Author Topic: 'We might have to work forever'  (Read 5450 times)

mustachepungoeshere

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2405
  • Location: Sydney, Oz
'We might have to work forever'
« on: January 15, 2017, 10:55:30 PM »
Quote
The Australian government’s website says this: “By the time you are 55, you might be thinking about retirement and what to do once you stop working.”

That is, frankly, dreaming. If you expect to stop clocking in age 55, you probably work at an investment bank.

http://www.news.com.au/finance/money/wealth/our-generation-might-never-be-able-to-retire/news-story/1a13734ef2912a506f5ef5c689f3562d

givemesunshine

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 75
Re: 'We might have to work forever'
« Reply #1 on: January 16, 2017, 12:09:22 AM »
I read this today - annoyed me no end. I started 'proper work' at 30 years old and I will definitely not have to work past 55. I plan on finishing around 50. As stupid as this article is I hope it kickstarts one person to start investing/saving for ER or even just for 'normal' retirement!

marty998

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7147
  • Location: Sydney, Oz
Re: 'We might have to work forever'
« Reply #2 on: January 16, 2017, 12:38:40 AM »
I read this today - annoyed me no end. I started 'proper work' at 30 years old and I will definitely not have to work past 55. I plan on finishing around 50. As stupid as this article is I hope it kickstarts one person to start investing/saving for ER or even just for 'normal' retirement!

Part of the problem is that most people don't equate investing with early retirement. The mindset is that investing will allow them to spend more on luxury rather than to extend the timeframe that they don't have to work.

e.g. if I retire at 60, spend 7 years on super till I'm 67 and then go on the age pension... if I had $140k in Super I could spend $20k a year for those 7 years, but if I had $560,000 I could spend $80k a year for 7 years (ignoring investment returns)

MgoSam

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3649
  • Location: Minnesota
Re: 'We might have to work forever'
« Reply #3 on: January 17, 2017, 10:15:13 AM »
That's how attitudes get ingrained. With such thinking it's no wonder that many people eat out multiple times a week, get coffee on a regular basis, and otherwise find ways to avoid savings. After all what's the point if it isn't possible to retire early, right?

MrsPete

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3514
Re: 'We might have to work forever'
« Reply #4 on: January 17, 2017, 12:37:02 PM »
Worst line in the article:  It is possible a nice long retirement is not in my future. Like free university education and affordable housing, it might be joining the list of things Baby Boomers enjoyed but the current generation won’t.

This article was written by a whiner who was also a poor researcher.  I worked like a dog to pay for my education; looking back, I don't even know how I managed it.  And when I bought into the "affordable housing" market, it was at just over 10% interest. 

Ramblin' Ma'am

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 61
  • Location: Boston area
Re: 'We might have to work forever'
« Reply #5 on: January 17, 2017, 01:27:06 PM »
Worst line in the article:  It is possible a nice long retirement is not in my future. Like free university education and affordable housing, it might be joining the list of things Baby Boomers enjoyed but the current generation won’t.

This article was written by a whiner who was also a poor researcher.  I worked like a dog to pay for my education; looking back, I don't even know how I managed it.  And when I bought into the "affordable housing" market, it was at just over 10% interest.

This is a pet peeve of mine! I'm in my 30s and constantly hear people my age whining about how houses used to be so much cheaper. They don't realize that back in the 1970s and 1980s, mortgage rates were at 12-15%.

The other common belief is that all baby boomers have pensions, when in reality, it's always been a minority of private-sector workers who had access to pensions.

College costs, I agree with--those have gone up far beyond inflation. But you don't need to go to a private college for 4 years, either.

Just Joe

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4391
  • Age: 125
  • Location: Just past the red barn on the left.
  • Here to learn.
Re: 'We might have to work forever'
« Reply #6 on: January 18, 2017, 07:38:14 AM »
And gasoline was cheaper in the 50s too. And so were wages... ;) Funny how some folks can remember one and not acknowledge the other.

LalsConstant

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 439
Re: 'We might have to work forever'
« Reply #7 on: January 18, 2017, 07:56:52 AM »
Well I am not one to say one generation is better or worse and I realize everyone faces their own circumstances in their own time, but one thing I constantly hear from my mother (who is 60) is her dissatisfaction that none of her children (I am the oldest at 35, youngest is 29) have a house, a spouse, or a child.

When she was younger, if you didn't have all that by age 30 at the latest you had failed in life.  I don't think of it that way but it's true my lifestyle choices are reduced in some ways by not having achieved any of these things.  I don't wring my hands about it or anything but it is true.  Now she believes me when I say I can afford none of these things, but that's only because she sincerely believes we have had a lot of setbacks she didn't.  I do think the 2008 recession hit my cohort at a very bad time, rendering most of us underemployed during the years we are supposed to be gaining skills.

I don't know if it means anything since it's anecdotal but it's still food for thought.  I hope the people who are 18-20 now do better.

Just Joe

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4391
  • Age: 125
  • Location: Just past the red barn on the left.
  • Here to learn.
Re: 'We might have to work forever'
« Reply #8 on: January 18, 2017, 12:38:54 PM »
I think alot of folks here prob deal with some version of family disapproval b/c they don't seek the same material "trophies" that their parents did.

My larger family was very much into their new things - house and cars - followed by renovations later. Big boy toys too.

DW and I have be more about frugality - partly b/c we thought it was the best way forward for us and partly b/c circumstances dictated it. The recession for example did not leave either of us unemployed but it delayed the retirements of people higher on the career ladder in our work places and thus delayed our career and income progress. We also chose to live in flyover country where good opportunities were more limited b/c we thought this was a better place to raise our kids. We could have chosen to move all over the country chasing career advancement but didn't.

End result we drive 20 year old cars, live in a smaller but good house in a quiet corner of the world, and think twice before we spend money frivolously. We have plenty of savings though, just careful with it.

To some of our family we might be passing judgement on their choices b/c we haven't made the same choices as them or perhaps they are passing judgement on us. ;) Clearly some of them can't decide if we are poor or just careful. We come from people who don't discuss money matters - everything is a secret.

As a result both DW and I had alot to figure out for ourselves when we reached adulthood and probably left money on the table a few times b/c we didn't ask for what we were worth during job interviews. Let our elders wonder what we make. They didn't share their best advice with us, only abstract concepts. ;)

We would gladly rather take the slow and steady path than pursue the boom and bust cycle that some we've known have fallen into. The boom and bust cycle can originate from spending habits (failure to save, failure to plan, debt) or career missteps when choosing employers.
« Last Edit: January 18, 2017, 12:41:01 PM by Tasty Pinecones »

Cranky

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2770
Re: 'We might have to work forever'
« Reply #9 on: January 18, 2017, 12:46:09 PM »
Well I am not one to say one generation is better or worse and I realize everyone faces their own circumstances in their own time, but one thing I constantly hear from my mother (who is 60) is her dissatisfaction that none of her children (I am the oldest at 35, youngest is 29) have a house, a spouse, or a child.

When she was younger, if you didn't have all that by age 30 at the latest you had failed in life.  I don't think of it that way but it's true my lifestyle choices are reduced in some ways by not having achieved any of these things.  I don't wring my hands about it or anything but it is true.  Now she believes me when I say I can afford none of these things, but that's only because she sincerely believes we have had a lot of setbacks she didn't.  I do think the 2008 recession hit my cohort at a very bad time, rendering most of us underemployed during the years we are supposed to be gaining skills.

I don't know if it means anything since it's anecdotal but it's still food for thought.  I hope the people who are 18-20 now do better.

I'm older than your mother, and while we married young (it doesn't actually cost anything to get married, like $10 for the license?), we didn't buy a house until we were 40yo because we went to school for a long time. The people we knew who bought houses in their early 20s didn't go to college, and so they had jobs earlier but earned less overall.

RetiredAt63

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14587
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: 'We might have to work forever'
« Reply #10 on: January 19, 2017, 11:13:12 AM »
I'm a boomer.  Forget 15% mortgage rates - we saw them hit 19%.  And we were buying small houses (post-war houses were small) and in many cases they were not really affordable - our first house was affordable because of local circumstances (first PQ victory for those who remember their Quebec history).  A lot of my University graduating class went on to grad school because the job market was so bad - I have a friend 10 years older who actually apologized to me about how much easier she had it.

Everything is rosier in hindsight, especially if you weren't there.

talltexan

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4055
Re: 'We might have to work forever'
« Reply #11 on: January 19, 2017, 12:16:36 PM »
Indeed 19% mortgage rates would be frustrating, but inflation was also a lot more in those days, hence nominal income growth. It would not be strange to buy a $60,000 house (monthly payment $831) and five years later have a house worth $75,000, with a loan balance of $59,000 that could be refinanced down.

Guesl982374

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 499
Re: 'We might have to work forever'
« Reply #12 on: January 19, 2017, 12:41:17 PM »
I love how the chart at the bottom of the article completely disproves the point of her article. Life expectancy was lower than the pension age in the early 1900s and is significantly higher than the pension age in the future, even if it moves from 65-->70.


marty998

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7147
  • Location: Sydney, Oz
Re: 'We might have to work forever'
« Reply #13 on: January 19, 2017, 01:20:48 PM »
I'm a boomer.  Forget 15% mortgage rates - we saw them hit 19%.  And we were buying small houses (post-war houses were small) and in many cases they were not really affordable - our first house was affordable because of local circumstances (first PQ victory for those who remember their Quebec history).  A lot of my University graduating class went on to grad school because the job market was so bad - I have a friend 10 years older who actually apologized to me about how much easier she had it.

Everything is rosier in hindsight, especially if you weren't there.
On the bright side my Mom was getting over 13% interest in IRA CDs back in the 1980s. Bad time for loans good time for safe investing. Not sure what the markets were doing back then though.

LalsConstant

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 439
Re: 'We might have to work forever'
« Reply #14 on: January 19, 2017, 01:56:07 PM »
Well I am not one to say one generation is better or worse and I realize everyone faces their own circumstances in their own time, but one thing I constantly hear from my mother (who is 60) is her dissatisfaction that none of her children (I am the oldest at 35, youngest is 29) have a house, a spouse, or a child.

When she was younger, if you didn't have all that by age 30 at the latest you had failed in life.  I don't think of it that way but it's true my lifestyle choices are reduced in some ways by not having achieved any of these things.  I don't wring my hands about it or anything but it is true.  Now she believes me when I say I can afford none of these things, but that's only because she sincerely believes we have had a lot of setbacks she didn't.  I do think the 2008 recession hit my cohort at a very bad time, rendering most of us underemployed during the years we are supposed to be gaining skills.

I don't know if it means anything since it's anecdotal but it's still food for thought.  I hope the people who are 18-20 now do better.

I'm older than your mother, and while we married young (it doesn't actually cost anything to get married, like $10 for the license?), we didn't buy a house until we were 40yo because we went to school for a long time. The people we knew who bought houses in their early 20s didn't go to college, and so they had jobs earlier but earned less overall.

I think In my mom's case it's a combination of a desire for grandchildren and the fact she is the first generation in her family to have gone to college that creates her perspective.

I do think one thing that is very different is my parents built their careers in suburban towns, but two of us live in bustling cities and that's just a game changer in a lot of ways.   I ran the numbers recently and if I lived in the town I grew up in and had my same modest income I could easily be a homeowner just for example.  For what it's worth I may work in this city but I have no plans to retire here, I would need to work another decade!

The U.S. has become more urban, and I don't think she fully grasps sometimes the difference that makes.

HappierAtHome

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8156
  • Location: Australia
Re: 'We might have to work forever'
« Reply #15 on: January 19, 2017, 04:25:33 PM »
Worst line in the article:  It is possible a nice long retirement is not in my future. Like free university education and affordable housing, it might be joining the list of things Baby Boomers enjoyed but the current generation won’t.

This article was written by a whiner who was also a poor researcher.  I worked like a dog to pay for my education; looking back, I don't even know how I managed it.  And when I bought into the "affordable housing" market, it was at just over 10% interest.

This is a pet peeve of mine! I'm in my 30s and constantly hear people my age whining about how houses used to be so much cheaper. They don't realize that back in the 1970s and 1980s, mortgage rates were at 12-15%.

The other common belief is that all baby boomers have pensions, when in reality, it's always been a minority of private-sector workers who had access to pensions.

College costs, I agree with--those have gone up far beyond inflation. But you don't need to go to a private college for 4 years, either.

It's an Australian article. Baby boomers in Australia really did get *free* university education. Free, free. And even when interest rates are taken into account we have had a huge increase in housing prices - housing affordability is at a crisis point in Aus now.

HappierAtHome

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8156
  • Location: Australia
Re: 'We might have to work forever'
« Reply #16 on: January 19, 2017, 04:38:28 PM »
Worst line in the article:  It is possible a nice long retirement is not in my future. Like free university education and affordable housing, it might be joining the list of things Baby Boomers enjoyed but the current generation won’t.

This article was written by a whiner who was also a poor researcher.  I worked like a dog to pay for my education; looking back, I don't even know how I managed it.  And when I bought into the "affordable housing" market, it was at just over 10% interest.

This is a pet peeve of mine! I'm in my 30s and constantly hear people my age whining about how houses used to be so much cheaper. They don't realize that back in the 1970s and 1980s, mortgage rates were at 12-15%.

The other common belief is that all baby boomers have pensions, when in reality, it's always been a minority of private-sector workers who had access to pensions.

College costs, I agree with--those have gone up far beyond inflation. But you don't need to go to a private college for 4 years, either.

It's an Australian article. Baby boomers in Australia really did get *free* university education. Free, free. And even when interest rates are taken into account we have had a huge increase in housing prices - housing affordability is at a crisis point in Aus now.

And to clarify: I personally haven't missed out by being a millenial, housing is still plenty affordable for me, it's still perfectly possible to build personal wealth, and this article is clearly a shocker. I just wanted to point out that some of the details mentioned are actually correct in Aus :-)