70 is the New 65

Discuss all general (i.e. non-personal) investing questions and issues, investing news, and theory.
User avatar
Rick Ferri
Posts: 8483
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 11:40 am
Location: Georgetown, TX. Twitter: @Rick_Ferri
Contact:

70 is the New 65

Post by Rick Ferri » Thu Sep 06, 2012 8:57 am

Older Americans are healthier and living longer. That's a good thing because late baby boomers and those younger will have to work longer before they kick back in the rocking chair. Retirement on the Golden Pond at age 65 is fast becoming a luxury that few will be able to afford.

70 is the new 65 is an article based on the 2012 Retirement Confidence Survey (RCS) published annually by the Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI).

Rick Ferri
The Education of an Index Investor: flounders in darkness, finds enlightenment, overcomplicates strategy, embraces simplicity.

Bob's not my name
Posts: 7405
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 9:24 am

Re: 70 is the New 65

Post by Bob's not my name » Thu Sep 06, 2012 9:11 am

Funny thing about the survey is that the same percentage "are not confident that SS/Medicare will continue to provide benefits of at least equal value to the benefits retirees receive today." SS is in far better shape.

Confused
Posts: 636
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2012 1:23 pm

Re: 70 is the New 65

Post by Confused » Thu Sep 06, 2012 9:14 am

Blanked for privacy
Last edited by Confused on Fri Nov 06, 2015 1:24 am, edited 1 time in total.

Bob's not my name
Posts: 7405
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 9:24 am

Re: 70 is the New 65

Post by Bob's not my name » Thu Sep 06, 2012 9:16 am

In English we read from left to right. Try again.

Grt2bOutdoors
Posts: 18842
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 8:20 pm
Location: New York

Re: 70 is the New 65

Post by Grt2bOutdoors » Thu Sep 06, 2012 9:21 am

Confused wrote:
Rick Ferri wrote:That's a good thing because late baby boomers and those younger will have to work longer before they kick back in the rocking chair.
How on earth is that a good thing?
The flogging will continue....please sir, may I work another 5 years? :twisted:
"One should invest based on their need, ability and willingness to take risk - Larry Swedroe" Asking Portfolio Questions

NYBoglehead
Posts: 1588
Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 9:38 am

Re: 70 is the New 65

Post by NYBoglehead » Thu Sep 06, 2012 9:30 am

GRT2BOUTDOORS wrote:
Confused wrote:
Rick Ferri wrote:That's a good thing because late baby boomers and those younger will have to work longer before they kick back in the rocking chair.
How on earth is that a good thing?
The flogging will continue....please sir, may I work another 5 years? :twisted:
It's a good thing because we are living longer and seniors are becoming more active. In the past working until 65 could support a retirement with an average life expectancy. Simple arithmetic tells us that as we live longer will need to accumulate more assets to support a longer retirement. Not exactly a novel idea. Retirement at 65 is not written is stone, as our life expectancies increase our working years need to increase as well.

Confused
Posts: 636
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2012 1:23 pm

Re: 70 is the New 65

Post by Confused » Thu Sep 06, 2012 9:33 am

[Blanked for privacy]
Last edited by Confused on Fri Nov 06, 2015 1:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Bob's not my name
Posts: 7405
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 9:24 am

Re: 70 is the New 65

Post by Bob's not my name » Thu Sep 06, 2012 9:34 am

OK people, let's start over.
Rick Ferri wrote:Older Americans are healthier and living longer. That's a good thing
English: LEFT TO RIGHT

User avatar
Tim_in_GA
Posts: 309
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 9:42 am

Re: 70 is the New 65

Post by Tim_in_GA » Thu Sep 06, 2012 9:40 am

I'm still getting out of the office grind at 60. Men in my family rarely live past their early 70's.

NYBoglehead
Posts: 1588
Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 9:38 am

Re: 70 is the New 65

Post by NYBoglehead » Thu Sep 06, 2012 9:41 am

Confused wrote:
NYBoglehead wrote:
GRT2BOUTDOORS wrote:
Confused wrote:
Rick Ferri wrote:That's a good thing because late baby boomers and those younger will have to work longer before they kick back in the rocking chair.
How on earth is that a good thing?
The flogging will continue....please sir, may I work another 5 years? :twisted:
It's a good thing because we are living longer and seniors are becoming more active. In the past working until 65 could support a retirement with an average life expectancy. Simple arithmetic tells us that as we live longer will need to accumulate more assets to support a longer retirement. Not exactly a novel idea. Retirement at 65 is not written is stone, as our life expectancies increase our working years need to increase as well.
Still fail to see the "good thing" that everyone gets to work five years longer. Living longer is a good thing, sure, but working longer isn't. Not only does it affect the older workers, it also affects the younger workers that can't move up the corporate ladder until the older ones retire.

Just think: If our life expectancies decrease in the coming years, we'll have to work even less. Wouldn't it be fantastic to get rid of all those years we would have had to have worked to support such a long life? Thanks for the enlightenment!

Confused
Posts: 636
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2012 1:23 pm

Re: 70 is the New 65

Post by Confused » Thu Sep 06, 2012 9:55 am

[Blanked for privacy]
Last edited by Confused on Fri Nov 06, 2015 1:29 am, edited 1 time in total.

Grt2bOutdoors
Posts: 18842
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 8:20 pm
Location: New York

Re: 70 is the New 65

Post by Grt2bOutdoors » Thu Sep 06, 2012 10:00 am

Deleted.
Last edited by Grt2bOutdoors on Thu Sep 06, 2012 10:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
"One should invest based on their need, ability and willingness to take risk - Larry Swedroe" Asking Portfolio Questions

User avatar
telemark
Posts: 2285
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2012 6:35 am

Re: 70 is the New 65

Post by telemark » Thu Sep 06, 2012 10:05 am

When I was younger I thought that by the time I reached retirement age it would be 55 or even earlier. And we would all have flying cars and robot housekeepers.

User avatar
Rick Ferri
Posts: 8483
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 11:40 am
Location: Georgetown, TX. Twitter: @Rick_Ferri
Contact:

Re: 70 is the New 65

Post by Rick Ferri » Thu Sep 06, 2012 10:12 am

Employers don't recognize life expectancies. They continue to cut and those who are let go tend to be older. Employers are not jumping for joy seeking to higher, older, costlier employees, however experienced they are.
Implying that all emloyers are uncaring venomous snakes is off topic and simply untrue. Please refrain from over-generalizing. It's doesn't add to the discussion and risks getting the conversation locked. Thanks.

Rick Ferri
The Education of an Index Investor: flounders in darkness, finds enlightenment, overcomplicates strategy, embraces simplicity.

NYBoglehead
Posts: 1588
Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 9:38 am

Re: 70 is the New 65

Post by NYBoglehead » Thu Sep 06, 2012 10:15 am

Rick Ferri wrote:
Employers don't recognize life expectancies. They continue to cut and those who are let go tend to be older. Employers are not jumping for joy seeking to higher, older, costlier employees, however experienced they are.
Implying that all emloyers are uncaring venomous snakes is off topic and simply untrue. Please refrain from over-generalizing. It's doesn't add to the discussion and risks getting the conversation locked. Thanks.

Rick Ferri
+1

Your comment about "too many people living" is simply ridiculous as well.

Old Guy
Posts: 265
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 7:20 am

Re: 70 is the New 65

Post by Old Guy » Thu Sep 06, 2012 10:37 am

I'll be 70 at the end of the year. Now in my eight year of my retirement job. I like working and I like the job I currently have. I like being a triple dipper, and haven't had to even touch the $700,000 or so in IRAs. I like that the additional money allows us to have an in-town in Chicago. What else am I supposed to do? No hobbies; few friends; child unmarried and 2,000 miles away; plenty of leave time to take vacations in current position.

I'll probably work two plus more years until December 31, 2014 when I'll be 73. My wife who is currently double dipping will retire at the same time I do. She'll be 69 and become a triple dipper in retirement.

That's why we work. The money is great and we like our jobs. Both give meaning to our lives.

Bob's not my name
Posts: 7405
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 9:24 am

Re: 70 is the New 65

Post by Bob's not my name » Thu Sep 06, 2012 10:38 am

English speaker wrote:I can run fast. That's a good thing, because I'm late for my bus.
How is being late for your bus a good thing? I am outraged.

Grt2bOutdoors
Posts: 18842
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 8:20 pm
Location: New York

Re: 70 is the New 65

Post by Grt2bOutdoors » Thu Sep 06, 2012 10:52 am

Rick Ferri wrote:
Employers don't recognize life expectancies. They continue to cut and those who are let go tend to be older. Employers are not jumping for joy seeking to higher, older, costlier employees, however experienced they are.
Implying that all emloyers are uncaring venomous snakes is off topic and simply untrue. Please refrain from over-generalizing. It's doesn't add to the discussion and risks getting the conversation locked. Thanks.

Rick Ferri
Perhaps there was a better way of saying it. There isn't overwhelming evidence that employers are keeping older staff past 65 nor is there significant evidence they are letting them go prior to 65. Speaking from the current work enviornment only, higher cost employees are being eliminated to reduce compensation expense. Typically, younger employees are less costly than those with more experience. People may be living longer, but if you are considered unemployable, then what?
"One should invest based on their need, ability and willingness to take risk - Larry Swedroe" Asking Portfolio Questions

clacy
Posts: 106
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: 70 is the New 65

Post by clacy » Thu Sep 06, 2012 10:57 am

Americans working longer because they are living longer and healthier longer is a good thing. I don't see how this could be considered otherwise. Retirement is fine and all, but it stands to reason that if we live longer, we'll have to work longer as well. That is simple economics and a trade off that most will make if given the choice.

Confused
Posts: 636
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2012 1:23 pm

Re: 70 is the New 65

Post by Confused » Thu Sep 06, 2012 11:04 am

[Blanked for privacy]
Last edited by Confused on Fri Nov 06, 2015 1:28 am, edited 1 time in total.

Old Guy
Posts: 265
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 7:20 am

Re: 70 is the New 65

Post by Old Guy » Thu Sep 06, 2012 11:45 am

Both my wife's and my job have social utility plus the money we earn make them enjoyable.

carolinaman
Posts: 3142
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2011 9:56 am
Location: North Carolina

Re: 70 is the New 65

Post by carolinaman » Thu Sep 06, 2012 12:23 pm

The article is consistent with what I have read elsewhere. Financially I could have retired much sooner but chose to retire at age 66. I had no health issues that would have prevented me from working longer, but that is not something that can be taken for granted. There are plenty of people who can no longer perform their jobs when they reach the late 50s and early 60s. So assuming they will be able to work to 70 is not a sure thing. Also, if someone gets laid off and they are in that age range, getting another job at equivalent status and pay is very difficult.

User avatar
HomerJ
Posts: 11430
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 12:50 pm

Re: 70 is the New 65

Post by HomerJ » Thu Sep 06, 2012 12:39 pm

Rick Ferri wrote:
Employers don't recognize life expectancies. They continue to cut and those who are let go tend to be older. Employers are not jumping for joy seeking to higher, older, costlier employees, however experienced they are.
Implying that all emloyers are uncaring venomous snakes is off topic and simply untrue. Please refrain from over-generalizing. It's doesn't add to the discussion and risks getting the conversation locked. Thanks.

Rick Ferri
How many 69-year olds do you have working in your office?

People may be living longer, but keeping a job or even being able to do a job until 70 is not guarenteed.

A little difficult to work until you are 70 if you do construction for instance.

NYBoglehead
Posts: 1588
Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 9:38 am

Re: 70 is the New 65

Post by NYBoglehead » Thu Sep 06, 2012 12:46 pm

No one is suggesting that construction workers or other manual laborers have to work until 70 in the job they've had most of their working lives. My father retired as a delivery man at 62 because his body was worn out from loading trucks and waking up at 1:30 am everyday. Right now he drives cars for dealerships and other side jobs. No one is suggesting full-time work all the way to 70, but the new reality of retirement is likely some sort of side/part-time job for the first few years of retirement for most people.

User avatar
bengal22
Posts: 1409
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2011 6:20 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: 70 is the New 65

Post by bengal22 » Thu Sep 06, 2012 12:53 pm

Confused wrote:
Bob's not my name wrote:OK people, let's start over.
Rick Ferri wrote:Older Americans are healthier and living longer. That's a good thing
English: LEFT TO RIGHT
But then you don't stop reading when you feel like it. You have to finish the sentence: "Older Americans are healthier and living longer. That's a good thing because late baby boomers and those younger will have to work longer before they kick back in the rocking chair."

You're effectively saying that Americans are living longer and that is a thing because they have to work longer. If they didn't have to work longer, living longer wouldn't be a good thing.

Rick is saying that it is a good thing that people are living longer because unfortunately people will also have to work longer. Thus they can still enjoy the same length of retirement than those that died earlier but retired earlier.
"Earn All You Can; Give All You Can; Save All You Can." .... John Wesley

User avatar
bengal22
Posts: 1409
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2011 6:20 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: 70 is the New 65

Post by bengal22 » Thu Sep 06, 2012 1:00 pm

The bottom line of this article is that people need to take responsibility for their own retirement. My generation could plan for pensions(although that is sandy ground) and SS(pretty sandy or quicksandy as well). While we on this forum are probably in the choir, people in the work force need to develop a savings and investing plan that will enable them to retire when they are ready. I just retired at 60. This was even after a bankruptcy that cut by pension by 33%. Retiring before 70 can be done but we all need to follow the advice on this forum and invest early and often(not vote!), and stay the course.
"Earn All You Can; Give All You Can; Save All You Can." .... John Wesley

Grt2bOutdoors
Posts: 18842
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 8:20 pm
Location: New York

Re: 70 is the New 65

Post by Grt2bOutdoors » Thu Sep 06, 2012 1:04 pm

Just to add to it - one should incorporate a buffer into their savings programs in the unfortunate event you are permanently downsized prior to your planned retirement date (saw this happen twice in the last week - no joke!).
"One should invest based on their need, ability and willingness to take risk - Larry Swedroe" Asking Portfolio Questions

User avatar
HomerJ
Posts: 11430
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 12:50 pm

Re: 70 is the New 65

Post by HomerJ » Thu Sep 06, 2012 2:59 pm

Still curious how many 69 year-olds Rick has working for him... :)

DouglasDoug
Posts: 124
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 5:38 pm

Re: 70 is the New 65

Post by DouglasDoug » Thu Sep 06, 2012 3:48 pm

Where is the proof that 70 is new 65? Wishful thinking perhaps. I rarely see a wrinkled face in corporate America.

User avatar
IlikeJackB
Posts: 176
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2010 9:59 pm

Re: 70 is the New 65

Post by IlikeJackB » Thu Sep 06, 2012 4:03 pm

GRT2BOUTDOORS wrote:Just to add to it - one should incorporate a buffer into their savings programs in the unfortunate event you are permanently downsized prior to your planned retirement date (saw this happen twice in the last week - no joke!).
This is true. It happened to me three years ago at the age of 60. I could have transferred to another location about 90 miles away, but I didn't want the long commute; and I didn't want to spend four nights a week in a motel; and I sure didn't want to move.

Having that buffer allowed me to say no to the transfer. Having that buffer allowed me to take the next year and a half off. Having that buffer now allows me to work a seasonal job that totals around 12 weeks per year instead of trying to find a full-time position.

So, to put a twist on the numbers, sometimes 60 (maybe even 55) is the new 65! :shock:
"Do what you will, the capital is at hazard." Justice Samuel Putnam, Harvard College vs Amory, 1830. The "Prudent Man Rule."

clacy
Posts: 106
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: 70 is the New 65

Post by clacy » Thu Sep 06, 2012 8:53 pm

DouglasDoug wrote:Where is the proof that 70 is new 65? Wishful thinking perhaps. I rarely see a wrinkled face in corporate America.
Working until 70 doesn't necessarily mean that you have work in a high powered finance job, or as a flashy sales person, etc. In fact, in your 60's you may have to take a significant pay cut, and a less prestigious role. But that often means less stressful too.

I'm 37 and I could easily see myself taking a "semi-retirement" job, that is less stressful and not as well compensated when I'm 62 or so.

Bob's not my name
Posts: 7405
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 9:24 am

Re: 70 is the New 65

Post by Bob's not my name » Fri Sep 07, 2012 7:23 am

Future tense or context:
Rick Ferri wrote:will have to
believe they will have the same
more people today believe they will be working at age 70
people are expecting to retire at a later age
will continue to provide
will provide a major share
will continue to provide
will increase
they’ll be working longer
Present tense:
How many 69-year olds do you have working in your office?
Still curious how many 69 year-olds Rick has working for him...
I rarely see a wrinkled face in corporate America.
Image

Grt2bOutdoors
Posts: 18842
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 8:20 pm
Location: New York

Re: 70 is the New 65

Post by Grt2bOutdoors » Fri Sep 07, 2012 7:43 am

clacy wrote:
DouglasDoug wrote:Where is the proof that 70 is new 65? Wishful thinking perhaps. I rarely see a wrinkled face in corporate America.
Working until 70 doesn't necessarily mean that you have work in a high powered finance job, or as a flashy sales person, etc. In fact, in your 60's you may have to take a significant pay cut, and a less prestigious role. But that often means less stressful too.

I'm 37 and I could easily see myself taking a "semi-retirement" job, that is less stressful and not as well compensated when I'm 62 or so.
Would you feel less stressed at 60 if you worked fewer hours but still had the same level of "needs based expenses"?
"One should invest based on their need, ability and willingness to take risk - Larry Swedroe" Asking Portfolio Questions

Grt2bOutdoors
Posts: 18842
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 8:20 pm
Location: New York

Re: 70 is the New 65

Post by Grt2bOutdoors » Fri Sep 07, 2012 7:44 am

DouglasDoug wrote:Where is the proof that 70 is new 65? Wishful thinking perhaps. I rarely see a wrinkled face in corporate America.
Must be the use of retinoids and Botox. :wink:
"One should invest based on their need, ability and willingness to take risk - Larry Swedroe" Asking Portfolio Questions

User avatar
Rick Ferri
Posts: 8483
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 11:40 am
Location: Georgetown, TX. Twitter: @Rick_Ferri
Contact:

Re: 70 is the New 65

Post by Rick Ferri » Fri Sep 07, 2012 9:47 am

HomerJ wrote:Still curious how many 69 year-olds Rick has working for him... :)
:wink: There will be at least one in the future!

Rick Ferri
The Education of an Index Investor: flounders in darkness, finds enlightenment, overcomplicates strategy, embraces simplicity.

foxfirev5
Posts: 245
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2008 7:19 am

Re: 70 is the New 65

Post by foxfirev5 » Fri Sep 07, 2012 2:01 pm

I find it very difficult to find many 62 year olds at my company. As a matter of fact I'm considered an old timer at 56. While many of my coworkers claim they plan to work until 67-70 I don't it as too realistic given the corporate culture. I believe that most are rationalizing their situation and failure to save and invest over the past decades. As for me I plan to exit around 58 or so.

User avatar
Random Musings
Posts: 5209
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 4:24 pm
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: 70 is the New 65

Post by Random Musings » Fri Sep 07, 2012 3:06 pm

There are a few people in our company (corporate America) who have worked past the age of 70. The reasons why:

- not financial prepared for retirement (not enough savings, divorces eating up money)
- no real interests outside of work (hobbies and/or family)

I must be fair to add when I worked in a research facility that some of them actually found the intellectual challange stimulating - but still, some still had real no outside interests.

I do see far more elderly working at Walmart. I'm sure they wished that the old 70 was still in place. I wonder how much crimp these low interest rates have affected conservative retired savers over the past many years.

RM
I figure the odds be fifty-fifty I just might have something to say. FZ

Grt2bOutdoors
Posts: 18842
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 8:20 pm
Location: New York

Re: 70 is the New 65

Post by Grt2bOutdoors » Fri Sep 07, 2012 3:07 pm

Rick Ferri wrote:
HomerJ wrote:Still curious how many 69 year-olds Rick has working for him... :)
:wink: There will be at least one in the future!

Rick Ferri
:wink: No fair - sole proprietors should not be included!
"One should invest based on their need, ability and willingness to take risk - Larry Swedroe" Asking Portfolio Questions

Levett
Posts: 4177
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 2:10 pm
Location: upper Midwest

Re: 70 is the New 65

Post by Levett » Fri Sep 07, 2012 3:08 pm

"Still curious how many 69 year-olds Rick has working for him..."

That's a very good question, Homer, that deserves a serious response.

In the many business encounters I've had since retirement, I'd say "very, very few."

See Executive Summary of the following:http://www.thecyberhood.net/documents/p ... oyment.pdf

Lev

User avatar
Rick Ferri
Posts: 8483
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 11:40 am
Location: Georgetown, TX. Twitter: @Rick_Ferri
Contact:

Re: 70 is the New 65

Post by Rick Ferri » Fri Sep 07, 2012 3:42 pm

Levett wrote:"Still curious how many 69 year-olds Rick has working for him..."

That's a very good question, Homer, that deserves a serious response.
My company is going on 14 years old. We had no employees for the first 5 years except for me, my partner and my wife. We have grown in recent years to the level where we have added several new employees, and some of them may well work with us until age 69. No qualified individual over age 55 has ever sent in a resume for any job at our firm.

There have been qualified people who have contacted me by email or phone (no resume) that I believe are older, but every one wanted to work part-time from their home in another state. We don't offer that option.

Rick Ferri
Last edited by Rick Ferri on Fri Sep 07, 2012 3:58 pm, edited 9 times in total.
The Education of an Index Investor: flounders in darkness, finds enlightenment, overcomplicates strategy, embraces simplicity.

Bob's not my name
Posts: 7405
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 9:24 am

Re: 70 is the New 65

Post by Bob's not my name » Fri Sep 07, 2012 3:49 pm

That proves it. You hate old people.

User avatar
ruralavalon
Posts: 13491
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 10:29 am
Location: Illinois

Re: 70 is the New 65

Post by ruralavalon » Fri Sep 07, 2012 3:59 pm

The artcle is based in part on the ERBI's "2012 Retirement Confidence Survey" , http://www.ebri.org/pdf/surveys/rcs/201 ... 69_RCS.pdf .

I was somewhat surprised to see that the actual tend seems to be earlier retrement, rather than later retirement (Tables 31 & 32 pp. 24-25), specifically that:
1. the trend, over 1991 -2012, in actual retirement age is: (a) a large increase in retirement before age 60; (b) a decrease in retirement in ones early 60s; and(c) little change in rates of retirement at later ages like 70;
2. workers expect to retire much later than people actually retire (65 expected; 61 actual).

They say that the difference between expectation and actual is involuntary exits from the work force for reasons such as (in order of frequency): health, disability, layoff, becoming a caregiver for a relative, etc.
Last edited by ruralavalon on Fri Sep 07, 2012 5:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Everything should be as simple as it is, but not simpler." - Albert Einstein | Wiki article link:Getting Started

User avatar
Rick Ferri
Posts: 8483
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 11:40 am
Location: Georgetown, TX. Twitter: @Rick_Ferri
Contact:

Re: 70 is the New 65

Post by Rick Ferri » Fri Sep 07, 2012 4:04 pm

Bob's not my name,

LOL, my 80+ year old parents don't agree. Wait, my mother worked for me for a few weeks when she was in her 70's, so that proves age doesn't matter. She quit, BTW. Something about going on vacation for the next 6 months.

Rick Ferri
The Education of an Index Investor: flounders in darkness, finds enlightenment, overcomplicates strategy, embraces simplicity.

foxfirev5
Posts: 245
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2008 7:19 am

Re: 70 is the New 65

Post by foxfirev5 » Fri Sep 07, 2012 5:33 pm

Random Musings wrote:There are a few people in our company (corporate America) who have worked past the age of 70. The reasons why:

- not financial prepared for retirement (not enough savings, divorces eating up money)
- no real interests outside of work (hobbies and/or family)

I must be fair to add when I worked in a research facility that some of them actually found the intellectual challange stimulating - but still, some still had real no outside interests.

I do see far more elderly working at Walmart. I'm sure they wished that the old 70 was still in place. I wonder how much crimp these low interest rates have affected conservative retired savers over the past many years.

RM
I find my corporate job much easier than working at Walmart. Nor would I find any intellectual challenge there. So for now I'll maximize my savings/investments and cruise to to the retirement I planned 30 years ago, albiet on a different course.

User avatar
c00kie
Posts: 100
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 4:31 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: 70 is the New 65

Post by c00kie » Fri Sep 07, 2012 8:54 pm

Talk about killing the messenger. WOW.

All the best,
Cookie
Cookie

User avatar
burt
Posts: 660
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 7:47 am

Re: 70 is the New 65

Post by burt » Sat Sep 08, 2012 8:22 am

Within the past few years I’ve noticed many articles talking about the “rewards” of working past 65. Fulfillment, sense of purpose, contributing, engagement, socialization, etc., etc. Baloney. Most people are working longer because they can’t afford to retire….period. The 401k experiment has been a train wreck.

Back in the 80’s I saw a lot of people heading for the door with “30 and out” pensions. They all looked pretty fulfilled to me.

burt

User avatar
William Million
Posts: 544
Joined: Wed May 05, 2010 4:41 am
Location: A Deep Mountain

Re: 70 is the New 65

Post by William Million » Sat Sep 08, 2012 8:29 am

Medical care is better. However, in many ways baby boomers are the most unhealthy generation. 73% are overweight.

User avatar
Cosmo
Posts: 1193
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 9:46 pm

Re: 70 is the New 65

Post by Cosmo » Sat Sep 08, 2012 9:54 am

NYBoglehead wrote:
GRT2BOUTDOORS wrote:
Confused wrote:
Rick Ferri wrote:That's a good thing because late baby boomers and those younger will have to work longer before they kick back in the rocking chair.
How on earth is that a good thing?
The flogging will continue....please sir, may I work another 5 years? :twisted:
It's a good thing because we are living longer and seniors are becoming more active. In the past working until 65 could support a retirement with an average life expectancy. Simple arithmetic tells us that as we live longer will need to accumulate more assets to support a longer retirement. Not exactly a novel idea. Retirement at 65 is not written is stone, as our life expectancies increase our working years need to increase as well.
Ok, as we live longer, we need to work longer to support our golden years. NYboglehead, all you did was support the argument that it is NOT a good thing, unfortunately.

Levett
Posts: 4177
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 2:10 pm
Location: upper Midwest

Re: 70 is the New 65

Post by Levett » Sat Sep 08, 2012 10:08 am

"The 401k experiment has been a train wreck."

Hasn't this view been expressed, more or less, by Bill Bernstein and J Bogle?

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Lev

User avatar
bengal22
Posts: 1409
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2011 6:20 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: 70 is the New 65

Post by bengal22 » Sat Sep 08, 2012 10:33 am

Levett wrote:"The 401k experiment has been a train wreck."

Hasn't this view been expressed, more or less, by Bill Bernstein and J Bogle?

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Lev
The 401K experiment has been the best thing for my household since sliced bread. The train wreck comment is in regards to the fact that companies have shifted from supplying an employee a pension to contributing to an employee's 401K. The best situation is when a person contributes to his 401K which is used to supplement his pension. But companies have twisted the purpose of a 401K and are bailing out on supplying pensions. The 401K, especially when the company matches a certain portion, is a great way to build net worth. Lets not throw out the baby with the bath water.
"Earn All You Can; Give All You Can; Save All You Can." .... John Wesley

Post Reply