<p>Yeah… :)</p>
<p>In summary, everything goes downhill. :D</p>
<p>
Not just manual work. My daughter’s friend in high school whose dad’s neurologist but he has since developed Alzheimer, very difficult for him to continue to practice his profession which he spent years training for. Very sad!</p>
<p>I doubt I will be able to retire, although a lot can change in 40 years.</p>
<p>I am more scared about my father. He makes quite a bit of money, but a lot of that is taken away because of the divorce he had with my mother(god the amount of money we lost from that makes me angry enough to punch a whole through a wall) and a variety of other factors we had no control over. He makes enough to be able to retire some day, but not till his 70s.</p>
<p>What is so absurd is how many people that don’t make as much as him. I’m fine with people earning less, but I am absolutely flabbergasted by how old some of the people at Walmart or McDonalds. There used to be a time when people cold retire on a somewhat meager salary. But now, unless you’re rich or lucky, it’s almost impossible to pay off the debt you have accrued as well as pay for the necessities. And it’s only getting worse. Social Security(money that the government OWES US, it’s our money they put in there!) keeps getting trimmed more and more. I fear we may not even have it anymore in the future, or at a shadow of its former self. </p>
<p>Sha, you have time on your side. 40 years to invest is a big plus.</p>
<p>Age 63 was once the agerage life span. It’s a statiscal calculation. A normal distribution curve. Yes, there were what appears to be anecdotal evidence of people living much longer but there is also plenty of anecdotal evidence of people living a lot less. On average, 63 was the lifespan when social security was created just like it is around 77-78 now.</p>
<p>Think about how today, we hear data about how so many more people get cancer, diabetes and high cholesterol and think "people didn’t get these diseases like they do today 40, 50, 75 years ago. Why? Most of these diseases were either the underlying cause of middle age deaths lack of detection and treatment or, as with cancer, people just died of something else instead of living long enough to get cancer.</p>
<p>It’s not a canard. The idea of a 20th century retirement in the 21st century is a canard.</p>
<p>Retirement is a creation of man, an experiment that was being tried out. It’s failing and letting down the millions who believe in it.</p>
<p>63 was not the life expectancy of an adult. The average adult in the workforce lived older. That’s not just anecdotal, it’s fact. Pre-vaccinations and anti-biotics, many, many more children, sadly, did not make it to the workforce. But their lifespans are part of the average statistic. So in terms of when adults lived to, the “average” is highly misleading.</p>
<p>"It’s not a canard. The idea of a 20th century retirement in the 21st century is a canard.</p>
<p>Retirement is a creation of man, an experiment that was being tried out. It’s failing and letting down the millions who believe in it."</p>
<p>Working until we die isn’t a very pleasant thought. Most people’s jobs just aren’t that fun.</p>
<p>And then there’s the reality that many people are living far past what their brain and body can easily manage, purely because of modern medicine. There are many elderly people that would not be capable of doing the jobs they once could.</p>
<p>I agree with garland. Social security was calculated based on the average life span of workers who contributed to the system, which meant the calculation excluded children. </p>
<p>Also, I’m not a historian, but I’m skeptical of the concept that retirement is some modern thing. Pensions have existed for centuries. Revolutionary war soldiers were awarded pensions. British soldiers have been awarded pensions since at least the 1600s. Even a generation ago, older folks lived with their children and were supported by them once they were too old to work. </p>
<p>What’s new for us is not that old people retire, but that they must support themselves in retirement. </p>
<p>Retirement is not for everyone. Some people never want to retire. Some people never achieve it either for whatever reasons. But I don’t get why it’s a canard just because you believe in retirement. Creation of man? Of course, what do you think animals and plants do? They go into nursing home?</p>
<p>Well, watching that frontline show with DH backfired. He said the fees issue is not a concern of ours, and that the only place that possibly has unreasonably high fees is the management at his employment. He’ll look at options there, but sees that as a small piece of the pie. </p>
<p>Jym626, if you have enough the fees dont matter as much. If you are invested in funds with low fees already, then the funds with high fees arent too relevant. </p>
<p>Sounds like your husband is on top of things.</p>
<p>Thanks, dstark. He is. I am the one who needs to learn/understand more, and know what retirement money to touch and in what sequence when the time comes. I would like to be sure our s’s are aware of the differential fees, as one S has a personal advisor as well as the USAA brokerage. I have concerns about the cost of the personal advisor, but I am hopeful DH will address that with him.</p>
<p>The show calculated the frighteningly high percentage of $$ that went to the management company. Their example, if I recall correctly, (and please correct me as I will surely get it wrong) was that if, as an example, a fund had a 7% growth rate and a 2% annual fee, that the management company got, I think 2/3 of the growth. Thats crazy!</p>
<p>There are fees that exist that are crazy. </p>
<p>Do you know if your son is paying crazy fees? </p>
<p>There must be more to the story. 2 percent fees are not 2/3 of 7 percent returns. 2 percent is high though.</p>
<p>We have phones. Somebody can call your son and ask him about fees. :)</p>
<p>Your son may not know. </p>
<p>I have to admit… If I called my son and brought up the fee issue, the first reaction would probably be negative. :)</p>
<p>I told my daughter I hope you are funding your 401k to the maximum and she said, </p>
<p>“Dad, come on. I am not stupid.” :)</p>
<p>Retirement is a creation of man, an experiment that was being tried out. It’s failing and letting down the millions who believe in it.>>>>>>>>>>></p>
<p>Right. We really don’t know. My retirement is going to be nowhere near my Dad’s retirement.</p>
<p>My parents had great cash flow. Dad sold his construction business and owned outright three apt buildings, 21 units that essentially were 100% occupied (they were well built - the best in town - always had a ‘wait list’, two were built new, one was a two story business with second floor very large apt converted into a 5 unit apt building, all built or remodeled under his watch as contractor). The one large building had two town-homes on both ends (3 bedroom, with 2 car garage) and 8 two bedroom apts. He co-owned a bar/pizza and bar food place that he remodeled - manager was able to buy out (and when bank wanted to charge ridiculous interest rate, dad gave him lower interest rate so he had secure cash flow from that). The problem was with health - dad was only ‘retired’ a few years before succumbing to aggressive cancer at age 63. Mom lived well, but suffered from dementia and died at 77. I survived aggressive cancer at age 52/53, so hopefully I will live as long as I think I will (to 100!) Have been cancer free for over 4 years now.</p>
<p>H and I plan to retire in 10 years. We believe we have enough saved/growing in investments as long as H’s job holds out through to retirement, which we believe it will. Our financial planner says we have done well. When I go on the Principal retirement planner, with just those 401k funds, it says we are fine with the $ amount I put in for monthly spending. We have a great long term care insurance policy on both of us, which also gives us financial security with those kind of costs.</p>
<p>There are many things one cannot control, but many decisions people can make to have financial security.</p>
<p>Article in Sunday’s paper - Pamela Yip article, McClatchy-Tribune “Should Children help pay for college” - “Parents should borrow no more for all their children than they can afford to repay in 10 years or by the time they retire”. Also stated “Total student debt at graduation should be less than the student’s expected annual starting salary - ideally, a lot less”</p>
<p>Both kids are in college and college fund and scholarships should get them through; they are in fields where they should have good jobs (nursing and civil eng). Taking advantage of scholars opportunities, practical work/internship, etc.</p>
<p>This thread has been great with having me check retirement funds and continually learning; thinking about how to handle house remodel when time to sell (want to have less $$ tied up in home), plus relocate with a smaller/less expensive place or maybe have two small places or at least the flexibility with maybe doing RVing for a while in retirement. </p>
<p>I’ve been busy with my garden this week. Pergola is now built with fiberglass column wrap. Now I can see my vision from a piece of drawing come to fruition.
So I had time to finally check my mail and there is something about pension from mega corp that I must decide to take lump sum or monthly payment . More headache for me. And worst yet I have to make decision to transfer by Dec.
Talk about pressure.
On the other hand maybe I should take this lump sum in out on Alibaba stocks and I’ll be all set. </p>
<p>"So I had time to finally check my mail and there is something about pension from mega corp that I must decide to take lump sum or monthly payment . More headache for me. And worst yet I have to make decision to transfer by Dec.
Talk about pressure</p>
<p>I guess it depends upon how much the lump sum is vs the monthly payment. If the lump sum was way too little, or very large, it would be obvious. Plus, how stable is the pension fund from mega corp, any chance of it disappearing and getting stuck with the PBGC payout?</p>
<p>No matter how stable the pension fund is now, I’d be worried about it being around for 30 years. Is it currently fully funded?</p>
<p>What interest rate was used to calculate the lump sum? If it is at all reasonable I would be very tempted to take the lump.</p>
<p>“No matter how stable the pension fund is now, I’d be worried about it being around for 30 years. Is it currently fully funded?”</p>
<p>I agree. Then again, depending upon what the lump sum is, it might be worth it if it’s only around for 10 years, with the PBGC picking up a minimal amount. That is, if they’re still around. Completely depends upon the payout, to me.</p>