Need People For Early Retirement Article

[bes]

Hello...

I am writing an article about early retirement for a very well known, mainstream national publication. The topic: with so many companies cutting back on medical insurance for retirees, what effect is this having on those who plan to/want to retire early or are being forced out early, before they are eligible for Medicare?

I would like to interview people who have dealt with this problem or are facing it now. Have you retired anyway? Plans on hold? Have you found some other kind of solution? These are just some of the questions I will be exploring...

So, if this health insurance problem has confronted anyone out there, I'd really appreciate it if you would contact me. Please provide a brief summary of your situation and I'll get right back to you with further details.

Thanks a lot.

 

[retire@40]

We better watch out. There are a lot of books and articles being written about FIRE lately.

In a way, I hope not too many people jump on the FIRE bandwagon. We need people out there slaving away to keep my social security benefits more secure.

Practically speaking, I know it could never happen, but can you imagine a world where everyone retired early? That might drive inflation so high that I would have to go back to work full-time, and god forbid......OVERTIME.

 

[Danny]

My reaction to this, is I don't care for people/organizations profiting from our efforts.
I'm very much in favor of individuals joining our forum and profiting - knowledge wise - from our collective efforts.

Also, the media seldom gets it right.

 

[riskadverse]

I'm caught between Cobra, High Deduct / HSA, and requalifing for Kaiser.   None of the options seem very good.  Cobra is stopgap at best, with a gamble that we don't contract anything that might extend beyond 18 months.   High Deduct / HSA is a gamble that might save 10-20K over 10 years, but might double our cost of conventional coverage.  Conventional coverage is requiring a requalification and is now going into the second month of waiting for that decision.   All of the above have no premium limits and seem to be increasing in cost about 10% per year.    

 

[Nords]

I am writing an article about early retirement for a very well known, mainstream national publication.

Bes,

A number of journalists have contacted the board over the years, and the ones who get the most response generally do so by identifying themselves and their publication to establish their credibility. Posters like to know who they're working with. If you look at threads by other posters who've worked with journalists, the reputation for accuracy has frequently left something to be desired. Knowing who you're working with can mitigate or even avoid that problem.

I understand if you're not comfortable with "going public", although you're the one who wants a response. If you don't want to share your identity with the board then feel free to PM/e-mail it to Dory36 or me or any of the moderators. You don't have to do that either if you don't want to, but I don't know if anonymity will improve your response rate.

 

[Cut-Throat]

Practically speaking, I know it could never happen, but can you imagine a world where everyone retired early? That might drive inflation so high that I would have to go back to work full-time, and god forbid......OVERTIME.

How do you figure? If everyone started living well below their means, it would put less demand on goods and services and prices would drop. Maybe even cause a great depression.

I don't know how you come to the conclusions you often do. Are you sure you're an accountant?

 

[retire@40]

How do you figure? If everyone started living well below their means, it would put less demand on goods and services and prices would drop. Maybe even cause a great depression.

You need to reread my post. I didn't say "if everyone started living below their means."
I said if "everyone retired early."

If everyone started living below their means, you are correct, demand would decrease.

If everyone retired, there would be nobody to produce the goods and services, even for those who may live below their means, thus driving up costs.

 

[Cut-Throat]

You need to reread my post. I didn't say "if everyone started living below their means."
I said if "everyone retired early."

If everyone started living below their means, you are correct, demand would decrease.

If everyone retired, there would be nobody to produce the goods and services, even for those who may live below their means, thus driving up costs.

I sure did read your post! - You need to think about what you said!

If everyone retired early and they did not live below their means, where would they get the money to spend? - If everyone retired early today, they would be pretty much broke, by anyone statistics.

So there would be no demand for goods and services!

Either they live below their means to have money for retirement, or they don't have any money to spend!

Your post does not add up!

 

[retire@40]

I sure did read your post! - You need to think about what you said!

If everyone retired early and they did not live below their means, where would they get the money to spend? 

Your post does not add up!   

When did I ever say in my original post "If everyone retired early and they did not live below their means?"

My post was short and simple, but you are twisting it around to the point I don't even know where you are going with it.

Once again, I simply said "Practically speaking, I know it could never happen, but can you imagine a world where everyone retired early?"

In this theoretical world of nobody working, there would be nobody producing goods and services, therefore reducing the supply.  The last time I checked, when you reduce supply, the price of that supply goes up.

Maybe somebody else here can explain it to you better than I have, but if you don't understand that, there's not much more I can say.

 

[Cut-Throat]

In this theoretical world of nobody working, there would be nobody producing goods and services, therefore reducing the supply. The last time I checked, when you reduce supply, the price of that supply goes up.

Exactly! - And I'll explain it to you in your own terms. In the theoretical world of nobody working, nobody would be earning any wages either. This would reduce the supply of money. The last time I checked, when you reduce the suppy of money, the price of that money supply goes up. In other words money has more value, because there is less of it!

In the Great Depression of the 1930's lot's of folk were out of work, Supply was reduced. But since they were not working, they didn't have any money and demand dropped. Prices followed. The way you seem to think, was that since unemployment was very high during the Great Depression, we should have had ultra high inflation. But prices of all goods and services were declining.

Do you understand now?

This is how the world of economics work.

 

[retire@40]

In the Great Depression of the 1930's lot's of folk were out of work, Supply was reduced. But since they were not working, they didn't have any money and demand dropped. Prices followed. The way you seem to think, was that since unemployment was very high during the Great Depression, we should have had ultra high inflation. But prices of all goods and services were declining.

You are starting with a totally different premise than what I had originally stated and then you are taking your premise to a logical conclusion which even I agree is correct.

Your premise is one of the Depression when people were out of work AND they had no money.

My theoretical premise is that everyone achieves financial independence first and then retires early with enough money to spend at what they believed would last them forever at the assumed 4% SWR. Then costs would increase because demand would remain constant while supplies would diminish since they would be used with nobody there to produce more.

I think you just read too much into my simple original statement.

 

[Cut-Throat]

You are starting with a totally different premise than what I had originally stated and then you are taking your premise to a logical conclusion which even I agree is correct.

Your premise is one of the Depression when people were out of work AND they had no money.

My theoretical premise is that everyone achieves financial independence first and then retires early with enough money to spend at what they believed would last them forever at the assumed 4% SWR. Then costs would increase because demand would remain constant while supplies would diminish since they would be used with nobody there to produce more.

I think you just read too much into my simple original statement.

No you just increased the money supply of the U.S.A. by Trillions and Trillions and that is what would cause inflation. Not the fact that everyone quit working. The money would be worthless!

Your simple statement did not make any sense.

Describing a Perpetual Motion machine is a simple statement also. That does not make it possible.

All I was doing was pointing out that your simple original statement does not make any sense!

 

[retire@40]

No you just increased the money supply of the U.S.A. by Trillions and Trillions and that is what would cause inflation. Not the fact that everyone quit working. The money would be worthless!

You must like it better when you say it. Yes, there would be lots of money out there that would cause inflation to the point that it becomes worthless.

 

[Cut-Throat]

You must like it better when you say it. Yes, there would be lots of money out there that would cause inflation to the point that it becomes worthless.

Your Original Post

We better watch out. There are a lot of books and articles being written about FIRE lately.

In a way, I hope not too many people jump on the FIRE bandwagon. We need people out there slaving away to keep my social security benefits more secure.

Practically speaking, I know it could never happen, but can you imagine a world where everyone retired early? That might drive inflation so high that I would have to go back to work full-time, and god forbid......OVERTIME.

So let's take your original statement and parse it out. We better watch out. - Why? because there are a lot of books and articles being written about FIRE lately. In a way you hope not too many people jump on the FIRE bandwagon, because you need them to pay your SS.

Then you say can you imagine a world where everyone retired early? - Well, I'll try to imagine it. They might act like a lot of us on this forum. LBYM, save money and retire early. Let's see, that would mean supply goes up because people are buying less. Inflation goes way down, not up.

Instead, I was supposed to imagine the U.S. gave everyone except us early retirees enough to for an SWR of 4% making our nesteggs worthless. Now how was I suppose to leap to this conclusion based on a lot of Books being written about FIRE lately?

Your statement was idiotic and the sooner that you admit it, you will quit digging yourself a deeper hole!

 

[mathjak107]

well its a big concern..medical and long term care are 2 major issues for us.in fact we did an article in this months money magazine portfolio make over column and one of the issues their team of consultants addressed was our long term care..for medical a hsa account seems the only way to pull off an early retirement

 

[retire@40]

...Then you say can you imagine a world where everyone retired early?  - Well, I'll try to imagine it. They might act like a lot of us on this forum. LBYM, save money and retire early. Let's see, that would mean supply goes up because people are buying less. Inflation goes way down, not up.

You keep missing the point that supply can't go up when there is nobody there to make more supply (because in this theoretical world we are all retired!)

I really don't know why you refuse to understand that, or am I being punk'd?

 

[Cut-Throat]

You keep missing the point that supply can't go up when there is nobody there to make more supply (because in this theoretical world we are all retired!)

I really don't know why you refuse to understand that, or am I being punk'd?

Why can't you admit you're wrong? In your original post we were supposed to imagine people all wanting to retire early by books being written encouraging FIRE. This Increases Supply. Supply is reduced when people buy more. When people save for retirement they buy less. You really aren't this stupid are you?

You know, I really don't like you.

 

[Nords]

Pardon me for an on-topic moment, you two.

I am writing an article about early retirement for a very well known, mainstream national publication.  The topic:  with so many companies cutting back on medical insurance for retirees, what effect is this having on those who plan to/want to retire early or are being forced out early, before they are eligible for Medicare?

I would like to interview people who have dealt with this problem or are facing it now.  Have you retired anyway?  Plans on hold?  Have you found some other kind of solution? These are just some of the questions I will be exploring...

So, if this health insurance problem has confronted anyone out there, I'd really appreciate it if you would contact me.  Please provide a brief summary of your situation and I'll get right back to you with further details.

Edited to clarify my meaning:
Mr. Bes has provided information indicating that he's a published reporter for a nationwide publication sent me a PM with his name & his nationwide publication. I Googled the info he gave me and pulled up a couple hundred articles. As far as I can tell he's who he says he is.

If you're interested, you can post your info here or send him a PM.  If you supply an e-mail address you can also communicate that way.

If you are or if you're related to a military retiree, here's a similar thread:

Proposed tripling of TRICARE Retired premiums

 

[retire@40]

You really aren't this stupid are you?

You know, I really don't like you.

Ok, I understand now.

 

[unclemick]

Hmmm

Given the wide wide range of ER lifestyles, resources and personal situations I hesitate to post this again BUT to repeat some old stuff:

Single age 49 with 300k investments plus a duplex - 6k/year rental income at the start in 1993 - I did without health insurance BECAUSE I couldn't afford it. Also had a fish camp over water - no insurance. The SO had health insurance thru her union pension.

A true roll of the dice.

Postscript: 2006 bought high deductible at age 62 as the portfolio did well due to the 90's market history and I was a cheap SOB. Ended up maybe 30-50k in hole on the house and contents(guessing low/high FMV range) over the cost SWAG at adaquate insurance cost - IF coverage were availible. FEMA has offered me flood insurance coverage post Katrina for the house I can't rebuild - which I find somewhat humorous - since the State insurance commisioner/s (yes I called them more than once over the years) couldn't manage in between the times they were out of jail.

Note that having good insurance didn't help the SO or my 89 year old Mother in the last 3 months in spite of boatloads of care and money.

Don't forget the sleep at night factor - for yourself and if others need to depend on you staying healthy.

So - I don't think there is a one size fits all answer - it depends on your situation, personal health and even to some extent on location.

heh heh heh - I kept the FEMA letter.

 

[kramer]

The topic: with so many companies cutting back on medical insurance for retirees, what effect is this having on those who plan to/want to retire early or are being forced out early, before they are eligible for Medicare?

Companies providing medical insurance to early retirees -- this is almost too anachronistic to be a consideration for most people considering early retirement in the future. I am not yet retired, but it never affected me or my peers because such a benefit was never even a remote consideration.

I live in Silicon Valley, and I honestly do not know of any companies that my peers work for that provide such insurance or even a pension. IMO, it is a totally off the radar topic for most people considering early retirement. I might be misinterepreting the topic a little, but the big question is health insurance coverage and costs, not that so many companies are cutting back since they never offered it to begin with . . .

Health care inflation is primarily better services provided over time and higher costs due to aging (as you get older your costs go up because you are more likely to get sick and a bigger risk to your insurance company). So even if a base level of health care is only matching the CPI, that fact that better and new treatments become available and the fact that a given individual gets older during retirement incurring more costs, leads to higher costs over time for a given individual and he had better plan carefully for that. If you add in some actual medical inflation, it can get scary fast.

Kramer

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

heh heh heh - I kept the FEMA letter.

I hope you didnt take it with you on the cruise.

And the verdict on that sunset sailing is...?

Anyone get into your bib overalls?

 

[unclemick]

What I learned on da cruise - names changed to protect the guilty.

1. Leave the bib overalls in da closet.

2. Beware of 60 year old Southern blonds named Heidi with four ex husbands - er ah they have a tendancy to want to marry their affairs.

3. Do not take the kayak tour - if you are 62 and only thinking about buying one someday - next day your muscles will tell you how out of shape you really are.

4. Still can't dance worth spit.

5. Taiwan Semi Conducter (TSM) if the divdend/price dips to yield 4% - B.S. with an old Silicon Valley 50ish guy on the Sun deck. Got a slight tan and no burn - yeah!

6. The tourist traps/shops seemed similar at each of the three ports. A significant minority were buying faceted unmounted jewels - ?? - investment. Diamonds, Tanzanite and Alexandrite were promoted on the ship video channel.

heh heh heh - also gained 11 pounds - about par for seven days.

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Sounds like you had fun. Try the kayaking again.

And dont be bothered about 11 pounds. I gain and lose that much in one day in the summertime depending on how much water I drink

 

[Nords]

5. Taiwan Semi Conducter (TSM) if the divdend/price dips to yield 4% - B.S. with an old Silicon Valley 50ish guy on the Sun deck.

Hmmmm. Kind of a spotty dividend record, currently at 23 cents a share, to get to a 4% dividend yield the share price would need to back off from $10 to $6 or the dividend would need to go up by 70%... yeah, I can't argue with that recommendation.