rick81721
Lothar
US studies were included in the article. Simple case here of you only believing the studies you want and ignoring the others.
How the hell are we supposed to retire?
- Thread starter Red Mosquito
- Start date
US studies were included in the article. Simple case here of you only believing the studies you want and ignoring the others.
rick81721
Lothar
We’re talking about America
During the study period, about 12 percent of the healthy and 25.6 percent of the unhealthy retirees died. Healthy retirees who worked a year longer had an 11 percent lower risk of mortality, while unhealthy retirees who worked a year longer had a 9 percent lower mortality risk. Working a year longer had a positive impact on the study participants' .
Working longer may lead to a longer life
Working past age 65 could lead to longer life, while retiring early may be a risk factor for dying earlier, a new study indicates.www.sciencedaily.com
There are too many examples to post that back my first post .
PS here is a meta study that refutes your claim. Bottom line is it's largely dependent on personal circumstances. If you are healthy and have a stressful job, retiring early will obviously increase your chances of living longer. Unless you will try to argue that a stressful job is good for your health. 🤣
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7307664/
Last edited:
Fire Lord Jim
Well-Known Member
"The key to a good study is P hacking." FireLordJim
Hey, hey, keep it down. I need more other people retiring later and paying into SS/Medicare/Taxes longer.
GreenMachine
Well-Known Member
I established 4 posts back that there are too many circumstances to give what you’re asking.
You’re choosing to believe what you like .
As I clearly stated - and provided info from actual studies - you can make the case working longer = longer life .
If you want to ignore those studies - feel free
But I’ll leave you another one - you may want to send to that nytimes author - it even includes European studies .
And it’s from 2021
“
Now, according to the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, continuing to work in one’s early 60s seems to increase the health of men.
Researchers were able to tap into a real-world database. For a few years beginning in 2009, the Dutch government offered a tax credit to workers (across all occupations) who were age 62 if they kept working into their mid-60s. Those who chose to keep working were then tracked for a few years to measure their mortality rate. The researchers were able to use the raw data to build a model in which they could eliminate the impact of other potential reasons people might stop working, such as income level and whether they didn’t like their job.
What they found is that the odds of dying within five years dropped from 8% to 6% for men who worked from 62 to 65. In practical terms, that only added two months of longevity during that stretch, but that was just for the short period studied (from the ages of 62 to 65). The researchers note that if there is a continuing effect of working just a few more years, men who work longer could end up living an additional two years.
And good health — in one’s working years and in retirement — greatly enhances life satisfaction.”
rick81721
Lothar
You apparently do not understand the concept of meta studies. Amusing that you added another Dutch study. I thought this was about the US? 😄
ChrisG
Unapologetic Lifer for Rock and Roll
My take on "early retirement".
I just turned 56, I'm in my 30th year of teaching high school in NJ. I also did 25 years as an adjunct instructor at the local community college and will collect a modest pension from that position. I could have retired with no pension-related penalties at the end of the the last school year, so retirement is now part of the conversation in my life. I might teach 5 more years, 1 more year, or something in between.
Fortunately, I still enjoy much of what I do, and I think I'm doing well at it. I can tell you this, when I do retire from teaching, I'll be looking to get another job, and it will almost certainly be in the non-academic realm. Needless to say, I intend to spend a lot of time riding and being outdoors.
But I will be active and busy, and the image of a retiree turning into mush on the couch and being bored literally to death will be the furthest thing from my reality.
I just turned 56, I'm in my 30th year of teaching high school in NJ. I also did 25 years as an adjunct instructor at the local community college and will collect a modest pension from that position. I could have retired with no pension-related penalties at the end of the the last school year, so retirement is now part of the conversation in my life. I might teach 5 more years, 1 more year, or something in between.
Fortunately, I still enjoy much of what I do, and I think I'm doing well at it. I can tell you this, when I do retire from teaching, I'll be looking to get another job, and it will almost certainly be in the non-academic realm. Needless to say, I intend to spend a lot of time riding and being outdoors.
But I will be active and busy, and the image of a retiree turning into mush on the couch and being bored literally to death will be the furthest thing from my reality.
GreenMachine
Well-Known Member
Sorry Rick you provided nothing worthwhile into the discussion.
You jumped in with a ny times article and have followed it up with emojis and personal opinions.
GreenMachine
Well-Known Member
Perfectly stated
You can go now 55/25 - and start another pensionable career .
Good luck 👍
rick81721
Lothar
Ignoring the meta study? You posted a handful of studies to support your opinion, ignored everything else. Laughable.
Fire Lord Jim
Well-Known Member
This thread started on a question of asset allocation, and (like most MTBNJ discussions) morphed around a lot. I want to step back and take a more holistic approach.
Suppose you started saving for retirement at age 30, plan to retire at age 55, and could live to age 95. Simple math shows that you have 25 years to save, and then forty years to spend it down. Very few people could manage to save enough in 25 years for 40 years of spending.
Dad's generation retired at age 65 with a pension, and lived until age 75.
Grandpa, if he made it to age 65, died before age 70.
The idea of a long retirement is great; funding it is not so easy. What about the power of compounding? It's an illusion: everything you buy compounds as well.
But what about Social Security? Yes, it is there, but I highly recommend calculating benefits. Social Security is the most progressive tax we face. There I said it. Yes, we all pay the same percentage of wages, but the progression is on the benefit side. If you are a lifelong Mall-Wart greeter, your Social Security check will replace a pretty high percentage of your pre-retirement paycheck. If you earned a good enough paycheck to buy new Eagle cassettes every year, you may be surprised at how little Social Security you get. Here's my rule of thumb: you may have earned 10x what the cafeteria worker earned, but only gett twice the Social Security check. So Social Security will help, but will not solve the funding gap.
Another thing to consider is how to fund medical costs from retirement until age 65, when Medicare kicks in. For me, that has been ten years of buying insurance, thankfully partially subsidized by my former employer. Even after age 65, there is the problem of paying the Medicare Part B premiums until age 70 when Social Security kicks in. This could be solved with a younger spouse with family medical benefits, but is a surprise for a lot of early retirees. It also tricks people into taking Social Security earlier than what is optimal.
There was a concept of the three-legged stool: pension, savings, and Social Security. That worked so long as we didn't live long in retirement. I am proposing a new three-legged stool: Social Security, spouse does not retire, and large inheritance. Short of that, it will take more savings than you want, and more luck than you deserve.
Suppose you started saving for retirement at age 30, plan to retire at age 55, and could live to age 95. Simple math shows that you have 25 years to save, and then forty years to spend it down. Very few people could manage to save enough in 25 years for 40 years of spending.
Dad's generation retired at age 65 with a pension, and lived until age 75.
Grandpa, if he made it to age 65, died before age 70.
The idea of a long retirement is great; funding it is not so easy. What about the power of compounding? It's an illusion: everything you buy compounds as well.
But what about Social Security? Yes, it is there, but I highly recommend calculating benefits. Social Security is the most progressive tax we face. There I said it. Yes, we all pay the same percentage of wages, but the progression is on the benefit side. If you are a lifelong Mall-Wart greeter, your Social Security check will replace a pretty high percentage of your pre-retirement paycheck. If you earned a good enough paycheck to buy new Eagle cassettes every year, you may be surprised at how little Social Security you get. Here's my rule of thumb: you may have earned 10x what the cafeteria worker earned, but only gett twice the Social Security check. So Social Security will help, but will not solve the funding gap.
Another thing to consider is how to fund medical costs from retirement until age 65, when Medicare kicks in. For me, that has been ten years of buying insurance, thankfully partially subsidized by my former employer. Even after age 65, there is the problem of paying the Medicare Part B premiums until age 70 when Social Security kicks in. This could be solved with a younger spouse with family medical benefits, but is a surprise for a lot of early retirees. It also tricks people into taking Social Security earlier than what is optimal.
There was a concept of the three-legged stool: pension, savings, and Social Security. That worked so long as we didn't live long in retirement. I am proposing a new three-legged stool: Social Security, spouse does not retire, and large inheritance. Short of that, it will take more savings than you want, and more luck than you deserve.
1speed
Incredibly profound yet fantastically flawed
Very well put.
And for the record, I'm not "pro-early retirement" or "anti-working" (well, I am both of those things but not in a general theoretical sense.) I think if you are one of the lucky people who really likes what you do and gain actual satisfaction, then retirement doesn't have to be your end game. I am absolutely envious of people who love what they do. My own outlook (which is the reason I have that specific tag below my username in posts) makes that impossible for me. It is what it is. But I don't think retirement has to be the point of working in general. My issue in this conversation has nothing to do with that specifically - my only issue is with the way the conclusions are presented. That could apply to anything from retirement to a paper demonstrating the (clearly correct) conclusion that people who mount toilet paper rolls so you have to pull from the bottom are psychopaths - if you claim the data supports it when it can't, you're doing science and people who may reaqd what you write or hear what you say a disservice. So I wasn't even trying to be smarmy (well, not entirely smarmy) when I said "Keep working". Honestly, if you enjoy what you do more than you'd enjoy not doing it, then ... keep doing it as long as they let you. If you don't and you find yourself in the position where you don't have to do it anymore, I'd ignore any statements about dying early if you quit. In the end, even if that is actually true, it's also true that you are, to a large degree, an N of 1, and your own fate is probabilistically unknowable wthout accounting for all the things that make you an individual. Statistics are very helpful to get a broad picture but they almost always fail miserably on the individual scale. So do your needful and don't get too caught up in arguments to either side of when you personally should retire.
GreenMachine
Well-Known Member
“I am proposing a new three-legged stool: Social Security, spouse does not retire, and large inheritance.”
😆
😆
ekuhn
Well-Known Member
This!
I'll present my wife with these two options and then report back.
price of milk in 1995 $2.50
S&P500 in 1995 $495
monthly cable bill may be tracking it tho.
goods and materials don't compound like money.
we become more efficient at making/growing because of competition.
not sure how to net this out tho.....
S&P500 in 1995 $495
monthly cable bill may be tracking it tho.
goods and materials don't compound like money.
we become more efficient at making/growing because of competition.
not sure how to net this out tho.....
Last edited:
rick81721
Lothar
I don't understand this statement. Why wouldn't it work regardless how long you live in retirement? Unless you mean minimal savings (i.e. not a substantial IRA).
I think both of you could take a guess at how long you will live, use a decent investment return, and inflation numbers,
and plot the graph -
will discretionary spending naturally go down as you get older - while non-discretionary goes up?
ie Rick will stop coming back to nj, vs Jim will start paying someone to fell trees.....
I guess we should actually talk about maintaining most of pre-retirement lifestyle ?
That is what we all need to afford as long as we "can"
Fire Lord Jim
Well-Known Member
Using a rule of thumb with prices doubling approximately every ten years, inflation eats away purchasing power. Easier to afford for five years than for 45 years.
Uh, no?
How can you possibly assert that conclusion? The math is shockingly simple. There's about 1000 factors that go into that calculation. Unless the theoretical person is not investing at all and just saving cash, then yeah....not gonna happen. Plus the fact you can easily have a paid off house making spending drop way down in retirement.
I've softened my goal of ER being I'm now in a company I enjoy going to work for but I'm still aiming in the 50-55 range. Having a pension now make saving for that goal stupid easy too. Probably going to max my wife's 403b when she finishes grad school too. The math says we'll have too much money in retirement after 25 years. Our withdrawal rate will be in the 2.5-3% range which the trinity study confirms is all but a lock to survive. We own our cars, have a crazy low interest rate on our mortgage and don't spend frivolously on stuff we don't care about. We're the millennials everyone blames for killing industries and it's great.