There Goes My retirement Plan!

Gee, none of my (blue collar) coworkers feel that way. We were very ardent feminists, back in the day, working to see that we got the same pay as the men did for the same job. THAT is what it was all about, not forcing all women to work.

I worked in an industry where I was outnumbered by about 150 to 1 by men in those days. Now women are about 15% of the workforce, and if you talk to any of them, they are there because they want to be. Its very competitive, in part because women can make good money there without a college degree (there are other reasons, too).

Fern

mpumilia said:

I always say the feminists ruined it for a lot of women who just wanted to be homemakers! In fact, most of my female coworkers agree.

Click to expand...

am1 said:

Do most people nearing retirement feel this way? Posts on this thread are good reason not to hire people nearly retirement or to keep them employed.

Click to expand...

No. I have very good friends- a couple 84 and 80. Both worked until they were 80 for the money and because they liked it. Kept them connected they said.

I also have another friend who is my age and she likes her job, but still is looking forward to retiring. And she works from home and has lots of flexibility. She can travel and work from her second home in Florida and with her job.

Fern Modena said:

Gee, none of my (blue collar) coworkers feel that way. We were very ardent feminists, back in the day, working to see that we got the same pay as the men did for the same job. THAT is what it was all about, not forcing all women to work.

I worked in an industry where I was outnumbered by about 150 to 1 by men in those days. Now women are about 15% of the workforce, and if you talk to any of them, they are there because they want to be. Its very competitive, in part because women can make good money there without a college degree (there are other reasons, too).

Fern

Click to expand...

That's great. I just was never a career type person. I'm the kind that most career women or feminists so to speak despise and look down upon. More domestic and introverted believe it or not, although I am very gregarious and social and talkative.

People would never suspect this of me. I do not come across that way and the position I have certainly doesn't resonate to this (Physician Liaison). I work with nurses, and doctors and radiology techs all day. I am well-liked by my coworkers and my bosses. (I look at it as kind of like an acting job where the best parts of me come out, but where deep inside I am really someone else. Some days I really have to force it). Certainly working has helped me grow as a person- I will give you that. It forced me to stretch myself. But I have had it with the stretching at this point!

I think if I never worked I might have maybe joined an organization to connect with the community. I do belong to 2 organizations right now, but I don't have a lot of time or energy to give them. I try to participate as much as I can, but it ain't much.

I feel that with working I have 2 jobs (most people do): the work at home and the paid work. I have always felt the work at home took up enough of my time and was rewarding. I am the one that handles the domestic work (cooking, cleaning, laundry, decorating, some outdoor things) and the finances. Hubby handles domestic work as well- the outside stuff and maintenance and fixing things. We like THAT work. Maybe we should have been farmers! LOL!

As I am getting older, it's harder to have 2 "jobs".

dsmrp said:

mpumilia, I get that you don't want to work, I feel that way myself more often than not. But I like to eat, travel, shop at Costco and have children who need financial help, so it's off to work I go. Having a job or work you like goes a long way towards life satisfaction. Since changing paying jobs in middle age is pretty difficult perhaps you could look at doing the following,
if you already haven't:
1. working a little less, e.g. 80%, 4 days a week. Since your health insurance is thru your husband that's less a factor for having to be FT.
2. telecommuting, 1 day a week, if your job position and employer allows.
3. car-pooling, part ways perhaps, with someone else
4. taking a class in something that interests you
5. getting that dog

Click to expand...

I would LOVE to cut back to 4 day work week and/ or 1 day tel-commute. Problem is my employers are Not interestd in work/life balance for the employees. So. , too, at age 63 1/2 am looking to extricate myself from the madness. Hubby is 14 years my senior and already retired. Hopefully We can make things work.
I also am disillusioned with SSA. If I file now and work p/t, I have to pay back $1 for every $2 earned over $14k? The system makes little sense to me, they clearly need to move into 21st century and 21st century economics.

mpumilia said:

I always say the feminists ruined it for a lot of women who just wanted to be homemakers!

Click to expand...

Comments like this - and the support they receive - always remind me how TUG skews heavily, heavily toward the post-50 crowd (of which I am not a part). None of my friends or co-workers, or my wife's friends or co-workers have ever expressed a sentiment like this to either of us.

Because the fact is, nothing is ruined. Absolutely nothing. I have friends and co-workers in their 20s, 30s and 40s who all opted out of work to raise children, some of whom returned (some full and some part-time) and others who did not.

None of them, incidentally, have a negative thing to say about feminism, and I've seen them roll their eyes at those who do (usually men, in fairness to the OP).

The fact is, most married women who choose to work do so for one of two reasons: 1. They want to; or 2. They can't afford not to (or both, I suppose). Neither has anything to do with feminism.

Incidentally, my 70-something mom and I were talking today about the fact that the four superiors in my chain of command at the United States Attorneys office are all women: The U.S. Attorney, her No. 2, the head of the civil division, and the head of my unit. They are all incredible at their jobs. Think of all that talent that was wasted when women were (and still are) actively excluded from the workplace.

well I am well post 50, and I don't like that comment at all. yes, a person who never worked will get half of the spouse's ss, but they went without all that added income all those years.

I have done both, taking off eight years for my children consequently, I lost income, received a much lower pension, and when i went back, got a big hit in pay, but I got to enjoy my children and I wish my daughter had that opportunity too. she is not a feminist, she is a single mom

mpumilia said:

Oh, yeah- right, I forgot about that- the pay pack of benefits! Hmmm.....but why would she not just wait to file later and if she gets sick she files then for the higher benefit at whatever age she is? Do you mean you could use the payback money for medical expenses if she goes the suspend route?

Click to expand...

No, I wasn't talking about the pay back of benefits (which is now restricted to just one year, BTW, and I think it's going to 6 months with the new budget deal). Just the opposite, actually.

I was talking about using file and suspend to lock in the fact that you indeed "filed" at age 66, but are waiting 'til age 70 to get a higher benefit because it will yield more money over your lifetime. But then something happens to make you believe that you won't live long enough for that higher benefit to work out. So you call the SSA, un-suspend your filing, and get back-benefits from age 66 to present. You'll then be locking in the lower benefit, but presumably you have a reason to now believe that will work out better.

Bob

Recently "retired" after a forced downsizing. I was really scared, figuring I was not financially ready. Caring for a disabled DH compounded the problems and my stress levels. I read this book, How to Retire Happy, Wild, and Free, which focuses on all of the other benefits of retirement. Plus, it shows that retirement is not all geared on the financial aspects which most financial advisers caution against. After all, if I listened to them, I would be scared to death that I could never survive. I believe that the book talks about some of the life benefits that many TUGGERS value. This book brings another perspective to the conversation -

http://www.amazon.com/How-Retire-Ha...-1&keywords=how+to+retire+happy+wild+and+free

mpumilia said:

Same here. Same situation. Pay cuts/layoffs/lost money. Lets hold on for dear life! I am trying to think positive! We are in better shape than most and I am thankful for that. We at least have jobs and income.

Click to expand...

I so agree, after the Great Depression that hit our state I'm very grateful that I'm employed at a great place, with a decent 401K, and a decent bonus (if we hit our numbers) we finally can afford to do some much needed repairs to our home and through the help of TUG I was able to purchase a timeshare that will allow our family to bond.

pedro47 said:

One key to having a good retirement is to start saving early. Also, you need to invest into a good ROTH account with a low expense ratio.

Click to expand...

Does anyone have any low cost Roth IRA to invest with. I have one that I don't want to put any more money into as the fees nickle and dime me

Sugarcubesea said:

Does anyone have any low cost Roth IRA to invest with. I have one that I don't want to put any more money into as the fees nickle and dime me

Click to expand...

I use T Rowe Price for all my IRAS, including a Roth. And all my other accounts as well.

Sandy said:

Recently "retired" after a forced downsizing. I was really scared, figuring I was not financially ready. Caring for a disabled DH compounded the problems and my stress levels. I read this book, How to Retire Happy, Wild, and Free, which focuses on all of the other benefits of retirement. Plus, it shows that retirement is not all geared on the financial aspects which most financial advisers caution against. After all, if I listened to them, I would be scared to death that I could never survive. I believe that the book talks about some of the life benefits that many TUGGERS value. This book brings another perspective to the conversation -

http://www.amazon.com/How-Retire-Ha...-1&keywords=how+to+retire+happy+wild+and+free

Click to expand...

I read it. Very good!

rapmarks said:

well I am well post 50, and I don't like that comment at all. yes, a person who never worked will get half of the spouse's ss, but they went without all that added income all those years.

I have done both, taking off eight years for my children consequently, I lost income, received a much lower pension, and when i went back, got a big hit in pay, but I got to enjoy my children and I wish my daughter had that opportunity too. she is not a feminist, she is a single mom

Click to expand...

But that person went without that income by choice. They did not pay into the system. Why should people who did pay into the system have to pay for someone who chose not to? SS is not supposed to be welfare or an entitlement program so to speak.

Blues said:

No, I wasn't talking about the pay back of benefits (which is now restricted to just one year, BTW, and I think it's going to 6 months with the new budget deal). Just the opposite, actually.

I was talking about using file and suspend to lock in the fact that you indeed "filed" at age 66, but are waiting 'til age 70 to get a higher benefit because it will yield more money over your lifetime. But then something happens to make you believe that you won't live long enough for that higher benefit to work out. So you call the SSA, un-suspend your filing, and get back-benefits from age 66 to present. You'll then be locking in the lower benefit, but presumably you have a reason to now believe that will work out better.

Bob

Click to expand...

I am sorry. I am still not understanding. I admit, I am not the sharpest tool in the shed.

You said in the first paragraph that you are not talking about a payback of benefits and that they are restricted to one year and possibly 6 months now, but in the second paragraph you are stating that you would would get back- benefits from age 66 to whatever age you un suspend.

Which is it?

You might not like the "feminist" comment (which is a joke) but I will tell you that at least where I work, most of the women get it and in fact, most of them of ALL ages- especially the YOUNGER ones and most definitely the older ones - don't want to work but have to. (Most of the younger ones never voted a day in their lives and many do not own any property except their cars. Some are single mothers)

That's my story and I''m sticking to it. Maybe the culture is different up here in Hudson Valley NY than where you are from.

rapmarks said:

....I don't like that comment at all. Yes, a person who never worked will get half of the spouse's ss, but they went without all that added income all those years.

Click to expand...

I agree with this. Because I traveled a lot during my career I strongly encouraged my wife to stay home and take care of our 3 kids. To this day I believe the reason our kids turned out so well is because she was there to monitor and manage their activities.

When we divorced I willingly agreed that she would get about 45% of my pension while I am alive, increasing to 55% after I die. The assumption being that she will outlive me as I am 20 years her senior. She has been collecting for 15 years now and I am 100% comfortable with our arrangement as I believe she earned every penny she is getting.

George

bogey21 said:

I agree with this. Because I traveled a lot during my career I strongly encouraged my wife to stay home and take care of our 3 kids. To this day I believe the reason our kids turned out so well is because she was there to monitor and manage their activities.

When we divorced I willingly agreed that she would get about 45% of my pension while I am alive, increasing to 55% after I die. The assumption being that she will outlive me as I am 20 years her senior. She has been collecting for 15 years now and I am 100% comfortable with our arrangement as I believe she earned every penny she is getting.

George

Click to expand...

A private pension and a divorce settlement are different animals from a SS check.

RE. women having to work---even for those with high incomes and professional degrees, many now HAVE to work b/c of student loans. My niece graduated from an Ivy law school with $200K in loans. She's 28 now. Even if she wanted to, she does not have the option of being a home-maker or even taking a significant break to raise kids, as she has to repay her loans. And pretty much all of her peers are in the same boat.
I went to a state law school 3 decades ago--a decision I made b/cof the costs--I couldn't imagine having $40K in student loans from a private shcool. I didn't get the prestige, but I did get the luxury of having no debt and being able to do whatever I wanted. I now see this thinking coming back into fashion.

elaine said:

RE. women having to work---even for those with high incomes and professional degrees, many now HAVE to work b/c of student loans. My niece graduated from an Ivy law school with $200K in loans. She's 28 now. Even if she wanted to, she does not have the option of being a home-maker or even taking a significant break to raise kids, as she has to repay her loans. And pretty much all of her peers are in the same boat.
I went to a state law school 3 decades ago--a decision I made b/cof the costs--I couldn't imagine having $40K in student loans from a private shcool. I didn't get the prestige, but I did get the luxury of having no debt and being able to do whatever I wanted. I now see this thinking coming back into fashion.

Click to expand...

That is the thinking I followed 15 years ago. .it served me well. . State school on a combination of scholarships and tuition reimbursement. . Walked out with degrees, no debt and a decent career path.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk

rapmarks said:

well I am well post 50, and I don't like that comment at all. yes, a person who never worked will get half of the spouse's ss, but they went without all that added income all those years.

Click to expand...

Huh, we the taxpayers (SS contributors) are supposed to pay someone SS who has chosen not to work? Somone who has not contributed into SS and gets to collect "extra" does not bode well with alot of us. It needs to be fixed in the next round of SS tweaks, only if politicians don't worry about pissing off the homemaker voters.

sptung said:

Huh, we the taxpayers (SS contributors) are supposed to pay someone SS who has chosen not to work? Somone who has not contributed into SS and gets to collect "extra" does not bode well with alot of us. It needs to be fixed in the next round of SS tweaks, only if politicians don't worry about pissing off the homemaker voters.

Click to expand...

I agree. I do not like double dipping or a much younger spouse getting the survivor benefits. There is not enough money in social security fund for people to game the system.

I think what one pays into a government pension plan is what they should get paid out but that is not the case.

Sugarcubesea said:

Does anyone have any low cost Roth IRA to invest with. I have one that I don't want to put any more money into as the fees nickle and dime me

Click to expand...

The Roth account cost peanuts and should not be a factor. The fees you pay for a mutual fund cost money. Vanguard has the lowest cost in the industry. Fidelity offers the most funds with lowest fees to pick from. At the end of your investing, the most important part is the rate of return you achieved over the years. The only thing more important is not taking a big loss like the market took in 2008. There is program I use to follow which funds to use and when to change them. It will tell you when to move to cash and when to buy back in. It is all based on technical analysis, computer driven and back tested for proven results. The link is below. If you want more info, send me a pm.

http://www.sumgrowth.com/default.aspx

sptung said:

Huh, we the taxpayers (SS contributors) are supposed to pay someone SS who has chosen not to work? Somone who has not contributed into SS and gets to collect "extra" does not bode well with alot of us. It needs to be fixed in the next round of SS tweaks, only if politicians don't worry about pissing off the homemaker voters.

Click to expand...

Stay at home parents do a lot of uncompensated work.. and our entire tax and entitlement system is based on them..Hense the marriage penalty.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk

mpumilia said:

But that person went without that income by choice. They did not pay into the system. Why should people who did pay into the system have to pay for someone who chose not to? SS is not supposed to be welfare or an entitlement program so to speak.

Click to expand...

Social Security is and was designed to be welfare and entitlement. . If you don't think so.. go back to the fdr proposal on it..

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk

Jason245 said:

Stay at home parents do a lot of uncompensated work.. and our entire tax and entitlement system is based on them..Hense the marriage penalty.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Stay at home parents are working for themselves, their spouse and children. Why should society pay for them when they are not contributing outside of their own family circle? Marriage penalty hits 2-income family especially when both are equal income earners. No fair.

PS. I hate the word entitlement. That is living in CA for too long... it is the State of entitlement. Don't start me...