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

[JoeWras]

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.

You were just lucky! /s </sarcasm>

I'm with ya, my "churn and burn" sibling. I am very glad to find this community in the late aughts when I was getting the itch to retire. I changed a few things, and then, BAM, the 09 crash happened. Megacorp went on an all-out outsourcing binge and kept our wages stagnant or falling from 09 through the next 10 years. They found every possible excuse to give no raise, or to cut the bonus structure. Meanwhile, stock grants to the execs went through the roof. And so on. I was so ready to get out of there. My BS buckets overflowed.

It was only by staying the course during the crash, and keeping to our LBYM ways that DW and I could pull the plug in '18 and become one of the 11%. But it took determination and sacrifice. No luck involved.

 

[pacergal]

I agree with those who mention a pension and retiree health care.

I would have chosen/needed to stay at work until 65 if I didn't have the retiree health insurance benefit, even with the ACA. Even so, I left at 60, so not real early.

 

[anethum]

I'd like to know what percentage of those 11% who retired between 55 & 59 had pensions? I'm guessing the majority. I managed to retire at age 57 with no pension, thanks to purchasing a house at a young age when home prices were inexpensive in a now HCOL area, and LBYM behavior. I had worked for a megacorp for more than 10 years when I came into work one morning and found a memo saying that the corporate pension plan & retiree health insurance were ending unless you were already fully vested for a pension (minimum of 25 years in the company IIRC). I received some piddling "cash value" amount which I rolled over into my IRA.

Pension plan have largely ceased to exist in the USA except for federal/state/local government employees. A friend of mine refers to government employees as "the new elite", and I think there is some truth to that. Going forward, I believe that very few Americans will have comfortable retirements unless they have a government pension or a large inheritance. Even on this forum, polls have shown that a majority of respondants have pensions and many have received significant inheritances.

 

[ShokWaveRider]

We had no pensions.

 

[JoeWras]

Pension plan have largely ceased to exist in the USA except for federal/state/local government employees. A friend of mine refers to government employees as "the new elite", and I think there is some truth to that. Going forward, I believe that very few Americans will have comfortable retirements unless they have a government pension or a large inheritance. Even on this forum, polls have shown that a majority of respondants have pensions and many have received significant inheritances.

I didn't respond to that poll. I don't like the subject, it gets me wound up, so I never read the thread. I'm getting wound up now. EDIT: I may have voted in a fit of irritation, but I can't remember. Wound up.

I retired without a pension. I will get one from Megacorp at 65, but it is trivial since it was from my first job and hasn't been funded in 30 years. So even there the question is meaningless. A pension of $4k per year is not something you can live on, yet I suppose I'm am to respond "yes"?

 

[SJhawkins]

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.

Been thru this a few times now, one parent left between my spouse and I, trying at times but we are lucky to have a strong siblings.

The last standing parent is mid 90's living on her own for the most part. No way could she have made it on her own the last 5 years without help from us kids, not a burden in anyway, it the least we can do for all that was given to us. God willing she will take a long nap when the time comes at home!

 

[Andre1969]

I keep reading that age 62 is still the most common age to start collecting SS, so I would have thought the numbers for the 60-64 bracket would be higher? but, maybe it's still the most common age, even if it's not as common as before?

Also, I wonder how many people start taking SS, but then continue to work?

 

[JoeWras]

I keep reading that age 62 is still the most common age to start collecting SS, so I would have thought the numbers for the 60-64 bracket would be higher? but, maybe it's still the most common age, even if it's not as common as before?

Also, I wonder how many people start taking SS, but then continue to work?

We have a friend who is now 70s still working. She started SS at 62. She has to work, still has a mortgage. So just taking SS doesn't mean a whole lot. I agree, the stats would be interesting.

 

[38Chevy454]

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 good summary of the conditions of my working life. I was/am fortunate to have a pension. Small and only about 30% of my expenses. But that is less required withdrawal to meet my budget needs.

I will especially comment on how corporate policy toward workers changed. Employees went from an asset to a liability. Corporate not making enough profit? Off with some heads, corporate guillotine ready.

My early retirement was due to diligent savings, and the fact I have the pension- smaller than many in past, but certainly helping me out.

 

[disneysteve]

Even on this forum, polls have shown that a majority of respondants have pensions and many have received significant inheritances.

I'm in that latter group.


I "retired" August 6, three days before my 58th birthday. Yes, we have lived below our means and been dedicated savers. We had amassed over $2M on our own. But what really tipped the scale and let me cut out sooner than expected was receiving an inheritance last year of about $1.3M.

 

[Pellice]

I'm sceptical of these numbers. I'd like to see the break point at Before Covid, which I think accelerated the retirement of a whole lot of people, and also put an end to the part-time employment in retail that had drawn in many retirees. I read countless stories Before Covid as to how people were NOT retiring because they hadn't piled up enough in their retirement savings. Then came the ACA, followed by Covid and Covid relief, at which point most boomers were past SS age.

It MAY be that full employment and good wages are drawing retirees back to work, but that wouldn't have shown up yet in these numbers.

Just a remark on the marriage issue, we have to factor in divorce. Where I worked there were many second marriages that featured younger wives and a second family, and many men were continuing to work to put their second set of children through college.

 

[Andre1969]

I looked up "workforce participation 55-59" and had found a figure of something like 73.6%. I tried to find it but couldn't, but did find another site that listed for 55-64, in 2020, it was 64.7%.

So, while 11% of 55-59 is "retired" according to the original article, and 32% of the 60-64 group, apparently there's still a big group that's somewhere in limbo. I'm guessing some of them are stay-at-home spouses, people on disability, or unemployed people looking for work, but I'm sure there are other categories that fall in there to swell that in-between number.

How do they even define "retired", anyway for these types of surveys? For instance, if I, at the age of 52, told my employer tomorrow to shove it where the moon don't shine, quit, and decided not to go back to work, I would consider myself retired. But, how would I be counted, I wonder? If I don't qualify for unemployment (which I probably wouldn't in this case), I wouldn't count as "unemployed". I wouldn't count as "disabled". But, if I'm not drawing a pension, collecting SS, or pulling from my 401k/IRA, and just living off of after-tax investments, what would they count me as? And, just because you're drawing a pension, collecting SS, pulling from an IRA/401k/etc, even that doesn't automatically mean you're retired.

I know we all have different opinions on what being retired, early-retired, etc on this forum is, so I'm sure these types of surveys and polls have their own metrics, as well. FWIW, here's where I got that labor force data from...

https://www.bls.gov/emp/tables/civilian-labor-force-participation-rate.htm

 

[disneysteve]

How do they even define "retired", anyway for these types of surveys?

I've been struggling with that question myself. Last November I switched from full time to part time. August 7 I switched from part time to per diem meaning I no longer have any scheduled work hours. I work as much or as little as I wish based on available open shifts. Am I retired? Semi-retired? I haven't figured out how to describe my status at this point.



Your point is a good one. When looking at articles and surveys and polls, you need to know how they are defining things because it isn't uniform across different sources.

 

[JoeWras]

How do they even define "retired", anyway for these types of surveys? For instance, if I, at the age of 52, told my employer tomorrow to shove it where the moon don't shine, quit, and decided not to go back to work, I would consider myself retired. But, how would I be counted, I wonder?

Ah, I have one type of answer for you. In the official government's eyes, this is done through a very hand's on government survey. And your answer is self reported.

Years ago, DW and I were part of the small sample survey that one of the government agencies uses to keep a pulse on:
- Family size
- Salary
- Work status

We were contacted by mail first, and then a personal visit. They don't mess around, they really emphasize this is random and you have to participate to help the cause. Think of it as the census on steroids. In order to avoid self-selection in such a small random data set, they really will pressure you to participate. I mean, a lot. (I initially didn't want to.)

We had a personal interview, and then every other month, for the next two years, our contact person would call us up and ask for changes. From this they capture very basic statistics that eventually end up in wage, household income and work status surveys.

During this survey time, nothing changed in our household size or employer. We did report our raises. If I had gotten laid off, I would self-report unemployed. If they happened to catch me in 2018, I'd go from employed to retired. Keep in mind, though, it was completely my self reported status. I learned from this forum to cut it loose and not be wishy-washy on my status. I was done. No more OMY. Done. Dusted. Retired.

I'm going to presume a lot of popular articles use this data. If they use general surveys, there's a chance of self selection.

 

[punkinhead]

I retired from a Megacorp last year at 54. My company went through a bankruptcy and turned our pension over the PBGC in 2008. Fortunately I took note when the company I hired into right out of college stopped giving pensions to new hires the year after I hired in. I saw the writing on the wall for the future of private pensions and maxed out my 401k for 30 years. Most of my coworkers didn't. They're still working and I'm not. Many of them will work until they die or cut their standard of living in half to live on Social Security.

I live in a town dominated by the automotive industry so up until the early 2000's it was taken for granted that you'd retire with a good pension and company paid health insurance in your early to mid 50's. 2008 was a real wakeup call for workers in our area, most of whom counted on pensions and never saved a dime in a 401K or IRA.

 

[rodi]

I retired younger, at 52. I do have pension(s) - non COLA. One is $135/month, the other is $325/month... Combined they pay the utilities and cable... until inflation on those bills surpasses the pensions.

I did inherit an IRA from dad that provides a bit more income than the pensions. But got here by 1) maxing 401k, 2) paying off my house with extra payments, and 3) being one of the cheapest mom's on the block. I fit the GenJones description linked above and have carefully avoided the 'keeping up with the Jones' thing.

We drive older cars and our "rv" is a beater van. Our kids have learned that thrift stores are a great place for 'finds'. One son likes clothes a lot - but shops at Goodwill. The other is moving into his first non-dorm housing - so we're outfitting him with hand me downs and thrift store finds. I have peers (mom's with kids the same age) who are horrified I encourage this.

Kids definitely put a hit on our retirement savings - but by being cheap on their expenses and faithfully funding their 529's, we're in a good place. As someone upstream said - They are PITA's but they are *my* PITAs

 

[Cobra9777]

...How do they even define "retired", anyway for these types of surveys?...

The Yahoo story was based on an annual Gallup poll, which you can read about here, if you want. But basically, they randomly called 1,018 adults and asked, "Are you retired?" If they answered yes, then they were asked, "At what age did you retire?" If they answered no (not retired), then they were asked, "At what age do you plan to retire?" Both numbers have been steadily increasing over the years.

BTW, of the 1,018, 376 were retired and 642 were not.

 

[MarieIG]

+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.

As a parent of six, I would not argue with that statement. I don't regret having them, but they did impact my career path, and certainly decreased my ability to save (although I did so).

 

[youbet]

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.

Yeah, but the kid-less folks all have mucho money to buy all the deluxe services they need as a geezer (and more). And they’re used to and happy with being without close immediate family, so no problem there from an emotional standpoint.

No need for sympathy when you hear about some geezer being without immediate family in geezerhood
as long as that is how they wanted it.

 

[JoeWras]

So ya'll are bringing up the child rearing cost issue. Here's the irony of the article: people are having less children, many more couples are DINKS compared to 30 years ago, and they still can't retire like the previous generation did (who had many more children).

 

[anethum]

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.

Having kids is no guarantee of anything. There are an awful lot of people in nursing homes who are rarely visited by their offspring.

 

[youbet]

Have kids is no guarantee of anything. There are an awful lot of people in nursing homes who are rarely visited by their offspring.

And NOT having kids is no guarantee of anything. Folks with kids are more likely to have an advocate in their corner when/if they ever need it. Folks without kids are more likely to have more financial resources available to solve issues related to aging. Nothing is guaranteed and neither outcome may happen.

 

[daylatedollarshort]

We have noticed that most of the members in one of our retirement clubs, one that is kind of pricey by my standards because a lot of the events are at country club type places, do have military or megacorp pensions, and sometimes even both. We thought as we got older there would be more younger members joining after us, and by younger I mean under 65, but that hasn't happened. Just an overall membership decline as the older members age out.

 

[Bigdawg]

And NOT having kids is no guarantee of anything. Folks with kids are more likely to have an advocate in their corner when/if they ever need it. Folks without kids are more likely to have more financial resources available to solve issues related to aging. Nothing is guaranteed and neither outcome may happen.

https://www.news.com.au/finance/mon...e/news-story/66d8ae919ba221c5741719e5fd466ab3

Not having kids will guarantee that this^won't happen to you.

 

[Dtail]

50k lump sump pension here at 65. Earned a great living and did LBYM to some extent.
Did suffer on the divorce though.