The Money Mustache Community
General Discussion => Welcome and General Discussion => Topic started by: MrMoneySaver on October 23, 2017, 01:55:04 PM
-
"Yes, you heard me right: 70 is the new retirement age—not a month or year before."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/make-the-most/suze-orman-says-this-is-the-exact-age-you-should-retire/ar-AAtVD1z
-
Well, when I bring up my goals for retirment in mid 40's (I feel late to the game), I hear massive skeptism and a bunch of terrible advice from nearly all my friends, family, coworkers, etc. The masses are so entranched into consumerism, this type of advice feeds their bad choices so they feel like there is no hope and they may as well keep being good little drone slaves since everybody is doing it.
-
Oh no! Better get my resume ready, I need to go back to work. Thanks Suzie!
-
The sad thing is, for a majority of Americans, she’s probably right. Most people aren’t following the MMM blueprint, most wont have the savings. And retiring isn’t necessarily beneficial for everyone, a large number of men die soon after retiring (women are generally fine), so continuing to work in some capacity is a good thing. We should pat ourselves on the back to strategically making ourselves financially resilient now, instead of later.
-
a large number of men die soon after retiring (women are generally fine),
Ah, but do these men retire because they're in ill health, or do they retire and then get sick?
-
based on this article, she's concerned about longevity risk. Here's a quote from the article:
Healthy people in their 60s today have about a 50% chance of living into their 90s. Can you honestly tell me you’re 100% sure you will not run out of money if you start spending down your retirement funds in your 60s and end up living into your 90s?
But she doesn't mention that while nothing is 100% sure, who makes any decision in their lives with 100% certainty? No one, because it's impossible. She also doesn't mention that there's a tradeoff between increasing security by working longer and enjoying your retirement with, lets say, 50-80% certainty that you'll be more than fine.
Anyway, I'm planning on retirement lasting through my 90's and cfiresim seems to think I'm there now.
-
I can't take seriously a woman who doesn't grasp the basics of phonics.
-
Pay no never mind to your personal circumstances. Just work until you can't or until you are 70.
-
She does have some really good points in there though.
-
She does have some really good points in there though.
She does, actually. Likely not for meant for a frugal FIRE crowd like here, but for most of this country, yes. And keep in mind she is 66 years old and still working, albeit doing something that is her passion, but still at it when she could have easily retired years ago. There are people in very physical jobs, like contracting or working in hot kitchens, for example, who would have a hard time working till 70, but she offers some resources for training into different areas.
My stepfather is just north of 70 and is still working as a college professor. He loves his work, is engaged by it and will likely keep teaching and traveling a few more years. I don't think he 'needs' the money. The reality for most Americans is that they will need to work till 70 for the maximum SS, healthcare and because their retirement savings are substandard.
-
I thought her points about medical costs were strong. Not something that's easy to plan for, either -- the potential costs are hard to know.
But work till 70? No. I'll save and plan as best I can and then take my chances.
-
She does say that for some people this means working part time.
If people can find meaningful part time work then it's not the worst advice ever. That will be harder to find as technology progresses.
It comes down to a matter of philosophy. People on this board are aiming to build enough wealth to live off the interest. The way she writes, it seems her followers exhaust their savings much faster than any market gains. Just another example that WE are the oddballs and outliers.
-
The life expectancy for a male in the US is about 77 years. My plan is to retire next year at age 56. Would I rather plan for a 21 year retirement or maybe just 7 years? This is a no brainer for me. And the thought of working at Mega-Gov for 15 more years is unimaginable for me.
I think Ms. Orman is out of touch on many issues. Is she still even relevant in the world of personal finance?
-
The life expectancy for a male in the US is about 77 years. My plan is to retire next year at age 56. Would I rather plan for a 21 year retirement or maybe just 7 years? This is a no brainer for me. And the thought of working at Mega-Gov for 15 more years is unimaginable for me.
I think Ms. Orman is out of touch on many issues. Is she still even relevant in the world of personal finance?
She has more followers than I do.
-
Her advice is probably good for the average person - not the average person on this forum. The FIRE crowd in mostly has higher than average income while working which increases flexibility, but many people don't have that luxury.
-
The life expectancy for a male in the US is about 77 years.
Remember that the life expectancy for a male who is already 56 is higher than 77.
The fact that she makes this a "rule" for absolutely everyone, regardless of the assets involved, means a giant pinch of salt will be needed on the side of this advice headline.
-
I think she’s also ignoring downsizing and ageism. Even if you want to work until you are 70, you might not be able to find and employer that wants you. You’ll be too frail for a physically demanding job even if you are in relatively good shape for your age. Most old people I have met haven’t been great with technology even if they have access to it. I know some older folks are competent computer users, but most are going to need to be retrained on basic computer concepts daily.
When I worked retail, we hired an older guy to work in the backroom. I had to show him how to log on to his scanner every single day. This is something I showed my younger guys once on their first day and never had to show them again. This old guy was also a physical train wreck from decades as an electrician. I felt bad when they let him go. I think he really needed the job. Even that basic retail job was beyond his physical and cognitive capabilities at his age.
I don’t think saving for early retirement is a luxury anymore. Even if you are ok with the idea of working until you are 70, your employer probably isn’t.
-
a large number of men die soon after retiring (women are generally fine),
Ah, but do these men retire because they're in ill health, or do they retire and then get sick?
They retire, get depressed, then ill, then die.
-
If you follow her investment advice, maybe.
I'm just kidding. I think this is the reality for many people. My mother worked until 72 (although the last ? years it was part time). My Dad at 84 still works (part time) and didn't start drawing from his social security until age 77. They were at one point solidly upper middle class, but didn't get the whole saving for retirement thing. So for me, no I don't want to be working at age 70. But many people if they choose to or not, will be.
Actually I used to like Suze Orman. But maybe because the people calling in are usually trainwrecks, or that she has to dumb down the information too much, I haven't found her as relevant once I found this and other internet sites. She can be a good starting off point, and I do like that she has always emphasized that women need to make sure they are taking care of themselves financially (versus relying on their husband).
-
The life expectancy for a male in the US is about 77 years. My plan is to retire next year at age 56. Would I rather plan for a 21 year retirement or maybe just 7 years? This is a no brainer for me. And the thought of working at Mega-Gov for 15 more years is unimaginable for me.
You need to use conditional life expectancy here, not population-wide. (Life expectancy of someone who is already 55 or 75 is longer than the population as a whole.)
http://www.bankrate.com/calculators/retirement/life-age-expectancy-calculator.aspx
Upon reaching 56, you likely have almost a 30 year life expectancy, not 21.
I think Ms. Orman is out of touch on many issues. Is she still even relevant in the world of personal finance?
Realize that she's part entertainer, but also that your level of financial awareness and savvy is much, much, much higher than the average American. I'd wager that anyone who registered for an account on this forum, let alone posted, is probably above the average of the pack. She's catering to a wider audience of viewers than the MMM forum cohort and in that regard, does a good job of bringing some education and sensibility to a population that (desperately) needs it.
She also seems to simplify things down to formulas or methods that the average person has a chance to remember and treat as a rule by only hearing it and maybe seeing a quick graphic flashed on screen. Do I think she's dumb enough to believe that she can distill a few simple rules that apply to everyone? No; on the contrary, I think she knows she needs to simplify and "rule of thumb" a lot of her advice so that some of it has a chance to stick with her viewers.
She may not be as far from the center as the average poster here, but she's definitely working on the correct side of the middle, IMO.
-
I hear she is very conservative in how she invests her money, in mindset I wouldn't be surprised she is closer to a mmm mentality than you would think. Her net worth is 35 million. She personally, doesn't need to work until 70.
-
She told Costco magazine a few years ago that she has less than 10 percent of her net worth in stocks/mutual funds.
She's a total flavor-of-the-month financial advisor. When real estate is hot, she's all about real estate. When stocks are hot, she's all about the stock market. When the market is down, she's all about parking money in cash.
She's the Denise Austin of finance. Denise doesn't have any actual fitness philosophies, she just touts whatever hot fitness fad of the moment. Go back 30 years and you can find Denise's books/videos on every fitness fad.
-
The life expectancy for a male in the US is about 77 years. My plan is to retire next year at age 56. Would I rather plan for a 21 year retirement or maybe just 7 years? This is a no brainer for me. And the thought of working at Mega-Gov for 15 more years is unimaginable for me.
You need to use conditional life expectancy here, not population-wide. (Life expectancy of someone who is already 55 or 75 is longer than the population as a whole.)
http://www.bankrate.com/calculators/retirement/life-age-expectancy-calculator.aspx
Based on this calculator the only thing I can do to increase my life expectancy is to start drinking alcohol - that gets me from 83 to 86.
I thought lowering my weight would increase it, but that didn't change anything.
-
Eh, you know, we are not her target audience. She's talking to the folks for whom "invest up to the match in your 401(k)" is a novel concept, for whom "no car loans longer than 3 years" is a massive lifestyle cut. If the average American followed her advice, they'd be much better off.
She is also conservative; IIRC, she has millions in bonds, so she can be confident that she will have sufficient income forever no matter what happens to the market. And, hey, she can afford to be; she doesn't require 8-10% returns to support her lifestyle, and it's not like she has multiple kids she wants to leave vast sums to. So of course she is focused on the downside risks -- and that's a good thing, because most average Americans err in the other direction and just assume that things will magically work out for them.
Her advice here pretty clearly comes from decades of being asked "can I retire at [55/60/62]?" from people who can't math -- people who see $500K in investments at 60 and think that's a huge number and so they'll be just fine with their $80K/yr lifestyle (or, worse, don't even know what their lifestyle costs). So, yeah, if you're not going to pay attention and do the work on the financial side, you'd better plan to work at your paid job as long as you can -- which includes, as she says, staying engaged and active to increase your odds of even having the opportunity to work that long.
Tl;dr: I don't see anything wrong with that article for its target audience.
-
So if I were to boil Dave Ramsey down to one idea, it would be: figure out how to live your life such that you are never in debt.
What's Suze Orman's signature idea?
-
What's Suze Orman's signature idea?
Her common tagline is "People first, then money, then things."
Given that lots of Americans put "things" first, that's maybe not so terrible.
I'm not sure boiling anyone or any philosophy down to one line is particularly accurate or generous. (Dave Ramsey is better for average American than the average American is naturally; doesn't mean that I think that "live without debt" is anywhere close to optimal.)
What is MMM's one signature idea?
-
What is MMM's one signature idea?
Live far below your means and you can buy your financial freedom way earlier than anyone would think possible.
-
What is MMM's one signature idea?
Live far below your means and you can buy your financial freedom way earlier than anyone would think possible.
Damn; that's a good answer.
-
The life expectancy for a male in the US is about 77 years. My plan is to retire next year at age 56. Would I rather plan for a 21 year retirement or maybe just 7 years? This is a no brainer for me. And the thought of working at Mega-Gov for 15 more years is unimaginable for me.
Your statement in bold above, sparked a thought.
For many here on MMM, their jobs are demanding, stressful and unpleasant.
A means to an end.
Often there is the focus on ER as the point at which one will finally be happy.
So, perhaps, again, for some, they are miserable now in hopes of being happy later.
Being frugal and living carefully now so as to earn happy later. For those individuals, ER is more
critical in a way.
But, for many, many others....the here and now is a happy place and time.
It isn't dependent on being FI. It's based on their ability to be happy no matter what their fiscal
circumstances currently are. Being FI and then ER isn't some radical change from what is occurring for them now.
Moreover, for those with a lot of vacation time and flexibility it becomes even less of an issue.
For DH and I, the major shift into an easier lifestyle(time and energy wise) occurred when our two kids left for college.
Both pretty much were out on their own by the time they graduated.
JMHO
-
What is MMM's one signature idea?
Live far below your means and you can buy your financial freedom way earlier than anyone would think possible.
Damn; that's a good answer.
That summary misses the morality Pete espouses of using money only when it materially improves quality of life/happiness. Honestly, a whole separate thread would probably be warranted for such a discussion, this should stay about Suze Orman.
-
So if I were to boil Dave Ramsey down to one idea, it would be: figure out how to live your life such that you are never in debt.
What's Suze Orman's signature idea?
In some ways similar to Dave Ramsey but without the religious conservatism or anti-credit card sentiments. However, she's definitely risk-averse to the extreme (has very little $ in the stock market herself, tells people never to retire early, etc.)
-
I think she’s also ignoring downsizing and ageism. Even if you want to work until you are 70, you might not be able to find and employer that wants you. You’ll be too frail for a physically demanding job even if you are in relatively good shape for your age. Most old people I have met haven’t been great with technology even if they have access to it. I know some older folks are competent computer users, but most are going to need to be retrained on basic computer concepts daily.
When I worked retail, we hired an older guy to work in the backroom. I had to show him how to log on to his scanner every single day. This is something I showed my younger guys once on their first day and never had to show them again. This old guy was also a physical train wreck from decades as an electrician. I felt bad when they let him go. I think he really needed the job. Even that basic retail job was beyond his physical and cognitive capabilities at his age.
I don’t think saving for early retirement is a luxury anymore. Even if you are ok with the idea of working until you are 70, your employer probably isn’t.
This is a good point, and that's why I said she has good points.
Plan for working until 70 doesn't mean "Spend like you are going to work until 70". I think it's good advice for many people.
Look, I know many people who won't be able to work until 70:
- Many of my family members work in very physical jobs. They aren't going to physically be able to work until 70.
- Ageism is a thing. How many 65 year old engineers do companies really need? And will these engineers be willing to work for the same pay as a 35 year old engineer?
- Brain power. I work with a lot of engineers who are 60-70. I can see that age often slows you down. The number of projects you can handle goes down. The speed with which you handle projects goes down. Luckily, experience makes up for a lot of that. I'm only 47 and I can tell you that I've experienced this already. My friends in their 50s are at least able to make up for it with longer hours, as their kids are grown.
So, don't kill me, I'm planning to work until 70. If I can work as an engineer until then, great! If I end up doing something else, that's fine too. Part time is fine for me too.
I really value stability and having lots of money in savings. I don't want to be old and poor. It's a huge driving factor for me.
-
How many 65 year old engineers do companies really need? And will these engineers be willing to work for the same pay as a 35 year old engineer?
If they create the same amount of value as that 35 year old engineer, they'd better be prepared to work for the same pay, IMO.
-
I think she makes some good points even if they aren't applicable to me.
She talks a lot about compound interest and many regular people don't see the power or why it is important. She may be on the conservative side (or fad side) but compounding interest that is something everyone needs to understand both to use for themselves (investment) and not be used by (credit).
Also, if someone thinks they need to work to 70, that doesn't mean doing the same job until they are 70. I plan to retire in about 2.5 years. My desire to learn new job only skills is really low. My desire to learn life skills is much higher (yah welding!). My-coworker that plans to work until 55 is getting new certifications so she stays relevant and has more options.
Now not everyone is capable of this, but if you need to take on more years, then maybe that will light a bulb on the "do I want to be doing this."
LV
-
The life expectancy for a male in the US is about 77 years. My plan is to retire next year at age 56. Would I rather plan for a 21 year retirement or maybe just 7 years? This is a no brainer for me. And the thought of working at Mega-Gov for 15 more years is unimaginable for me.
Your statement in bold above, sparked a thought.
For many here on MMM, their jobs are demanding, stressful and unpleasant.
A means to an end.
Often there is the focus on ER as the point at which one will finally be happy.
So, perhaps, again, for some, they are miserable now in hopes of being happy later.
Being frugal and living carefully now so as to earn happy later. For those individuals, ER is more
critical in a way.
But, for many, many others....the here and now is a happy place and time.
It isn't dependent on being FI. It's based on their ability to be happy no matter what their fiscal
circumstances currently are. Being FI and then ER isn't some radical change from what is occurring for them now.
Moreover, for those with a lot of vacation time and flexibility it becomes even less of an issue.
For DH and I, the major shift into an easier lifestyle(time and energy wise) occurred when our two kids left for college.
Both pretty much were out on their own by the time they graduated.
JMHO
Yes, I am definitely in this category; "For many here on MMM, their jobs are demanding, stressful and unpleasant.
A means to an end".
I feel that if I had to work until 70 doing what I do now then I might not even live to be 70. Stress kills....
-
a large number of men die soon after retiring (women are generally fine),
Ah, but do these men retire because they're in ill health, or do they retire and then get sick?
Or, lack the imagination or someone to challenge challenge them to dream and consider something different, something far better. The notion of living and enjoying life beyond work has been crushed out of so many for so long that sadly, they could just never imagine it for themselves or their family. Tragic really.
-
Suse Orman is a scam artist.
I am referencing her pre-paid "approved card" here. (as in "you're approved BOYFRIEND!!)
For those not familiar, she sold the idea of a pre-paid debit card to consumers who were in bad financial shape and looking to improve their credit score. It turned out that her card did not have any influence on the individual's credit score.
Actual features of the card included:
$3/mo fee
$3 sign up fee
$2 customer service call fee after the first free call (LOL, that is just fucked up)
Bill pay fees up to $30
I do not have any personal experience with this card and do not recall seeing ads of her pushing it before it was shut down but I happened to recently stumble on a YouTube video detailing her sketchy dealings. Anyway...felt the need to share.
There was a time when I enjoyed watching her show, sometime when I had access to cable. Hell, I'd probably still stop and watch it if I happened to be flipping through the cable channels I do not have and caught it on the brainwash box.
-
She has more followers than I do.
I'm sure your mother told you: What's popular isn't always right, and what's right isn't always popular.
-
I agree with her (unoriginal) advice that most people should delay taking social security until the age that gives the highest monthly check.
She's crazy to think that most employers will allow someone to work until 70 . . . many simply will not.
My employer has an uneven track record on letting older people stay. One guy managed to stay until his 80's because everyone loved him, but most people are pushed out in their early 60's. Which leaves what, exactly? WalMart greeter jobs? Cashier at the local pet store?
No, thanks, I'll be in fine shape to retire comfortably well before I hit my 60's . . . although I do plan to wait until 72 to draw social security. If I work until 70, it will only be because my job is fun and I'm just lucky that I haven't been forced out.
-
I agree with her (unoriginal) advice that most people should delay taking social security until the age that gives the highest monthly check.
She's crazy to think that most employers will allow someone to work until 70 . . . many simply will not.
My employer has an uneven track record on letting older people stay. One guy managed to stay until his 80's because everyone loved him, but most people are pushed out in their early 60's. Which leaves what, exactly? WalMart greeter jobs? Cashier at the local pet store?
No, thanks, I'll be in fine shape to retire comfortably well before I hit my 60's . . . although I do plan to wait until 72 to draw social security. If I work until 70, it will only be because my job is fun and I'm just lucky that I haven't been forced out.
Age 70 gives you the highest SS benefit. No need to wait until 72.
-
I agree with her (unoriginal) advice that most people should delay taking social security until the age that gives the highest monthly check.
She's crazy to think that most employers will allow someone to work until 70 . . . many simply will not.
My employer has an uneven track record on letting older people stay. One guy managed to stay until his 80's because everyone loved him, but most people are pushed out in their early 60's. Which leaves what, exactly? WalMart greeter jobs? Cashier at the local pet store?
No, thanks, I'll be in fine shape to retire comfortably well before I hit my 60's . . . although I do plan to wait until 72 to draw social security. If I work until 70, it will only be because my job is fun and I'm just lucky that I haven't been forced out.
I work at a law firm that allows the geezers to stay until they are ready to drop. I'm not kidding; we have a guy who's 88, comes in to foul up the bathroom and screw up the copier, eat lunch with cronies, leaving a mess behind for the maintenance guy to clean up, and make a general pest of himself. He has few clients, since most of them predeceased him. There are a few others that are right behind him in age and repeating the same behavior. I am not a lawyer (I'm administration) and I am leaving now, before I become a dinosaur. My predecessor was 77 at retirement, who refused to use a computer and kept the entire place enslaved to an outmoded way of doing everything. Most people should NOT work until they are ready to drop over. They might think they are productive, but I'd be willing to bet that in most cases, they are not and just drag everyone else down. It's ego and greed that keeps them shackled to their desks. Not for me, thanks. I'm going while I'm still healthy and have plenty of time to enjoy life.
-
Suzie Orman strikes me as a bit of a lavish spender. And her advice is well-suited to people like her.
I've graduated beyond Suzie's advice, but I'll always be grateful for her. I caught one of her shows on CNBC once when I was a teen and it got my brain thinking about this stuff. I then downloaded episodes of her show from iTunes on to my iPod (yes, iPod).
-
... And retiring isn’t necessarily beneficial for everyone, a large number of men die soon after retiring (women are generally fine), so continuing to work in some capacity is a good thing. ...
That's because women continue to work in the home. Men generally sit on the couch and watch football while yelling for their wife to bring them a beer. :)
-
... And retiring isn’t necessarily beneficial for everyone, a large number of men die soon after retiring (women are generally fine), so continuing to work in some capacity is a good thing. ...
That's because women continue to work in the home. Men generally sit on the couch and watch football while yelling for their wife to bring them a beer. :)
If I did that, my life expectancy would be short indeed...
-
I agree with her (unoriginal) advice that most people should delay taking social security until the age that gives the highest monthly check.
She's crazy to think that most employers will allow someone to work until 70 . . . many simply will not.
This! I don't think people can count on working to 70 realistically. As is pointed out in this thread, lots of employers don't want older workers. Also, health is a factor as we age. I may not be able to work until I am 70 due to health issues. This is one of the reasons I hang around this place. I want to be okay retiring rather than being pushed out due to age.
-
I work at a law firm that allows the geezers to stay until they are ready to drop. I'm not kidding; we have a guy who's 88, comes in to foul up the bathroom and screw up the copier, eat lunch with cronies, leaving a mess behind for the maintenance guy to clean up, and make a general pest of himself. He has few clients, since most of them predeceased him. There are a few others that are right behind him in age and repeating the same behavior. I am not a lawyer (I'm administration) and I am leaving now, before I become a dinosaur. My predecessor was 77 at retirement, who refused to use a computer and kept the entire place enslaved to an outmoded way of doing everything. Most people should NOT work until they are ready to drop over. They might think they are productive, but I'd be willing to bet that in most cases, they are not and just drag everyone else down. It's ego and greed that keeps them shackled to their desks. Not for me, thanks. I'm going while I'm still healthy and have plenty of time to enjoy life.
I also work in law as a legal admin. assistant. One good thing about it is that age and experience are valued. However, I don't want to have to work once I turn 60.
-
How many 65 year old engineers do companies really need? And will these engineers be willing to work for the same pay as a 35 year old engineer?
If they create the same amount of value as that 35 year old engineer, they'd better be prepared to work for the same pay, IMO.
I agree. It's something I try to remind myself constantly.
I think there's this idea all across the US that people expect their pay is always going to go up. But, you know, it's not. Much like the military is a pyramid, so are many companies.
We have a lot of "older" people at my company (at 47, I'm young) The knowledge and experience that most of our directors have brought to the company are very very valuable. What you get with someone with experience is the almost instant answer because they've seen it all before.
But that isn't true of everyone. I've also worked with senior people who aren't able to keep up. They can work on 1 or 2 projects at a time, but not 4 or 5, like when they were younger. So a mediocre engineer who can do 1 or 2 things (but well) is worth about the same as a more junior engineer who can handle more projects.
Some of the most successful (and happy) people I've worked with are practical, frugal, and mustachian. These are the people who can move effortlessly from engineering to management to director to VP and back again. They don't have the need to have a certain income above a certain level.
Everyone needs to be willing and able to accept lateral moves or downward moves from time to time.
-
I don’t think saving for early retirement is a luxury anymore. Even if you are ok with the idea of working until you are 70, your employer probably isn’t.
You're right, of course, that many people physically can't continue in their jobs after a certain age.
And I've seen a couple people who are REALLY not up with technology: The other day I had a quick conversation with the custodian, and he asked me if I'd give him information on something we'd just discussed. I said, "Sure, write down your email for me." He took my note pad, looked uncomfortable a minute, then copied down his Employee ID # from his work badge. I was a little shocked, and rather than tell him he was completely ignorant of a major method of communication these days, I just said, "You know, I think I'll just print it for you." He looked massively relieved.
In addition to these items, however, two more reasons we can't realistically all work 'til 70:
- By the time you've reached 50, you're probably making as much money as the company's willing to pay you /as much money as your job can reasonably pay (every job has a value within society). You're not going to be satisfied staying at the top of the salary scale for two decades, and your boss is going to figure out that he can ditch you and hire two younger workers at the bottom of the salary scale.
- If we current workers stay in our jobs 'til 70, the younger folks just out of college aren't going to be able to find positions in the work force -- especially with technology taking away some jobs.
-
Eh, you know, we are not her target audience. She's talking to the folks for whom "invest up to the match in your 401(k)" is a novel concept, for whom "no car loans longer than 3 years" is a massive lifestyle cut. If the average American followed her advice, they'd be much better off.
And that's fine. We're not all trying to achieve the same goals. Just because you and I aren't motivated by her message doesn't mean someone else won't learn something from her.
-
The life expectancy for a male in the US is about 77 years. My plan is to retire next year at age 56. Would I rather plan for a 21 year retirement or maybe just 7 years? This is a no brainer for me. And the thought of working at Mega-Gov for 15 more years is unimaginable for me.
I think Ms. Orman is out of touch on many issues. Is she still even relevant in the world of personal finance?
That life expectancy is a median figure. Half will live longer, half will not. Since you are 56, the chances have increased substantially that you will live longer. Indeed, according to the SS Actuarial tables, you've got another 24.67 years left in you.
https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html
-
... And retiring isn’t necessarily beneficial for everyone, a large number of men die soon after retiring (women are generally fine), so continuing to work in some capacity is a good thing. ...
That's because women continue to work in the home. Men generally sit on the couch and watch football while yelling for their wife to bring them a beer. :)
If I did that, my life expectancy would be short indeed...
LOL. Yes, we’ll, that brings up the other interesting thing about the number of divorces after retirement when people learn they actually don’t like being around each other 24/7. But from a gender perspective, women are better off because women don’t generally associate their identity with work, they associate identity with family and friends, work is often just a means to an end. Men wrap their entire sense of self up in their work and when it ends, don’t know who they are or what to do. Best thing for men is to work part-time, paid or not, doing anything that gives them some sense of purpose. Obviously this doesn’t apply to everyone but there’s a reason most retirement centers are filled with women, not men.
-
I am 63 and retired at 58. Then a year later I was offered a chance to teach an online college course which I love and still do. I knew the subject matter as it was my career for my life but I had to teach myself the computer program they were using and the first semester it was like having a f.t. job. I took a million notes and it was difficult. The 2nd semester I realized I was doing some things the long and hard way. Then they changed programs and I thought that would be terrible but actually it was easy because I had learned one it was so easy to learn another. However, not one of my friends are still working. Most got laid-off from their professional jobs and never were able to get back to work. Most gave up eventually, adjusted their lifestyles, collected SS and are fine. Also a few of my friends have left work due to illness or disability and 3 died between 59-67. So most people won't be able to just keep working.
-
I don’t think saving for early retirement is a luxury anymore. Even if you are ok with the idea of working until you are 70, your employer probably isn’t.
You're right, of course, that many people physically can't continue in their jobs after a certain age.
And I've seen a couple people who are REALLY not up with technology: The other day I had a quick conversation with the custodian, and he asked me if I'd give him information on something we'd just discussed. I said, "Sure, write down your email for me." He took my note pad, looked uncomfortable a minute, then copied down his Employee ID # from his work badge. I was a little shocked, and rather than tell him he was completely ignorant of a major method of communication these days, I just said, "You know, I think I'll just print it for you." He looked massively relieved.
In addition to these items, however, two more reasons we can't realistically all work 'til 70:
- By the time you've reached 50, you're probably making as much money as the company's willing to pay you /as much money as your job can reasonably pay (every job has a value within society). You're not going to be satisfied staying at the top of the salary scale for two decades, and your boss is going to figure out that he can ditch you and hire two younger workers at the bottom of the salary scale.
- If we current workers stay in our jobs 'til 70, the younger folks just out of college aren't going to be able to find positions in the work force -- especially with technology taking away some jobs.
With technology and advances in health, 70 will be the new 50, there will be lots of people willing and able to work. It’s actually happening now with the baby boomer generation not really retiring and the millennials feeling squeezed out, that’s only going to continue. Working to 70 doesnt necessarily mean working full-time either. There will be plenty of people working flexibly and if they are older and ok financially but working to stay engaged, then high salaries may not be the main focus. By 2025, 75% of the population will be millennials and younger, what do you think will happen when that group becomes 70 and is as tech savvy as anyone else with 40 years of advances in medicine and health? Will start to see 100 as the avg lifespan and people will probably work until their 80s.
-
With technology and advances in health, 70 will be the new 50, there will be lots of people willing and able to work. It’s actually happening now with the baby boomer generation not really retiring and the millennials feeling squeezed out, that’s only going to continue. Working to 70 doesnt necessarily mean working full-time either. There will be plenty of people working flexibly and if they are older and ok financially but working to stay engaged, then high salaries may not be the main focus. By 2025, 75% of the population will be millennials and younger, what do you think will happen when that group becomes 70 and is as tech savvy as anyone else with 40 years of advances in medicine and health? Will start to see 100 as the avg lifespan and people will probably work until their 80s.
[/quote]
Ummm...not so much https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-23/americans-are-retiring-later-dying-sooner-and-sicker-in-between
-
With technology and advances in health, 70 will be the new 50, there will be lots of people willing and able to work. It’s actually happening now with the baby boomer generation not really retiring and the millennials feeling squeezed out, that’s only going to continue. Working to 70 doesnt necessarily mean working full-time either. There will be plenty of people working flexibly and if they are older and ok financially but working to stay engaged, then high salaries may not be the main focus. By 2025, 75% of the population will be millennials and younger, what do you think will happen when that group becomes 70 and is as tech savvy as anyone else with 40 years of advances in medicine and health? Will start to see 100 as the avg lifespan and people will probably work until their 80s.
What makes you think that millennials will be as tech-savvy as anyone else when they're 70? That's not the natural way of things.
Also, what makes you think people will live to an average of 100?
-
I'm surprised by how many positive comments this article is generating. As has been mentioned, and she even mentioned it in the article, health issues may force retirement sooner than planned. She says working to 70 may be difficult but not impossible, as if it is all within our control. It is not. You never know when health issues will arise. You can eat well and exercise and increase the odds but that is all.
And as others have mentioned, many are forced out by their employers. Ageism is a very real thing. So is cognitive decline. This is another area one has little control over. I like how she says to look around to see how many 70 year olds are in your company. I have a suggestion: look how many 65 year olds are in your company. Few are wanted. Many retire voluntarily but many don't. They are pushed out.
So how is working until you're 70 a viable plan that you can count on? It isn't. I guess what she is really saying is other than try to keep going and try to get p/t work, the average person who has not or wasn't able to save much just has to try to keep going until SS is at its highest payment at 70. There isn't any choice so cross your fingers to make it to the finish line.
I know several people who are on the retire at 70 track and close to the finish line. Every one of them is miserable and crawling up to the line. They are tired and it is a real fight for them to keep up the pace. But they have no choice because their savings are paltry. When they decided (or circumstances decided for them) to keep working past traditional retirement age, they assumed they would have the energy and tolerance to keep going.
I know many others who were forced out starting at about age 60. Fortunately most of my friends and acquaintances who were forced out were in decent enough shape financially to be able to survive.
Others I know had health issues that forced them out.
-
What makes you think that millennials will be as tech-savvy as anyone else when they're 70? That's not the natural way of things.
Primacy in learning is a very strong (and positive effect). Millennials grew up in a world where computers were common and since middle school, the internet (for the pedantic, read this as web browsers) was always a thing. When I look at my own parents (70), they don't struggle at all with anything that was learnable through high school. My dad could probably still use a slide rule if you gave him a few minutes to get reacquainted with it.
OTOH, they do struggle sometimes with an iPhone, not because it's complex, but because it's novel (to them) and they have some cognitive load just thinking about how a touch screen works, that they can't hold it with one hand in a front-to-back pinch grip and use the other hand to push the buttons, etc. For all of its simplicity to use, it might as well be a StarTrek communicator to them.
-
What makes you think that millennials will be as tech-savvy as anyone else when they're 70? That's not the natural way of things.
Primacy in learning is a very strong (and positive effect). Millennials grew up in a world where computers were common and since middle school, the internet (for the pedantic, read this as web browsers) was always a thing. When I look at my own parents (70), they don't struggle at all with anything that was learnable through high school. My dad could probably still use a slide rule if you gave him a few minutes to get reacquainted with it.
OTOH, they do struggle sometimes with an iPhone, not because it's complex, but because it's novel (to them) and they have some cognitive load just thinking about how a touch screen works, that they can't hold it with one hand in a front-to-back pinch grip and use the other hand to push the buttons, etc. For all of its simplicity to use, it might as well be a StarTrek communicator to them.
I wonder about this in myself. I perceive myself to to learn tech things perfectly well, but only if I have a compelling reason to learn them. I'm not really interested in them for themselves, but only as a means to an end. E.g., although I actually was one the first of my peer group to log substantive time on some of the early pcs, I didn't need to know how to use them until the mid 1990s, when the personal computer became ubiquitous and the internet developed. When I needed to learn Windows in college, I learned it. I never touched an Apple product from 1989 until 2009, when I bought an ipod that I dearly loved. So far, it's the only Apple or touch-screen product that I've tried and liked at all, which is irritating because touchscreen is becoming the rage now. The question is: could I learn to be comfortable with touchscreen in most forms and even to prefer it IF I had to (for work, etc.)? Presumably.
I guess we'll know one day when I finally break down and get a smart phone. Hopefully not for at least 5 more years or whenever they quit making the little flip phones. I still haven't switched to streaming tv/movies, either, and likely won't until Netflix phases out their hard-dvd mailing program.
When it comes down to it, I guess I'm a consistent late/never adopter of most of the modern tech products. I'm no luddite, just see no pressing need for most of it. I have never had to build a website, I've never used Outlook or one of those automated calendar and email programs, I've never even SEEN Twitter or a lot of the internet stuff that people talk about, I wouldn't know an "app" if it bit me on the butt, etc. (Side note: what is the difference between an app and a regular software program?)
I've gone 25 years assuming "I'll learn [that new tech thingy] if and when I need it, which is quite possibly never because tech changes so fast" and it's been fine. On the other hand I've not been looking for jobs that focus on tech applications. Still, I wonder if I'm fooling myself and I really would NOT pick up new stuff as quickly as younger people, given that we were both starting on a new 'tech thing'...
-
What makes you think that millennials will be as tech-savvy as anyone else when they're 70? That's not the natural way of things.
Primacy in learning is a very strong (and positive effect). Millennials grew up in a world where computers were common and since middle school, the internet (for the pedantic, read this as web browsers) was always a thing. When I look at my own parents (70), they don't struggle at all with anything that was learnable through high school. My dad could probably still use a slide rule if you gave him a few minutes to get reacquainted with it.
OTOH, they do struggle sometimes with an iPhone, not because it's complex, but because it's novel (to them) and they have some cognitive load just thinking about how a touch screen works, that they can't hold it with one hand in a front-to-back pinch grip and use the other hand to push the buttons, etc. For all of its simplicity to use, it might as well be a StarTrek communicator to them.
Sure, but by the time millennials are 70, iPhones will seem like slide rules, or worse. There will be a lot of new developments and paradigm shifts -- we can't assume that technology will build directly from what we have now. In fact, we should assume the opposite. Younger generations will certainly be using things that millennials won't "get." I don't see the millennial generation being particularly insulated from the trend of time and technology marching on, and of the older generations not getting it.
-
Suze offers GREAT advice....for Joe 6-pack and also Billy-Bob Buttcrack. Those people need to ensure that they have an income until they can take SS. Her advice is NOT appropriate for the MMM crowd, who (whether or not they admit it) are the capitalists.
The MMM crowd will invest their money into companies and take ownership of them, and also will assume the risks and rewards that come with that investment. I do this through mutual funds, others may choose bonds or stocks directly, or even real estate. As the owners, we also need a pool of labor, and supply and demand interact to give us a price for that labor. If more workers demand jobs until they are 70, then the price of labor goes down as the supply of workers goes up. The lower labor rates result in lower expenditure and hopefully more profits, which we, the MMM crowd (capitalists), then receive.
If you want to work until 70, then that's great! Enjoy! It's just not for me.
-
70 is the new 40 for me, mustachian-retirement-wise. :-)
Healthwise I'm on good trajectory, but wary of things like Parkinsons, etc. And we all decline with age, both physically and mentally.
We also become socially undesirable in the workplace, where people may be uncomfortable working alongside us as peers, or have trouble taking us seriously in certain roles.
My current plan as a consultant in tech is to build a business of my own, rather than get paid to help others with theirs. It could be any kind of business, where my tech skills would give me an edge in marketing, operations, or whatever.
I often think about new careers worth retraining for, where gray hairs of wisdom and authority may be OK, and one could continue making real money into their seventies; but beyond the usual catch-alls like selling real estate or insurance. Why not a 2nd/3rd/4th career as an accountant, or a building inspector? What else might there be?
-
RE: "70 is the new 50"
Not in body and not in mind when it comes to decision making. I'm a medical clinician and 90% of the age 60+ people I've worked with (who strangely enough have made up a disproportionate amount of my coworkers over the years) suffer from mental decline and are not the first person I'd want taking care of my loved one. The levels of befuddlement and "I've always done it this way and I'll be damned if I'm going to learn something new in my old age" are quite striking. Lots of mistakes made.
-
With technology and advances in health, 70 will be the new 50, there will be lots of people willing and able to work. It’s actually happening now with the baby boomer generation not really retiring and the millennials feeling squeezed out, that’s only going to continue. Working to 70 doesnt necessarily mean working full-time either. There will be plenty of people working flexibly and if they are older and ok financially but working to stay engaged, then high salaries may not be the main focus. By 2025, 75% of the population will be millennials and younger, what do you think will happen when that group becomes 70 and is as tech savvy as anyone else with 40 years of advances in medicine and health? Will start to see 100 as the avg lifespan and people will probably work until their 80s.
I'm doubtful about much of this.
- Yes, we have advances in medicine, but the average person's diet isn't as good as those of previous generations ... so that's working against a longer lifespan. Fewer people smoke though, and that's helpful for long lives.
- The article tipster references mentions obesity as an obstacle to longer lifespans ... we all know that's true. My RN daughter says that obesity is a +1 for every other health difficulty you're experiencing ... and diabetes is another +1 for every other health difficulty you're experiencing. I think that's true.
- 2025 is not far away; I don't think the Baby Boomers and Gen Xers are all going to die out in such numbers that Millenniels and youngers will make up 75% of the American population ... remember, the youngest Baby Boomers are still in their 50s and some Gen Xers are in their 40s. For those two generations to make up only 25% of the population within eight years doesn't seem likely.
- Will today's tech savvy milennials still be "cutting edge" in 20-30 years, or will a new generation of tech have made their knowledge as obsolete as floppy disks?
- I read somewhere -- don't remember where -- that lifespans are growing longer for upper-class people (because of medical advances, as you mentioned), but that people in manual labor jobs are dying at the same ages as their grandparents and great grandparents. Bodies that work hard do wear out.
I wonder about this in myself. I perceive myself to to learn tech things perfectly well, but only if I have a compelling reason to learn them.
I'm the same. I have no problem learning tech-y things, but everything tech-y doesn't interest me, and if I don't see it as something useful to me on a personal level, I just don't bother. Sometimes this is a problem at work. :)
Sure, but by the time millennials are 70, iPhones will seem like slide rules, or worse. There will be a lot of new developments and paradigm shifts -- we can't assume that technology will build directly from what we have now. In fact, we should assume the opposite. Younger generations will certainly be using things that millennials won't "get." I don't see the millennial generation being particularly insulated from the trend of time and technology marching on, and of the older generations not getting it.
Exactly. Consider how much yesterday's manual typewriter shares with today's iPhone ... pretty much just the arrangement of the keyboard. I don't know what's coming in future years, but I suspect it'll make the iPhone look like that old typewriter.
Remember, too, that technology is a fickle mistress. It's great when it works, but you need to have other knowledge behind it for the all-too-common times when technology fails us. A very common thing I see at school: We're moving to sooooooo many computer-based lessons, and about every two weeks the wifi goes down, leaving us without computers. The teachers who have nothing but tech in their lesson-plan arsenal are adrift and fall apart. Those of us who taught before Smart Boards and computers carts just change gears and roll right on.
-
70? Hopefully it would be because we love what we are doing, and not because we have to. For example, should we might continue our side gigs, but ideally we would want to have other people manage them for us, while we travel the world.
-
"Yes, you heard me right: 70 is the new retirement age—not a month or year before."
Hey Suze Orman,
F that. You go ahead and work until 70.
Don't tell the rest of us when we can FIRE.
Here's a more thoughtful rebuttal of your ridiculous 'work until 70' rule.
Here’s Why She’s Wrong (https://realdealretirement.com/dont-retire-even-a-month-before-70-suze-not-so-fast/)
-
She is a national figure. She has probably spoken with the movers and shakers that truly run the economy of this country. We all look at the trinity report and proceed along the assumption that history will repeat itself. Four percent of a savings that is 25X your expected necessary income is supposed to suffice.
I'm just saying she has built herself up to being a national figure. She is known as a financial guru. There are probably things she can say and cannot say due to her various connections with the powers at be. Maybe she is just telling us what she can about the financial future of the US.
The best laid schemes o’ Mice an’ Men Gang aft agley.
-
a large number of men die soon after retiring (women are generally fine),
Ah, but do these men retire because they're in ill health, or do they retire and then get sick?
They retire, get depressed, then ill, then die.
Actually, I think these men just work until they die, and only "retire" when they are to sick to work. Think of Andy Rooney, John McLaughlin, Paul "Bear" Bryant.