I know at least 2 people who have retired before the age of 50, 1 who has retired before age 40, and 2 who have retired before the age of 65. All were born after 1940.
On the other hand, I look at my grandparents: My paternal grandpa retired at age 65, my paternal grandmother never worked; My maternal grandpa retired at 55 only due to a stroke, and my grandmother lost her job last year at 82 and is still looking for work as she detests being out of work.

Is retiring younger a growing trend in our society; if so, why?

no, the opposite is true.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/laborfor/Working-Beyond-Retirement-Age.pdf

(look at slide 3.)

It would depend on that person's specific benefits plan. Most of the people I work with, police officers, retire at 50 because they have a really good plan. one guy just retired, he waited until he hit 55, and he now makes $100 more a month than he did when he was working...plus he saves on gas and wear & tear on his veh because he no longer commutes 40mi each way.

I retired at the ripe old age of 26.  :o :o :o



Cat

My Bro retired at 48.  My Grandpa retired at 77.  :o

Nowadays people just get canned at 55 and can't find another job.
::)

Retired at 40?  How did they afford that?  Did they retire, or did they become disabled, or find a way to scam disability. 

Retired at 40?  How did they afford that?  Did they retire, or did they become disabled, or find a way to scam disability. 


My Bro was part of the "Internet Bubble" of the late 1990's.

My Bro was part of the "Internet Bubble" of the late 1990's.



I'd've retired too!!!

I don't think it is a trend.  Those you mentioned, especially the 40 yr old, could have been fortunate enough to have a job that allowed for savings enough to retire early.  They also could have been good with money.  You never mentioned if they had kids or not.  Not having kids would make it easier to save for early retirement.


My dad was 69 when he died and he was still working.  My mom is 64 and still working with no end in sight.  My grandfather was 72 when he retired.  My grandma was in her 40's but it was a disability thing.  My other grandma was 65. 

It's not a trend - but yes, the tech industry has been good to some of us.  

Talent got me into the tech industry.  Luck got me into a company that didn't fail.  Not having a life (no wife, no kids, and therefore no need for a $500K mortgage, which is what it costs to buy a basic single-family-detached home in my neighborhood, nor any need for a $100K-per-kid college fund) gave me enough spare cash to invest when investing was still an activity worth doing.  Funny thing is that people who did it the other way around ended up in the same place I did.  They got the wife, the kids, and bought the $500K house back when it only cost $250K.  (The fact that the house peaked in value at $700-800K didn't matter, because they didn't take out loans against its appraised value.)

I'm not retired yet, but (assuming the world doesn't blow up like it did in 2008, and like it still might do in 2011), I'm on track to pull the plug on within a few years of 45.  (Had I bet on deflation in 2008 instead of inflation, I'd have retired at 40.  #LFMF!)

It's not a trend - but yes, the tech industry has been good to some of us.  

Talent got me into the tech industry.  Luck got me into a company that didn't fail.  Not having a life (no wife, no kids, and therefore no need for a $500K mortgage, which is what it costs to buy a basic single-family-detached home in my neighborhood, nor any need for a $100K-per-kid college fund) gave me enough spare cash to invest when investing was still an activity worth doing.  Funny thing is that people who did it the other way around ended up in the same place I did.  They got the wife, the kids, and bought the $500K house back when it only cost $250K.  (The fact that the house peaked in value at $700-800K didn't matter, because they didn't take out loans against its appraised value.)

I'm not retired yet, but (assuming the world doesn't blow up like it did in 2008, and like it still might do in 2011), I'm on track to pull the plug on within a few years of 45.  (Had I bet on deflation in 2008 instead of inflation, I'd have retired at 40.  #LFMF!)


The only thing that keeps me working is health care.  How will you handle health care for 20 years until Medicaid kicks in?

Because early retirement was the benni my college offered in exchange for relatively low salaries I retired at half pay and full bennies at 56.  That lasted until last june when I turned 65.

The only thing that keeps me working is health care.  How will you handle health care for 20 years until Medicaid kicks in?


By getting catastrophic insurance only; budget $400/month ($5K/year) for it and model the medical insurance portion of your budget as a component that goes up at 5-10% faster than the rate of inflation.  (If the US ever goes single-payer, you win, but we all know that'll never happen here because Congress is bought by the health insurance industry.)

Getting diagnosed with cancer and needing $500K in chemo, or having a heart attack and an attendant $100-200K bill is a risk that's worth insuring against.  Against minor risks (e.g. car accident, breaking your arm), worrying about whether your prescription co-pay is $15 or $30, or your out-of-pocket maximum is $2500 or $5000, isn't an issue, because if you've got enough assets to generate $50-100K/year in dividend income (i.e. $2-5M assuming a 2-3% yield), the $2500 spread in out-of-pocket-maximum numbers and/or deductibles is pocket change.  (Furthermore, you probably save a good chunk of the cost spread between a low-deductible plan and a high-deductible plan every year you don't get sick, so the cost works out to be about the same either way.)

Someone with $10M+ to their name would likely self-insure and pay out-of-pocket for all medical expenses, because at that level of wealth, even "catastrophic" expenses like $500K in chemo and/or $250K for a transplant, are also chicken feed.  (I'll retire long before I get to that level.  The gap between the 1% and the 0.1% is as big as the gap between the 99% and the 1%.)

By getting catastrophic insurance only; budget $400/month ($5K/year) for it and model the medical insurance portion of your budget as a component that goes up at 5-10% faster than the rate of inflation.  (If the US ever goes single-payer, you win, but we all know that'll never happen here because Congress is bought by the health insurance industry.)

Getting diagnosed with cancer and needing $500K in chemo, or having a heart attack and an attendant $100-200K bill is a risk that's worth insuring against.  Against minor risks (e.g. car accident, breaking your arm), worrying about whether your prescription co-pay is $15 or $30, or your out-of-pocket maximum is $2500 or $5000, isn't an issue, because if you've got enough assets to generate $50-100K/year in dividend income (i.e. $2-5M assuming a 2-3% yield), the $2500 spread in out-of-pocket-maximum numbers and/or deductibles is pocket change.  (Furthermore, you probably save a good chunk of the cost spread between a low-deductible plan and a high-deductible plan every year you don't get sick, so the cost works out to be about the same either way.)

Someone with $10M+ to their name would likely self-insure and pay out-of-pocket for all medical expenses, because at that level of wealth, even "catastrophic" expenses like $500K in chemo and/or $250K for a transplant, are also chicken feed.  (I'll retire long before I get to that level.  The gap between the 1% and the 0.1% is as big as the gap between the 99% and the 1%.)


I think you better check out the cost of cancer treatment, 500K in chemo is just the start, and that would only take care of the first year of care, typically you would on meds and follow-ups for at least five years, and that is a best case scenario.  A friend had a daughter with cancer ran up 750,000 in the first year.  Unless something is done about it now I can't imagine what the costs will be in the next 5-10 years. 

I think you better check out the cost of cancer treatment, 500K in chemo is just the start, and that would only take care of the first year of care, typically you would on meds and follow-ups for at least five years, and that is a best case scenario.  A friend had a daughter with cancer ran up 750,000 in the first year.  Unless something is done about it now I can't imagine what the costs will be in the next 5-10 years. 


Bottom line, the cost of health care in the USA is ridiculously high because we keep coming up with exceedingly expensive ways to eek out another 2 days worth of life.

Yes we also have inefficiencies such as paperwork, etc... but that is not what causes a $750k round of chemo.  And the new "health care reform" stuff is only gonna cause the price tags to go higher.

The natural and inevitible consequence will indeed be rationing and long delays, because the unabated increase in costs and expensive treatments is not sustainable.

Bottom line, the cost of health care in the USA is ridiculously high because we keep coming up with exceedingly expensive ways to eek out another 2 days worth of life.

Yes we also have inefficiencies such as paperwork, etc... but that is not what causes a $750k round of chemo.  And the new "health care reform" stuff is only gonna cause the price tags to go higher.

The natural and inevitible consequence will indeed be rationing and long delays, because the unabated increase in costs and expensive treatments is not sustainable.


My point is, no matter what causes the expense of health care, people who intend to retire early have to look closely at what health care is going to cost.  Life could be real good as long as they don't get sick, but one illness could put them in a seriously vulnerable position.  Retire at 40, have a serious health issue at 55, and then what?  You haven't worked you for fifeen years and are pretty much unemployable, and you are losing a large chunk of what you have.  Kent Snyder's story should be an example.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2011/09/14/140476969/dead-ron-paul-aide-fit-uninsured-debate-scenario

A story getting much attention Wednesday is the tale carried by Gawker of Rep. Ron Paul's 2008 campaign manager who didn't have health insurance or much money when he died of pneumonia three years ago. Snyder's mother received a $400,000 hospital bill after her son's death.

What makes the story so powerful is that the plight of Kent Snyder, the former campaign manager, shared some similarities with the theoretical scenario put to Paul by moderator Wolf Blitzer at the CNN/Tea Party Express Republican presidential debate on Monday.

Blitzer asked Paul if society should just let an uninsured middle-aged man die? "That's what freedom is all about, taking your own risks," Paul said, adding that churches could help.


Little did most of us know that it wasn't all an academic exercise for the congressman who was a practicing medical doctor before entering politics.

So Paul apparently is no fairweather libertarian. Snyder's predicament clearly didn't change the presidential candidate's mind about how the world should work.

Snyder's story had some key differences from Blitzer's scenario. Society didn't just let Snyder die. He received a significant amount of intensive care based on the bill.

But his mother didn't have the resources to pay the hospital. Few mothers would.

Instead, as Gawker reported, Snyder's friends started a website to raise money to pay the bill. Often in cases like this, hospitals are forced to pass along as much of the unreimbursed costs to other, insured patients or to eat those costs.

One of the ironies of Snyder's case is that the former aide appears to have been a remarkable moneyraiser for Paul. Gawker reports:

    In the fourth quarter of that year (2008), Snyder raised a stunning $19.5 million for Paul — more than any other Republican candidate had raised at the time.

Bottom line, the cost of health care in the USA is ridiculously high because we keep coming up with exceedingly expensive ways to eek out another 2 days worth of life.

Yes we also have inefficiencies such as paperwork, etc... but that is not what causes a $750k round of chemo.  And the new "health care reform" stuff is only gonna cause the price tags to go higher.

The natural and inevitible consequence will indeed be rationing and long delays, because the unabated increase in costs and expensive treatments is not sustainable.


If rationing is indeed on the table it should be reasoned rationing, not the rationing of the market.  As far as "eeking out another 2 daays of life" everyone should have an advanced directive for health care in place

I think you better check out the cost of cancer treatment, 500K in chemo is just the start, and that would only take care of the first year of care, typically you would on meds and follow-ups for at least five years, and that is a best case scenario.  A friend had a daughter with cancer ran up 750,000 in the first year.  Unless something is done about it now I can't imagine what the costs will be in the next 5-10 years. 


That's the point of catastrophic insurance.  The $5K/year in premiums and $5-10K in out-of-pocket maximum should mean that I don't care whether chemo costs $100K, $500K, or $750K.

My worry isn't paying for the insurance premiums.  My worry is that despite paying for insurance, my insurance company will simply decide, in the event that I get sick, not to fulfill its end of the bargain.  From its point of view, what's the worst that could happen?  They delay payment for a couple of years, and after I'm safely broke (from legal fees and/or medical bills) and/or dead (from not having been treated), the executor of my estate sues them for breach of contract, and even if he wins, it'll be too late to help me.

Note to self:  (Befriend a bunch of like-minded nerds and become the executor of their estates... :)

My real retirement plan is to ignore cardiovascular risks.  Given the choice between the two most popular ways to go out, I'd much rather work for 20 years, slack off for 20 years, then wake up one morning when my money's running low, say "HNNNNGGGGG", faceplant on the floor, and cost neither myself nor my insurance company a damn cent until the neighbors phone in about the pile of unread mail and the funny smell from the old house next door.

That's the point of catastrophic insurance.  The $5K/year in premiums and $5-10K in out-of-pocket maximum should mean that I don't care whether chemo costs $100K, $500K, or $750K.

My worry isn't paying for the insurance premiums.  My worry is that despite paying for insurance, my insurance company will simply decide, in the event that I get sick, not to fulfill its end of the bargain. 




That is just what happened to my friend.  He had insurance, the first year to insurance company paid out 750,000 in treatment, then told him he was on his own until the next fiscal year.  He doesn't blame the insurance company, he blames immigrants(legal or not).  ::)

That is just what happened to my friend.  He had insurance, the first year to insurance company paid out 750,000 in treatment, then told him he was on his own until the next fiscal year.  He doesn't blame the insurance company, he blames immigrants(legal or not).  ::)


GIS: because sometimes one just isn't enough.

I'm both perplexed and disgusted by it, but I have to admire the effectiveness of the system's ability to misdirect and misappropriate blame.

It varies...

I work with two secretaries at my church who have hit 80 and they'll die before they retire.

I could retire now since I'm getting SSDI, but I don't want to sell-out to the government just yet.

It varies...

I work with two secretaries at my church who have hit 80 and they'll die before they retire.

I could retire now since I'm getting SSDI, but I don't want to sell-out to the government just yet.


Isitat all possible they've already retired from other jobs and working at the churches the job they took on to supplement their retirement or because they feel devotion to the church?

I work with two secretaries at my church who have hit 80 and they'll die before they retire.


What Snoz said.  It comes down to how you define "retire".

I like my 9-to-5 at the day job, but not enough to keep doing it without pay.  On the other hand, after retirement, I can easily envision myself spending a couple of days per week at a local nerd-targeted museum or hackerspace.

My definition of "retired": If you ain't gettin' paid for it, it's not a job, it's a hobby, and you're still "retired".  (Your church secretary's definition may, and probably does, differ.)

Exactly. Some people retire because they no longer can work at thei job they've held most of their lives but that doesn't mean they've stopped working.  Some people work out of need to supplement their income....others work because they need to feel useful or desire more human interaction.

It varies...

I work with two secretaries at my church who have hit 80 and they'll die before they retire.

I could retire now since I'm getting SSDI, but I don't want to sell-out to the government just yet.



My son gets SSDI because of his autism, but I dread to think what his life would be like if he didn't have me to provide things above and beyond the lifestyle he would have if he had to depend on SSDI.  I will keep on working to make sure he is provided for after I am gone.  By the way, the rate of taxation on his special needs trust account, as modest as it is, is higher than the rate of taxation on Warren Buffet.

I like my 9-to-5 at the day job, but not enough to keep doing it without pay.  On the other hand, after retirement, I can easily envision myself spending a couple of days per week at a local nerd-targeted museum or hackerspace.

My definition of "retired": If you ain't gettin' paid for it, it's not a job, it's a hobby, and you're still "retired".  (Your church secretary's definition may, and probably does, differ.)


The Secretaries at my church work part-time. They may do it for extra supplement...I'll ask them on Monday. There are many people who are semi-retired...which is what I'd rather be once I hit 65. You work...but not as much.


My son gets SSDI because of his autism, but I dread to think what his life would be like if he didn't have me to provide things above and beyond the lifestyle he would have if he had to depend on SSDI.  I will keep on working to make sure he is provided for after I am gone.  By the way, the rate of taxation on his special needs trust account, as modest as it is, is higher than the rate of taxation on Warren Buffet.


D&M...

...you have an autistic son? Have you ever told him that someone here HAS autism? Heck, I'll even give you a private message about this! ;)

My Dad retired from the Postal Service at 55, that was the earliest he could get out and he said he was just sick of the job so he got out, but he's now working at a logistics warehouse full time his pension just isn't enough for them to live comfortably.  :-\\

I'm sick of my job and I want out but the earliest I can consider doing so is 62.... That's 18 yrs away.  I'm libel tokill myself or someone else before then.....on the bright side, if I kill someone I won't gave to worry about if I can afford to support myself til the end of my life.  ;D

The Secretaries at my church work part-time. They may do it for extra supplement...I'll ask them on Monday. There are many people who are semi-retired...which is what I'd rather be once I hit 65. You work...but not as much.


The key questions (at least for my definition of retirement).  If the pay were zero, would you still show up?  How much would someone have to pay you to quit and do the same job for another organization, like be a secretary at (a law firm, a medical office, a random small business, a faceless fortune-500 company)?

Hobbies don't have to be unprofitable.  Lots of small businesses started out as hobbies.  (There's a grey line on when a hobby becomes a job, too.  One day you're a hunble crafter, doing it for the love of the art, and the next day your store on Etsy gets a mention on a popular blog, and *bam*, you've got a home business!)

The Secretaries at my church work part-time. They may do it for extra supplement...I'll ask them on Monday. There are many people who are semi-retired...which is what I'd rather be once I hit 65. You work...but not as much.

D&M...

...you have an autistic son? Have you ever told him that someone here HAS autism? Heck, I'll even give you a private message about this! ;)


Thanks for the PM,  he doesn't FB though he does love the computer, more for browsing, and he is good at games, I have thought that I should get him a gaming tutor to get him started, I think he would be excellent at it.