What do you think is the ideal retirement age for women?

[SKL]

Not trying to be sexist, but I do think women are different enough that we might feel differently about this question.

I feel like 67 is old to retire for most women.  It's 9+ more years for me, and that feels like a really long time.

Not talking about how retirement should be funded.  Just whether or not it's a stretch to push it so far in years.  Should young people be planning for an earlier retirement?

[freesia]

I’m curious as to what differences you mean? The older women in my life—grandmothers, aunts, mothers—were active and involved in the community (not all of them worked for pay)longer than the men. That would make me think that women were more suited to working longer. My dad, at your age, was actively figuring out how to afford retirement early. 
 

You are just coming out of the super intense teen years with two girls—and have raised them solo. Could that be part of the struggle?

[Laura Corin]

It depends so much on the job. I don't feel that I need to retire from my desk job. If my husband were not older I'd probably be working through to 67. My mum lived to 98.

[Carrie12345]

There are so many factors that I can’t use age as THE one.

I don’t remember my grandmother’s age, but she worked for her city well after grandpa retired.  My mother said she’d retire at 70, but she just turned 71 and moved to 3 days/wk.

If I get my act together, I’ll finish school at… 51? Ish. In a perfect world, I’d do research and advocacy for as long as my mind could keep up.

[wintermom]

I know that a lot of women around me base the timing on their pension (lots of gov workers). They'd like to reach a point that they get a good % of their salary, and still be young and fit enough to do all the travel, visit family, fitness activities, etc. they'd like. 

For me, with a late start to full-time work (and not too much before having kids), I'd love to rack up enough years to be eligable for the federal pensions, as well as build up a little stronger tax-free retirement savings base. I haven't done the math yet, but I expect to work until I'm close to 65. 

[City Mouse]

Statistically women live longer than men, so if that is the only consideration then I would expect women to retire later than men. However, I don’t think age is the deciding factor for retirement outside of receiving social security in the US. Social Security can be taken early for a reduced rate at 62, and for some people it is worth the trade off. 

Another deciding factor for women (or men) who will be getting social security based on a spouses work rather than their own is that the working spouse must retire and start taking social security before spousal benefits will start. 

I know people, both men and women, with jobs that include government pensions, and not any of them have waited to retire until Social Security age. I also know many people who have “retired” from one job who then continue to work at least part-time at another job. 

Edited June 7 by City Mouse

[TechWife]

I can’t isolate age as a determining factor. It has to be a combination of the demands of the job, current and future finances, health, and various social scenarios. 

[wintermom]

On a slightly different slant to this topic, I think that there are some jobs where a fixed retirement age should be mandated. I'm thinking specifically of professors at universities that hang on into their 70s where young people have to wait until they finally move on. Some faculties are quite over-the-top. The cost of those super-high salaries is bankrupting some universities as well. 

[marbel]

I think I might know what you mean about it being different for women. Speaking very generally, for so many women, the child-rearing years were tiring, and if they had a job on top of that, even more so obviously. 

Of course it's still so dependent upon the person and the situation. One of my aunts worked in a department store all her life, and retired at 80. She loved her work; as I recall she considered herself a working woman over being a mom, which is not to say she wasn't a good mom! Her identity was more aligned with her career than her life as a mother, I guess is what I mean.

As for me... I "retired" when my first child was born. I was 41 and had worked since I was 17. I had my SS years in; my last few years of pay were pretty good for the time and my husband's prospects for income were very good. But things change, and I went back to work at 62 out of need and retired again when I was 66. Won't get into that long story now but I was tired! I can't say I have had a hard life but parenting and homeschooling were exhausting to me. I can imagine that if I had done things differently when I was young I might have wanted to work longer at a job I liked. 

From what I know of your life, you work a lot, and it seems you work some even when on vacation? I can imagine you might be ready to retire sooner than someone whose life is not so immersed (for lack of a better word) in their work. I'm not criticizing you for it btw, if it sounds like it. You sound like a terrific mom and seem very intentional about the way you live. But I can imagine you'd be tired and ready to stop sooner than some. 

 

[Ottakee]

4 minutes ago, wintermom said:

On a slightly different slant to this topic, I think that there are some jobs where a fixed retirement age should be mandated. I'm thinking specifically of professors at universities that hang on into their 70s where young people have to wait until they finally move on. Some faculties are quite over-the-top. The cost of those super-high salaries is bankrupting some universities as well. 

I have heard that too with politicians…a minimum and a maximum age, etc

[TechWife]

19 minutes ago, wintermom said:

On a slightly different slant to this topic, I think that there are some jobs where a fixed retirement age should be mandated. I'm thinking specifically of professors at universities that hang on into their 70s where young people have to wait until they finally move on. Some faculties are quite over-the-top. The cost of those super-high salaries is bankrupting some universities as well. 

I am in favor of mentoring and making sure there are viable succession plans in place for various roles, including in academia. I do, however, think your stance is misguided. Younger people are no more deserving of a job in academia than older people are. Older people, including those in their seventies, bring a wealth of knowledge and experience that younger people aren’t even aware they lack or need. Experience in teaching and research has led them to have a deep bank of knowledge to draw upon. They have a history of publishing and valuable networks, both in academia and in their field of study. Ties to the local community are important as well for a host of reasons. 

Where have you seen faculty in a university setting earning “super-high salaries” that are “bankrupting” the universities? Universities experiencing financial trouble are doing so for a host of reasons, but I’ve never known faculty to make “super-high salaries,” much less to be the determining factor in the financial health of a university. 

[Laura Corin]

41 minutes ago, wintermom said:

On a slightly different slant to this topic, I think that there are some jobs where a fixed retirement age should be mandated. I'm thinking specifically of professors at universities that hang on into their 70s where young people have to wait until they finally move on. Some faculties are quite over-the-top. The cost of those super-high salaries is bankrupting some universities as well. 

This has been attempted in the UK on grounds of equality, diversity and inclusion, to give opportunities for younger people and women (more female academics in certain disciplines now than when the current professors got their jobs).  This has been repeatedly challenged on the basis of age discrimination.  It's tough to square.

Re: women living longer.  Apparently women enter poor health, on average, earlier in old age.  So they are spending those extra years of life in poor health.

Health inequality greater than previously thought, report finds | Health | The Guardian

 

Edited June 7 by Laura Corin

[SKL]

I also wonder about the effect of perimenopause / menopause.  I started perimenopause about 10 years ago, menopause 5 years ago.  Should I expect anything to go back to the pre-perimenopause state?  Because I find myself much more worn out by heat, poor sleep, etc. than I used to be. 

An yes, I have had a busy life.  From age 21-41, I worked at least 2 jobs (counting grad school as a job), served as an officer on nonprofit boards, and did a lot of volunteer work.  Then at 41 I took custody of my 2 busy kids (did go down to 1 full-time job, but still do volunteer stuff also).  While I haven't really been an homeschooler (just a short KG stint), one of my kids needed hours of daily help with learning challenges from pk-8.  Sometimes I think that since I've worked more hours than most people during my younger years, I might burn out sooner.

The women I know are pretty much all across the board.  India's retirement age is 58, and I don't know any women living in India who haven't retired before 60.  I have US friends who retired / plan to retire in favor of their dream life before age 67.  And others who stopped working when they stopped needing the money.

Obviously I'm not planning to quit doing things even after I retire.  But I hope I can stop putting off things, like playing music and taking up a more intentional exercise program.

[wintermom]

6 minutes ago, TechWife said:

I am in favor of mentoring and making sure there are viable succession plans in place for various roles, including in academia. I do, however, think your stance is misguided. Younger people are no more deserving of a job in academia than older people are. Older people, including those in their seventies, bring a wealth of knowledge and experience that younger people aren’t even aware they lack or need. Experience in teaching and research has led them to have a deep bank of knowledge to draw upon. They have a history of publishing and valuable networks, both in academia and in their field of study. Ties to the local community are important as well for a host of reasons. 

Where have you seen faculty in a university setting earning “super-high salaries” that are “bankrupting” the universities? Universities experiencing financial trouble are doing so for a host of reasons, but I’ve never known faculty to make “super-high salaries,” much less to be the determining factor in the financial health of a university. 

Queens University, Canada. 

I think that Emeratis status could be used more frequently. Their name and reputation can still be tied to the institution, but they can focus on research or teaching, whichever makes most sense to them.

[wintermom]

10 minutes ago, Laura Corin said:

This has been attempted in the UK on grounds of equality, diversity and inclusion, to give opportunities for younger people and women (more female academics in certain disciplines now than when the current professors got their jobs).  This has been repeatedly challenged on the basis of age discrimination.  It's tough to square.

Re: women living longer.  Apparently women enter poor health, on average, earlier in old age.  So they are spending those extra years of life in poor health.

Health inequality greater than previously thought, report finds | Health | The Guardian

 

Yes, I've heard specifically from women in certain faculties, where the lack of diversity is glaringly obvious. I'm not in favour of discriminating against older men, but an age cap to full-time status, where they can continue to be tied to their university as Emeratis could be an option. 

Edited June 7 by wintermom

[Bootsie]

54 minutes ago, wintermom said:

On a slightly different slant to this topic, I think that there are some jobs where a fixed retirement age should be mandated. I'm thinking specifically of professors at universities that hang on into their 70s where young people have to wait until they finally move on. Some faculties are quite over-the-top. The cost of those super-high salaries is bankrupting some universities as well. 

Salary inversion is common in many fields at the professor level, meaning that lower level professors are earning a higher salary than older, full professors.   On average, I do not think the argument can be made that replacing older professors with younger professors is going to be a significant cost savings to universities (replacing professors with part-time, adjunct, and non-tenure track professors might).  I think being a college professor is one of htose fields where a reasonable retirement age can vary widely.  I have had a number of colleagues over the years well into their 70s who I would be very happy for my children to have as a professor and who are productive, valued colleagues.  

[wintermom]

4 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

Salary inversion is common in many fields at the professor level, meaning that lower level professors are earning a higher salary than older, full professors.   On average, I do not think the argument can be made that replacing older professors with younger professors is going to be a significant cost savings to universities (replacing professors with part-time, adjunct, and non-tenure track professors might).  I think being a college professor is one of htose fields where a reasonable retirement age can vary widely.  I have had a number of colleagues over the years well into their 70s who I would be very happy for my children to have as a professor and who are productive, valued colleagues.  

We may be speaking from two very different university systems. I should have specified Canadain non-private universities, which are very highly subsidized by the government. 

Edited June 7 by wintermom

[gardenmom5]

Everyone is different, health, life goals, expectations, etc.  I don't think there is a single age.  

we took one of dh's long-time clients (and her husband) to lunch yesterday.  I think she's late 60s/early 70s.  Took up hot yoga - and lost 60lbs.  She's eastern European, and culturally she had the expectation of working until she physically couldn't. She was forced to retire by the dept downsizing (which she liked, she got severance and unemployment for six months.).  She's had multiple phone calls from her former employer begging her to "come work on this project, we'll pay you $__$")    The forced retirement was good for her, she started traveling more, being a snowbird (they have a house in Mexico for the winter) and she decided the additional money wouldn't improve the quality of her life so no reason to keep working.

[Frances]

37 minutes ago, TechWife said:

I am in favor of mentoring and making sure there are viable succession plans in place for various roles, including in academia. I do, however, think your stance is misguided. Younger people are no more deserving of a job in academia than older people are. Older people, including those in their seventies, bring a wealth of knowledge and experience that younger people aren’t even aware they lack or need. Experience in teaching and research has led them to have a deep bank of knowledge to draw upon. They have a history of publishing and valuable networks, both in academia and in their field of study. Ties to the local community are important as well for a host of reasons. 

Where have you seen faculty in a university setting earning “super-high salaries” that are “bankrupting” the universities? Universities experiencing financial trouble are doing so for a host of reasons, but I’ve never known faculty to make “super-high salaries,” much less to be the determining factor in the financial health of a university. 

The only time I’ve heard of faculty making super high salaries is when part of that salary is from seeing patients and performing medical procedures (so medical school faculty) or they get significant outside grant money on top of their university provided salary. The former is controversial in my state because state pensions weren’t always based on the combined salary but now they are. So along with football coaches, such faculty do generally earn the highest state pensions in retirement. The multiple layers of highly paid administrators at large state universities seems much more problematic to me. At least the faculty are directly working with students.

[TechWife]

45 minutes ago, wintermom said:

Queens University, Canada. 

I think that Emeratis status could be used more frequently. Their name and reputation can still be tied to the institution, but they can focus on research or teaching, whichever makes most sense to them.

So “high” professor salaries are the only problem they had? In the US, Emeritus means retired. I’ve observed that it more commonly benefits the institution than it does the retiree, as their name gives credibility to the department and institution.
 

At the point of retirement, the credentials of the professor are well established and they go with the professor, whether they go to another academic setting, private industry, independent consulting, or stop working altogether. The university is credited for having done the hiring and some of the funding, though in the US, researchers are responsible for bringing outside funding to the university, which depends on the reputation, skill, foresight & network of the professor. But the skill and knowledge belong to the professor. 

The professor is the one with the knowledge, talent & reputation, and universities really are dependent upon them for continued success. If they continue to do research or teach at the university, then they need to be paid. Their value doesn’t change. That doesn’t solve your reported financial situation, though. 

Just as an older  professor doesn’t have a reputation based solely on age, a younger person isn’t qualified for a job because they are younger.

Edited June 7 by TechWife

[Frances]

I think viewing it as 9+ more years instead of taking it one year at a time also makes it seem more challenging. The four years since the pandemic started have absolutely flown by for me at work. In only four short years, your daughters will be finished with college and possibly out on their own. At that point, five more years might not seem like so much. Were they going away to college, I think you would be surprised at the free time in your life that created and the generally reduced stress. 

I think there is way too much variability in terms of finances, job demands, health, outside demands, personality, etc. to put an ideal age on retirement. My mom has a friend who moved to a new state and opened her fifth clothing shop in her 90s.

[Arcadia]

Depends on the job. Where I was from, nurses in public hospitals, firefighters, policemen, infantry, military pilots had an earlier retirement age than doctors in public hospitals, military officers for getting their government pension. The reason is because their work is harder on their body and they may not be able to work until 65 versus being eligible if they work until 55 years old. So not so much a gender issue but a work situation issue. Nurses who have switched to hospital management jobs have worked until 65 and sometimes older.

[TechWife]

12 minutes ago, Frances said:

The only time I’ve heard of faculty making super high salaries is when part of that salary is from seeing patients and performing medical procedures (so medical school faculty) or they get significant outside grant money on top of their university provided salary. …

Same here. The university also takes a cut of the outside funding that the faculty brings in. 

[Frances]

2 minutes ago, Arcadia said:

Depends on the job. Where I was from, nurses in public hospitals, firefighters, policemen, infantry, military pilots had an earlier retirement age than doctors in public hospitals, military officers for getting their government pension. The reason is because their work is harder on their body and they may not be able to work until 65 versus being eligible if they work until 55 years old. So not so much a gender issue but a work situation issue. Nurses who have switched to hospital management jobs have worked until 65 and sometimes older.

Early retirement for firefighters and policeman and military with full pensions is also common in the US. Interestingly, when my state was recently looking to expand the eligibility for early retirement, opponents brought up research showing that the vast majority of people in law enforcement continue working in law enforcement after retirement. So while I think most people would agree that it is generally a very stressful job and likely deserves to come with an earlier retirement age, it appears most people are able to find an acceptable related position to work after regular retirement.

[Catwoman]

31 minutes ago, gardenmom5 said:

Everyone is different, health, life goals, expectations, etc.  I don't think there is a single age.  

we took one of dh's long-time clients (and her husband) to lunch yesterday.  I think she's late 60s/early 70s.  Took up hot yoga - and lost 60lbs.  She's eastern European, and culturally she had the expectation of working until she physically couldn't. She was forced to retire by the dept downsizing (which she liked, she got severance and unemployment for six months.).  She's had multiple phone calls from her former employer begging her to "come work on this project, we'll pay you $__$")    The forced retirement was good for her, she started traveling more, being a snowbird (they have a house in Mexico for the winter) and she decided the additional money wouldn't improve the quality of her life so no reason to keep working.

I think the bolded is one of the most important questions @SKL should be asking herself.

It's great to make money. It's great to save money. It's great to have more money to spend. But at what point do free time and quality of life outweigh the financial need or desire to make more money? Only she can answer that question for herself. (And if she truly loves her job, maybe making more money is part of having a good quality of life.)

[73349]

My question on seeing the thread title was Retirement from what?

When DS is done with high school, my hope is to get a master's degree and enter a new field in my early 50s. I don't think I'll be ready to retire as soon as I would've been if I'd stayed in one career.

My mom was forced into retirement earlier than she wanted or could afford (for health reasons); I'm trying to position myself to avoid an early decline if possible, but there's a limit to what we can control.

[Carol in Cal.]

I think that one good option is reducing work hours toward the end.  That is possible in a lot of fields.

[wintermom]

Yes, I've seen women change the settings of where they work, such as a nurse working in a demanding hospital setting change to a working in a less demanding setting, or changing from full-time manager work to flexible-time consultant work. 

[wintermom]

43 minutes ago, TechWife said:

So “high” professor salaries are the only problem they had?

Probably not, but it was a major contributing factor. This university has a very high reputation and it's very competitive to get it. So enrollment wasn't an issue.

[denarii]

My parents are 71 this year, my mother retired 10 years ago due to health complications but she's healthier now than she was a decade ago. She sits on several non profit administrative boards and is heavily involved in volunteering. 

My father retired from teaching in 2020 due to Covid and is working on a masters degree online because he was bored. He tutors esl students for free and volunteers with an organization that helps refugees settle in the community. 

Neither of them have any interest in working now but physically and mentally they still could. 

Edited June 7 by denarii

[Bootsie]

I don't think there is any such things as an "ideal retirment age" for men, women, or any other broad group.  I think much depends upon an individual's health, interests, occupation, and financial situation.  It is even difficult to talk about retirement ages for broad occupational categories.  Personally, I do not know when I will retire, but I am in a situation in which I don't feel the pressure of working toward the next promotion and I could walk away at any time and be financially OK.  It is a lot less stressful to work in that siituation that it was when I was building a resume. 

[SKL]

Yeah sometimes I think, had I pursued my original plan to be a school teacher, I could have gotten paid retirement at 50yo, LOL.

[frogger]

Along with health, physicality of job, life circumstances I would add is there a hobby, passions, avenue for service for the retiree. I remember many blue collar workers in my youth retired only to sit in front of the t.v. in retirement. They worked so many hours when they were younger they really had nothing outside of work to do. I think it dramatically shortend their life span.

I can't imagine that happening to you but if we are talking about an ideal age for people in general, I think it is important that people still keep growing, learning, serving as long as they are capable even if it is in a new way and they have quit their earlier career. 

[SKL]

I guess I meant "retirement" from full-time paid work.  Or, at least "winding down" from 100% of the responsibilities of a full-time worker.  Not being judged the same way as younger staff who are pressured to be go-getters, marketers, innovators, high billers, name-droppers, etc.  Not being expected to continually increase the "book of business" you manage.  Or some combination of these.

I think I would work at least part-time until I am eligible for publicly funded health insurance.  In my case, that would be age 65.  I have to come up with the cash to pay ever-increasing premiums, and I don't want to cash in my savings for that if I can avoid it.  And of course I have to pay for my kids' education.  If I stop working, I'll be pretty broke by the time they are ready for grad school.  I could let them borrow the money, but I'd rather they started out free of the crushing debt I graduated with.

The other thing is the small business factor.  My clients can't be left hanging.  I don't feel like trying to hire new people to "take over" while still bearing all the business risks.  Some of our work also involves employees who would be screwed if I up and quit.  It's a lot to figure out.  Maybe I'd feel differently if I could just put in my 2 week notice whenever I decided it was time.

[Catwoman]

28 minutes ago, wintermom said:

Probably not, but it was a major contributing factor. This university has a very high reputation and it's very competitive to get it. So enrollment wasn't an issue.

I'm not familiar with Canadian universities, so I don't know if this would apply, but don't you think a large part of why certain universities have such stellar reputations is because they are known to have highly experienced and knowledgeable professors with impressive resumes? I'm not sure how replacing those older, more experienced professors with younger professors would be beneficial to either the university or the students.

[Mrs Tiggywinkle Again]

1 hour ago, Frances said:

Early retirement for firefighters and policeman and military with full pensions is also common in the US. Interestingly, when my state was recently looking to expand the eligibility for early retirement, opponents brought up research showing that the vast majority of people in law enforcement continue working in law enforcement after retirement. So while I think most people would agree that it is generally a very stressful job and likely deserves to come with an earlier retirement age, it appears most people are able to find an acceptable related position to work after regular retirement.

Actually one of my best friends does this. He retired at 45 as a full time police officer, and now works part time in another small town nearby.  He can only make a certain amount of money in an LE position a year before it affects his pension though. He works as an EMT when he runs out of eligible money.

[Toocrazy!!]

Retiring from owning a business is an entirely different ball game for sure. There is definitely a lot more involved than just turning in your notice. I'm in a similar boat, but there was a way for me to step back and delegate a lot more of the day to day work, and kind of put myself in a more consulting type position. Every business would be different though. For me personally, I really just didn't enjoy my job and lots about it caused me a good deal of worry and stress. I'm very fortunate how it worked out, but if it didn't, I feel like I would have figured something else out, because life is short. If you can change something to make it better, you should try. I'm only 54 and I really don't know if I will continue this until Medicare at 65 or not. Health insurance can be a deal breaker though. 

I think it's a nuanced conversation. Money, hobbies, health insurance, health, job enjoyment. There are a lot of factors at play. 

[Arcadia]

1 hour ago, Frances said:

Interestingly, when my state was recently looking to expand the eligibility for early retirement, opponents brought up research showing that the vast majority of people in law enforcement continue working in law enforcement after retirement.

My husband’s late aunt was a policewoman that does the rounds. My ex-classmates from middle school are also policewomen but are desk bound and does mostly training and paperwork at the police headquarters. So it really depends on job nature. The earlier retirement age was set to allow people who can’t be on the front end until they are 60 to still be eligible for retirement. For my country of origin, retiring early without a valid reason means losing your government pension and that usually means doctors certifying that you need to retire or switch to another job role in the organization. 

[Arcadia]

For self employed with staff, it does get more complicated. My paternal uncles had children who could take over their manufacturing business just like they took over their dad’s manufacturing business. My uncles-in-law who had small tire shop business gradually stopped hiring new staff when the old staff left and their children just help out when free. So when they finally close shop, the remaining staff was very few and similar to their age. My cousins-in-law have small bakery stores and they only have one or two outside staff to help. If and when they decide to call it a day, their staff would be able to find employment at other bakeries or stop working. 

[Faith-manor]

There are a lot of variables.

I am currently retired from paying work, though I do have gig work now and then. It is NOT ideal, but with a mother and mother in law who have a ton of medical appointments in the city and cannot drive to them, someone had to be the chauffeur. We don't have uber/lyft/taxi/public transport out here in the sticks.

Were something to happen to mil, and my mother moved to France with my sis, I would go back to work for pay, but only until Mark retires in 5 years because he wants me to be free to travel with him, and unless I went back to teaching and could do some summer travel, I would otherwise be tied down for the duration of the job.

If something happened to Mark, I would go back to work and stay there until 70 if health held out. I would need it to help me move forward emotionally. The empty house would make me nuts.

In general, when it comes to those in physically active jobs, and public safety jobs, I honestly think we don't retire soon enough in this country. We might live a long time, but not necessarily at all well, and the signs of memory gaps/quick recall, etc. sooner than folks are often willing to admit. Allowing people out off the workforce sooner could really prevent a lot of problems, and allow younger folks to move up in their careers. Though not a fan at all of age discrimination, I have to also concede that the limitations of advanced age and health should probably trump that of discrimination so positions in public health, public safety, public policy making, should have a cut off. But in order to have that cut off, we need a much more robust safety net and Medicare starting at a younger age.

For women, I think we tend to live longer than men. Possibly if our jobs are body and brain friendly for our condition, working to 67 or 68 might be wise. But, it dh ds have down stream negative effects on the younger folk who can wallow years in entry level positions because there is no room for advancement.

I also think if you own your business, you have a unique set of stressors that the employees do not have. Stress is such a huge factor in declining health. I am not sure continuing past 62-65 is even wise. My father owned his business, worked to 72, died of cancer. There were no golden years of hobbies, traveling with mom, expanding his vegetable garden (something he had always wanted to do), bee keeping (another bucket list item), and just generally having more time to spend with family and grandchildren. His parents though had saved a lot toward retirement, gave up owning businesses when much younger and went back to work for someone else so they had less stress and more regular hours, and were able to retire early. My grandfather had a heart attack when he was 50, and financially they were able to let him retire. My grandmother worked to 58. It was back in the day when they could get medical insurance pretty cheap and without the "pre-existing" condition thing. Doctor office visits and meds were very affordable so they could make it work until Medicare kicked in. 

There probably isn't really an ideal time. Too many considerations. But in general, I am supportive of sooner than later when possible because getting to leave the rat race and spend time with family, and enjoying some down time is important. I think it is actually be better for health in general, but only if the retiree stays active physically and mentally. Don't be like my uncle who retired at 62, became a t.v. slug, and then wondered why he was so bored with life, and his memory was slipping. Well duh! Be more like my 87 year old uncle who to this very day volunteers with the American Red Cross, and since he physically can't help with disaster clean up anymore, now helps coordinate getting emergency medicine supplies for folks who have house fires, tornados, etc. and are without meds but need them right away. He loves doing this work, and it keeps him sharp mentally.

[wintermom]

49 minutes ago, Catwoman said:

I'm not familiar with Canadian universities, so I don't know if this would apply, but don't you think a large part of why certain universities have such stellar reputations is because they are known to have highly experienced and knowledgeable professors with impressive resumes? I'm not sure how replacing those older, more experienced professors with younger professors would be beneficial to either the university or the students.

I highly doubt undergrad students are looking at individual profs. I don't even think employers do when they look at the location of potential employee university degrees. It seems to be more of a general reputation as being respected and/or offering specific programs that are popular and not available at other universities. 

We have WAY fewer universities in Canada. NYC has more colleges/universities than our entire country, for example. 

[madteaparty]

For me the real question is when does one feel comfortable retiring versus when they actually do. Working because of specific obligations one has taken on (an expensive college education or a particularly high mortgage, or in an older friend’s case, being attached to very fancy health insurance, say) vs working because they can and they don’t want to risk being bored are two different things. That said I threaten to retire all the time and I’m in my 40s and just went back to work a few years ago 😉 I have not “earned” any sort of retirement and cannot realistically do so without some damage to responsibilities I’ve taken on but I don’t let that stop me from threatening 🤣🤣

[prairiewindmomma]

Finances and all other considerations aside, I don't know that full time work is ideal for anyone.  I think most people would be happier working 32 hours/4 days a week and having more downtime to pursue household needs, exercise, leisure, etc.

Most people I know are working well over 40+ these days. Dh averaged 60-80/week at his previous job. 

I'm less concerned with retirement age, and more concerned with finding a sustainable balance in working life.

[Faith-manor]

6 minutes ago, prairiewindmomma said:

Finances and all other considerations aside, I don't know that full time work is ideal for anyone.  I think most people would be happier working 32 hours/4 days a week and having more downtime to pursue household needs, exercise, leisure, etc.

Most people I know are working well over 40+ these days. Dh averaged 60-80/week at his previous job. 

I'm less concerned with retirement age, and more concerned with finding a sustainable balance in working life.

This is a very important point. Mark works 54 but in reality it is 60-65. His employers have always been disrespectful of down time, call whenever they want, and require 24/7 access. If he isn't under anaesthesia, he is on call as an IT worker. It is pretty disgusting, but it has been this way since the early 2000s. This is why I want him to retire as soon as it makes any fiscal sense to do so. But insurance is a worry, and since he is 4 years older than I, as soon as he does retire, we have to buy insurance on the marketplace. What is available here is a joke. High deductibles, high out pocket, low number or practioners accepting marketplace plans.

Americans do not have work life balance for the most part.

I do think policy should be changed to Medicare for all. This would be a game changer. In the absence of that, since the age for withdrawing from 401K without penalty is 59.5, the eligibility for Medicare should be lowered to that.

[Frances]

1 hour ago, wintermom said:

I highly doubt undergrad students are looking at individual profs. I don't even think employers do when they look at the location of potential employee university degrees. It seems to be more of a general reputation as being respected and/or offering specific programs that are popular and not available at other universities. 

We have WAY fewer universities in Canada. NYC has more colleges/universities than our entire country, for example. 

Graduate students definitely look at individual profs when choosing a university. My husband’s choice of university for his doctorate was based almost entirely on wanting to work with a particular professor. At least in the US, a good chunk of the reputation of a university is based on the research/publishing record of its faculty.

[Frances]

1 hour ago, Toocrazy!! said:

Retiring from owning a business is an entirely different ball game for sure. There is definitely a lot more involved than just turning in your notice. I'm in a similar boat, but there was a way for me to step back and delegate a lot more of the day to day work, and kind of put myself in a more consulting type position. Every business would be different though. For me personally, I really just didn't enjoy my job and lots about it caused me a good deal of worry and stress. I'm very fortunate how it worked out, but if it didn't, I feel like I would have figured something else out, because life is short. If you can change something to make it better, you should try. I'm only 54 and I really don't know if I will continue this until Medicare at 65 or not. Health insurance can be a deal breaker though. 

I think it's a nuanced conversation. Money, hobbies, health insurance, health, job enjoyment. There are a lot of factors at play. 

I agree that retiring from owing a business is an entirely different ballgame, but in my experience, professionals who are at a similar level but not self employed do not generally just turn in a two week notice, as SKL mentioned, before retiring. They give as much notice as possible to allow for an orderly transition and transfer of knowledge.

[SKL]

For me, I don't think it's so much the number of hours as the stress of non-routine things.  For example, something comes up that makes a government deadline hard to meet, new regulations need to be implemented, employee drama, elevator jammed between floors, client wants to argue about the bill, 14 transactions all coincide in the same week.  Client X suddenly wants a phone call and you don't know why.  Meanwhile Mom's having a health thing, Dad fell again, the car's in the shop, the kid is having some teen / young adult crisis.  Inbox piles up so fast, you don't know what you're forgetting.  These are the things that make me feel old.

Edited June 7 by SKL

[Faith-manor]

33 minutes ago, SKL said:

For me, I don't think it's so much the number of hours as the stress of non-routine things.  For example, something comes up that makes a government deadline hard to meet, new regulations need to be implemented, employee drama, elevator jammed between floors, client wants to argue about the bill, 14 transactions all coincide in the same week.  Client X suddenly wants a phone call and you don't know why.  Meanwhile Mom's having a health thing, Dad fell again, the car's in the shop, the kid is having some teen / young adult crisis.  Inbox piles up so fast, you don't know what you're forgetting.  These are the things that make me feel old.

I am so sorry, SKL! This is kind of thing is so tiring. And again, if is the work life balance issue because it seems to be so impossible to juggle it all. I know how difficult it is to manage aging parents and life. My dad got cancer, and my mom had major surgery the year our eldest son started college, and our next youngest son began his senior year and college applications, while the sophomore was doing DE but couldn't drive yet. I honestly thought I wasn't going to make it through, and I ended up in trauma therapy due to the nightmare. I still have physical effects from it all.

If you can afford the transition to retirement or less income to do something less stressful, I encourage it. Your girls are going to want you around for a good, long time, and this kind of stress is why Americans have so many health problems so young. My daughter in law is already, at 23, showing signs of stress induced health crisis. We are doing everything we can to help her find a different position. If she doesn't make the move, she is too to have high BP by the time she is 25, and who knows what else by 30. 

 

[Corraleno]

I stopped working (for pay) at 40, and had kids at 41 & 45, so I still had a teen at home when I started taking SS at 62. The SS income + a pension from the last place I worked + investment income + a paid-off house allowed me to comfortably retire.

I have encouraged both of my kids to look into the FIRE movement, which is about living frugally and investing as much as possible in order to achieve financial independence (the FI part) and retire early (the RE part). Some people with high paying jobs will really push themselves to max out their income and savings for 10 years or so in order to be able to quit work in their 30s and travel or pursue hobbies. Others with more average income will maximize savings by living at home or having multiple roommates, biking to work to avoid car expenses, eating cheaply at home, etc., in order to front-load their investments for maximum growth, so they can retire while still fairly young. Some people aim for what's referred to as "Barista FIRE," meaning retiring from a full time career and just picking up low-stress, part-time or seasonal work (which can range from highly-paid consultant work to delivery driving) as needed to supplement investment income.

One kid is totally on board with the idea; he is not materialistic at all, is perfectly happy to drive a 20-yr-old old car, live in a tiny apartment (or at home), wear thrifted or gifted clothes, etc., and he has a lot of interests he would love to pursue outside of F/T work, so the idea of working hard until he's 40 or so, while saving as much as possible in order to pursue his real interests later, is very appealing to him. My other kid spends every penny she earns the minute it hits her checking account, mostly on disposable junk, so unless she changes her ways she is going to end up working into her 70s. 😕 

[Faith-manor]

6 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

I stopped working (for pay) at 40, and had kids at 41 & 45, so I still had a teen at home when I started taking SS at 62. The SS income + a pension from the last place I worked + investment income + a paid-off house allowed me to comfortably retire.

I have encouraged both of my kids to look into the FIRE movement, which is about living frugally and investing as much as possible in order to achieve financial independence (the FI part) and retire early (the RE part). Some people with high paying jobs will really push themselves to max out their income and savings for 10 years or so in order to be able to quit work in their 30s and travel or pursue hobbies. Others with more average income will maximize savings by living at home or having multiple roommates, biking to work to avoid car expenses, eating cheaply at home, etc., in order to front-load their investments for maximum growth, so they can retire while still fairly young. Some people aim for what's referred to as "Barista FIRE," meaning retiring from a full time career and just picking up low-stress, part-time or seasonal work (which can range from highly-paid consultant work to delivery driving) as needed to supplement investment income.

One kid is totally on board with the idea; he is not materialistic at all, is perfectly happy to drive a 20-yr-old old car, live in a tiny apartment (or at home), wear thrifted or gifted clothes, etc., and he has a lot of interests he would love to pursue outside of F/T work, so the idea of working hard until he's 40 or so, while saving as much as possible in order to pursue his real interests later, is very appealing to him. My other kid spends every penny she earns the minute it hits her checking account, mostly on disposable junk, so unless she changes her ways she is going to end up working into her 70s. 😕 

So many people I grew up with had parents who did this. Back then it was the automotive industry. They could start working for one of the big three at 18, work 30 years, and have a fully vested pension. They had their lifetime medical insurance. The parent would retire, and then do something on the side to stay busy and have extra income.

Medical insurance is the biggest issue. Now they need to save a lot more in order to pay premiums, deductibles, and total out of pocket expenses for many many years if they retire early. But if they can a manage it, I am all for it. I think quality of life is an issue that is not often taken into consideration. I do think this will be achievable for my youngest sons. They enjoy being roommates which allows them to save money and share resources. It is working well for them, and they aren't likely to have children. If they change their minds about becoming parents, they will have a nice nest egg for their respective families.