 2% or top 5% of wage earners. Someone made the statement that we were telling the janitor he can't retire because lawyers are living longer
Closet_Gamer
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
I think the whole "3 days not 5" concept misses the point that no one I know walks out of the office and just switches work off. From a stress perspective, work in a knowledge job is always with you. You're always chewing on something. Maybe with 2 more days off you'd chew less and bike more...but in reality I think the stress would still be there.
In any event, the super-rich May be smart and sympathetic, but they really don't have a clue about a day-in-the-life of people who have to make real economic decisions. I'm not super-rich but I would readily admit that I haven't made a hard economic decision in years. I've made important and thoughtful ones, but none of the hard "visit Mom for Xmas or pay student debt" type decisions I used to.
In any event, the super-rich May be smart and sympathetic, but they really don't have a clue about a day-in-the-life of people who have to make real economic decisions. I'm not super-rich but I would readily admit that I haven't made a hard economic decision in years. I've made important and thoughtful ones, but none of the hard "visit Mom for Xmas or pay student debt" type decisions I used to.
BellBarbara
Recycles dryer sheets
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2010
- Messages
- 392
Ah, thanks.
Yes the gains in life expectancy are for those who make the most money. I think it's smart the way SS is set up - you take it early, you get less money. I think for many people who may not live much beyond 70, it makes sense to take it early. I think my dad is the one who has lived the longest, he is 81 next month. He had about 20 years of labor, the rest was desk job.Ah, thanks.
Now that you're hip, harkening back, I was going to say "In this case you're a Class Traitor". ;-)
From all my readings on economics right and Left this point seems to be always overlooked. The Rich are credited with some sort of knowledge about money and finance but the fact is they don't need to consider these things very much. Their wealth and standard of living are never at stake either long term or short term.
Sure, poor people aren't necessarily financial experts either. Ralph Kramden comes to mind. Give him 5 bucks and he'll spend 10 and come crying that he doesn't know where the money goes. But they are not definitive any more than The Rich are. Most people actually have to know and consider finances at nearly every moment throughout most of their lives. At least until they've "made it". Like you said, the more money I have the less I am impacted by economics.
People who can't be adversely impacted by their economic decisions because "there's always more where that came from" aren't really making economic decisions
Al in Ohio
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
He's not even a US citizen so what he says has no credence to me.
Sent from my iPad using Early Retirement Forum
Sent from my iPad using Early Retirement Forum
marko
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 8,426
Ummmmm. Not sure if US citizens have a monopoly on credence.
They do in Clearwater, but only during the revival.
They do in Clearwater, especially during the revival.
REWahoo
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give
FIFY...
scrabbler1
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2009
- Messages
- 6,698
That's what I did for a while. After 16 years of working full-time, I switched to working part-itme. 20 hours per week. That began as a mostly telecommute deal where I'd report to the office one day a week (about 6.5 hours) and work from home for 13.5 hours spread out over the rest of the week. After 27 months of that, the company ended its open-ended telecommuting so I had to report to the office to fulfill my 20 hours which I did by coming in 3 days a week.
After 3.5 years of that, the 3-day week was too much, mainly because of the commute I so despised being forced back into after the telecommuting ended. So I switched to 2 days a week, or 12 hours per week total.
My ER plan was taking shape in the (last) 17 months I worked 12 hours per week. One all the pieces fell into place, I retired.
Now here is where I agree with the author of the linked article, at least in part:
Working part-time for those ~7 years enabled me to stick around longer with the company compared to if I had to work full-time which had already burnt me out after the first 16 years. I was miserable after 16 years, especially with the commute which was worsened when my company relocated and made a barely tolerable commute into one I could not tolerate on a full-time basis. And sticking around longer enabled me to retain one key benefit - the exploding value of my company stock.
Had I worked full-time but for less than the 7 years I worked part-time, the extra money I made in wages, bonuses, company match dollars, and company stock allocations would have been at least partly offset by the lower company stock price my extra shares would have been worth once I left the company before those 7 years took place. For example, the company stock price doubled in my last 3 years of working, even part-time. There is no way I would have twice the number of shares of company stock had I kept working full-time. I never ran all the numbers comparing these two options but a rough guess is I would have about broken even on the money side If I left 3 years earlier but worked full-time for 4 more years - 4 more MISERABLE years.
So, spreading out what dwindling willingness I had to work over 7 part-tiome years instead of 3 or 4 full-time years turned out to be a good move.
Andre1969
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
That took me a few seconds to sink in, because my Dad lived in Clearwater, Florida for awhile...
Gunny
Recycles dryer sheets
I am going to work longer...at tying flies, painting duck decoys, parking my RV...
Sent from my iPad using Early Retirement Forum
Sent from my iPad using Early Retirement Forum
