11–20 of 99 posts
Ok, so you cant retire if you dont save enough to stomach a tiny downturn.
> Every generation lives longer than the one that came before—nothing new there No, that's completely wrong and this is a lie that keeps being repeated. Life expectancy has only been increasing because child mortality has decreased to almost zero. The upper end has not shifted much at all.
https://ourworldindata.org/its-not-just-about-child-mortalit...
and
"Excluding child mortality, the average life expectancy during the 12th–19th centuries was approximately 55 years." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy
> Every generation lives longer than the one that came before—nothing new there No, that's completely wrong and this is a lie that keeps being repeated. Life expectancy has only been increasing because child mortality has decreased to almost zero. The upper end has not shifted much at all.
> On average across all population subgroups, people who survived to age 50 were expected to live over 8 years longer in 2000 than in 1940, corresponding to an increase in e50 from 23 years in 1940 to 31.3 years in 2006, or an average rise of 1.3 years per decade.
An 8 year increase in life expectancy at age 50 (from 73 to 81.3) seems like a pretty large increase over the span of 60 years.
I’d be more interested to know what the change in healthspan is, though. Living longer is less interesting to me than living longer in good health without worsening pain and disability.
Retirement seems like a pretty crucial process in the economy. If we set things up so that people can’t retire, that will slow down the process of getting the next generation into their positions. I do know some folks who have, instead, semi-retired (go in one or two days a week). People at the end of their careers have lots of experience to pass on. And it seems to keep them active and healthy. I wonder why we haven…
I wonder if the fixed costs associated with employing an individual make that more challenging in some regulatory environments?
Maybe the cost of a notebook computer or other device, if required. And business cards, if anyone still uses those. What else?
edit: possibly some training costs, depending a lot on the type of job and the previous experience of the worker
> Every generation lives longer than the one that came before—nothing new there No, that's completely wrong and this is a lie that keeps being repeated. Life expectancy has only been increasing because child mortality has decreased to almost zero. The upper end has not shifted much at all.
A change of five to eight years makes a material difference in actuarial terms when you have to plan for retirement:
> In 1920–1922, Canadian men who had lived to age 65 could expect to live for 13 more years, and women could expect to live for 13.5 more years (to age 78.0 and 78.5 respectively). The expected total life span of 65-year-olds was substantially higher than life expectancy at birth: 19.2 years higher for men and 18.0 years higher for women.
> In 2009–2011, 65-year-old men were expected to live until they were 83.8, while 65-year-old women were expected to live until the age of 86.7. This means that from 1920–1922 to 2009–2011, the life expectancies of 65-year-olds increased by 5.8 years for men and 8.2 years for women. This is a much smaller gain than the 20-year increase in life expectancy for newborns during this same period.
* https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11-630-x/11-630-x2016002...
Starting at 65, the odds of hitting an age of 90 are worth considering when doing planning:
> Assume we have 1,000 relatively healthy 65-year-old men. The chances of their staying alive at least until their 80s are quite good. More difficult, however, is avoiding critical illness – very serious conditions such as heart attacks, life-threatening cancers, stroke and Alzheimer’s. (There are 14 classifications in all.) While more than 500 of these men will survive until age 90, only 39 of them are expected to avoid a critical illness by that age. Of the 41 survivors at age 100, none is expected to be free of critical illness.
* https://www.theglobeandmail.com/investing/personal-finance/r...
Retirement seems like a pretty crucial process in the economy. If we set things up so that people can’t retire, that will slow down the process of getting the next generation into their positions. I do know some folks who have, instead, semi-retired (go in one or two days a week). People at the end of their careers have lots of experience to pass on. And it seems to keep them active and healthy. I wonder why we haven…
Retirement seems like a pretty crucial process in the economy. If we set things up so that people can’t retire, that will slow down the process of getting the next generation into their positions. I do know some folks who have, instead, semi-retired (go in one or two days a week). People at the end of their careers have lots of experience to pass on. And it seems to keep them active and healthy. I wonder why we haven…
I wonder if the fixed costs associated with employing an individual make that more challenging in some regulatory environments?
Retirement seems like a pretty crucial process in the economy. If we set things up so that people can’t retire, that will slow down the process of getting the next generation into their positions. I do know some folks who have, instead, semi-retired (go in one or two days a week). People at the end of their careers have lots of experience to pass on. And it seems to keep them active and healthy. I wonder why we haven…
> In a nutshell, the 30 idea is a rule of thumb financial planners can use to guestimate how much young couples starting off on their financial journeys need to save for retirement. Rather than state something like save 10%, 12% or 15% of your gross (pre-tax) income each and every year, The Rule of 30 views retirement saving as occurring in tandem with daycare and mortgage repayment.
> From the get-go, Vettese suggests young couples allocate 30% of their gross or after-tax income to those three major expenses: Retirement savings, daycare costs and mortgage payments. However, when starting out, they may have to save less in order to handle payments for daycare and the mortgage. Since daycare expenses are temporary after a few years or so (depending on how many children a couple has), once that expense has finished, they can ramp up the mortgage paydown and/or retirement savings. And if—ideally five years before retirement—the home mortgage is paid off, then couples can kick their retirement savings into overdrive by allocating a full 30%, or more, solely to building their retirement nest egg.
* https://www.moneysense.ca/columns/retired-money/the-rule-of-...
* https://www.myownadvisor.ca/the-rule-of-30-review/
* https://boomerandecho.com/the-rule-of-30-book-review/
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Vettese
Anyone interested on reading up on retirement, especially if you're Canadian, should look at Vettese's work.