The Power of Working Longer

Discuss all general (i.e. non-personal) investing questions and issues, investing news, and theory.
Post Reply
alfaspider
Posts: 4816
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 4:44 pm

Re: The Power of Working Longer

Post by alfaspider »

AlwaysLearningMore wrote: Sun Feb 07, 2021 2:06 pm Do we, as a society, need to start adjusting our idea of what retirement looks like?

"I think that’s right. But if you have any kind of historical context, where the hell did the idea of retirement come from? That’s a very modern idea. It used to be you contributed as long as you could. When 90 percent of the population was working in agriculture, everybody worked. I think retirement is going to fade. We’re going to think of it as a period of time when there was a need to get elderly people to retire so that younger people could take their place in the industrial society. And as the economy changed, and as the demographics changed and there was a need for elderly people to stay productive, retirement disappeared." Zvi Bodie, BU Today July 7, 2020
Before the industrial era, what we think of as "retirement" was a state primarily reserved for the upper class. The landed gentry and nobility did not work, and in fact it was considered unseemly for them to do so. That doesn't mean that the upper classes just sat around doing nothing all day, but that they didn't work in a field or in commerce. They could do things like practice law, but weren't supposed to be paid for it (hence the old tradition of a pocket in the back of barrister's robes so money could be slipped in without them having to put their hand out).

I think what the FIRE crowd are looking for is a state akin to how the gentry used to live. They had the leeway to write novels, or take a few legal cases, or race horses, or travel, or play in politics, or whatever pursuit interested them without having to worry about their sustenance. I doubt the fact that one CAN work in a 9-5 office job your entire life means that it will become commonplace. Most people would prefer to the freedom to do otherwise if they have the means.

Outside of that, a huge portion of the population still works in jobs that are physically demanding, and don't really have the option of working their entire lives. Few octogenarians are going to have the strength and stamina to work construction.
SR II
Posts: 474
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2014 7:37 pm

Re: The Power of Working Longer

Post by SR II »

cheese_breath wrote: Wed Feb 03, 2021 1:17 pm
Cheez-It Guy wrote: Wed Feb 03, 2021 1:14 pm But I don't want to work longer.
+1 The power if not working longer is longer retirement. And retire is what I did as soon as I could afford it.
Totally agree! You won’t get that time back after you retire! I, too, retired as soon as I could afford it...and not a few months closer to death!
sailaway
Posts: 8215
Joined: Fri May 12, 2017 1:11 pm

Re: The Power of Working Longer

Post by sailaway »

alfaspider wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 1:32 pm

I think what the FIRE crowd are looking for is a state akin to how the gentry used to live. They had the leeway to write novels, or take a few legal cases, or race horses, or travel, or play in politics, or whatever pursuit interested them without having to worry about their sustenance. I doubt the fact that one CAN work in a 9-5 office job your entire life means that it will become commonplace. Most people would prefer to the freedom to do otherwise if they have the means.
I prefer the term "of independent means." Gentry implies land and class, where as "of independent means," always seems to be used more vaguely, almost an air of mystery. Unless some old biddy suddenly spells out one of the rumors floating around.
JustinR
Posts: 1451
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:43 pm

Re: The Power of Working Longer

Post by JustinR »

afan wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 12:07 pm
JustinR wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 8:47 am
Just curious, how old are you?
No direct answer.

Old enough that I could retire. Young enough that I anticipate a long working career ahead of me.

What does the age of one person on here have to do with changing jobs vs retiring in response to job dissatisfaction? Or what retirement may have meant in years past?
Because "everyone should find their passion job and work for fun as long as possible because otherwise life is meaningless" is classic boomer mentality.

You can see this exact pattern time and time again in other threads about FIRE. It's based on the traditional values your generation grew up with. Young people don't think like this.

You proved my theory right. Don't you think it's weird that I knew right away how old you were based on your posts? Think about it. It's cliche "traditional values" type of thinking.
Last edited by JustinR on Mon Feb 08, 2021 2:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
JoeRetire
Posts: 15381
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2018 1:44 pm

Re: The Power of Working Longer

Post by JoeRetire »

rockstar wrote: Sun Feb 07, 2021 6:01 pm The system is rigged to keep us working as long as possible.
Sorry, that makes no sense. Many people stop working before they must.
This isn't just my wallet. It's an organizer, a memory and an old friend.
J295
Posts: 3403
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 10:40 pm

Re: The Power of Working Longer

Post by J295 »

JustinR wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 2:13 pm
afan wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 12:07 pm
JustinR wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 8:47 am
Just curious, how old are you?
No direct answer.

Old enough that I could retire. Young enough that I anticipate a long working career ahead of me.

What does the age of one person on here have to do with changing jobs vs retiring in response to job dissatisfaction? Or what retirement may have meant in years past?
Because "everyone should find their passion job and work for fun as long as possible because otherwise life is meaningless" is classic boomer mentality.

You can see this exact pattern time and time again in other threads about FIRE. It's based on the traditional values your generation grew up with. Young people don't think like this.

You proved my theory right. Don't you think it's weird that I knew right away how old you were based on your posts? Think about it. It's cliche "traditional values" type of thinking.
Justin. That’s really interesting. I’m 61 now so I suppose I would be a boomer.

I transitioned away from my law partnership at age 53, which was actually a few years later than planned because of the great recession. As I reflect on your comments. I’m reminded that I’m one of a few colleagues my age in our community (in any business or profession). And interestingly it seems others that might be similarly situated had no interest in pursuing that option. We had enough money and didn’t need anymore so leaving in my peak earning years was not material. That’s just background, because I have a question for you.

When you say young people don’t think like this, how do they think about jobs and retirement in the like? And what age group generally are you speaking about. Thank you.
User avatar
JoeRetire
Posts: 15381
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2018 1:44 pm

Re: The Power of Working Longer

Post by JoeRetire »

afan wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 1:17 pm
smitcat wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 12:48 pm Yes it could , and it could lead to less draw as well.
It might reduce draw as fewer people accumulate enough credits to qualify at all, or those who qualify are entitled to lower benefits due to shorter work lives and lower income. But SS heavily weights the low end of compensation, with higher earnings contributing relatively more to the trust fund but relatively less in the way of benefits for the earners. The trustees generally model recessions as making the system weaker, not stronger.
It could reduce draw as more people already collecting social security die disproportionally.
This isn't just my wallet. It's an organizer, a memory and an old friend.
User avatar
willthrill81
Posts: 32250
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 2:17 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The Power of Working Longer

Post by willthrill81 »

bligh wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 2:46 pm
alfaspider wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 2:31 pm
bligh wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 2:11 pm
Keynes famously predicted we could be working 15 hour work weeks. I think we are seeing a variation of that. Instead of working 15 hour work weeks for 45 years careers, people are instead working 40+ hour work weeks for 30 year careers.
Setting that aside, Keynes could have been right if more people were content with the standard of living that was typical of his time.
For sure.

You just have to look at the difference in the size of the average home between 1950 and throw in the decrease in the size of the average household to see its real impact.

People on this very forum would describe those retiring to live at a 1950s middle class standard of living as choosing to live in poverty: 950sqft house, 1 car (with 1950s level of technology if that was possible), No cell phone, no internet, no cable (use OTA channels), no computers/iPads.

If you were content to live at an approximately 1950s standard of living you could probably get away with a Mr. Money Mustache style LeanFIRE type of setup. There are however 3 things that have gotten much more expensive for the middle class family since the 1950s. Housing, Education and Healthcare.
:thumbsup

The inflation-adjusted cost per sq. ft. of housing is nearly identical to what it was in 1970 and maybe even earlier. What has changed is that the median newly built home has doubled in size relative to the size of the median U.S. household size. Considering the amount spent on housing, if Americans consumed the same housing space that they did ~50 years ago, that would free up 15-20% of their net pay for savings, more than enough in addition to what is already being saved to provide for a very comfortable retirement, even if forward returns are lower than historic returns.
The Sensible Steward
User avatar
JoeRetire
Posts: 15381
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2018 1:44 pm

Re: The Power of Working Longer

Post by JoeRetire »

JustinR wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 2:13 pm Because "everyone should find their passion job and work for fun as long as possible because otherwise life is meaningless" is classic boomer mentality.

You can see this exact pattern time and time again in other threads about FIRE. It's based on the traditional values your generation grew up with. Young people don't think like this.

You proved my theory right. Don't you think it's weird that I knew right away how old you were based on your posts? Think about it. It's cliche "traditional values" type of thinking.
- classic boomer mentality
- your generation
- young people don't think like this

I love it when people stereotype folks according to their (assumed) age... :oops:
This isn't just my wallet. It's an organizer, a memory and an old friend.
User avatar
bligh
Posts: 1533
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2016 9:13 pm

Re: The Power of Working Longer

Post by bligh »

afan wrote: Sun Feb 07, 2021 10:14 am
cheese_breath wrote: Sun Feb 07, 2021 9:18 am
afan wrote: Sun Feb 07, 2021 9:06 am
cheese_breath wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 7:25 pm
afan wrote: Sat Feb 06, 2021 6:59 pm....
But the big advantages remain: the longer you work, the later you begin to draw on those
savings. The shorter your retirement, the shorter the time your savings need to last.
And the less time you have left to enjoy those savings. What dollar price does one put on a year of one's life?
Not following you. In order to work, one must be alive. I am suggesting that one is financially better by continuing to work. I am not proposing that one commit suicide. So how does the price a year of life enter into it?
Unless we really enjoy our work, we trade part of our life for money every year we work. Hopefully we eventually reach a point where we've accumulated enough to stop trading . So how much do you need to earn to continue trading even though you don't need to?
Again. You are not trading your life for work. You are still alive. You are alive and working. You are every bit as alive while working as you would be if retired. Otherwise, no one would pay you.

I can understand the assertion that one prefers leisure to work, but I don't get the claim that one is not alive.
If you are unable to do what you want with your time, you are losing that time. Assuming there is something else you would rather be doing, but you are forced to work instead (to pay your bills), that is time you are not getting back. It is lost time. Yes you are technically alive, but you are not getting to live that life in a way you wanted. For example, I refer to the summer of 2020 as the "lost summer". Yes I was around at the time, and it was indeed summer, but I didn't really get to do the things I normally would do during summer due to Covid and the associated travel restrictions. (I had to cancel my travel plans)

Think of an extreme example of this to see the point being made, if someone were to force you into solitary confinement for 5 years in a jail cell, would you then come out and say "I was alive those 5 years, I didn't lose anything at all", or would you be more likely to say "I just lost 5 years of my life".

Yes that is an extreme example, but it illustrates the point .. it is about doing the things you want to do with your time. If you spend 1 year of your life doing something you didn't want to do (but because you have to), then that is 1 year of your life you wont be spending on something you WANT to spend it on. You didn't get to choose.
flyingaway
Posts: 3908
Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2014 9:19 am

Re: The Power of Working Longer

Post by flyingaway »

Yes. I just lost one year to pandemic, I know that other people do not see it the same way.
alfaspider
Posts: 4816
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 4:44 pm

Re: The Power of Working Longer

Post by alfaspider »

bligh wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 2:46 pm
alfaspider wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 2:31 pm
bligh wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 2:11 pm
Keynes famously predicted we could be working 15 hour work weeks. I think we are seeing a variation of that. Instead of working 15 hour work weeks for 45 years careers, people are instead working 40+ hour work weeks for 30 year careers.
Setting that aside, Keynes could have been right if more people were content with the standard of living that was typical of his time.
For sure.

You just have to look at the difference in the size of the average home between 1950 and throw in the decrease in the size of the average household to see its real impact.

People on this very forum would describe those retiring to live at a 1950s middle class standard of living as choosing to live in poverty: 950sqft house, 1 car (with 1950s level of technology if that was possible), No cell phone, no internet, no cable (use OTA channels), no computers/iPads.

If you were content to live at an approximately 1950s standard of living you could probably get away with a Mr. Money Mustache style LeanFIRE type of setup. There are however 3 things that have gotten much more expensive for the middle class family since the 1950s. Housing, Education and Healthcare.
The hard part is you can't just go back to the way things were and save money. If you can find a house with 1950s level amenities and size, it's probably not in a great neighborhood or in good condition. You can't save money by buying a car with no emissions controls or air conditioning. Going without internet means doing without a lot of basic services these days- things that used to be done in person can sometimes now only be done online. Even if you don't care about keeping up with the "Jonses", the collective decisions of the Joneses impacts you by changing the nature of the housing stock on the market and the social expectations of your communications.
ncbill
Posts: 2053
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2008 4:03 pm
Location: Western NC

Re: The Power of Working Longer

Post by ncbill »

alfaspider wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 1:32 pm
AlwaysLearningMore wrote: Sun Feb 07, 2021 2:06 pm Do we, as a society, need to start adjusting our idea of what retirement looks like?

"I think that’s right. But if you have any kind of historical context, where the hell did the idea of retirement come from? That’s a very modern idea. It used to be you contributed as long as you could. When 90 percent of the population was working in agriculture, everybody worked. I think retirement is going to fade. We’re going to think of it as a period of time when there was a need to get elderly people to retire so that younger people could take their place in the industrial society. And as the economy changed, and as the demographics changed and there was a need for elderly people to stay productive, retirement disappeared." Zvi Bodie, BU Today July 7, 2020
Before the industrial era, what we think of as "retirement" was a state primarily reserved for the upper class. The landed gentry and nobility did not work, and in fact it was considered unseemly for them to do so. That doesn't mean that the upper classes just sat around doing nothing all day, but that they didn't work in a field or in commerce. They could do things like practice law, but weren't supposed to be paid for it (hence the old tradition of a pocket in the back of barrister's robes so money could be slipped in without them having to put their hand out).

I think what the FIRE crowd are looking for is a state akin to how the gentry used to live. They had the leeway to write novels, or take a few legal cases, or race horses, or travel, or play in politics, or whatever pursuit interested them without having to worry about their sustenance. I doubt the fact that one CAN work in a 9-5 office job your entire life means that it will become commonplace. Most people would prefer to the freedom to do otherwise if they have the means.

Outside of that, a huge portion of the population still works in jobs that are physically demanding, and don't really have the option of working their entire lives. Few octogenarians are going to have the strength and stamina to work construction.
Same for retirement...the tradeoff for those working to 75 and pocketing more money is that statistically they won't be as physically able in retirement as those retiring at 55.
User avatar
MrBobcat
Posts: 1292
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2019 4:19 pm

Re: The Power of Working Longer

Post by MrBobcat »

willthrill81 wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 2:55 pm
bligh wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 2:46 pm
alfaspider wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 2:31 pm
bligh wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 2:11 pm
Keynes famously predicted we could be working 15 hour work weeks. I think we are seeing a variation of that. Instead of working 15 hour work weeks for 45 years careers, people are instead working 40+ hour work weeks for 30 year careers.
Setting that aside, Keynes could have been right if more people were content with the standard of living that was typical of his time.
For sure.

You just have to look at the difference in the size of the average home between 1950 and throw in the decrease in the size of the average household to see its real impact.

People on this very forum would describe those retiring to live at a 1950s middle class standard of living as choosing to live in poverty: 950sqft house, 1 car (with 1950s level of technology if that was possible), No cell phone, no internet, no cable (use OTA channels), no computers/iPads.

If you were content to live at an approximately 1950s standard of living you could probably get away with a Mr. Money Mustache style LeanFIRE type of setup. There are however 3 things that have gotten much more expensive for the middle class family since the 1950s. Housing, Education and Healthcare.
:thumbsup

The inflation-adjusted cost per sq. ft. of housing is nearly identical to what it was in 1970 and maybe even earlier. What has changed is that the median newly built home has doubled in size relative to the size of the median U.S. household size. Considering the amount spent on housing, if Americans consumed the same housing space that they did ~50 years ago, that would free up 15-20% of their net pay for savings, more than enough in addition to what is already being saved to provide for a very comfortable retirement, even if forward returns are lower than historic returns.
Exactly, that's why I live in a 60yo house and why 2 of my kids bought 70yo houses... way easier on the monthly paycheck as the footprint is small. No master baths, small bedrooms and small closets.
afan
Posts: 8193
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 4:01 pm

Re: The Power of Working Longer

Post by afan »

JustinR wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 2:13 pm
afan wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 12:07 pm
JustinR wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 8:47 am
Just curious, how old are you?
No direct answer.

Old enough that I could retire. Young enough that I anticipate a long working career ahead of me.

What does the age of one person on here have to do with changing jobs vs retiring in response to job dissatisfaction? Or what retirement may have meant in years past?
Because "everyone should find their passion job and work for fun as long as possible because otherwise life is meaningless" is classic boomer mentality.

You can see this exact pattern time and time again in other threads about FIRE. It's based on the traditional values your generation grew up with. Young people don't think like this.

You proved my theory right. Don't you think it's weird that I knew right away how old you were based on your posts? Think about it. It's cliche "traditional values" type of thinking.
It should not be necessary to remind you that you don't know how old I am.
You have made a guess and are congratulating yourself for having guessed right, when in fact you have no idea.

Not the strongest of arguments. By that standard, I know your shoe size and favorite color- because I said I do.
We don't know how to beat the market on a risk-adjusted basis, and we don't know anyone that does know either | --Swedroe | We assume that markets are efficient, that prices are right | --Fama
afan
Posts: 8193
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 4:01 pm

Re: The Power of Working Longer

Post by afan »

bligh wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 3:15 pm [
Think of an extreme example of this to see the point being made, if someone were to force you into solitary confinement for 5 years in a jail cell, would you then come out and say "I was alive those 5 years, I didn't lose anything at all", or would you be more likely to say "I just lost 5 years of my life".

Yes that is an extreme example, but it illustrates the point .. it is about doing the things you want to do with your time. If you spend 1 year of your life doing something you didn't want to do (but because you have to), then that is 1 year of your life you wont be spending on something you WANT to spend it on. You didn't get to choose.
Well, neither would be accurate, so I probably would not say either of those things.

People who work, if they are not slaves, are not forced to work. Being illegal, there a fed slaves in the US.
Except for those who are nonetheless held in bondage, people who work choose to work.
One reason may be money. There are other motivations as well
We don't know how to beat the market on a risk-adjusted basis, and we don't know anyone that does know either | --Swedroe | We assume that markets are efficient, that prices are right | --Fama
interestediniras
Posts: 139
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2019 1:06 am

Re: The Power of Working Longer

Post by interestediniras »

afan wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 4:05 pm
bligh wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 3:15 pm [
Think of an extreme example of this to see the point being made, if someone were to force you into solitary confinement for 5 years in a jail cell, would you then come out and say "I was alive those 5 years, I didn't lose anything at all", or would you be more likely to say "I just lost 5 years of my life".

Yes that is an extreme example, but it illustrates the point .. it is about doing the things you want to do with your time. If you spend 1 year of your life doing something you didn't want to do (but because you have to), then that is 1 year of your life you wont be spending on something you WANT to spend it on. You didn't get to choose.
Well, neither would be accurate, so I probably would not say either of those things.

People who work, if they are not slaves, are not forced to work. Being illegal, there a fed slaves in the US.
Except for those who are nonetheless held in bondage, people who work choose to work.
One reason may be money. There are other motivations as well
This is, again, a semantic deflection that allows you to refuse to engage with the substance of the discussion. Why do you continue to persist in these semantic deflections?

Your argumentative position is the equivalent of pointing a gun at someone's head and demanding $1,000,000, and then saying, "well, he's not literally enslaved to me, he has the choice of refusing my demand." In fact, by that same logic, slaves aren't forced to work either, as they always have the choice of running away or refusing to work, even if death is the most likely outcome of those choices.

Your argument about what does or does not technically constitute harm to life is contributing literally zero value to the REAL SUBSTANCE of this discussion.
Last edited by interestediniras on Mon Feb 08, 2021 4:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
afan
Posts: 8193
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 4:01 pm

Re: The Power of Working Longer

Post by afan »

Not sure the problem is a simple as the size of homes. Many people in dense cities live in very small spaces. Availability of larger places has been getting ever more expensive in Manhattan, at least until COVID.

People could still choose smaller houses. A house built in the 1960's and not updated would be quite inexpensive compared to a more recent vintage.

Many houses are expensive because the land is costly, even with no buildings on it. Yes, a larger house would cost more to build if the level of finish were comparable. One can find lower cost housing, in lower cost areas, for far less than a penthouse on 5th avenue.
We don't know how to beat the market on a risk-adjusted basis, and we don't know anyone that does know either | --Swedroe | We assume that markets are efficient, that prices are right | --Fama
afan
Posts: 8193
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 4:01 pm

Re: The Power of Working Longer

Post by afan »

interestediniras wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 4:10 pm [
This is, again, a semantic deflection that allows you to refuse to engage with the substance of the discussion. Why do you continue to persist in these semantic deflections?

Your argumentative position is the equivalent of pointing a gun at someone's head and demanding $1,000,000, and then saying, "well, he's not literally enslaved to me, he has the choice of refusing my demand." In fact, by that same logic, slaves aren't forced to work either, as they always have the choice of running away or refusing to work, even if death is the most likely outcome of those choices.

Your argument about what does or does not technically constitute harm to life is contributing literally zero value to the REAL SUBSTANCE of this discussion.
I use semantics because that is how language works. Without it, one has meaningless sequences of characters.

If one says "A" while meaning "not A". Then language has failed. Pointing out that someone who is not forced to work is not forced to work, is using language for communication. Same as noting that a job that is not killing someone is not killing someone.

Pretending that the building is on fire leads to bad decisions, unless the building really is on fire.

In this case, people are not forced to work and, for the most part, their jobs are not killing them. They may want to quit theiir jobs, but if they realize that not all jobs are fatal, they can get to the next step "I may not like my job, but that does not mean I have to stop working altogether. I can look for a different job. Since my life is not at stake, I can keep my current job while I look. No need to jump out the window to escape a non-existent fire"

Just the way one makes meaningful statements using language.
We don't know how to beat the market on a risk-adjusted basis, and we don't know anyone that does know either | --Swedroe | We assume that markets are efficient, that prices are right | --Fama
afan
Posts: 8193
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 4:01 pm

Re: The Power of Working Longer

Post by afan »

interestediniras wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 4:10 pm

Your argument about what does or does not technically constitute harm to life is contributing literally zero value to the REAL SUBSTANCE of this discussion.
Since they upset you so much, you might consider no longer reading my posts.

For those who are interested in the trade-offs of earlier or later retirement, it is helpful to be accurate about the implications.
We don't know how to beat the market on a risk-adjusted basis, and we don't know anyone that does know either | --Swedroe | We assume that markets are efficient, that prices are right | --Fama
interestediniras
Posts: 139
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2019 1:06 am

Re: The Power of Working Longer

Post by interestediniras »

afan wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 4:23 pm
interestediniras wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 4:10 pm

Your argument about what does or does not technically constitute harm to life is contributing literally zero value to the REAL SUBSTANCE of this discussion.
Since they upset you so much, you might consider no longer reading my posts.

For those who are interested in the trade-offs of earlier or later retirement, it is helpful to be accurate about the implications.
The bulk of the posters in this thread seem to have no issue understanding what's meant by the statement that a later retirement 'costs' time out of your life due to the nature of involuntary work as part of employment. I would suggest stepping back and considering whether or not you're the one missing something about the use of language here.

Everyone is communicating well, and you're stepping in and insisting: "no, your language is wrong, you're not LITERALLY shortening your lifespan!" But you're the sole person here who seems to not accept the functional equivalence between involuntary labor and a reduction in your effective lifespan. Fine. You don't have to accept it and maybe you're part of the 0.01% who enjoys the 'accomplishments' of work so much that you don't actually see employment as meaningfully trading off against time spent with family, pursuing expertise in one's hobbies, etc. Fine. You're free to structure your life as you desire and I applaud your work ethic for contributing to the growth of the S&P 500. But when you're the only person here who seems to be having this issue, I would suggest you're the one who needs to reconsider your use of language.
sailaway
Posts: 8215
Joined: Fri May 12, 2017 1:11 pm

Re: The Power of Working Longer

Post by sailaway »

interestediniras wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 4:34 pm
afan wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 4:23 pm
interestediniras wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 4:10 pm

Your argument about what does or does not technically constitute harm to life is contributing literally zero value to the REAL SUBSTANCE of this discussion.
Since they upset you so much, you might consider no longer reading my posts.

For those who are interested in the trade-offs of earlier or later retirement, it is helpful to be accurate about the implications.
The bulk of the posters in this thread seem to have no issue understanding what's meant by the statement that a later retirement 'costs' time out of your life due to the nature of involuntary work as part of employment. I would suggest stepping back and considering whether or not you're the one missing something about the use of language here.

Everyone is communicating well, and you're stepping in and insisting: "no, your language is wrong, you're not LITERALLY shortening your lifespan!" But you're the sole person here who seems to not accept the functional equivalence between involuntary labor and a reduction in your effective lifespan. Fine. You don't have to accept it and maybe you're part of the 0.01% who enjoys the 'accomplishments' of work so much that you don't actually see employment as meaningfully trading off against time spent with family, pursuing expertise in one's hobbies, etc. Fine. You're free to structure your life as you desire and I applaud your work ethic for contributing to the growth of the S&P 500. But when you're the only person here who seems to be having this issue, I would suggest you're the one who needs to reconsider your use of language.
I don't think afan is in the minority, nor the one who is deliberately misreading here.
interestediniras
Posts: 139
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2019 1:06 am

Re: The Power of Working Longer

Post by interestediniras »

sailaway wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 4:37 pm
interestediniras wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 4:34 pm
afan wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 4:23 pm
interestediniras wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 4:10 pm

Your argument about what does or does not technically constitute harm to life is contributing literally zero value to the REAL SUBSTANCE of this discussion.
Since they upset you so much, you might consider no longer reading my posts.

For those who are interested in the trade-offs of earlier or later retirement, it is helpful to be accurate about the implications.
The bulk of the posters in this thread seem to have no issue understanding what's meant by the statement that a later retirement 'costs' time out of your life due to the nature of involuntary work as part of employment. I would suggest stepping back and considering whether or not you're the one missing something about the use of language here.

Everyone is communicating well, and you're stepping in and insisting: "no, your language is wrong, you're not LITERALLY shortening your lifespan!" But you're the sole person here who seems to not accept the functional equivalence between involuntary labor and a reduction in your effective lifespan. Fine. You don't have to accept it and maybe you're part of the 0.01% who enjoys the 'accomplishments' of work so much that you don't actually see employment as meaningfully trading off against time spent with family, pursuing expertise in one's hobbies, etc. Fine. You're free to structure your life as you desire and I applaud your work ethic for contributing to the growth of the S&P 500. But when you're the only person here who seems to be having this issue, I would suggest you're the one who needs to reconsider your use of language.
I don't think afan is in the minority, nor the one who is deliberately misreading here.
You're free to explain to me why you think that "your job isn't physically chipping away at your lifespan" has any meaningful relevance to the substance of the claim that employment and involuntary consumption of time with labor functionally uses up time you could be using for higher-preference activities and that this consumption of your finite allocation of time (i.e. your lifespan) is a real and legitimate harm to be accounted for when considering the benefits of delaying retirement. To me, it just seems irrelevant. It's just a purely linguistic relabeling of the cost of remaining in the labor force. It literally doesn't matter what you call it and calling it something else is a pure distraction from the substance of the harm that people are bringing up. It contributes no value to this discussion and merely distracts from a sober consideration of benefits and harms.

Nobody is actually saying that their work is poisoning them in a way comparable to working in the coal mines, but the language they use is gesturing to a real and legitimate concept and to simply complain about the words people are using to describe the harm that they personally feel is both irrelevant and rude. It is a non-response that trivializes the lived experience of others in this thread purely because they didn't use the exact words approved by afan in describing their experienced harm.

Reading back in the thread, it seems that afan has a preference to work until they're physically incapable of doing so. Fine. Most people are not quite that obsessed with their work.
sailaway
Posts: 8215
Joined: Fri May 12, 2017 1:11 pm

Re: The Power of Working Longer

Post by sailaway »

interestediniras wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 4:46 pm
sailaway wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 4:37 pm
interestediniras wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 4:34 pm
afan wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 4:23 pm
interestediniras wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 4:10 pm

Your argument about what does or does not technically constitute harm to life is contributing literally zero value to the REAL SUBSTANCE of this discussion.
Since they upset you so much, you might consider no longer reading my posts.

For those who are interested in the trade-offs of earlier or later retirement, it is helpful to be accurate about the implications.
The bulk of the posters in this thread seem to have no issue understanding what's meant by the statement that a later retirement 'costs' time out of your life due to the nature of involuntary work as part of employment. I would suggest stepping back and considering whether or not you're the one missing something about the use of language here.

Everyone is communicating well, and you're stepping in and insisting: "no, your language is wrong, you're not LITERALLY shortening your lifespan!" But you're the sole person here who seems to not accept the functional equivalence between involuntary labor and a reduction in your effective lifespan. Fine. You don't have to accept it and maybe you're part of the 0.01% who enjoys the 'accomplishments' of work so much that you don't actually see employment as meaningfully trading off against time spent with family, pursuing expertise in one's hobbies, etc. Fine. You're free to structure your life as you desire and I applaud your work ethic for contributing to the growth of the S&P 500. But when you're the only person here who seems to be having this issue, I would suggest you're the one who needs to reconsider your use of language.
I don't think afan is in the minority, nor the one who is deliberately misreading here.
You're free to explain to me why you think that "your job isn't physically chipping away at your lifespan" has any meaningful relevance to the substance of the claim that employment and involuntary consumption of time with labor functionally uses up time you could be using for higher-preference activities and that this consumption of your finite allocation of time (i.e. your lifespan) is a real and legitimate harm to be accounted for when considering the benefits of delaying retirement. To me, it just seems irrelevant. It's just a purely linguistic relabeling of the cost of remaining in the labor force. It literally doesn't matter what you call it and calling it something else is a pure distraction from the substance of the harm that people are bringing up. It contributes no value to this discussion and merely distracts from a sober consideration of benefits and harms.

Reading back in the thread, it seems that afan has a preference to work until they're physically incapable of doing so. Fine. Most people are not quite that obsessed with their work.
The vast majority who post on bogleheads are making their current lifestyle their priority. That is their preference. We are not talking about the population that is choosing between starving and working here. If someone wants to make a choice between a high paying job for 5 years now or a different kind of experience, they will ultimately be happier if they admit that this is a choice they are making in accordance with their own preferences rather than comparing themselves to slaves, which is frankly ridiculous.
interestediniras
Posts: 139
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2019 1:06 am

Re: The Power of Working Longer

Post by interestediniras »

sailaway wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 4:53 pm
interestediniras wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 4:46 pm
sailaway wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 4:37 pm
interestediniras wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 4:34 pm
afan wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 4:23 pm

Since they upset you so much, you might consider no longer reading my posts.

For those who are interested in the trade-offs of earlier or later retirement, it is helpful to be accurate about the implications.
The bulk of the posters in this thread seem to have no issue understanding what's meant by the statement that a later retirement 'costs' time out of your life due to the nature of involuntary work as part of employment. I would suggest stepping back and considering whether or not you're the one missing something about the use of language here.

Everyone is communicating well, and you're stepping in and insisting: "no, your language is wrong, you're not LITERALLY shortening your lifespan!" But you're the sole person here who seems to not accept the functional equivalence between involuntary labor and a reduction in your effective lifespan. Fine. You don't have to accept it and maybe you're part of the 0.01% who enjoys the 'accomplishments' of work so much that you don't actually see employment as meaningfully trading off against time spent with family, pursuing expertise in one's hobbies, etc. Fine. You're free to structure your life as you desire and I applaud your work ethic for contributing to the growth of the S&P 500. But when you're the only person here who seems to be having this issue, I would suggest you're the one who needs to reconsider your use of language.
I don't think afan is in the minority, nor the one who is deliberately misreading here.
You're free to explain to me why you think that "your job isn't physically chipping away at your lifespan" has any meaningful relevance to the substance of the claim that employment and involuntary consumption of time with labor functionally uses up time you could be using for higher-preference activities and that this consumption of your finite allocation of time (i.e. your lifespan) is a real and legitimate harm to be accounted for when considering the benefits of delaying retirement. To me, it just seems irrelevant. It's just a purely linguistic relabeling of the cost of remaining in the labor force. It literally doesn't matter what you call it and calling it something else is a pure distraction from the substance of the harm that people are bringing up. It contributes no value to this discussion and merely distracts from a sober consideration of benefits and harms.

Reading back in the thread, it seems that afan has a preference to work until they're physically incapable of doing so. Fine. Most people are not quite that obsessed with their work.
The vast majority who post on bogleheads are making their current lifestyle their priority. That is their preference. We are not talking about the population that is choosing between starving and working here. If someone wants to make a choice between a high paying job for 5 years now or a different kind of experience, they will ultimately be happier if they admit that this is a choice they are making in accordance with their own preferences rather than comparing themselves to slaves, which is frankly ridiculous.
There is no inconsistency whatsoever between these three statements:

1. My job is depriving me of liberty and freedom; being employed meaningfully reduces my immediate quality of life and is a major detriment to my physical, social, and emotional well-being; the labor imposed upon me by employment feels functionally equivalent to a reduction of my lifespan
2. Remaining in this job now is the most effective and rational way to achieve the long-term goal of retirement
3. Remaining in this job longer than is necessary to accumulate enough wealth for retirement is extremely irrational
smitcat
Posts: 13304
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 9:51 am

Re: The Power of Working Longer

Post by smitcat »

sailaway wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 4:37 pm
interestediniras wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 4:34 pm
afan wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 4:23 pm
interestediniras wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 4:10 pm

Your argument about what does or does not technically constitute harm to life is contributing literally zero value to the REAL SUBSTANCE of this discussion.
Since they upset you so much, you might consider no longer reading my posts.

For those who are interested in the trade-offs of earlier or later retirement, it is helpful to be accurate about the implications.
The bulk of the posters in this thread seem to have no issue understanding what's meant by the statement that a later retirement 'costs' time out of your life due to the nature of involuntary work as part of employment. I would suggest stepping back and considering whether or not you're the one missing something about the use of language here.

Everyone is communicating well, and you're stepping in and insisting: "no, your language is wrong, you're not LITERALLY shortening your lifespan!" But you're the sole person here who seems to not accept the functional equivalence between involuntary labor and a reduction in your effective lifespan. Fine. You don't have to accept it and maybe you're part of the 0.01% who enjoys the 'accomplishments' of work so much that you don't actually see employment as meaningfully trading off against time spent with family, pursuing expertise in one's hobbies, etc. Fine. You're free to structure your life as you desire and I applaud your work ethic for contributing to the growth of the S&P 500. But when you're the only person here who seems to be having this issue, I would suggest you're the one who needs to reconsider your use of language.
I don't think afan is in the minority, nor the one who is deliberately misreading here.
Neither do I.
wrongfunds
Posts: 3187
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 2:55 pm

Re: The Power of Working Longer

Post by wrongfunds »

afan wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 12:02 pm I do my planning both assuming a benefits cut and date as projected by the Trustees and assuming no benefits at all. So far, pending a solution from the government, I don't bother to plan on receiving the full benefits currently promised.

Based on no inside information, I suspect I just might get those full benefits. But I am definitely not counting on them.
Not counting on actually receiving them but still counting on increasing the RMD taxes because of them, correct? I can bet that you do take those full benefits in to account when it comes to pre-calculating your tax bite at age 72.

Do you see the logical disconnect between these two views?
smitcat
Posts: 13304
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 9:51 am

Re: The Power of Working Longer

Post by smitcat »

wrongfunds wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 4:57 pm
afan wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 12:02 pm I do my planning both assuming a benefits cut and date as projected by the Trustees and assuming no benefits at all. So far, pending a solution from the government, I don't bother to plan on receiving the full benefits currently promised.

Based on no inside information, I suspect I just might get those full benefits. But I am definitely not counting on them.
Not counting on actually receiving them but still counting on increasing the RMD taxes because of them, correct? I can bet that you do take those full benefits in to account when it comes to pre-calculating your tax bite at age 72.

Do you see the logical disconnect between these two views?
"Not counting on actually receiving them but still counting on increasing the RMD taxes because of them, correct?"
Yes - we do that as well. For tax planning it's the logical choice for us since the downsides of doing Roth conversions and AA location is minimal but the upsides are large.

"Do you see the logical disconnect between these two views?"
See above - it is actually a good and logical plan.
sailaway
Posts: 8215
Joined: Fri May 12, 2017 1:11 pm

Re: The Power of Working Longer

Post by sailaway »

interestediniras wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 4:56 pm
sailaway wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 4:53 pm
interestediniras wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 4:46 pm
sailaway wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 4:37 pm
interestediniras wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 4:34 pm
The bulk of the posters in this thread seem to have no issue understanding what's meant by the statement that a later retirement 'costs' time out of your life due to the nature of involuntary work as part of employment. I would suggest stepping back and considering whether or not you're the one missing something about the use of language here.

Everyone is communicating well, and you're stepping in and insisting: "no, your language is wrong, you're not LITERALLY shortening your lifespan!" But you're the sole person here who seems to not accept the functional equivalence between involuntary labor and a reduction in your effective lifespan. Fine. You don't have to accept it and maybe you're part of the 0.01% who enjoys the 'accomplishments' of work so much that you don't actually see employment as meaningfully trading off against time spent with family, pursuing expertise in one's hobbies, etc. Fine. You're free to structure your life as you desire and I applaud your work ethic for contributing to the growth of the S&P 500. But when you're the only person here who seems to be having this issue, I would suggest you're the one who needs to reconsider your use of language.
I don't think afan is in the minority, nor the one who is deliberately misreading here.
You're free to explain to me why you think that "your job isn't physically chipping away at your lifespan" has any meaningful relevance to the substance of the claim that employment and involuntary consumption of time with labor functionally uses up time you could be using for higher-preference activities and that this consumption of your finite allocation of time (i.e. your lifespan) is a real and legitimate harm to be accounted for when considering the benefits of delaying retirement. To me, it just seems irrelevant. It's just a purely linguistic relabeling of the cost of remaining in the labor force. It literally doesn't matter what you call it and calling it something else is a pure distraction from the substance of the harm that people are bringing up. It contributes no value to this discussion and merely distracts from a sober consideration of benefits and harms.

Reading back in the thread, it seems that afan has a preference to work until they're physically incapable of doing so. Fine. Most people are not quite that obsessed with their work.
The vast majority who post on bogleheads are making their current lifestyle their priority. That is their preference. We are not talking about the population that is choosing between starving and working here. If someone wants to make a choice between a high paying job for 5 years now or a different kind of experience, they will ultimately be happier if they admit that this is a choice they are making in accordance with their own preferences rather than comparing themselves to slaves, which is frankly ridiculous.
There is no inconsistency whatsoever between these three statements:

1. My job is depriving me of liberty and freedom; being employed meaningfully reduces my immediate quality of life and is a major detriment to my physical, social, and emotional well-being; the labor imposed upon me by employment feels functionally equivalent to a reduction of my lifespan
2. Remaining in this job now is the most effective and rational way to achieve the long-term goal of retirement
3. Remaining in this job longer than is necessary to accumulate enough wealth for retirement is extremely irrational
Pretending like you only have two options is NOT rational. What you really want is free time with your current material lifestyle, but you keep pretending like the second one doesn't matter until you have them both. You aren't living your ideal life, we get it. You also aren't being honest about your options.

From a psychological prospective, you are in one of the two groups most likely to be miserable in retirement (those who blame their misery mostly on their job and those who can't imagine their life without their job).
User avatar
bligh
Posts: 1533
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2016 9:13 pm

Re: The Power of Working Longer

Post by bligh »

afan wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 4:05 pm
bligh wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 3:15 pm [
Think of an extreme example of this to see the point being made, if someone were to force you into solitary confinement for 5 years in a jail cell, would you then come out and say "I was alive those 5 years, I didn't lose anything at all", or would you be more likely to say "I just lost 5 years of my life".

Yes that is an extreme example, but it illustrates the point .. it is about doing the things you want to do with your time. If you spend 1 year of your life doing something you didn't want to do (but because you have to), then that is 1 year of your life you wont be spending on something you WANT to spend it on. You didn't get to choose.
Well, neither would be accurate, so I probably would not say either of those things.

People who work, if they are not slaves, are not forced to work. Being illegal, there a fed slaves in the US.
Except for those who are nonetheless held in bondage, people who work choose to work.
One reason may be money. There are other motivations as well
How would it not be accurate?

Please don't tell me you would sit at a funeral and explain to a grieving widow how they haven't "lost their loved one" because the body is right there.

...

"Your husband may be dead, you haven't exactly LOST him.... It is important to get your language right."

--------------
Btw, I just checked the dictionary and the definition supports the use of the term "I just lost 5 years of my life" in the method I used above:

not used to good purpose, as opportunities, time, or labor; wasted
Last edited by bligh on Mon Feb 08, 2021 5:45 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
bligh
Posts: 1533
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2016 9:13 pm

Re: The Power of Working Longer

Post by bligh »

sailaway wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 5:08 pm
interestediniras wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 4:56 pm
sailaway wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 4:53 pm
interestediniras wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 4:46 pm
sailaway wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 4:37 pm

I don't think afan is in the minority, nor the one who is deliberately misreading here.
You're free to explain to me why you think that "your job isn't physically chipping away at your lifespan" has any meaningful relevance to the substance of the claim that employment and involuntary consumption of time with labor functionally uses up time you could be using for higher-preference activities and that this consumption of your finite allocation of time (i.e. your lifespan) is a real and legitimate harm to be accounted for when considering the benefits of delaying retirement. To me, it just seems irrelevant. It's just a purely linguistic relabeling of the cost of remaining in the labor force. It literally doesn't matter what you call it and calling it something else is a pure distraction from the substance of the harm that people are bringing up. It contributes no value to this discussion and merely distracts from a sober consideration of benefits and harms.

Reading back in the thread, it seems that afan has a preference to work until they're physically incapable of doing so. Fine. Most people are not quite that obsessed with their work.
The vast majority who post on bogleheads are making their current lifestyle their priority. That is their preference. We are not talking about the population that is choosing between starving and working here. If someone wants to make a choice between a high paying job for 5 years now or a different kind of experience, they will ultimately be happier if they admit that this is a choice they are making in accordance with their own preferences rather than comparing themselves to slaves, which is frankly ridiculous.
There is no inconsistency whatsoever between these three statements:

1. My job is depriving me of liberty and freedom; being employed meaningfully reduces my immediate quality of life and is a major detriment to my physical, social, and emotional well-being; the labor imposed upon me by employment feels functionally equivalent to a reduction of my lifespan
2. Remaining in this job now is the most effective and rational way to achieve the long-term goal of retirement
3. Remaining in this job longer than is necessary to accumulate enough wealth for retirement is extremely irrational
Pretending like you only have two options is NOT rational. What you really want is free time with your current material lifestyle, but you keep pretending like the second one doesn't matter until you have them both. You aren't living your ideal life, we get it. You also aren't being honest about your options.

From a psychological prospective, you are in one of the two groups most likely to be miserable in retirement (those who blame their misery mostly on their job and those who can't imagine their life without their job).
I agree that voluntary employment and slavery are two very different beasts, but do you agree that work can be seen as a chore?

You want to mail a letter, you don't HAVE to mail that letter, but you want to. The catch is, you need to stand in line for one hour in the post office with no air conditioning in tropical heat to do so. You might still choose to do so, but also complain about that 1 hour spent. If you had an option, you would pick another post office where the line was 20 minutes long instead and there was air conditioning. If you find such a post office, you would be grateful that you didn't WASTE another 40 minutes on the task and were able to get it done in 20. You just saved 40 minutes of your life.

If you then met an individual later, who told you he was heading to that post office with the 1 hour lines, you might even tell him how to save 40 minutes of his time by going to this other post office with the shorter lines. If he still insists on going to the first post office, you might even tell him "hey you are throwing 40 minutes of your life away" .. even though he isn't actually going to live 40 minutes less as a result of this.
afan
Posts: 8193
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 4:01 pm

Re: The Power of Working Longer

Post by afan »

The problem with the original article is that it presents a trade-off that few if any people ever get to consider. The articles compares the effects of a lifetime savings rate versus those of working longer. But during that lifetime of saving, no one knows what their future expenses, income and investment returns will be. Consequently, they have no idea how much money they will have at the age they might contemplate retirement.
By the time one is contemplating retirement, it is too late to go back and change the lifetime savings rate.

The useful observations are obvious BH advice: If you save more throughout your working life, you will have more money later. You can use this to retire earlier or build a higher networth.

The only time one can do this comparison with real numbers is once one is close to being able to retire. THEN one can look at the effects of working longer versus retiring now. At that point, the savings rate, whatever it was, is in the past and unchangeable. The savings rate on the last year of work also hardly matters, because it is only one year.

Those who are anxious to leave the workforce have to play this game at the margins, seeking the lowest net worth that would carry them through a retirement of unknown but likely long duration. The paper does not help with that.

Many people retire not when they want to but when they have to. Either their health precludes working- at least in any job they can get- or no one will hire them. For those who retire voluntarily, i.e. they could have continued working, they have to estimate how their future expenses and income sources match. If they get it right, then they can have a comfortable retirement, at least financially. If they get it wrong and run out of money, then they are in a tough spot. They may find themselves no longer able to get a good job, or any job, having left the work force long enough.

Both groups can be sure that the longer they work, the better financial shape they will be in. Even if they save nothing in the later years, by supporting themselves with earned income, they delay the time until they have to start living on their assets.

Depending on one's feeling about risk, some people will work a relatively long time, in order to provide a large margin for error in these predictions. Others, again depending on risk tolerance, may leave the workforce as soon as their most optimistic calculations indicate it is possible. Among those who retire voluntarily- which may be a minority of workers- other factors such as enjoying their work, sense of purpose, deriving identity through work, prizing the social interaction at the workplace and so forth may also play a role.
Not being a judge, I don't know the details, but I gather that after serving a qualifying time federal judges will receive pensions equal to their salaries when they retire. In other words, no income drop at all. But many keep working long past this point. It cannot be for the money, since they do not get any more. Yet many do it for years or decades past the point where they would qualify. Some continue to serve in limited capacities with reduced case load even after that.
Clearly they do not believe that work must be avoided to any extent possible. If they felt that way, they would have retired, years or decades earlier.

Something else must be motivating them.
We don't know how to beat the market on a risk-adjusted basis, and we don't know anyone that does know either | --Swedroe | We assume that markets are efficient, that prices are right | --Fama
Grt2bOutdoors
Posts: 25625
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 8:20 pm
Location: New York

Re: The Power of Working Longer

Post by Grt2bOutdoors »

smitcat wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 1:26 pm
afan wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 1:17 pm
smitcat wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 12:48 pm Yes it could , and it could lead to less draw as well.
It might reduce draw as fewer people accumulate enough credits to qualify at all, or those who qualify are entitled to lower benefits due to shorter work lives and lower income. But SS heavily weights the low end of compensation, with higher earnings contributing relatively more to the trust fund but relatively less in the way of benefits for the earners. The trustees generally model recessions as making the system weaker, not stronger.
Unfortunately all 6 people we know personally that have died from Covid were collecting SS and/or within 2 years of collecting SS. Where our kids work the relationship between age of collecting SS and the mortality from Covid19 is virtually identical.
I do hope this does not continue for much longer.
The one person I personally know who died from
Covid was not collecting SS, but now his widow and two young kids are drawing survivor benefits and will be for some time to come.
"One should invest based on their need, ability and willingness to take risk - Larry Swedroe" Asking Portfolio Questions
interestediniras
Posts: 139
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2019 1:06 am

Re: The Power of Working Longer

Post by interestediniras »

sailaway wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 5:08 pm Pretending like you only have two options is NOT rational. What you really want is free time with your current material lifestyle, but you keep pretending like the second one doesn't matter until you have them both. You aren't living your ideal life, we get it. You also aren't being honest about your options.

From a psychological prospective, you are in one of the two groups most likely to be miserable in retirement (those who blame their misery mostly on their job and those who can't imagine their life without their job).
I'm not really sure what is so challenging to understand about my current situation? I find my job difficult, taxing, and stressful, and beyond those direct costs it also occupies time that I could otherwise spend with my family or on my personal interests. Therefore, when I am able to stop working, I will be much happier because both of those negative effects will be nullified, and the diminishing returns from accruing wealth will have grown so small that my net benefit will be very strongly positive overall. It's not rocket science and it's a calculus that likely applies to the majority of high income earners who actually have realistic prospects for early retirement.
smitcat
Posts: 13304
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 9:51 am

Re: The Power of Working Longer

Post by smitcat »

Grt2bOutdoors wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 5:35 pm
smitcat wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 1:26 pm
afan wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 1:17 pm
smitcat wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 12:48 pm Yes it could , and it could lead to less draw as well.
It might reduce draw as fewer people accumulate enough credits to qualify at all, or those who qualify are entitled to lower benefits due to shorter work lives and lower income. But SS heavily weights the low end of compensation, with higher earnings contributing relatively more to the trust fund but relatively less in the way of benefits for the earners. The trustees generally model recessions as making the system weaker, not stronger.
Unfortunately all 6 people we know personally that have died from Covid were collecting SS and/or within 2 years of collecting SS. Where our kids work the relationship between age of collecting SS and the mortality from Covid19 is virtually identical.
I do hope this does not continue for much longer.
The one person I personally know who died from
Covid was not collecting SS, but now his widow and two young kids are drawing survivor benefits and will be for some time to come.
Yes its unfortunate - the one I know that would have filed for SS next year now has to get by on her single SS benifits.
User avatar
JoeRetire
Posts: 15381
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2018 1:44 pm

Re: The Power of Working Longer

Post by JoeRetire »

afan wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 5:31 pm The problem with the original article is that it presents a trade-off that few if any people ever get to consider.
The article is based around the case of people with around 10 years remaining before their hoped-for retirement date who are faced with a shortfall in the funds needed.

It compares the choice of saving a bit more for the next 10 years versus working for a few more months.

Plenty of people get to consider similar tradeoffs.
This isn't just my wallet. It's an organizer, a memory and an old friend.
wrongfunds
Posts: 3187
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 2:55 pm

Re: The Power of Working Longer

Post by wrongfunds »

smitcat wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 5:02 pm
wrongfunds wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 4:57 pm
afan wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 12:02 pm I do my planning both assuming a benefits cut and date as projected by the Trustees and assuming no benefits at all. So far, pending a solution from the government, I don't bother to plan on receiving the full benefits currently promised.

Based on no inside information, I suspect I just might get those full benefits. But I am definitely not counting on them.
Not counting on actually receiving them but still counting on increasing the RMD taxes because of them, correct? I can bet that you do take those full benefits in to account when it comes to pre-calculating your tax bite at age 72.

Do you see the logical disconnect between these two views?
"Not counting on actually receiving them but still counting on increasing the RMD taxes because of them, correct?"
Yes - we do that as well. For tax planning it's the logical choice for us since the downsides of doing Roth conversions and AA location is minimal but the upsides are large.

"Do you see the logical disconnect between these two views?"
See above - it is actually a good and logical plan.
So you are simultaneously hedging for "having too much social security at age 72" *and at the same time, also* for "getting 30% hair cut of the social security"? Does pre-paying of the tax plan (aka Rother conversion) cover both these cases? I am not saying that is impossible because I have not run the numbers but my intuition tells me that it would be difficult to achieve.

My rationale is:- if I am mentally prepared to handle getting 30% hair cut of the social security payment then why would I care if I get 100% but end up returning *at most* 30% of that money back in extra taxes? Under no circumstances I will have to dole out more than the extra received. To put another way, I won't find myself in 10000% marginal tax rate situation. And even if I were to find myself in that particular situation, it most likely could not have been predicted precisely years ago because the underlying numbers would have changed.

I am not trying to argue for argument's sake but to make sure that we are considering everything here. I am trying to convince myself if prepaying would make sense for me if I found myself in that situation. It is NOT academic to me.
afan
Posts: 8193
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 4:01 pm

Re: The Power of Working Longer

Post by afan »

People who hate work of any kind, not just the particular jobs they have, should behave like the extreme FIRE groups. Adopt such a frugal lifestyle that they do not need much money to survive. Then save as aggressively as possible to acquire the small amount of savings they need. Then quit as soon as they reach their number.
This still requires a high level of risk tolerance, as it leaves them open to disastrous consequences if their financial plans do not work out.
I suppose a risk averse person could work until accumulating 2X their number, then retire. I wonder how many people who hate work of any kind are willing to do that. I worry that those who hate work so much that they avoid it at almost any cost may be prime victims for those running Ponzi schemes and other predatory financial types. They are highly motivated to follow someone who promises high and easy rewards without doing anything.

I feel sorry for people who find it impossible to find any gratification in work of any kind. This attitude makes life painful when it does not have to be. That is why I try to talk people out of the notion that, because they do not like the jobs they have, they cannot possibly be happy with ANY job. That seems to me more a matter of how one approaches the necessities of life.

I don't get out of bed every day excited about the prospect of taking out the trash, or having taxes deducted from my paycheck. I know both are unavoidable, so I try not to establish these in my mind as so horrible that I must end them as soon as possible. I don't tell myself that the time spent taking out the trash is life lost. I don't claim that spending even one moment doing something other than what I most want at that instant is torture. It is not. It is just life.
We don't know how to beat the market on a risk-adjusted basis, and we don't know anyone that does know either | --Swedroe | We assume that markets are efficient, that prices are right | --Fama
afan
Posts: 8193
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 4:01 pm

Re: The Power of Working Longer

Post by afan »

As for Social Security planning, when outcomes are uncertain, it is rational to plan for multiple contingencies.
I plan for the current projected benefits as reduced in 2034, or whenever, and for getting none at all. I don't bother to plan for receiving full benefits. If I am ok at 75% of promised benefits, then I will be OK at 100%. Like why I don't need to plan for high real returns on investments.

Planning for a contingency does not mean assuming it will happen.

The difference between full and 75% SS benefits would not change the Roth conversion calculation for me, so I don't bother modeling it.
We don't know how to beat the market on a risk-adjusted basis, and we don't know anyone that does know either | --Swedroe | We assume that markets are efficient, that prices are right | --Fama
interestediniras
Posts: 139
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2019 1:06 am

Re: The Power of Working Longer

Post by interestediniras »

afan wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 5:59 pm I feel sorry for people who find it impossible to find any gratification in work of any kind. This attitude makes life painful when it does not have to be. That is why I try to talk people out of the notion that, because they do not like the jobs they have, they cannot possibly be happy with ANY job. That seems to me more a matter of how one approaches the necessities of life.

I don't get out of bed every day excited about the prospect of taking out the trash, or having taxes deducted from my paycheck. I know both are unavoidable, so I try not to establish these in my mind as so horrible that I must end them as soon as possible. I don't tell myself that the time spent taking out the trash is life lost. I don't claim that spending even one moment doing something other than what I most want at that instant is torture. It is not. It is just life.
Taking out the trash:
[*] Takes 2 minutes
[*] Can be done at your leisure
[*] Not essential to prioritize
[*] Not forced upon you by others

Employment:
[*] Takes up the majority or at least plurality of your energy and non-waking hours relative to all other tasks
[*] Must be attended to regularly otherwise you will suffer disastrous consequences
[*] Forced to interact with people who you may or may not like
[*] Forced to participate in a corporate hierarchy and to receive orders from above
[*] Leaves you drained at the end of the day and less capable of emotionally or intellectually engaging with greater priorities in life (family, art, etc.)
[*] Often involves rigid schedules that impose themselves upon you, day by day, hour by hour

It's not even a remotely rational comparison.

You're welcome to find me some amazing magical job that gives me so much life fulfillment that all of those downsides appear trivial to me.

As a general rule of thumb, those don't exist, and suggesting that people should "just change jobs" is bizarre advice which implies that people haven't already rationally considered the options at hand because for some mysterious reason, you seem to know their lives better than they do.

Personally, I find it extremely disturbing when people seem to assign such low value to time with family or emotional engagement with family that some abstract notion of 'work fulfillment' suffices to keep them working longer than they need to. But props to them for boosting my stock returns.
Last edited by interestediniras on Mon Feb 08, 2021 6:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
smitcat
Posts: 13304
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 9:51 am

Re: The Power of Working Longer

Post by smitcat »

wrongfunds wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 5:49 pm
smitcat wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 5:02 pm
wrongfunds wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 4:57 pm
afan wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 12:02 pm I do my planning both assuming a benefits cut and date as projected by the Trustees and assuming no benefits at all. So far, pending a solution from the government, I don't bother to plan on receiving the full benefits currently promised.

Based on no inside information, I suspect I just might get those full benefits. But I am definitely not counting on them.
Not counting on actually receiving them but still counting on increasing the RMD taxes because of them, correct? I can bet that you do take those full benefits in to account when it comes to pre-calculating your tax bite at age 72.

Do you see the logical disconnect between these two views?
"Not counting on actually receiving them but still counting on increasing the RMD taxes because of them, correct?"
Yes - we do that as well. For tax planning it's the logical choice for us since the downsides of doing Roth conversions and AA location is minimal but the upsides are large.

"Do you see the logical disconnect between these two views?"
See above - it is actually a good and logical plan.
So you are simultaneously hedging for "having too much social security at age 72" *and at the same time, also* for "getting 30% hair cut of the social security"? Does pre-paying of the tax plan (aka Rother conversion) cover both these cases? I am not saying that is impossible because I have not run the numbers but my intuition tells me that it would be difficult to achieve.

My rationale is:- if I am mentally prepared to handle getting 30% hair cut of the social security payment then why would I care if I get 100% but end up returning *at most* 30% of that money back in extra taxes? Under no circumstances I will have to dole out more than the extra received. To put another way, I won't find myself in 10000% marginal tax rate situation. And even if I were to find myself in that particular situation, it most likely could not have been predicted precisely years ago because the underlying numbers would have changed.

I am not trying to argue for argument's sake but to make sure that we are considering everything here. I am trying to convince myself if prepaying would make sense for me if I found myself in that situation. It is NOT academic to me.
"So you are simultaneously hedging for "having too much social security at age 72" *and at the same time, also* for "getting 30% hair cut of the social security"? Does pre-paying of the tax plan (aka Rother conversion) cover both these cases? I am not saying that is impossible because I have not run the numbers but my intuition tells me that it would be difficult to achieve."

There are items variables under our control and there are variables that are not under our control. When we run our numbers across many various future scenarios we can make these observations:
- most scenarios have a positive Roth conversion outcome
- many of the Roth convert scenarios have a large positive outcome
- the few Roth convert scenarios that are negative are marginally negative
In our case the Roth conversions represent the best way to most likely optimize our 'spendable' dollars after taxes. We can control the time we elect SS, whether we Roth convert or not , when and if to take LTGC , AA's and placement and what/which accounts to leave to heirs/charities etc.
We cannot control the performance of the markets, future taxes , the future of SS etc.
YMMV
smitcat
Posts: 13304
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 9:51 am

Re: The Power of Working Longer

Post by smitcat »

interestediniras wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 6:09 pm
afan wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 5:59 pm I feel sorry for people who find it impossible to find any gratification in work of any kind. This attitude makes life painful when it does not have to be. That is why I try to talk people out of the notion that, because they do not like the jobs they have, they cannot possibly be happy with ANY job. That seems to me more a matter of how one approaches the necessities of life.

I don't get out of bed every day excited about the prospect of taking out the trash, or having taxes deducted from my paycheck. I know both are unavoidable, so I try not to establish these in my mind as so horrible that I must end them as soon as possible. I don't tell myself that the time spent taking out the trash is life lost. I don't claim that spending even one moment doing something other than what I most want at that instant is torture. It is not. It is just life.
Taking out the trash:
[*] Takes 2 minutes
[*] Can be done at your leisure
[*] Not essential to prioritize
[*] Not forced upon you by others

Employment:
[*] Takes up the majority or at least plurality of your energy and non-waking hours relative to all other tasks
[*] Must be attended to regularly otherwise you will suffer disastrous consequences
[*] Forced to interact with people who you may or may not like
[*] Forced to participate in a corporate hierarchy and to receive orders from above
[*] Leaves you drained at the end of the day and less capable of emotionally or intellectually engaging with greater priorities in life (family, art, etc.)
[*] Often involves rigid schedules that impose themselves upon you, day by day, hour by hour

It's not even a remotely rational comparison.

You're welcome to find me some amazing magical job that gives me so much life fulfillment that all of those downsides appear trivial to me.

As a general rule of thumb, those don't exist, and suggesting that people should "just change jobs" is bizarre advice which implies that people haven't already rationally considered the options at hand because for some mysterious reason, you seem to know their lives better than they do.

Personally, I find it extremely disturbing when people seem to assign such low value to time with family or emotional engagement with family that some abstract notion of 'work fulfillment' suffices to keep them working longer than they need to. But props to them for boosting my stock returns.

"Employment:
[*] Takes up the majority or at least plurality of your energy and non-waking hours relative to all other tasks
[*] Must be attended to regularly otherwise you will suffer disastrous consequences
[*] Forced to interact with people who you may or may not like
[*] Forced to participate in a corporate hierarchy and to receive orders from above
[*] Leaves you drained at the end of the day and less capable of emotionally or intellectually engaging with greater priorities in life (family, art, etc.)
[*] Often involves rigid schedules that impose themselves upon you, day by day, hour by hour"

Most of this did/does not apply to us - but if you live in a time and place that you can work very few years and earn enough to retire early all the better for you.
smitcat
Posts: 13304
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 9:51 am

Re: The Power of Working Longer

Post by smitcat »

interestediniras wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 6:09 pm
afan wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 5:59 pm I feel sorry for people who find it impossible to find any gratification in work of any kind. This attitude makes life painful when it does not have to be. That is why I try to talk people out of the notion that, because they do not like the jobs they have, they cannot possibly be happy with ANY job. That seems to me more a matter of how one approaches the necessities of life.

I don't get out of bed every day excited about the prospect of taking out the trash, or having taxes deducted from my paycheck. I know both are unavoidable, so I try not to establish these in my mind as so horrible that I must end them as soon as possible. I don't tell myself that the time spent taking out the trash is life lost. I don't claim that spending even one moment doing something other than what I most want at that instant is torture. It is not. It is just life.
Taking out the trash:
[*] Takes 2 minutes
[*] Can be done at your leisure
[*] Not essential to prioritize
[*] Not forced upon you by others

Employment:
[*] Takes up the majority or at least plurality of your energy and non-waking hours relative to all other tasks
[*] Must be attended to regularly otherwise you will suffer disastrous consequences
[*] Forced to interact with people who you may or may not like
[*] Forced to participate in a corporate hierarchy and to receive orders from above
[*] Leaves you drained at the end of the day and less capable of emotionally or intellectually engaging with greater priorities in life (family, art, etc.)
[*] Often involves rigid schedules that impose themselves upon you, day by day, hour by hour

It's not even a remotely rational comparison.

You're welcome to find me some amazing magical job that gives me so much life fulfillment that all of those downsides appear trivial to me.

As a general rule of thumb, those don't exist, and suggesting that people should "just change jobs" is bizarre advice which implies that people haven't already rationally considered the options at hand because for some mysterious reason, you seem to know their lives better than they do.

Personally, I find it extremely disturbing when people seem to assign such low value to time with family or emotional engagement with family that some abstract notion of 'work fulfillment' suffices to keep them working longer than they need to. But props to them for boosting my stock returns.
"and suggesting that people should "just change jobs" is bizarre advice which implies that people haven't already rationally considered the options at hand because for some mysterious reason, you seem to know their lives better than they do.>

If someone is having the life sucked out of them then they should change jobs.
OTOH if its just a discomfort than sticking with it is the best thing to do.
interestediniras
Posts: 139
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2019 1:06 am

Re: The Power of Working Longer

Post by interestediniras »

smitcat wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 6:16 pm "and suggesting that people should "just change jobs" is bizarre advice which implies that people haven't already rationally considered the options at hand because for some mysterious reason, you seem to know their lives better than they do.>

If someone is having the life sucked out of them then they should change jobs.
OTOH if its just a discomfort than sticking with it is the best thing to do.
Wrong. It can be perfectly rational to endure "having the life sucked out of them" as it merely depends on whether or not the benefits outweigh the costs.
interestediniras
Posts: 139
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2019 1:06 am

Re: The Power of Working Longer

Post by interestediniras »

smitcat wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 6:13 pm"Employment:
[*] Takes up the majority or at least plurality of your energy and non-waking hours relative to all other tasks
[*] Must be attended to regularly otherwise you will suffer disastrous consequences
[*] Forced to interact with people who you may or may not like
[*] Forced to participate in a corporate hierarchy and to receive orders from above
[*] Leaves you drained at the end of the day and less capable of emotionally or intellectually engaging with greater priorities in life (family, art, etc.)
[*] Often involves rigid schedules that impose themselves upon you, day by day, hour by hour"

Most of this did/does not apply to us - but if you live in a time and place that you can work very few years and earn enough to retire early all the better for you.
If those points don't apply to you then you're in a very privileged state and should recognize that your own experiences are not commensurate with those of the general population.
smitcat
Posts: 13304
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 9:51 am

Re: The Power of Working Longer

Post by smitcat »

interestediniras wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 6:20 pm
smitcat wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 6:16 pm "and suggesting that people should "just change jobs" is bizarre advice which implies that people haven't already rationally considered the options at hand because for some mysterious reason, you seem to know their lives better than they do.>

If someone is having the life sucked out of them then they should change jobs.
OTOH if its just a discomfort than sticking with it is the best thing to do.
Wrong. It can be perfectly rational to endure "having the life sucked out of them" as it merely depends on whether or not the benefits outweigh the costs.
If you say so - I read about losing health and all the other comments and it appeared quite serious.
smitcat
Posts: 13304
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 9:51 am

Re: The Power of Working Longer

Post by smitcat »

interestediniras wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 6:21 pm
smitcat wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 6:13 pm"Employment:
[*] Takes up the majority or at least plurality of your energy and non-waking hours relative to all other tasks
[*] Must be attended to regularly otherwise you will suffer disastrous consequences
[*] Forced to interact with people who you may or may not like
[*] Forced to participate in a corporate hierarchy and to receive orders from above
[*] Leaves you drained at the end of the day and less capable of emotionally or intellectually engaging with greater priorities in life (family, art, etc.)
[*] Often involves rigid schedules that impose themselves upon you, day by day, hour by hour"

Most of this did/does not apply to us - but if you live in a time and place that you can work very few years and earn enough to retire early all the better for you.
If those points don't apply to you then you're in a very privileged state and should recognize that your own experiences are not commensurate with those of the general population.
Spending time working on a method to generate income that is personally pleasant is not something that people often do - I dont know why.
If you never look for something its not likely that you will find it.
User avatar
willthrill81
Posts: 32250
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 2:17 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The Power of Working Longer

Post by willthrill81 »

smitcat wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 6:30 pm
interestediniras wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 6:21 pm
smitcat wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 6:13 pm"Employment:
[*] Takes up the majority or at least plurality of your energy and non-waking hours relative to all other tasks
[*] Must be attended to regularly otherwise you will suffer disastrous consequences
[*] Forced to interact with people who you may or may not like
[*] Forced to participate in a corporate hierarchy and to receive orders from above
[*] Leaves you drained at the end of the day and less capable of emotionally or intellectually engaging with greater priorities in life (family, art, etc.)
[*] Often involves rigid schedules that impose themselves upon you, day by day, hour by hour"

Most of this did/does not apply to us - but if you live in a time and place that you can work very few years and earn enough to retire early all the better for you.
If those points don't apply to you then you're in a very privileged state and should recognize that your own experiences are not commensurate with those of the general population.
Spending time working on a method to generate income that is personally pleasant is not something that people often do - I dont know why.
If you never look for something its not likely that you will find it.
Well, a portfolio can be a great way to generate income. But that is greatly impacted by how 'personally pleasant' one finds one's career. It seems that most American workers are at least somewhat satisfied with their careers.
The Sensible Steward
User avatar
LadyGeek
Site Admin
Posts: 95696
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 4:34 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Contact:

Re: The Power of Working Longer

Post by LadyGeek »

Please stay on-topic. Universal health care is off-topic (proposed legislation, see: Politics and Religion).
Wiki To some, the glass is half full. To others, the glass is half empty. To an engineer, it's twice the size it needs to be.
JustinR
Posts: 1451
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:43 pm

Re: The Power of Working Longer

Post by JustinR »

J295 wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 2:49 pm
JustinR wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 2:13 pm
afan wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 12:07 pm
JustinR wrote: Mon Feb 08, 2021 8:47 am
Just curious, how old are you?
No direct answer.

Old enough that I could retire. Young enough that I anticipate a long working career ahead of me.

What does the age of one person on here have to do with changing jobs vs retiring in response to job dissatisfaction? Or what retirement may have meant in years past?
Because "everyone should find their passion job and work for fun as long as possible because otherwise life is meaningless" is classic boomer mentality.

You can see this exact pattern time and time again in other threads about FIRE. It's based on the traditional values your generation grew up with. Young people don't think like this.

You proved my theory right. Don't you think it's weird that I knew right away how old you were based on your posts? Think about it. It's cliche "traditional values" type of thinking.
Justin. That’s really interesting. I’m 61 now so I suppose I would be a boomer.

I transitioned away from my law partnership at age 53, which was actually a few years later than planned because of the great recession. As I reflect on your comments. I’m reminded that I’m one of a few colleagues my age in our community (in any business or profession). And interestingly it seems others that might be similarly situated had no interest in pursuing that option. We had enough money and didn’t need anymore so leaving in my peak earning years was not material. That’s just background, because I have a question for you.

When you say young people don’t think like this, how do they think about jobs and retirement in the like? And what age group generally are you speaking about. Thank you.
Just to clarify, I didn't mean that all old people share the same views as afan. I'm just saying the ones that DO are likely to be from that generation because it's an incredibly old fashioned mentality. There definitely will be people 60+ that DON'T share the same mentality.

I find that millennials (mid-30s and below) don't really see jobs like that. Working is a means to an end (making money so you can pay the bills and fund your retirement). That's not to say that millennials don't care about liking what we do. Obviously, you want to find something that you're passionate about and have that as your job.

Most people (even millenials) aren't aware of the concept of early retirement so they naturally expect to work until retirement age. But they're not actively holding the philosophy "everyone should find your passion and work til you die because life isn't worth living otherwise." Most of us would rather do nothing or whatever we wanted to, even if we currently have our dream jobs.
Post Reply