...It does not matter that you've spent your entire life working to feed our carnivore capitalist form of society. All the bullshit about your "golden years," is just that: BULLSHIT.

I was fired for smoking pot here in California where it is legal. I had to go on S.S. at the age of 62. Not enough. I work as a cashier 3 days a week to pay the rent. I don't want to do this the rest of my life, but I see no other option.

I have a pretty good pension that covered health-care for two years after I retired but that's run out and now my wife and I are covered through the ACA, which for us means low premiums but high deductibles.
I may return to part-time work until we get SS.

I'm troubled by comments like "hang in there until age 70" because for a lot of people that could mean "work until you die."

Is that REALLY what we want, as a nation? When a worker retires, a job opens up for someone younger. Whatever job that worker was doing opens up for someone even younger/less experience. We NEED that churn in the job market. As we lose jobs to automation and sending them to other countries, we need to start thinking about shorter work weeks and working lives, not longer.

Many people just assume that they'll have a choice of working until they're 70. I think that's unrealistic for many people. There aren't a whole lot of protections in place any longer to keep employers from allowing you to decide when you're leaving. Also, what happens if another economic crisis like 2007 happens? During that period many employers stopped contributing to their employees' 401k's. There is no law saying they have to give you a match. The concept of 401k's was shoved down everyone's throats as being the be all and end all of retirement. I always thought it was a sham to allow companies to not fund a regular pension. Oh, we were all told how our meager contributions would grow to a million dollars by the time we retired. How'd that work out for most people?

Pushing that fairy tale of how you'll be 75% better off if you wait until 70 is not helpful. More than likely you'll be working like this guy they interviewed - part time at low wages.

I have seen only TWO workers that were near 65 in my entire corporate work career. The only people that are working at 67, 70 or above in decent jobs are self employed people or people that work in businesses owned and operated by their family.

Yes, really old people work as greeters at Walmart or cashiers, but even that number is likely very small compared to the entire workforce.

is 66 and 9 months and that’s how long I’ll be working. It’s worth it for the SS. I plan to get a job I like when I retire. If I don’t like I will quit until I find one I do.

I just have not seen people in their sixties in corporate work. Saw some fifties. Maybe it was just my line of work, I am an engineer with a research/development background.

Retiring at 65 no longer makes sense.

I’ve known too many people who’ve died in their 60s.

Make it 60, and you'll create a lot of jobs for the young.

It just isn't going to happen. Read your hometown obituaries and look at the ages. There are people dying every day that are in their 60's or younger. Then count the number who died in their 90's. It's pretty eye opening.

I guess I'm thinking of this more from my own perspective. I'm 48. Good health. I run. I plan on working well into my 60's or older if I'm capable. Maybe not at my current job but at some sort of work.

I think waking up and having to be somewhere is good for you. It keeps your thinking speed up as well as your communication skills sharp.

Of course I understand things can happen and you won't make it to old age. But as I've watched my parents and other people their age retire, it doesn't really seem like that great of a lifestyle. It seems like the less people do, the worse their health becomes. And they seem less curious about things.

Just my observation.

are my parents' ages, The Silent Generation. Dad was born in 1929, died at 80, had lung cancer. Mom was born in 1932, she's still kicking at 86, albeit with dementia. Lots of articles out there that show that the Boomers are dying younger than their parents. I'm 63, but if dementia is what I have to look forward to when I reach 80, I'll pass! My paternal grandmother had Alzheimer's too, so it's on both sides. I did the 23nme dna health test, and I do have the bad gene.

I do agree that quality of life many in their 80's is not the greatest. But the ones that I see who have a good quality of life are the ones who took great pains to take care of themselves.

How can you pass on dementia if you are unaware that it is affecting you? Who will make that decision?

Just asking, those are questions that I think about a lot.

and when I was 48 I felt the same way as you do now. Oh, I was active and working and running and blah, blah, blah. I live in a mostly senior neighborhood that's relatively small, so you get to know most everyone's personal situation. Very few people get to 70+ without some ailments and slowing down and many of us are just freakin' tired of getting up and going to work for 50+ years. I'm probably one of the healthiest most active in this community and I finally gave it up this past January. For me it was that I realized one more year wasn't going to make any difference in my financial situation and I had a couple of minor health problems that I didn't see coming. I also have this notion that at some point we have to move aside and let younger people have the jobs.

The last thing anyone would say about me is that I've become incurious about the world or that my lifestyle isn't that great. I enjoy a quieter life doing the things I love that I couldn't do when I worked. The people I know who are doing great in retirement are those that didn't have those expectations that you see depicted in commercials on TV that are aimed at retirees. Like most commercials, they aren't realistic. As my one friend who is 75 tells me, "My husband and I aren't walking along the beach looking like we're 50 and swinging our grandchild between us." Yeah, that's how silly the commercials can be.

I realize age slows you down. I watch my dad and my uncle who are both in their mid 70's now and even though they are very active, there are limits on what their bodies will let them do. For me, I just want to make sure I have the resources to be able to support myself and maybe even help my kids, if they need it.

For what it's worth, my oldest child is 48 also. I've noticed that this year he has started thinking more about the getting older concept. It must be the age when people start realizing that they've lived more than half of their lives. I teased him by saying "you are no longer middle aged unless you expect to live to be 96." For my two children they have a difficult time realizing that their mother is old because I was a young mother and I'm nothing like their friends' mothers who have seemed old for awhile now. I took a spin class with mostly 30 something women two years ago, I take senior yoga classes now though I took yoga for years in my 40's, I bike in the good weather only about 10-15 miles when I do and I walk four miles every day at a nearby park. I take no meds and weigh the same as I did almost all my adult life. I own my own home and care for it myself. I have always been fairly frugal, so living on a small income, though challenging, doesn't matter that much to me as I never thought that things were what made life worth living. Because of that I have a rather substantial IRA that I think will be enough. I worked at a public university up until this past January.

One thing I would advise you to think about is that the most important and valuable thing you can do for your children (you didn't say how old they were) is to make sure they are independent, self sufficient adults and, as Suze Ormann says, do not feel you are obligated to help them out. Plan for your retirement first and foremost.

I remember a saying from long ago that an older person said to me when I was younger. "I have been your age and know what that's like, but you haven't been old yet, so you may want to listen when older people tell you what it's like." I do now remember lots of things she told me about aging and I'll admit that I would tell myself then that of course, I would be different. I've eaten those words many times over the years. It's pretty humbling.

Last week I attended my brother in law's 50th birthday party. It was a surprise party and everyone was supposed to dress up like the 80's. While I didn't "dress up" many people did. I thought it was interesting watching a bunch of middle aged (or to your point beyond middle aged) people dressing up like the did in high school (or at least how they believe they did in high school). Anyway, as I watched everyone celebrate the party, I told my wife that it seems like my generation is very surprised to find out that they are turning or getting ready to turn 50. Twenty-five or thirty years ago when I watched people of my parent's generation (your generation) turn 50, I would have said, they've been waiting their whole lives to turn 50. I guess that's just perspective you gain with getting older. Although I will say that my dad was a much younger person at 70 than my grandfather and I am by far a much younger person than my dad at 50. And by younger, I don't just mean physically but also mentally. He was pretty set in his ways at 50. But I don't feel like I'm set in my ways. I feel like I'm always open to a better way of doing something or thinking about something.

Maybe having my kids when I was in my mid-thirties rather than mid-twenties has something to do with that. Or maybe it's just the type of person I am. Since you can't undo your experiences or circumstances, it's hard to determine. My kids are 15 and 13. I do worry about them being self-sufficient as they become adults, not because they aren't intelligent but I just don't know what the world will have to offer them. I worry about how they will grow old and hope that they are fortunate enough to find partners they both like and love, like I have. Maybe my parents worried about the same thing. Although my parents were not educated and they seemed to think that if I went to college, things would magically happen. So maybe they didn't worry enough.

My parents are among the many that retired without giving their financial situation enough thought. So they live on very little--pensions and SS--with no savings to speak of. I end up having to help them out quite a bit, which I'm glad I'm able to do. But that also drives me to not want to lay that at my kids feet when I'm older. But as I look at many of their friends, I see more people that are like my parents than people who have been "smart" with their money and are able to more easily get by day to day. My mother in law is the same way. My father in law did a great job of saving but not so great a job of taking care of himself. So while he has plenty of resources, he can't walk across the room without a walker and a lot of effort.


I realize this has been more of a ramble than a cohesive thought. But I guess I agree that with 50 coming up, I have thought more about getting older. I take care of myself. But I know that if I am fortunate enough to live long enough, I'll be old. And have all the problems that come with that. And I'm ok with that for myself. But I just worry more about being there to help those that I love.


Thanks for your thoughtful response. Sorry I wasn't able to provide an equally thoughtful one.

On a side note, are you from Ohio? My roots run deep in the Cleveland area, though I left there in the early 80's.

I'm interested in the fact that you say your parents didn't give enough thought to what their financial situation would be when they retired. My generation had no idea that traditional pensions would disappear. How would we have known? The prior generation retired at 65 and had both Social Security and sometimes a great pension and their homes were generally paid for. Just like many of them (not me, thank you very much) were bamboozled into voting for Reagan, they were also bamboozled into thinking 401k's were going to be so much more lucrative than defined benefit plans (pensions). Add that to the fact that Reagan and his GOP set their sights on destroying unions and you have the beginning of the end of the middle class. The other thing that I've noticed with my age cohorts is that we really did think we should have bigger and better and newer and lots of everything. I always found it ironic that we had much, much smaller families and much, much bigger houses! I grew up in a "house" (that's another story) that my parents rented and I believe it was about 900 sq. ft. There were nine of us in my family. I don't remember thinking it was too small. When you're a child your home is just your home.

For me personally, I grew up poor and was determined to break that cycle in my family of origin. I never really wanted to be extremely wealthy, but I wanted to be comfortable, which defined by me was owning a home and being able to pay my bills, have some extra discretionary income and give my two children a better life than I had. When I was nearing 50 my two children were already adults and living on their own and I felt the clock winding down and decided it was time to get really serious about putting away for our retirement and paying off our house. I started our IRA's when I was 35 and cemented in my mind that they would just never be touched until retirement. Put the max in every year. I started exploring the concept of simple living and loved it. I find that too many people of all ages never really ask themselves, why am I buying this "thing"? What can I do without? Do I really need a big house? I found that when I asked myself those questions and truly examined it, there was really very little I needed. To be fair, I was married to someone who made a very comfortable living for us. I started college full time myself at 31 and got my degree so I could get a better job which I did. Up until then, we always lived on one income, so when we were both working white collar professional jobs, I just banked my entire salary. Living simply for so many years has allowed me to be perfectly contented in my life now because I don't have that need to buy stuff. It's such a foreign concept to me. I see way too many people in your parents' situation and many of my friends are too. One woman in my neighborhood who is a widow told me when she was selling her house (she owned it outright) that she could no longer afford to live in it. I asked her why if she owned it and she said she had been way too generous with her adult children. Now how silly is that? She had to move in with one of them, not because she was ill, but because she couldn't pay the taxes or utility bills on a modest one story condo.

I guess I am telling you all of this so you will think about your own retirement. You seem a very introspective individual. Just remember, it really is true that the years fly by so quickly and one day you're hitting 60 and it's almost too late to accumulate enough for retirement. Don't ever depend on the two "plans" I hear from some people. One is they think they'll be able to sell their house for enough money to fund their retirement (you still have to live somewhere), and two, they'll just work until they die. I hate that last one. It assumes too much such as you'll be able to get a job or you will be physically able to work. Those are two uncertainties when you're older.

like construction workers, firefighters, nurses, etc. to work past 65? If they choose to, great, but many bodies give out before then. And higher socio-economic classes live longer than lower, so it makes perfect sense for many to retire at 65 or younger. Personally, I would have semi-retired at 55 if I had Medicare at that age; instead, I'll be riding it out to 65. Many may not be able to travel the world during retirement, but there's plenty to do on low budgets: volunteer, walk/exercise, read, listen to music, cook/bake, catch a matinee, take day trips, tinker in the garden, take up a hobby, take advantage of local freebies and discounts, etc. After working 30-40 years we should be able to do that. If someone wants to work longer than that, God bless 'em, they just shouldn't be forced to because their company screwed them over, prohibitive healthcare costs, insanely expensive elder care, whatever.

We're not seeing any expenses going down, no "empty nest" to relax on in our "golden years".

I'm turning 60 this year and know I'm going to have to work full time until I'm at least 70 - perhaps to 75, even with my Reservist retirement pension kicking in later this year. In 7 years, Spouse's SSDI at probably $1150 a month, my "full" SSI at around $2200 a month and my pension at $1500 a month - before taxes, health care, and survivor's benefits taken out, isn't enough for me to retire on and still pretty much raise a pair of girls who will be 9 and 13 while their parents continue to struggle with personal issues that keep them from raising the girls themselves. Which I don't see being resolved any time soon. It would take both "adults" admitting their "huge, overwhelming" problems are mainly their own making and they have the responsiblitiy to fix them, not someone else.

A 401K to fall back on? Fergittaboutit. I started paying into the 401K scam back in the 90's, and between switching jobs and staving off three different periods of massive Medical Bankruptcy (one post-ACA), I still have only around $10K (oops, now $9300 and falling) floating around that might eventually blossom enough over the next five or seven years to pay cash for a new car or pay for a year of college for the older grandchild when I can cash it out.
When dealing with the cost of kids, care for a disabled spouse, and the ongoing loan payments for that critical BS degree required to remain employable and put oneself in a better negotiating position for better situations and salary - right now costing the household a good $1500 a month - there is simply not enough left over to put into a 401K unless one is making at least 6 figures - which I am not.

Since I got married in 2002 and took on a step-daughter, I've never been able to put more than 3% of my monthly income into a 401K, and employers are getting really stingy with the matching as the century has progressed. Very few employers still have vested one to one matching when you're putting the annual max in...

Oh, and that $26K borrowed for the degree back in 2016 got me $20K a year more income and a position as a Sr. Engineer. However, it's costing me $8K a year to get off my back of by the time I'm 64, because that $26K ended up being a mini-mortgage, that would cost me a total of $60K+, depending on whether or not I could put a few hundred extra in at the end of the year.

And the girls are getting more expensive as they're entering elementary school. This September was a $700 hit for school supplies, lunch fees, and "appropriate" clothes that could last through the year if the first grader doesn't go through another growing spurt.

Even if I do manage to pay off my student loans early, there's still their future to consider.

I can't afford my income to be cut in half. I can't retire, and I certainly can't lose an employer-provided life insurance policy (pays 5 years worth of salary), because I might just stroke out at my workplace when I'm 72 and they'll need that insurance money to keep the household going until the last girl goes off to college.

Haele

His mother was in a high-end nursing home for 4 years and it completely, utterly drained both his parents and his own life savings. Fortunately he's so good in his job that his employers still want him too but it's so sad either way. He said he'll just keep on working until his health can't keep up with it anymore.

Last edited Thu Dec 13, 2018, 07:14 PM - Edit history (1)

Each year I delayed after 66 in starting my Soc Sec was worth an extra 8% every month. Waiting until I turned 70 means 32% percent more every month from now on. Retiring before turning 66 reduces the monthly payments.

I realize that many people have little choice in when they need to start drawing SS. One other option can help in some cases. If you were married for at least 10 years and are no longer married because of divorce or death, you are eligible for a spousal benefit based on that former spouse's earnings, typically a half share. That amount might make it possible to delay drawing on your own account until later.

I can speak to the former.

You have to have been married at least ten years, have been divorced for at least two years, the spouse wanting to collect is at least his or her full retirement age (currently 66, set to go up) and the spouse to collect against is at least 62. With all those requirements met, the filing spouse gets 50% of the other's SS at age 66. It seems complicated, but it's not really.

That rule allowed me to collect a spousal benefit when I turned 66, two months after my ex turned 62. He'd worked more years and at higher pay than I ever did, mainly because I was a stay-at-home mom for a couple of decades. Earlier this year I turned 70 and switched to my own benefit. Interestingly enough, SS was aware of that change and sent me a letter a few months ahead to tell me I needed to make the switch. Now I'm getting several hundred dollars a month more each month. Hooray! My ex has told me he does not plan to take his SS until he turns 70. If he predeceases me, I become his widow (his current wife will also be his widow) and would then be entitled to 100% of his benefit, which would be another several hundred dollars more than my current benefit.

The rules are different for widows, and I believe age 60 is the magic number for them.

The book Get What's Yours by Laurence Kotlikoff, Paul Solman, and Philip Moelleris highly informative.

I had high union seniority, at my work place, so despite the big changes that happened when we were "partnered" with another company, my job was secure even though our department being slated for layoffs.

Not knowing what was going to happen, down the road, I retired while I was still covered by our union contract. And, my retirement resulted in another of my co-workers being able to keep her job. In fact, shortly after I retired and saved her job, she was diagnosed with cancer. Truth is, had I still been working, I would have retired, then, just to save her job because she really had no alternatives to turn to. Her husband was 'self employed' so her job provided their only health insurance.

Admittedly, I have always been both thrifty and a compulsive saver and I've never been in debt. I was able to find a great investment person who has given me great advice and guidance. My lifestyle remains simple, thrifty and low maintenance, and now MUCH less stressful. I'm actually learning how to manage an occasional splurge, without feeling guilty.

If I get another 10 years out of life, I'll consider it to be a success.

I am just like you. I've been a proponent of simple living and frugality since my 40's. I was a compulsive saver and low maintenance also. Once you've established that as a life pattern, it's so much easier when you retire and are on a fixed income. And yes, there is so much less stress without the workplace drama and nasty bosses, etc.

I, too have to remind myself that I can splurge once in awhile. I have a hard time doing that sometimes but I'm working on that. My splurges are usually in the travel/event department since I could care less about buying stuff or clothes.

It really is the most satisfying way to live life.

I calculated it would take 14 years before I would start coming out ahead by retiring at full retirement instead of retiring at 62. I was starting to feel my years and wanted to do it while I still had time to enjoy some of my retirement years before I was too old. "Hanging on until 70", hell, I don't even know if I will last until 70.

So yes my social security payment was 25% lower, but I had paid off my house and debts, and also had a reasonable amount saved in my 401k that had been bolstered by the Obama years stock market, and felt like I had all I needed. Still, its important to recognize I still would not have been able to retire at 62 without the ACA subsidy, which paid most of the $1400 per month insurance premium. So I am grateful to democrat leaders like President Obama and Speaker Pelosi to get 4 extra years of work free living near the end of my life. This is something people couldn't do before President Obama's ACA.

living on just over $12,000/year and I don't regret it for a moment.

Plus, I have looked for a replacement for about ten years now with no takers (at least, none who remotely qualified). I painted myself into a corner over thirty years ago--ironclad job security because no one else could fill this niche position I've created for myself. Well, that security is becoming a fifty pound weight attached to my shoes. Great salary, vacation and benefits but like Hotel California, you can never leave. I have told my top brass, if I make it to 80, I'm done. I'll risk the boredom. Given my family's medical history, I have between 5 and 12 years left, so the chances of me reaching 80 are slim and none.

Ahhh, who wanted to die of boredom anyway?

I retired at age 57, and have enjoyed my wonderful retirement years immensely because I was young enough in retirement. If one waits until 70 to retire, what good is having lots of money when your body is already old. You will end up spending most of your money on healthcare.

Living cost is very cheap in retirement IF ONE STAYS HEALTHY. That is what I did by playing golf 5 times a week starting at age 58. I walked all 18 holes for first 10 years, then bought a riding cart. Now at age 78, I have no health problems, no heart attacks, no strokes, no back pain, no knee pain, no hip joint pain, no arthritis, good blood pressure, good blood glucose level etc. Before I took up full time golf, I was border line diabetic, had high blood pressure, had hip joint pain, got chest pain after eating a good restaurant meal of red meat, and used to get panic attacks.

That 6 to 7 miles of walking 5 times every week has been absolutely beneficial. Now at age 78 my legs are still good enough to walk several miles every day. Age 100 without pain is looking possible. I rarely see a doctor and last time I was in hospital was at age 50 to remove my gall bladder. My healthcare costs at age 78 are near zero. Actually my Medicare advantage plan pays me $55/month!

With a little luck, I won’t have to work past age 72. I am required to retire from my current job at 65. We could survive if I retire then, but it wouldn’t be pretty. I’ll be on Medicare, but the rest of my family will need health insurance for a few more years. So, I’ll be looking for another job after my “retirement”.

My paternal grandfather worked until age 69, my maternal grandmother was still doing regular babysitting jobs past 80. My father worked til age 70 when cancer forced him to stop. I guess it is sort of in my genes to keep right on working past traditional retirement age. 65 is still 20 years away, no telling where the economy will be by then.

It depends what year you were born. For me its 66 and 4 months to get the full monthly benefit.

It’s a dream job. Want to hit a 20-yr milestone before I retire

I taught high school history for 30 years. Loved every minute... except for faculty meetings and in-service "training", of course.
But retired the first day I could. While I was still on the top of my game.
Never been bored a minute.... volunteered, worked on community projects, spent my time traveling and learning. And fishing, of course.

What about bricklayers or steelworkers and the like...? Should they work until 70? CAN they work until 70? It's easy for legislators and Congresspeople whose worst job injury might be a nasty paper cut to talk about extending the age for SocSec, but for people who get sweaty on their jobs......

Many people take early Social Security at 62, not because they want to, but because they lost their job and no one wants to hire older workers.

I am unsure I could get a job now at 60. I'll stay where I am until I retire - hoping they will keep me.