Working till retirement is not a great plan

Discuss all general (i.e. non-personal) investing questions and issues, investing news, and theory.
KlangFool
Posts: 19713
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2008 12:35 pm

Re: Working till retirement is not a great plan

Post by KlangFool »

Folks,

Please adjust my numbers accordingly dependent on your own circumstances.

1) Do not assume that you will be fully-employed continuously until retirement age. Make a reasonable assumption and save a fixed percentage of your gross income. I have no job security. I save 30+%. You should decide a number that works for you.

2) LBYM.

3) Contribute as much as possible to your Trad. 401K and put the tax savings into Roth IRAs. That will build up your portfolio as soon as possible. Then, you can deal with short-term unemployment plus any financial emergency.

4) To all, do not overpay for your college education and your children college education. For lower income, do not overspend on the car. For higher income, do not overspend on the house. Once you are committed to those debts, it is hard to get out of those debts.

5) Do not be naive and assume that the employer will take care of you.

6) People hire people. My location was shut down and outsourced to India. We have a good team. We helped each other looking for jobs and we still stay in touch after 10+ years. My former boss still takes care of me after all this while. Some people are helpful. Meanwhile, others are not.

7) People help people. Pay it forward when you have a job. You may need a favor from that person when you are looking for a job.

8) Watch out for "black hole": everything goes in and nothing comes out. Some folks only want help but do nothing in return. Not even a simple thank you and/or keep you in the loop. Stop wasting your time with "black hole".

9) Say "Please" and "Thank You" regularly. Be appreciative.

KlangFool
alfaspider
Posts: 3356
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 4:44 pm

Re: Working till retirement is not a great plan

Post by alfaspider »

Dinosaur Dad wrote: Fri Mar 23, 2018 8:49 am
KlangFool wrote: Fri Mar 23, 2018 8:21 am
randomguy wrote: Thu Mar 22, 2018 11:03 pm
At a high level most people are employed past 60. That is an indisputable fact. Look at the average retirement age:) Most are even in the same job. That isn't any comfort though if you are one of the ones that is fired and then can't find employment. To some extent that is random luck (i.e. google isn't firing anyone unless they are really incompetent. Doesn't matter how good of employee you are if your employer is Toys'R US). To some extent people age themselves out (skill out of date, not willing to move, don't network with younger employees,...).
randomguy,

<<At a high level most people are employed past 60. That is an indisputable fact. >>

That is not supported by the data from the department of labor.

https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

The labor force participation rate now is around 63%. That means out of 100% American at working age, only 63% is working. The number is trending down since 2008 and it had not recovered.

<<Look at the average retirement age:)>>

Show us the data.

Please do not quote unemployment percentage. It is a joke.

I was unemployed for 1 year. But, the unemployment percentage only count me in for the first 6 months. After that, I am considered unemployable and it is excluded from unemployment percentage.

KlangFool
+1. KlangFool is absolutely right, this group is NOT counted. The unemployment statistic typically quoted is very misleading.
There are different BLS unemployment measures. The official unemployment rate is the U-3, which doesn't include "discouraged workers" or those otherwise marginally attached. But the BLS also publishes the U-6 measure, which takes into account just about everyone who'd rather be working more than they are. Even the U-6 is quite low these days, at around 8%.

Unfortunately, U-6 is not published by age, but the U3 is, and shows that older workers are actually employed at significantly higher rates than people in their early 20s. While it's possible that older workers are more likely to be in the "discouraged" pool, we should have data to back up that claim before simply accepting it.

It's also worth noting that high tech professions are a bit of a special case. Doctors and Lawyers, for example, seem to have increasing value with age (obviously, as long as they remain physically and mentally able to work in their professions). As a result, there are many such people in their 70s and 80s who are still working and getting paid high salaries.
KlangFool
Posts: 19713
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2008 12:35 pm

Re: Working till retirement is not a great plan

Post by KlangFool »

thx1138 wrote: Fri Mar 23, 2018 5:48 am
KlangFool wrote: Thu Mar 22, 2018 7:22 pm
bling wrote: Thu Mar 22, 2018 6:35 pm
fresh grads that can work 10 hours a day for far less pay.
bling,

How long can the fresh grads last if they work 10 hours per day? They will not have time to learn anything new. If and when what they learn from college is no longer the latest, they will be replaced by another fresh batch of fresh grads.

KlangFool
In my industry you *aren't* learning *enough* that is new *unless* you are working 10 hour days when young. If it is something you can “learn” by taking a class or getting some sort of certificate then it really isn’t a particularly marketable skill and by definition not a skill that provides any sort of real barrier to entry as far as labor competition goes because anyone can go out and get said certificate or take whatever class. Useful skills and experience are gained by *doing* which is the whole reason job listings require experience on the job and care little about formal education once past the first few years of a career. A young person who isn’t taking every opportunity to work as much as they can in their first few positions is missing out on giving themselves a real leg up in the job market.
thx1138,

That only works if whatever you are working on is new technology. And, new technology does get old. Then, whoever spent 10 hours working on that will be replaced by another fresh batch of fresh grad that works 10 hours per day with plenty of unpaid overtime.

KlangFool
marcopolo
Posts: 4059
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2016 10:22 am

Re: Working till retirement is not a great plan

Post by marcopolo »

KlangFool wrote: Fri Mar 23, 2018 8:27 am
marcopolo wrote: Fri Mar 23, 2018 8:18 am
gotester2000 wrote: Fri Mar 23, 2018 2:54 am
I can only laugh at people saying there is no age discrimination - especially people involved in hiring/retaining decisions. When you are saying somebody can replace you at 1/3rd salary ,most of the time it is a old employee being replaced. Per business sense it is right , just dont pretend that it is not so.
You can lay off one old guy making $160k with one making $80k and say whatever you wish - but your obvious target was the old guy.
I am not saying there is no age discrimination. I am saying that people often see it in places where other factors were the primary driver.

What would be the motivation for a company to fire someone just based on their age? If they are providing value for the higher compensation they receive, this would be counter productive. Do you believe companies sit around and scheme up ways to screw older workers?

Are you suggesting that companies have an obligation to pay older workers doing the SAME job higher salaries than younger workers doing the SAME job? Wouldn't that be age discrimination? Change older/younger in that line of thinking to men/women, and see if you feel the same way.
marcopolo,

Do not be naive. Why do you assume that the management is competent? On top of that, they are compensated for quarterly profit. If they cut cost, they get paid bonus immediately. If and when the company goes to hell, it won't matter to them. They have an employment contract. They get paid to leave the company.


http://articles.latimes.com/2001/aug/14 ... s/fi-33821

<<Lucent's Former Chief Gets Golden Parachute
August 14, 2001|Reuters
Lucent Technologies Inc. said it will pay former Chief Executive and Chairman Richard McGinn, who was ousted last fall, a severance package that includes a $5.5-million one-time payment and assumption of bank loans.

The Murray Hill, N.J.-based company also said in its quarterly filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission that it will assume $4.3 million in loans that McGinn had with two banks. The three-year loan is fully backed by real estate owned by McGinn, the company said.

McGinn also will receive up to $9,000 a month for office space until Dec. 1 or until he is hired by someone else, whichever comes first, according to the filing.

McGinn is already slated to receive about $1 million a year for life under his pension plan, according to a Lucent proxy statement filed in February.

McGinn was forced out in October after the company suffered several quarters of disappointing profit, operational blunders and a plummeting stock price.>>


KlangFool
OK. Companies, and their management can be ruthless when it comes to cost cutting, sometimes of personal gain. No argument from me on that.
What does that have to do with age discrimination?
If you are saying your job is always at risk, i agree. If you are saying companies systematically target older workers, that has not been my experience.
Once in a while you get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right.
marcopolo
Posts: 4059
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2016 10:22 am

Re: Working till retirement is not a great plan

Post by marcopolo »

KlangFool wrote: Fri Mar 23, 2018 9:02 am Folks,

Please adjust my numbers accordingly dependent on your own circumstances.

1) Do not assume that you will be fully-employed continuously until retirement age. Make a reasonable assumption and save a fixed percentage of your gross income. I have no job security. I save 30+%. You should decide a number that works for you.

2) LBYM.

3) Contribute as much as possible to your Trad. 401K and put the tax savings into Roth IRAs. That will build up your portfolio as soon as possible. Then, you can deal with short-term unemployment plus any financial emergency.

4) To all, do not overpay for your college education and your children college education. For lower income, do not overspend on the car. For higher income, do not overspend on the house. Once you are committed to those debts, it is hard to get out of those debts.

5) Do not be naive and assume that the employer will take care of you.

6) People hire people. My location was shut down and outsourced to India. We have a good team. We helped each other looking for jobs and we still stay in touch after 10+ years. My former boss still takes care of me after all this while. Some people are helpful. Meanwhile, others are not.

7) People help people. Pay it forward when you have a job. You may need a favor from that person when you are looking for a job.

8) Watch out for "black hole": everything goes in and nothing comes out. Some folks only want help but do nothing in return. Not even a simple thank you and/or keep you in the loop. Stop wasting your time with "black hole".

9) Say "Please" and "Thank You" regularly. Be appreciative.

KlangFool
Good advice!
Once in a while you get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right.
KlangFool
Posts: 19713
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2008 12:35 pm

Re: Working till retirement is not a great plan

Post by KlangFool »

alfaspider wrote: Fri Mar 23, 2018 9:05 am
There are different BLS unemployment measures. The official unemployment rate is the U-3, which doesn't include "discouraged workers" or those otherwise marginally attached. But the BLS also publishes the U-6 measure, which takes into account just about everyone who'd rather be working more than they are. Even the U-6 is quite low these days, at around 8%.

Unfortunately, U-6 is not published by age, but the U3 is, and shows that older workers are actually employed at significantly higher rates than people in their early 20s. While it's possible that older workers are more likely to be in the "discouraged" pool, we should have data to back up that claim before simply accepting it.

It's also worth noting that high tech professions are a bit of a special case. Doctors and Lawyers, for example, seem to have increasing value with age (obviously, as long as they remain physically and mentally able to work in their professions). As a result, there are many such people in their 70s and 80s who are still working and getting paid high salaries.
alfaspider,

<<which takes into account just about everyone who'd rather be working more than they are. >>

Which is subject to someone's judgment.

I will take my labor participation number over any other numbers that someone else can manipulate.

KlangFool
student
Posts: 5385
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 6:58 am

Re: Working till retirement is not a great plan

Post by student »

CyclingDuo wrote: Fri Mar 23, 2018 9:01 am
student wrote: Fri Mar 23, 2018 6:46 amI am sorry to hear this. Did the university declare financial exigency to layoff tenured faculty members? (Based on your past posts, I am guessing that you are tenured.) Are you in Wisconsin where they can now layoff tenured faculty members based on program change?
No, not in Wisconsin, but right next door. Program Prioritization Plan (Dickeson Model) was used. Yes, tenured faculty were part of the layoffs with the words financial exigency. My department was down only 3 students compared to our fairly stable numbers over the past 6 years, yet we lost four faculty (one retired last year and decision was made not to fill that line, and three of us were part of the recent layoffs). Combined, that's 25% of our department - in terms of full time faculty - gone in the blink of an eye. Tough times. Provided the current student body remains, that's going to put an awful strain on the remaining faculty within our department (who are already working an overload) to pick up our load as well.

Starting to look at all options now to piece something together for the future. I did not have a plan B in place which I will take ownership for by perhaps having been lulled into what I thought was a somewhat secure position due to the high demand, load, stable enrollment numbers within our own department, my own job performance, and a nationally renowned program that everyone in our industry in the Fine Arts knows.

From all the reading I have been doing the past week, it appears I am joining legions of those in their 50's who have faced this in a variety of industries. I am already creative, but now it's time to bump that creativity up a few additional notches.
Again my condolences. It is hard to imagine layoff of tenured faculty members but evidently they do happen. I asked about Wisconsin because I recently read about Stevens Point. Best Wishes.
Last edited by student on Fri Mar 23, 2018 9:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
KlangFool
Posts: 19713
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2008 12:35 pm

Re: Working till retirement is not a great plan

Post by KlangFool »

marcopolo wrote: Fri Mar 23, 2018 9:20 am
OK. Companies, and their management can be ruthless when it comes to cost cutting, sometimes of personal gain. No argument from me on that.
What does that have to do with age discrimination?
If you are saying your job is always at risk, i agree. If you are saying companies systematically target older workers, that has not been my experience.
marcopolo,

The world is bigger than you and me. Just because either you or I do not experience something, it does not mean that it did not exist. So, I would not argue that you did not experience and/or observe age discrimination. Ditto, you should not say that it did not exist just because you did not observe one.

KlangFool
User avatar
CyclingDuo
Posts: 4048
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2017 9:07 am

Re: Working till retirement is not a great plan

Post by CyclingDuo »

22twain wrote: Fri Mar 23, 2018 7:54 amMy condolences. :( The same thing happened to me several years ago, just after the end of spring semester. I was one year older, at 57. This was at a small private college that was facing a financial crisis. They took on a couple of expensive initiatives (one involving athletics) just before the Great Recession hit. Several faculty positions were eliminated. Most of them were old enough to be eligible for the standard "early retirement" package, which provides continued health insurance coverage to fill the gap until Medicare, so they got that plus a buyout payment. I could have taken a buyout also, but I was younger and not yet eligible for "early retirement", so I was alternatively offered a staff position at a greatly reduced salary until I reached that point.

The overall academic job market being what it is, I figured there was little chance I would find a similar faculty position elsewhere at my age. It would almost certainly have required a cross-country move. Even an adjunct faculty position "nearby", if I had found one, would have required a 1-2 hour commute, and probably would have paid less than the "bridge" position I was offered.

After playing with several retirement calculators including FireCalc, I concluded that we would come out OK financially if I took the "bridge" position, so I did that, and finally retired about a year ago.
Thanks for the condolences.

Well, very similar as I hit 57 this Fall. I was not offered any sort of retirement package as a few that were a nearly a decade older than me were. The cross country move is one option (I've already submitted one application). Picking up and piecing together some part time work at other colleges/universities within a short to longer commute as a "bridge" may indeed be an option (haven't found anything available at the moment, but am beginning to reach out within my network). I have not heard any offer of a "bridge" position for me at the school that just terminated my position, but who knows what the intent is to cover the load I will be leaving.

Based on what FireCalc and i-ORP are showing me (still trying to dial in the best performance and use of those tools to make sure they are providing an accurate picture to us), we are not in a huge distress financially. It is going to require some alterations to our previous plans. We were just starting to take advantage - finally - of being empty nesters and being able to max out all of our retirement plans last year and this (403b/457b/Roth IRA) which would have given us a nice end of career boost in our retirement accounts if we could have pulled that off for another 5 years.

Not having had a plan B in place - at least in terms of seeking work outside of my discipline - I will start looking at options outside of my discipline and see how and if I could retool for that purpose. I'll be covered under my wife's health insurance for another 5-6 years. She may have to extend her projected work years an additional year or two, and or go part-time for a bit after that. 33 years of working and income without a pause or a blip for me. The past 15 years at this particular job is the longest I have been in one particular position. I feel I've got a good 10-11 years left in the tank which is the most frustrating part.
"Save like a pessimist, invest like an optimist." - Morgan Housel
User avatar
CyclingDuo
Posts: 4048
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2017 9:07 am

Re: Working till retirement is not a great plan

Post by CyclingDuo »

student wrote: Fri Mar 23, 2018 9:21 amAgain my condolences. It is hard to imagine layoff of tenured faculty members but evidently they do happen. I asked about Wisconsin because I recently read about Stevens Point. Best Wishes.
Oddly, our administration used Stevens Point as one of the "models" they were studying as an example and justification for the program review just conducted at our school. And oddly, there were two jobs available at Stevens Point in my discipline a month ago in terms of national searches. :shock:
"Save like a pessimist, invest like an optimist." - Morgan Housel
ks289
Posts: 655
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2012 12:42 pm

Re: Working till retirement is not a great plan

Post by ks289 »

KlangFool wrote: Fri Mar 23, 2018 9:02 am Folks,

Please adjust my numbers accordingly dependent on your own circumstances.

1) Do not assume that you will be fully-employed continuously until retirement age. Make a reasonable assumption and save a fixed percentage of your gross income. I have no job security. I save 30+%. You should decide a number that works for you.

2) LBYM.

3) Contribute as much as possible to your Trad. 401K and put the tax savings into Roth IRAs. That will build up your portfolio as soon as possible. Then, you can deal with short-term unemployment plus any financial emergency.

4) To all, do not overpay for your college education and your children college education. For lower income, do not overspend on the car. For higher income, do not overspend on the house. Once you are committed to those debts, it is hard to get out of those debts.

5) Do not be naive and assume that the employer will take care of you.

6) People hire people. My location was shut down and outsourced to India. We have a good team. We helped each other looking for jobs and we still stay in touch after 10+ years. My former boss still takes care of me after all this while. Some people are helpful. Meanwhile, others are not.

7) People help people. Pay it forward when you have a job. You may need a favor from that person when you are looking for a job.

8) Watch out for "black hole": everything goes in and nothing comes out. Some folks only want help but do nothing in return. Not even a simple thank you and/or keep you in the loop. Stop wasting your time with "black hole".

9) Say "Please" and "Thank You" regularly. Be appreciative.

KlangFool
KF -I agree very much with your points. However, for some the focus may not be as directed exclusively towards saving/early financial independence. A recent White Coat Investor blog post resonated with me by describing the path to wealth as "Offense-Defense-Offense."

https://www.whitecoatinvestor.com/best- ... e-offense/

Your focus on "defense" or saving is understandable, but some may reap even more rewards and reach financial independence earlier by consistently pursuing better income or security (looking for better job opportunities, taking on extra work/responsibilities, having a side hustle, etc) for themselves or their children/family. Unfortunately, in many fields as we age it can be increasingly difficult to improve our "offense." By no means are offense and defense mutually exclusive of course.

As both a worker and an employer (physician practice), I see both sides of the ageism issue on a regular basis. For an employer, paying for future (not past) performance is really the heart of the issue. It is very attractive to pay less for employees with more potential for "upside" compared to employees with a wealth of past accomplishments but who may not have the same future trajectory.
marcopolo
Posts: 4059
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2016 10:22 am

Re: Working till retirement is not a great plan

Post by marcopolo »

KlangFool wrote: Fri Mar 23, 2018 9:24 am
marcopolo wrote: Fri Mar 23, 2018 9:20 am
OK. Companies, and their management can be ruthless when it comes to cost cutting, sometimes of personal gain. No argument from me on that.
What does that have to do with age discrimination?
If you are saying your job is always at risk, i agree. If you are saying companies systematically target older workers, that has not been my experience.
marcopolo,

The world is bigger than you and me. Just because either you or I do not experience something, it does not mean that it did not exist. So, I would not argue that you did not experience and/or observe age discrimination. Ditto, you should not say that it did not exist just because you did not observe one.

KlangFool
I agree that we are somewhat limited by our own experiences. I did not say age discrimination does not exist. I said that often we blame age discrimination when other factors are at play.

I would ask you a few questions:

1) What would be the motivation for a company to base hiring/firing decision based on age?

2) What you often hear is that some company laid off number of older, higher paid workers in favor of younger cheaper workers, so it must be age discrimination.
Do you believe companies have an obligation to pay older workers more for doing the same job as younger workers. Substitute older/younger with men/women. Does the same argument apply?

3) When a company decides it needs to make staffing changes due to economic reasons, and does in a way that fills/retains positions in the most cost effective way, why do we attribute it to some deep seated antagonism towards older workers?
Once in a while you get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right.
alfaspider
Posts: 3356
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 4:44 pm

Re: Working till retirement is not a great plan

Post by alfaspider »

KlangFool wrote: Fri Mar 23, 2018 9:21 am
alfaspider wrote: Fri Mar 23, 2018 9:05 am
There are different BLS unemployment measures. The official unemployment rate is the U-3, which doesn't include "discouraged workers" or those otherwise marginally attached. But the BLS also publishes the U-6 measure, which takes into account just about everyone who'd rather be working more than they are. Even the U-6 is quite low these days, at around 8%.

Unfortunately, U-6 is not published by age, but the U3 is, and shows that older workers are actually employed at significantly higher rates than people in their early 20s. While it's possible that older workers are more likely to be in the "discouraged" pool, we should have data to back up that claim before simply accepting it.

It's also worth noting that high tech professions are a bit of a special case. Doctors and Lawyers, for example, seem to have increasing value with age (obviously, as long as they remain physically and mentally able to work in their professions). As a result, there are many such people in their 70s and 80s who are still working and getting paid high salaries.
alfaspider,

<<which takes into account just about everyone who'd rather be working more than they are. >>

Which is subject to someone's judgment.

I will take my labor participation number over any other numbers that someone else can manipulate.

KlangFool
Substituting one's feelings or personal anecdotes for data is a poor way to get a reliable notion of what's happening in the world.

I do, by the way, generally agree with a LBYM philosophy that ensures one is financially independent by one's 50s. There are great reasons to do so even if you don't think it is likely you will be forced out of the labor force or into less remunerative employment. Regardless of my employment prospects then, I'd like them to be on my terms instead of someone else's.
thx1138
Posts: 1159
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2013 2:14 pm

Re: Working till retirement is not a great plan

Post by thx1138 »

KlangFool wrote: Fri Mar 23, 2018 9:17 am
thx1138 wrote: Fri Mar 23, 2018 5:48 am
KlangFool wrote: Thu Mar 22, 2018 7:22 pm
bling wrote: Thu Mar 22, 2018 6:35 pm
fresh grads that can work 10 hours a day for far less pay.
bling,

How long can the fresh grads last if they work 10 hours per day? They will not have time to learn anything new. If and when what they learn from college is no longer the latest, they will be replaced by another fresh batch of fresh grads.

KlangFool
In my industry you *aren't* learning *enough* that is new *unless* you are working 10 hour days when young. If it is something you can “learn” by taking a class or getting some sort of certificate then it really isn’t a particularly marketable skill and by definition not a skill that provides any sort of real barrier to entry as far as labor competition goes because anyone can go out and get said certificate or take whatever class. Useful skills and experience are gained by *doing* which is the whole reason job listings require experience on the job and care little about formal education once past the first few years of a career. A young person who isn’t taking every opportunity to work as much as they can in their first few positions is missing out on giving themselves a real leg up in the job market.
thx1138,

That only works if whatever you are working on is new technology. And, new technology does get old. Then, whoever spent 10 hours working on that will be replaced by another fresh batch of fresh grad that works 10 hours per day with plenty of unpaid overtime.

KlangFool
Actually no. You seem to be missing the point. There are skills not learned in grad school. Experience matters if you make sure you acquire the right experience. If you blindly chase the next “new technology” only pursuing the basics anyone can learn in school then indeed you will be replaced - and to be honest you should be replaced. There is plenty of value to be added by experienced workers *if* that experience is the kind that can only be acquired over a career of actually working in the field. If you just add marginal skills and knowledge from books or classes then indeed you’ll be out of work.

And again - this doesn’t work in all industries or positions and so the need for fair labor practices.
LiterallyIronic
Posts: 1495
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2015 10:36 am

Re: Working till retirement is not a great plan

Post by LiterallyIronic »

"Working till retirement is not a great plan" :shock:

That's exactly what retirement is. Retiring is when you stop working. There is literally no way NOT to work until retirement because you are retired when you stop working. Sure, you can take sabbaticals or whatever in the middle, but, working until retirement is really the only plan.

Planning on working until a specific age, sure, then your plan could go awry. But the title of this thread implies a better plan is to stop working sometime before retiring? Not possible. That's just retiring earlier.
vested1
Posts: 2395
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 4:20 pm

Re: Working till retirement is not a great plan

Post by vested1 »

At the danger of being accused of having an Ayn Rand philosophy, your best defense is to continue to learn and improve, thus making yourself indispensable. There is no substitution for talent and efficiency.

After my initial retirement from megacorp after 31 years, I continued to work, having been lured away by a contractor. I left this employer after a year because my salary never met expectations, and because another firm had approached me with a much better offer.

I was laid off for the first time in my life at age 60 with no notice from that second firm. While it was tempting to claim this was due to age discrimination, the passage of time debunks that theory. The true motive was that my director was punishing me for not agreeing to follow his girlfriend's (not my boss) demand to cheat the customer. I was acknowledged as the best design engineer in their employ (telecom) but he saw his chance during a rift and took his revenge.

I was laid off for 6 months, whereupon the same director called me back and asked if I would return, pleading financial distress and a lack of technical talent. I was paid 25% less than my previous hourly wage to return. I found that being unemployed makes one far less likely to be hired, despite my numerous attempts. My wife and I celebrated my layoff with a 2 week trip to Hawaii.

As soon as I returned to work I began receiving unsolicited offers from other firms, and eventually took one of them, giving a couple hours notice to that same director and receiving a new salary that doubled what I had been getting. When it became apparent that the new firm was not carrying through on their promises to me I gave them less than a day's notice and left with a smile for final retirement at age 63.5.

Age discrimination is real however, although nearly impossible to prove. The key is to ensure that your capabilities are marketable, and to trust in your talent in the face of an insulting job loss. Make financial goals that will ensure success in retirement that will come to fruition far before age discrimination can takes its toll. Once these goals have been realized the power is in your hands, not theirs.
mptfan
Posts: 6404
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 9:58 am

Re: Working till retirement is not a great plan

Post by mptfan »

Dinosaur Dad wrote: Fri Mar 23, 2018 8:46 amYou may be able to work until retirement,
Everyone works until retirement.
dbr
Posts: 34929
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 9:50 am

Re: Working till retirement is not a great plan

Post by dbr »

mptfan wrote: Fri Mar 23, 2018 10:04 am
Dinosaur Dad wrote: Fri Mar 23, 2018 8:46 amYou may be able to work until retirement,
Everyone works until retirement.
The discussion is actually about working until unemployment. Unemployment is not the same thing as retirement and the consequences are very different.
LiterallyIronic
Posts: 1495
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2015 10:36 am

Re: Working till retirement is not a great plan

Post by LiterallyIronic »

Gronnie wrote: Thu Mar 22, 2018 6:05 pm I can't imagine spending much more than 1-1.5x income on a house. At 3.5x plus, doesn't that leave pretty much nothing to save for later?
Are you asking me to find a house in the $63,500 - $95,250 range? You are aware that buying a house in the 1-1.5x income range is impossible for 99% of people, right?
dbr wrote: Fri Mar 23, 2018 10:05 am
mptfan wrote: Fri Mar 23, 2018 10:04 am
Dinosaur Dad wrote: Fri Mar 23, 2018 8:46 amYou may be able to work until retirement,
Everyone works until retirement.
The discussion is actually about working until unemployment.
By definition, everyone works until unemployment, too.
User avatar
CyclingDuo
Posts: 4048
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2017 9:07 am

Re: Working till retirement is not a great plan

Post by CyclingDuo »

dbr wrote: Fri Mar 23, 2018 10:05 am The discussion is actually about working until unemployment. Unemployment is not the same thing as retirement and the consequences are very different.
Bingo!

:sharebeer
"Save like a pessimist, invest like an optimist." - Morgan Housel
User avatar
willthrill81
Posts: 23690
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 3:17 pm
Location: USA

Re: Working till retirement is not a great plan

Post by willthrill81 »

LiterallyIronic wrote: Fri Mar 23, 2018 10:07 am
Gronnie wrote: Thu Mar 22, 2018 6:05 pm I can't imagine spending much more than 1-1.5x income on a house. At 3.5x plus, doesn't that leave pretty much nothing to save for later?
Are you asking me to find a house in the $63,500 - $95,250 range? You are aware that buying a house in the 1-1.5x income range is impossible for 99% of people, right?
I think that up to 2-2.5x income is still reasonable though obviously less than optimal. All of our home purchases have been around 2x or less. In certain areas, particularly those with HCOL, even this may not be possible. But those choosing to live in such areas should be aware that this choice is likely to inhibit them from achieving financial independence as early as they otherwise could.

This also underscores a widespread problem with Americans' homes: compared to 50 years age, there is nearly twice as much square footage per person, which has been enough to greatly increase the size of the median home, even though there are fewer people in the median household. Americans' spending on homes is causing them all kinds of problems, as KlangFool has rightly pointed out.
“It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door. You step onto the road, and if you don't keep your feet, there's no knowing where you might be swept off to.” J.R.R. Tolkien,The Lord of the Rings
JBTX
Posts: 7591
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2017 12:46 pm

Re: Working till retirement is not a great plan

Post by JBTX »

KlangFool wrote: Fri Mar 23, 2018 9:02 am Folks,

Please adjust my numbers accordingly dependent on your own circumstances.

1) Do not assume that you will be fully-employed continuously until retirement age. Make a reasonable assumption and save a fixed percentage of your gross income. I have no job security. I save 30+%. You should decide a number that works for you.

2) LBYM.

3) Contribute as much as possible to your Trad. 401K and put the tax savings into Roth IRAs. That will build up your portfolio as soon as possible. Then, you can deal with short-term unemployment plus any financial emergency.

4) To all, do not overpay for your college education and your children college education. For lower income, do not overspend on the car. For higher income, do not overspend on the house. Once you are committed to those debts, it is hard to get out of those debts.

5) Do not be naive and assume that the employer will take care of you.

6) People hire people. My location was shut down and outsourced to India. We have a good team. We helped each other looking for jobs and we still stay in touch after 10+ years. My former boss still takes care of me after all this while. Some people are helpful. Meanwhile, others are not.

7) People help people. Pay it forward when you have a job. You may need a favor from that person when you are looking for a job.

8) Watch out for "black hole": everything goes in and nothing comes out. Some folks only want help but do nothing in return. Not even a simple thank you and/or keep you in the loop. Stop wasting your time with "black hole".

9) Say "Please" and "Thank You" regularly. Be appreciative.

KlangFool
+1. Good advice.
KlangFool
Posts: 19713
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2008 12:35 pm

Re: Working till retirement is not a great plan

Post by KlangFool »

marcopolo wrote: Fri Mar 23, 2018 9:47 am I agree that we are somewhat limited by our own experiences. I did not say age discrimination does not exist. I said that often we blame age discrimination when other factors are at play.

I would ask you a few questions:

1) What would be the motivation for a company to base hiring/firing decision based on age?

2) What you often hear is that some company laid off number of older, higher paid workers in favor of younger cheaper workers, so it must be age discrimination.
Do you believe companies have an obligation to pay older workers more for doing the same job as younger workers. Substitute older/younger with men/women. Does the same argument apply?

3) When a company decides it needs to make staffing changes due to economic reasons, and does in a way that fills/retains positions in the most cost effective way, why do we attribute it to some deep seated antagonism towards older workers?
marcopolo,

<<1) What would be the motivation for a company to base hiring/firing decision based on age?>>

A) People hire people. What would the reason why some employer only hire from certain race, religion, gender? It is the same here. If you have an employer that only fill with younger people, they do not believe that the older folks will fit in.

B) The employer assumes that the older employer will ask for higher pay. So, they just do not look at their resume at all.

C) The younger hiring manager is afraid of the competition present by the older worker.

<<2) What you often hear is that some company laid off number of older, higher paid workers in favor of younger cheaper workers, so it must be age discrimination.>>

It is wrong to assume that the younger worker can do the same job productively. Ditto, it is wrong to assume that the older worker can do the same job productively. When we assume something instead of judging a person by their own merit, we are doing profiling. We are discriminating.

Substitute younger and older with gender, racial, or religious background. You will clearly say that it is discrimination. So, there is no difference here.

<<3) When a company decides it needs to make staffing changes due to economic reasons, and does in a way that fills/retains positions in the most cost effective way, why do we attribute it to some deep seated antagonism towards older workers?>>

You just make an age discrimination statement. Why do you ASSUME that laying off older worker is cost-effective?

A) At my new employer, I am working on a XaaS project that had been stuck for 10 months. Nobody can fix it. Then, I show up and fix it in less than 2 months. This particular project is worth several million to my employer.

B) At my previous employer, I had saved several projects that were stuck for months to a year. But, I was laid off instead of any other less productive employees.

KlangFool
mptfan
Posts: 6404
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 9:58 am

Re: Working till retirement is not a great plan

Post by mptfan »

LiterallyIronic wrote: Fri Mar 23, 2018 10:07 am
dbr wrote: Fri Mar 23, 2018 10:05 am
mptfan wrote: Fri Mar 23, 2018 10:04 am
Dinosaur Dad wrote: Fri Mar 23, 2018 8:46 amYou may be able to work until retirement,
Everyone works until retirement.
The discussion is actually about working until unemployment.
By definition, everyone works until unemployment, too.
Exactly.
gotester2000
Posts: 620
Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2017 1:59 am

Re: Working till retirement is not a great plan

Post by gotester2000 »

marcopolo wrote: Fri Mar 23, 2018 8:18 am
gotester2000 wrote: Fri Mar 23, 2018 2:54 am
I can only laugh at people saying there is no age discrimination - especially people involved in hiring/retaining decisions. When you are saying somebody can replace you at 1/3rd salary ,most of the time it is a old employee being replaced. Per business sense it is right , just dont pretend that it is not so.
You can lay off one old guy making $160k with one making $80k and say whatever you wish - but your obvious target was the old guy.
I am not saying there is no age discrimination. I am saying that people often see it in places where other factors were the primary driver.

What would be the motivation for a company to fire someone just based on their age? If they are providing value for the higher compensation they receive, this would be counter productive. Do you believe companies sit around and scheme up ways to screw older workers?

Are you suggesting that companies have an obligation to pay older workers doing the SAME job higher salaries than younger workers doing the SAME job? Wouldn't that be age discrimination? Change older/younger in that line of thinking to men/women, and see if you feel the same way.
Some crazy baboon gets inducted in top management with a crazy package and has to prove his worth by growing topline and bottomline.

The easiest way to cut costs for him is to fire highly.paid older employees. So in a group of 10, 3 are retained for survival of the product and 7 are replaced with 1/3rd wagers. Now those 3 have to continuously carry the new 7. Done this and just dont want to do it anymore. Was FI and working at will now.

There are many scenarios like this and you lose motivation - working crazy to meet expectations all the time.
ThriftyPhD
Posts: 870
Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2017 10:43 am

Re: Working till retirement is not a great plan

Post by ThriftyPhD »

mptfan wrote: Fri Mar 23, 2018 10:22 am
LiterallyIronic wrote: Fri Mar 23, 2018 10:07 am
dbr wrote: Fri Mar 23, 2018 10:05 am
mptfan wrote: Fri Mar 23, 2018 10:04 am
Dinosaur Dad wrote: Fri Mar 23, 2018 8:46 amYou may be able to work until retirement,
Everyone works until retirement.
The discussion is actually about working until unemployment.
By definition, everyone works until unemployment, too.
Exactly.
Still missing the difference.

Person A works until they are 50, gets laid off, spends 2 years unemployed, gets a part time job and limps along till 65 and retires. Person A did not work until retired. They had a big gap in there whey they were not working, but were not yet retired. They worked until unemployment.

Person B works at the same position from 25 to 65 and retires. Person B has worked until retirement. They were never unemployed, which is a term that specifically means someone who does not have a job and is actively looking for one. This person has worked until retirement, but has not worked until unemployment.

Everyone assumes they are going to be Person B. Many will end up being Person A.
ThriftyPhD
Posts: 870
Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2017 10:43 am

Re: Working till retirement is not a great plan

Post by ThriftyPhD »

KlangFool wrote: Fri Mar 23, 2018 9:02 am 7) People help people. Pay it forward when you have a job. You may need a favor from that person when you are looking for a job.

8) Watch out for "black hole": everything goes in and nothing comes out. Some folks only want help but do nothing in return. Not even a simple thank you and/or keep you in the loop. Stop wasting your time with "black hole".
Very important points. Amazing how often people get laid off and then decide to 'start networking'. Contact you on LinkedIn, want help finding a job, etc. Then they get a job, and you never hear from them again until they are laid off once more.

The best course is to network while you have a stable job. Pay it forward, help people out while you can. Give good, honest recommendations and pass along job openings to those who are in need. One day they may be doing the same for you.

It becomes clear very quickly when someone is only asking for help and never providing it. Don't be this person.
mptfan
Posts: 6404
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 9:58 am

Re: Working till retirement is not a great plan

Post by mptfan »

ThriftyPhD wrote: Fri Mar 23, 2018 10:39 am Person A works until they are 50, gets laid off, spends 2 years unemployed, gets a part time job and limps along till 65 and retires. Person A did not work until retired. They had a big gap in there whey they were not working, but were not yet retired. They worked until unemployment.
I disagree, I think Person A did work until they retired. Let's assume Person A started working when they were 20, so according to your example, they worked for 43 years before retiring (30 years full time and 13 years part time).
Last edited by mptfan on Fri Mar 23, 2018 10:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
ThriftyPhD
Posts: 870
Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2017 10:43 am

Re: Working till retirement is not a great plan

Post by ThriftyPhD »

mptfan wrote: Fri Mar 23, 2018 10:47 am
ThriftyPhD wrote: Fri Mar 23, 2018 10:39 am Person A works until they are 50, gets laid off, spends 2 years unemployed, gets a part time job and limps along till 65 and retires. Person A did not work until retired. They had a big gap in there whey they were not working, but were not yet retired. They worked until unemployment.
I disagree, I think Person A did work until they retired. According to your example, they worked for 13 years before retiring.
There was 2 years where they were not working. Hence, the did not work until retirement. If you're laid off, you're not working.
mptfan
Posts: 6404
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 9:58 am

Re: Working till retirement is not a great plan

Post by mptfan »

ThriftyPhD wrote: Fri Mar 23, 2018 10:48 am
mptfan wrote: Fri Mar 23, 2018 10:47 am
ThriftyPhD wrote: Fri Mar 23, 2018 10:39 am Person A works until they are 50, gets laid off, spends 2 years unemployed, gets a part time job and limps along till 65 and retires. Person A did not work until retired. They had a big gap in there whey they were not working, but were not yet retired. They worked until unemployment.
I disagree, I think Person A did work until they retired. According to your example, they worked for 13 years before retiring.
There was 2 years where they were not working. Hence, the did not work until retirement. If you're laid off, you're not working.
I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree. Person A worked, and then retired, so by my definition of those words, they worked until they retired.

Based on your reasoning, if someone was laid off at 30 and got another job at 31, and then worked for 35 more years until retiring at 66, that person did not "work until they retired" because there was some period of time during their working career during which they did not work. I disagree.
LiterallyIronic
Posts: 1495
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2015 10:36 am

Re: Working till retirement is not a great plan

Post by LiterallyIronic »

ThriftyPhD wrote: Fri Mar 23, 2018 10:39 am
mptfan wrote: Fri Mar 23, 2018 10:22 am
LiterallyIronic wrote: Fri Mar 23, 2018 10:07 am
dbr wrote: Fri Mar 23, 2018 10:05 am
mptfan wrote: Fri Mar 23, 2018 10:04 am
Everyone works until retirement.
The discussion is actually about working until unemployment.
By definition, everyone works until unemployment, too.
Exactly.
Still missing the difference.

Person A works until they are 50, gets laid off, spends 2 years unemployed, gets a part time job and limps along till 65 and retires. Person A did not work until retired. They had a big gap in there whey they were not working, but were not yet retired. They worked until unemployment.

Person B works at the same position from 25 to 65 and retires. Person B has worked until retirement. They were never unemployed, which is a term that specifically means someone who does not have a job and is actively looking for one. This person has worked until retirement, but has not worked until unemployment.

Everyone assumes they are going to be Person B. Many will end up being Person A.
The difference is that Person A took an optional two year sabbatical for no reason. There is absolutely no circumstance, barring disability, where Person A should want to work and not work. Person A should've gotten that part-time job you speak of two years earlier rather than standing around like a fool, and therefore would've "worked until retirement," by your definition. Walmart and McDonalds are always hiring.

That being said, I would still say that Person A, even with the two year gap, DID "work until retirement," by my definition. I mean, Person B didn't go to work every single day from age 25 to age 65. You're allowed to miss days and still have "worked until retirement."
davidsorensen32
Posts: 459
Joined: Wed Jul 24, 2013 9:57 am

Re: Working till retirement is not a great plan

Post by davidsorensen32 »

10. Start a gofundme page and raise $1M and sue the corporations that practice such discrimination. We just need 1 big victory against a big corporation and establish solid precedence for the others to stop doing this. The complete lack of protest from the victims has emboldened corporation to practice extreme age discrimination. It is real and it is rife. In my career *EVERY* corporation I've worked for has "voluntary separation packages" for those age 50 and above. And when they don't take the package, they are laid off after a few months. If every poster on this board contributed $1,000 to pooling funds for a lawsuit, we could easily raise $1M and hire some serious lawyers and go after it. Hell, the gofundme page will probably raise millions more. It is really hurting a lot of us. Without lawsuits this won't change.
KlangFool wrote: Fri Mar 23, 2018 9:02 am Folks,

Please adjust my numbers accordingly dependent on your own circumstances.

1) Do not assume that you will be fully-employed continuously until retirement age. Make a reasonable assumption and save a fixed percentage of your gross income. I have no job security. I save 30+%. You should decide a number that works for you.

2) LBYM.

3) Contribute as much as possible to your Trad. 401K and put the tax savings into Roth IRAs. That will build up your portfolio as soon as possible. Then, you can deal with short-term unemployment plus any financial emergency.

4) To all, do not overpay for your college education and your children college education. For lower income, do not overspend on the car. For higher income, do not overspend on the house. Once you are committed to those debts, it is hard to get out of those debts.

5) Do not be naive and assume that the employer will take care of you.

6) People hire people. My location was shut down and outsourced to India. We have a good team. We helped each other looking for jobs and we still stay in touch after 10+ years. My former boss still takes care of me after all this while. Some people are helpful. Meanwhile, others are not.

7) People help people. Pay it forward when you have a job. You may need a favor from that person when you are looking for a job.

8) Watch out for "black hole": everything goes in and nothing comes out. Some folks only want help but do nothing in return. Not even a simple thank you and/or keep you in the loop. Stop wasting your time with "black hole".

9) Say "Please" and "Thank You" regularly. Be appreciative.

KlangFool
ThriftyPhD
Posts: 870
Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2017 10:43 am

Re: Working till retirement is not a great plan

Post by ThriftyPhD »

I think there is a risk of getting too caught up in pedantry here.

The premise of the thread is that you may not be able to work at your chosen profession and level of compensation uninterrupted until a time of your choosing to retire.
Snowjob wrote: Thu Mar 22, 2018 1:19 pm I wouldn't bank on keeping ones current job and salary level till you reach a ripe old age of your choosing.
I doubt an engineer who is laid off at 55, unable to find work in their profession for a couple years, and forced to take McJob, is following their plan. You may consider that as 'worked until retired', but I would consider that as unemployed at 55 and forced to work part time until retired.

Even without the two year gap, someone who went from $150k/yr engineer to an entry level part time retail gig didn't 'work until retired' in my definition, nor in the spirit of this thread.

You can say every single person works until they retire, if you define 'retire' as the day after they work their last day. But then the idea and the terms lose a lot of meaning.

The engineer did not retire from their profession, they were unemployed.
CurlyDave
Posts: 2383
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2016 11:37 am

Re: Working till retirement is not a great plan

Post by CurlyDave »

LiterallyIronic wrote: Fri Mar 23, 2018 9:55 am "Working till retirement is not a great plan" :shock:

That's exactly what retirement is. Retiring is when you stop working. There is literally no way NOT to work until retirement because you are retired when you stop working. Sure, you can take sabbaticals or whatever in the middle, but, working until retirement is really the only plan.

Planning on working until a specific age, sure, then your plan could go awry. But the title of this thread implies a better plan is to stop working sometime before retiring? Not possible. That's just retiring earlier.
I always thought that retirement was when I stopped working, but everyone here should understand that companies have a different view of it.

Your HR department has a different definition. They define retirement as when you start drawing a pension, or SS if you have no pension. Before that you are just unemployed in their view.
LiterallyIronic
Posts: 1495
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2015 10:36 am

Re: Working till retirement is not a great plan

Post by LiterallyIronic »

ThriftyPhD wrote: Fri Mar 23, 2018 11:09 am Even without the two year gap, someone who went from $150k/yr engineer to an entry level part time retail gig didn't 'work until retired' in my definition, nor in the spirit of this thread.

The engineer did not retire from their profession, they were unemployed.
Whether or not that engineer "worked until they retired" or whatever, if that engineer allowed their expenses to get too high to be covered by the entry level job, they screwed themselves over, in my opinion. They allowed their lifestyle to inflate in such a way that they couldn't deflate it to be covered by the retail job. That engineer should've been prepared to lose their $150k job at any moment and have to replace it with a minimum wage job. If they didn't, I have a hard time sympathizing with them.

That's the spirit of this thread. Always be prepared for a drop to minimum wage income at any time.
Texanbybirth
Posts: 1433
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 12:07 pm

Re: Working till retirement is not a great plan

Post by Texanbybirth »

JBTX wrote: Fri Mar 23, 2018 10:15 am
KlangFool wrote: Fri Mar 23, 2018 9:02 am Folks,

Please adjust my numbers accordingly dependent on your own circumstances.

1) Do not assume that you will be fully-employed continuously until retirement age. Make a reasonable assumption and save a fixed percentage of your gross income. I have no job security. I save 30+%. You should decide a number that works for you.

2) LBYM.

3) Contribute as much as possible to your Trad. 401K and put the tax savings into Roth IRAs. That will build up your portfolio as soon as possible. Then, you can deal with short-term unemployment plus any financial emergency.

4) To all, do not overpay for your college education and your children college education. For lower income, do not overspend on the car. For higher income, do not overspend on the house. Once you are committed to those debts, it is hard to get out of those debts.

5) Do not be naive and assume that the employer will take care of you.

6) People hire people. My location was shut down and outsourced to India. We have a good team. We helped each other looking for jobs and we still stay in touch after 10+ years. My former boss still takes care of me after all this while. Some people are helpful. Meanwhile, others are not.

7) People help people. Pay it forward when you have a job. You may need a favor from that person when you are looking for a job.

8) Watch out for "black hole": everything goes in and nothing comes out. Some folks only want help but do nothing in return. Not even a simple thank you and/or keep you in the loop. Stop wasting your time with "black hole".

9) Say "Please" and "Thank You" regularly. Be appreciative.

KlangFool
+1. Good advice.
+2
“The strong cannot be brave. Only the weak can be brave; and yet again, in practice, only those who can be brave can be trusted, in time of doubt, to be strong.“ - GK Chesterton
marcopolo
Posts: 4059
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2016 10:22 am

Re: Working till retirement is not a great plan

Post by marcopolo »

KlangFool wrote: Fri Mar 23, 2018 10:17 am
marcopolo wrote: Fri Mar 23, 2018 9:47 am I agree that we are somewhat limited by our own experiences. I did not say age discrimination does not exist. I said that often we blame age discrimination when other factors are at play.

I would ask you a few questions:

1) What would be the motivation for a company to base hiring/firing decision based on age?

2) What you often hear is that some company laid off number of older, higher paid workers in favor of younger cheaper workers, so it must be age discrimination.
Do you believe companies have an obligation to pay older workers more for doing the same job as younger workers. Substitute older/younger with men/women. Does the same argument apply?

3) When a company decides it needs to make staffing changes due to economic reasons, and does in a way that fills/retains positions in the most cost effective way, why do we attribute it to some deep seated antagonism towards older workers?
marcopolo,

<<1) What would be the motivation for a company to base hiring/firing decision based on age?>>

A) People hire people. What would the reason why some employer only hire from certain race, religion, gender? It is the same here. If you have an employer that only fill with younger people, they do not believe that the older folks will fit in.

B) The employer assumes that the older employer will ask for higher pay. So, they just do not look at their resume at all.

C) The younger hiring manager is afraid of the competition present by the older worker.

<<2) What you often hear is that some company laid off number of older, higher paid workers in favor of younger cheaper workers, so it must be age discrimination.>>

It is wrong to assume that the younger worker can do the same job productively. Ditto, it is wrong to assume that the older worker can do the same job productively. When we assume something instead of judging a person by their own merit, we are doing profiling. We are discriminating.

Substitute younger and older with gender, racial, or religious background. You will clearly say that it is discrimination. So, there is no difference here.

<<3) When a company decides it needs to make staffing changes due to economic reasons, and does in a way that fills/retains positions in the most cost effective way, why do we attribute it to some deep seated antagonism towards older workers?>>

You just make an age discrimination statement. Why do you ASSUME that laying off older worker is cost-effective?

A) At my new employer, I am working on a XaaS project that had been stuck for 10 months. Nobody can fix it. Then, I show up and fix it in less than 2 months. This particular project is worth several million to my employer.

B) At my previous employer, I had saved several projects that were stuck for months to a year. But, I was laid off instead of any other less productive employees.

KlangFool

My experience (again, admittedly limited) has been that there are a wide range of productivity across workers at every age band. Why would you assume older workers are necessarily more productive?

Every layoff i have observed (again limited) has had people across the age spectrum affected. That because there is there are less productive (relative to compensation) across all age groups. Some younger people get let go because they have less experience/capability than an older colleague, some older people get let go because they are not providing the value for the compensation then get. I don't hear the younger worker claiming age discrimination because he naturally has less experience/capability at a younger age, why do we assume it is age discrimination because the older worker has higher pay at an older age?

You completely misunderstood my point about substituting men/women for older/younger. Society is coming around to the idea that it is discriminatory to pay men more for the same work that women are doing. So, why would we insist that companies should pay older workers more for the same work that younger workers are doing. If anything, that seems discriminatory to younger workers.

The remedy is to keep skills current, learn new ones, and make yourself valuable. That will not guarantee against job loss at any age, but does improve your odds. The days of guaranteed life-long employment have been over for some time, and that is true at any age.

Just because you are paranoid, does not mean people aren't out to get you, but always thinking everyone is out to get you does not seem like a happy way to go through life either.
Last edited by marcopolo on Fri Mar 23, 2018 11:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
Once in a while you get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right.
KlangFool
Posts: 19713
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2008 12:35 pm

Re: Working till retirement is not a great plan

Post by KlangFool »

ThriftyPhD wrote: Fri Mar 23, 2018 11:09 am I think there is a risk of getting too caught up in pedantry here.

The premise of the thread is that you may not be able to work at your chosen profession and level of compensation uninterrupted until a time of your choosing to retire.
Snowjob wrote: Thu Mar 22, 2018 1:19 pm I wouldn't bank on keeping ones current job and salary level till you reach a ripe old age of your choosing.
I doubt an engineer who is laid off at 55, unable to find work in their profession for a couple years, and forced to take McJob, is following their plan. You may consider that as 'worked until retired', but I would consider that as unemployed at 55 and forced to work part time until retired.

Even without the two year gap, someone who went from $150k/yr engineer to an entry level part time retail gig didn't 'work until retired' in my definition, nor in the spirit of this thread.

You can say every single person works until they retire, if you define 'retire' as the day after they work their last day. But then the idea and the terms lose a lot of meaning.

The engineer did not retire from their profession, they were unemployed.
ThriftyPhD,

<<The engineer did not retire from their profession, they were unemployed.>>

May I suggest the following:

The engineer did not retire from their profession, they were under-employed.

KlangFool
3funder
Posts: 1564
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2017 9:35 pm

Re: Working till retirement is not a great plan

Post by 3funder »

Anyone have a better plan? Also, my father worked for IBM. No one tried to force him out.
Global stocks, US bonds, and time.
grayfox
Posts: 5569
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:30 am

Re: Working till retirement is not a great plan

Post by grayfox »

KlangFool wrote: Fri Mar 23, 2018 9:02 am Folks,

Please adjust my numbers accordingly dependent on your own circumstances.

1) Do not assume that you will be fully-employed continuously until retirement age. Make a reasonable assumption and save a fixed percentage of your gross income. I have no job security. I save 30+%. You should decide a number that works for you.

2) LBYM.

3) Contribute as much as possible to your Trad. 401K and put the tax savings into Roth IRAs. That will build up your portfolio as soon as possible. Then, you can deal with short-term unemployment plus any financial emergency.

4) To all, do not overpay for your college education and your children college education. For lower income, do not overspend on the car. For higher income, do not overspend on the house. Once you are committed to those debts, it is hard to get out of those debts.

5) Do not be naive and assume that the employer will take care of you.

6) People hire people. My location was shut down and outsourced to India. We have a good team. We helped each other looking for jobs and we still stay in touch after 10+ years. My former boss still takes care of me after all this while. Some people are helpful. Meanwhile, others are not.

7) People help people. Pay it forward when you have a job. You may need a favor from that person when you are looking for a job.

8) Watch out for "black hole": everything goes in and nothing comes out. Some folks only want help but do nothing in return. Not even a simple thank you and/or keep you in the loop. Stop wasting your time with "black hole".

9) Say "Please" and "Thank You" regularly. Be appreciative.

KlangFool
:thumbsup KlangFool speaks the truth.
mptfan
Posts: 6404
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 9:58 am

Re: Working till retirement is not a great plan

Post by mptfan »

marcopolo wrote: Fri Mar 23, 2018 11:31 amSociety is coming around to the idea that it is discriminatory to pay men more for the same work that women are doing.
It is also "discriminatory" to pay one person more than another based on more experience, or more education, or for any other reason. Every hiring decision based on distinctions between candidates is discrimination by defintion of the word. To discriminate is to "recognize a distinction, or differentiate."
Last edited by mptfan on Fri Mar 23, 2018 11:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
mptfan
Posts: 6404
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 9:58 am

Re: Working till retirement is not a great plan

Post by mptfan »

ThriftyPhD wrote: Fri Mar 23, 2018 11:09 am The premise of the thread is that you may not be able to work at your chosen profession and level of compensation uninterrupted until a time of your choosing to retire.
Then say that. Don't say "you may not be able to work until retirement" if you mean "you may not be able to work at your chosen profession and level of compensation uninterrupted until a time of your choosing to retire."

Words have meaning. When you use words to mean something other than their generally accepted meaning, don't expect others to agree.
Last edited by mptfan on Fri Mar 23, 2018 11:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
marcopolo
Posts: 4059
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2016 10:22 am

Re: Working till retirement is not a great plan

Post by marcopolo »

mptfan wrote: Fri Mar 23, 2018 11:41 am
marcopolo wrote: Fri Mar 23, 2018 11:31 amSociety is coming around to the idea that it is discriminatory to pay men more for the same work that women are doing.
It is also "discriminatory" to pay more based on more experience, or more education, or any other reason. Every hiring decision based on distinctions between candidates is discrimination by defintion of the word. To discriminate is to "recognize a distinction, or differentiate."
When i google "discrimination" here is what comes up. Perhaps you were unable to discriminate between the first and second definition from the context of the discussion? To clarify, i am pretty sure we were talking about the first definition, not the second.


dis·crim·i·na·tion
dəˌskriməˈnāSH(ə)n/Submit
noun
1.
the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.
"victims of racial discrimination"

synonyms: prejudice, bias, bigotry, intolerance, narrow-mindedness, unfairness, inequity, favoritism, one-sidedness, partisanship; More
2.
recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another.
"discrimination between right and wrong"
Once in a while you get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right.
mptfan
Posts: 6404
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 9:58 am

Re: Working till retirement is not a great plan

Post by mptfan »

marcopolo wrote: Fri Mar 23, 2018 11:47 amTo clarify, i am pretty sure we were talking about the first definition, not the second.
Who is "we"?
KlangFool
Posts: 19713
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2008 12:35 pm

Re: Working till retirement is not a great plan

Post by KlangFool »

marcopolo wrote: Fri Mar 23, 2018 11:31 am
You completely misunderstood my point about substituting men/women for older/younger. Society is coming around to the idea that it is discriminatory to pay men more for the same work that women are doing. So, why would we insist that companies should pay older workers more for the same work that younger workers are doing. If anything, that seems discriminatory to younger workers.

marcopolo,

<< why would we insist that companies should pay older workers more for the same work that younger workers are doing. If anything, that seems discriminatory to younger workers.>>

A) What is the productivity of working on a problem for 10 months and get no result? Zero. So, does it matters how much this group of people gets paid?

B) What is the productivity of solving the same problem in 2 months? The pay of this person is much less than a few persons in the whole group in (A).

Why should age matters in this discussion?

KlangFool
Last edited by KlangFool on Fri Mar 23, 2018 11:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
HomerJ
Posts: 16036
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 12:50 pm

Re: Working till retirement is not a great plan

Post by HomerJ »

mptfan wrote: Fri Mar 23, 2018 10:22 am
LiterallyIronic wrote: Fri Mar 23, 2018 10:07 am
dbr wrote: Fri Mar 23, 2018 10:05 am
mptfan wrote: Fri Mar 23, 2018 10:04 am
Dinosaur Dad wrote: Fri Mar 23, 2018 8:46 amYou may be able to work until retirement,
Everyone works until retirement.
The discussion is actually about working until unemployment.
By definition, everyone works until unemployment, too.
Exactly.
Are you guys having fun derailing an interesting thread? Let's stop with the semantics game please.
KlangFool
Posts: 19713
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2008 12:35 pm

Re: Working till retirement is not a great plan

Post by KlangFool »

marcopolo wrote: Fri Mar 23, 2018 11:31 am
Just because you are paranoid, does not mean people aren't out to get you, but always thinking everyone is out to get you does not seem like a happy way to go through life either.
marcopolo,

They are not out to get me. It is not personal. The system discriminates against older people. I am just stating the reality out there.

KlangFool
JBTX
Posts: 7591
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2017 12:46 pm

Re: Working till retirement is not a great plan

Post by JBTX »

I think there may be too much focus on the topic of age discrimination. I think the broader point is there is a risk when you get later in your career that you may have a harder time finding work, you may have longer periods of unemployment or underemployment and you may have to scale back expectations. The notion that income will keep chugging upward until retirement, in some cases, will probably become less and less true.

Right now, I think the market is pretty good for most 50+ year olds, if they still have applicable skills sets and have some flexibility. But it may mean pay cuts, or going part time contract, etc.

Now at the risk of doing what I said we should do less of - there is age discrimination, to a degree, but it isn’t as simple as flat out discrimination. Sometimes the perceptions that drive the discrimation may have merit.

Older workers are more expensive, and in some cases may not be perceived to add as much value as their salary commands. That perceived value added can change on a dime. There are several times my value added has contributed to my ultimate demise, both as an employee and contractor. I tend to restructure work processes such that they are more efficient, and all of a sudden they see a much simpler process that does not command my level of compensation.

Older workers sometimes have outdated technical skills. I’ve seen many times where people my age have average or below average excel skills, and have seen several times where some younger workers have extraordinary excel skills. Of course, there are lots of exceptions on both sides, but there is enough truth to the perception that it persists.

In some places, it is expected that once you get to a certain level of experience, you should have advanced to certain levels of management. If not you are perceived as damaged goods. That may actually be true in some cases.

More experienced employees often seem more inflexible. That makes them less adaptable in today’s rapidly changing workplace.

Companies are constantly going through layoffs. Layoffs tend to focus on

First - lower performers
Second - higher paid average and even above average performers - which are likely to be older.

When companies miss an earnings expectation, that drives a reactive response to cut costs, and those costs are shoved down across department and levels. It is quite possible that departments are forced to make choices, and the older expensive workers are the best way to meet their mandated $$ savings goals.
nimo956
Posts: 814
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 6:07 pm

Re: Working till retirement is not a great plan

Post by nimo956 »

vested1 wrote: Fri Mar 23, 2018 10:00 am At the danger of being accused of having an Ayn Rand philosophy, your best defense is to continue to learn and improve, thus making yourself indispensable. There is no substitution for talent and efficiency.
I think that this sounds sensible at an individual level, but feel that it doesn't apply to the macro level. Can everyone looking for a job be indispensable? What if the economy only requires X jobs, but Y people are employed in the workforce (where Y is much larger than X)?
50% VTI / 50% VXUS
marcopolo
Posts: 4059
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2016 10:22 am

Re: Working till retirement is not a great plan

Post by marcopolo »

mptfan wrote: Fri Mar 23, 2018 11:51 am
marcopolo wrote: Fri Mar 23, 2018 11:47 amTo clarify, i am pretty sure we were talking about the first definition, not the second.
Who is "we"?
Seriously, you honestly think anyone (except maybe you) on this thread that is discussing age discrimination, is confused about whether that means simply "differentiating between people of different ages", or "treating someone unjustly based on their age"?
Once in a while you get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right.
Locked