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

[regentrude]

Re: older professors in academia:

In my observation, very often, old professors have lost productivity: they aren't publishing much anymore and aren't applying for research grants. That means they don't contribute to the funding and advising of graduate students in the department anymore. In teaching, they often reuse their decades old notes for classes they have taught for ages, and the quality of the teaching decreases.

All the while, they cost the college a tenured full professor salary that, while not high compared to industry, is twice as high as that of a young assistant professor at the beginning of their career.

Of course there shouldn't be an arbitrary age; however,  the way things are now, the rule on age discrimination prohibits a Department chair from even bringing up the topic of retirement.  As long as the person nominally fulfills the teaching load, they get to stay however long they want. A Department consisting of elderly faculty isn't good; not for students, not for research.

Edited June 7 by regentrude

[regentrude]

3 hours ago, Catwoman said:

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.

They don't have a stellar reputation because they have experienced octogenarians on the faculty. 

You want a mix. You want faculty who can have new ideas, embrace new technogy, have high research productivity. Just because a person has lectured for 40 years doesn't make a prof a great teacher. ImE, teaching quality typically declines in high age.

[regentrude]

1 hour ago, Frances said:

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.

Yes, that's true - but those most sought after professors aren't typically the very *old* ones.

For one thing, any grad student wants to be reasonably certain their advisor will be around for the 6 years of their thesis work. It sucks having to start over because your advisor retired.

Most profs wind down their research program as they approach their planned retirement age and don't take on new graduate students. They just finish the ones they have.

[prairiewindmomma]

I'm wondering about the wind-down process for you, OP.  As your business partners/housemates are older than you---have you guys done business valuations to try to understand whether it's better to keep everything you do bundled to sell off, or whether you might just start winding down some of your client services that you offer or to sell off part of what you do in order to get your overall workload down.  I get the sense from your posts over the years that doing something would feel good for all of you still, it's just that your overall volume is too high.  Are you at the point where maybe taking on additional or junior partners would work?  Do a planned transition? Would bringing on someone younger and hungrier help?

[wintermom]

1 hour ago, Frances said:

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.

Of course! For graduate students the profs and their research areas can be critical. That's why I specifically said undergraduate in my comment. 😀

Maybe in the US, because of the thousands of universities, standing out among the crowd is essential. In Canada, there are so few universities, it is very different. You can count the main Canadian universities across the entire country on your fingers and toes.

[wintermom]

19 minutes ago, regentrude said:

Re: older professors in academia:

In my observation, very often, old professors have lost productivity: they aren't publishing much anymore and aren't applying for research grants. That means they don't contribute to the funding and advising of graduate students in the department anymore. In teaching, they often reuse their decades old notes for classes they have taught for ages, and the quality of the teaching decreases.

All the while, they cost the college a tenured full professor salary that, while not high compared to industry, is twice as high as that of a young assistant professor at the beginning of their career.

Of course there shouldn't be an arvotrary age; however,  the way things are now, the rule on age discrimination prohibits a Department chair from even bringing up the topic of retirement.  As long as the person nominally fulfills the teaching load, they get to stay however long they want. A Department consisting of elderly faculty isn't good; not for students, not for research.

Bingo! It's so often the younger profs trying to get tenure and build up their research experience that are working really hard to research and teach well. At least from what I've seen. 

I was fortunate enough recently to have an amazing older prof teach one of my graduate courses and the quality was exceptional compared to all the other profs, whether they were very experienced or newer. This man was also still actively involved in research and supervising PhD students. I hope he stays on for as long as he can, but he'd be one of the people who would probably retire if he knew he wasn't contributing to his high standards.

[DawnM]

I messed up my retirement by moving states.   My amount to bring in is probably not messed up, but my health insurance benefits are.

I had planned to work until 65, but if I work until 68 I will get full health benefits for me and DH, so I will try to work until 68.   Not sure if I can or not.

DH says he will probably retire whenever I do.

When I am 68, my youngest will still not be finished with high school, so it isn't like we are planning to go to a retirement community or move to the beach until after 68 anyway.

[Catwoman]

22 minutes ago, regentrude said:

They don't have a stellar reputation because they have experienced octogenarians on the faculty. 

You want a mix. You want faculty who can have new ideas, embrace new technogy, have high research productivity. Just because a person has lectured for 40 years doesn't make a prof a great teacher. ImE, teaching quality typically declines in high age.

I wasn't thinking about octogenarians. I was thinking about experienced professors with well-earned reputations. I don't think it's right to put them out to pasture because students want to learn from other young people.

As an example, I briefly taught in a Master's program when I was in my 30s before I quit to raise my son. My friend there taught in the same program, but she was in her late 50s and had WAY more experience than I did. She had written textbooks and had been teaching for years, and although my education was far more recent, she stayed on top of new developments in the field and she knew so much more than I did. Her experience gave her a level of knowledge that I couldn't have even begun to compete with. I think I did a good job, but I learned so much from brainstorming with her, and that wouldn't have been possible if she had already been deemed obsolete because of her age. As for students, they might have thought I was younger and cooler, but I have to be honest about it, my friend really would have been a better choice of professor. And I don't think she would have ever stopped learning new technology and doing research, no matter how old she had lived to be. (Sadly, she passed away in her early 60s.) 

I agree that there should be a mix of older and younger, but I get the sense that many people in the 40-and-under crowd seem to think older people, even in their 50s and 60s, are obsolete and that they don't know anything, so they should be replaced, rather than realizing that there is a lot to be said for a lifetime of knowledge and experience.

[regentrude]

5 minutes ago, Catwoman said:

I wasn't thinking about octogenarians. I was thinking about experienced professors with well-earned reputations. I don't think it's right to put them out to pasture because students want to learn from other young people.

As an example, I briefly taught in a Master's program when I was in my 30s before I quit to raise my son. My friend there taught in the same program, but she was in her late 50s and had WAY more experience than I did. She had written textbooks and had been teaching for years, and although my education was far more recent, she stayed on top of new developments in the field and she knew so much more than I did. Her experience gave her a level of knowledge that I couldn't have even begun to compete with. I think I did a good job, but I learned so much from brainstorming with her, and that wouldn't have been possible if she had already been deemed obsolete because of her age. As for students, they might have thought I was younger and cooler, but I have to be honest about it, my friend really would have been a better choice of professor. And I don't think she would have ever stopped learning new technology and doing research, no matter how old she had lived to be. (Sadly, she passed away in her early 60s.) 

I agree that there should be a mix of older and younger, but I get the sense that many people in the 40-and-under crowd seem to think older people, even in their 50s and 60s, are obsolete and that they don't know anything, so they should be replaced, rather than realizing that there is a lot to be said for a lifetime of knowledge and experience.

But the original comment was NOT about the 50 and 60 year olds - it was specifically about tenured faculty 70+ who won't retire. 

"Young" professors are well into their 30s by the time they get to the assistant professor stage, after a PhD and two postdoc positions. Tenure at 40+. So 50s-60 is prime age, high research productivity  experienced teaching. Nobody was talking about that age group.

The problem is that some professors stay in their jobs well into their *eighties*. And that is almost never great for their departments. 

[Bootsie]

I think much depends upon the particular discipline, the college, and individual professors.  In my discipline it is not costing the university significantly more to have a tenured professor who has been at the univversity for decades than if a new assisstant professor were hired.  In fact, when the assistant professor's summer research grant, reduced teaching load to work toward tenure, travel money, and other research support is added, it is usually more expensive for the university to hire a new assistant professor than retain a tenured, full professor. 

The first or second most productive researcher in my department is the oldest member of the department (beyond typical retirement age).  Not only is he still highly involved in research himself, he is active in mentoring assistant professors.  The university knows his output, his personality, his strengths, his weaknesses.  (A highly promising assistant professor was hired for big $$$ a few years ago and has ended up being a liability in a number of ways.)  I have colleagues who are not simply using their teaching notes from decades ago (if so they would be talking about the FSLIC, mortgage rates of 20%, stock quotes in 1/16 of a dollar...), but they are able to pass on stories of bank failures in the 1980s or put today's inflation rates into perspective for students--all valuable history to pass on.  

We have older faculty members who financially could retire at any time but who love what they do.  They are more free to mentor students, oversee undergraduate thesis, serve on faculty governance committees, etc.  They are more likely to maintain acadeic standards because they are not concerned that a grade appeal will eat up precious time from their research or reduce their chances for promotion.  

 

[bookbard]

My parents are in their 70s and still work (family farm), the woman whose job I took over was in her 80s. Sometimes work is what you do with your life - it's your social life, your daily routine, and the only thing that stops it is ill-health. This all depends on the job, of course. And there is a cost to society if you just work forever - it reduces volunteers for community work. 

[Bootsie]

When I was about 50 I had a job that I found miserable.  DH is 13 years older than I am. I knew I wouldn't be able to continue with what I was doing for 15+ more years.  I saw three options.  I quite and DH could continue working to support us, given that he was not in a hurry to retire.  I could continue for a few years and DH and I could both retire at the same time.  I could find a new job;; I knew if I wanted ot do that I needed to do it soon; waiting for DH to reitire to look for something new meant I would be getting to an age that it was hard to find a job.   I did find a new job, which meant DH and I were working 275 miles apart for a few years until he retired.  Now, I am in my early 60s and enjoy my job and am not sure when I will retire.   

[Ausmumof3]

Women live longer so in theory you’d think they would work longer. In practice I think many reduce hours to take on caring roles - either aging parents or to provide care and support with the grandkids so mum can work.

[Amethyst]

For me, I can totally see myself retiring well after 67. My husband has worked non-stop since he graduated. I, on the other hand, took a break from work to raise and homeschool my kids. I didn’t start working full-time again until 8 years ago. I’m just hitting my stride now. Why retire now? 

[regentrude]

There is, of course, no general answer to the question in the OP. Circumstances vary too much.

For me, the ideal age is whenever a person has the financial means to retire and while she is still able to do whatever it is she wants to do after retirement - be that travel, a career change, climbing mountains... 

I see no moral virtue in working a job until forced into retirement by ill health and consider the whole protestant work ethic thing as deeply harmful. There's more to life than jobs. It always makes me sad when someone pushes off retirement (often despite their spouses pleas) for just another year and another year and then gets sick right after retiring and is never able to do the things they had saved for.

Edited June 7 by regentrude

[regentrude]

For myself, I want to get out before my work performance declines. Before I no longer am able to teach with energy and enthusiasm (that gets harder to muster each year  after 40+ semesters of multiple sections of the same class). 

I want to retire while I'm still able to backpack, rock climbing, kayak. While DH and I are both in good health. While I have energy and plans for things to do. Life is short. 

[madteaparty]

Eta that I will feel freer to retire when my daughter heads to college if I have managed to save her college tuition by then. For me this would be early 50s. I may also not retire but move to an overseas office. It’s day by day right now 😉 

[SKL]

On 6/7/2024 at 7:30 PM, regentrude said:

For myself, I want to get out before my work performance declines.

I do think this is a concern if we're honest.  Personally I've experienced mom brain, mental-pause, and Covid brain.  Hope these were/are all temporary.  But my brain is definitely not what it was when I was 40.  I need to keep some sort of written reminder so nothing falls through the cracks.  Yesterday I took a call from my dad because I forgot I had a conference call coming up (computer had a reminder, but I was away from my computer).  I wasn't a key player on that call, but we can't be doing that.  I need to take more time to learn about which new rules supersede the old rules and how to implement that for all of my clients' many projects.  Did I receive Report X from Client Y, or do I need to follow up ... times 100.  The info is not immediately accessible in my brain, like it used to be.  I take longer to remember what word I'm trying to say.  And presbyopia doesn't help either.

I can organize my way out of most risks, but that takes time.  So basically, I need to plan for more time to do the things that need done ... by taking on less.

I can honestly see myself taking all day to properly handle personal / family / house stuff + a reasonable amount of R&R, and go to sleep most nights without worries.  It feels like the natural order of things actually.

[BusyMom5]

The job makes a big difference.  Many school teachers need to retire by early 60s because they just don't want to handle the kids, lesson plans, etc. Every day.  They go back and sub a few days a week, or do maternity leave for someone.  I know a guy who went from a manager at a store to being an employee 3 days a week- less stress, but still getting him out and about and working.  I know many people who move into part-time in their 60s, or switch to a less demanding job.  

My suggestion would be to look for ways to step back, but not out.  Keep options open and look for those opportunities that lower stress, but still give you satisfaction.  I am still just a SAHM- homeschooling.   Things I see are volunteer opportunities, teaching co-op classes, baby-sitting for friends.  

[SKL]

On 6/7/2024 at 7:07 PM, Ausmumof3 said:

Women live longer so in theory you’d think they would work longer. In practice I think many reduce hours to take on caring roles - either aging parents or to provide care and support with the grandkids so mum can work.

Yeah I see a few people on this thread saying that because we live longer, we can work longer.  I mean, I understand that living longer implies additional years of intelligent activity, but maybe we should look more closely at that.  The older women I know, if capable, tend to use their time taking care of the house and family, as much as they can.  The reality is, for a woman (at least in my age group), our house is one of our "jobs" and we can't ever retire from that, unless we have someone else to take over.  So for us, retiring from our paid job can be seen more as a stepping back from our overall responsibilities.

Another thing - just yesterday, I saw an article saying that older women have a higher incidence of dementia (particularly Alzheimer's) than older men.  I didn't have time to dig into this, but it may be another reason to question a link between longevity and years of paid work.

 

[regentrude]

8 minutes ago, SKL said:

 The reality is, for a woman (at least in my age group), our house is one of our "jobs" and we can't ever retire from that, unless we have someone else to take over.  So for us, retiring from our paid job can be seen more as a stepping back from our overall responsibilities.

Another thing - just yesterday, I saw an article saying that older women have a higher incidence of dementia (particularly Alzheimer's) than older men.  I didn't have time to dig into this, but it may be another reason to question a link between longevity and years of paid work.

Two thoughts:

1. taking care of the house for two retired people isn't really task that can fill life in retirement. Anybody who is working manages this on the side. 

2. There is evidence that challenging cognitive activity can contribute to combat dementia. This can mean that staying in a cognitively challenging job longer would be better than retiring to clean the house.

Eta: did the article compare men and women of the same age, or just state that there are more old women with dementia than men? The latter would be expected since there are more old women.

Edited June 9 by regentrude

[wintermom]

On 6/7/2024 at 7:30 PM, regentrude said:

For myself, I want to get out before my work performance declines. Before I no longer am able to teach with energy and enthusiasm (that gets harder to muster each year  after 40+ semesters of multiple sections of the same class). 

I want to retire while I'm still able to backpack, rock climbing, kayak. While DH and I are both in good health. While I have energy and plans for things to do. Life is short. 

My suspicioun is that women tend to notice their performance decline and make work changes before most men do. I'm thinking of some prominent politicians (no names). I think that men's self-image is way more positive overall in terms of their capabilities to perform.

Edited June 9 by wintermom

[Frances]

19 minutes ago, SKL said:

Yeah I see a few people on this thread saying that because we live longer, we can work longer.  I mean, I understand that living longer implies additional years of intelligent activity, but maybe we should look more closely at that.  The older women I know, if capable, tend to use their time taking care of the house and family, as much as they can.  The reality is, for a woman (at least in my age group), our house is one of our "jobs" and we can't ever retire from that, unless we have someone else to take over.  So for us, retiring from our paid job can be seen more as a stepping back from our overall responsibilities.

 

I know there was recently a thread where you and your roommates had acquired a second home, so perhaps even though you are sharing household responsibilities among three adults, those duties are more time consuming and stressful because they apply to two homes rather than one. I think most working families couples manage to handle household responsibilities while still working, so retirement doesn’t change much there, just creates more free time. From my older retired friends, what I see is the maybe around the late 70s or so, household stuff takes more of their time due to slowly declining mental and physical capabilities. And even the most tech savvy find keeping up with the ever increasing and ever changing tech stuff increasingly stressful as they age.  The tech stuff is a huge stressor for every elderly person I know.

[Annie G]

4 minutes ago, Frances said:

. I think most working families couples manage to handle household responsibilities while still working, so retirement doesn’t change much there, just creates more free time. From my older retired friends, what I see is the maybe around the late 70s or so, household stuff takes more of their time due to slowly declining mental and physical capabilities. 

We’re in our 60’s and retired and home care takes longer than it did when we worked. Partly because we’re not rushing like we did when we had full time jobs. I felt like I was always rushing to finish one task so I could move on to another.  But for us, the sweet spot was when the kids were teens and really helped a lot with chores. As they moved out, dh and I took back those chores they’d been doing. Ds used to cut the grass, they all had kitchen duties and other chores. When I had teens in the house I rarely swept, ran the vacuum, dusted, etc. because they did it. Now it’s back to me and dh.  The three bathrooms don’t get as dirty w just two of us but they still need to be cleaned, and for years I only did ours and the kids did their own. 

[regentrude]

13 minutes ago, Frances said:

And even the most tech savvy find keeping up with the ever increasing and ever changing tech stuff increasingly stressful as they age.  The tech stuff is a huge stressor for every elderly person I know.

Maybe this deserves a spin off... I have been wondering a lot what to do to combat that. I noticed that many of my older, but not yet retirement age, acquaintances no longer keep current on tech; there seems to be a feeling of it no longer being worth it since they'llretire soon. Like the older colleague who kept using an overhead projector for his 20 year old slides when everyone else had long gone digital. I wonder to what degree checking out in the 60s exacerbates the troubles in the 80s.

[Pawz4me]

29 minutes ago, regentrude said:

 

1. taking care of the house for two retired people isn't really task that can fill life in retirement.

Huh. I guess nobody ever told me or DH that. It certainly seems like just taking care of the house and related stuff fills up our time. We're "only" in our early 60s, and health issues have popped up (as they have for almost everyone else we know in our age range), and energy level/stamina isn't quite what it used to be. We take our time. We take breaks when we need to. So things do take longer. This morning I've walked the dogs, done two loads of laundry, changed the sheets on the bed, sweeped up a bit and cooked a bunch of chicken for the dogs. A few years ago I could've done that, recharged over a quick lunch and been fresh to go again. I can't do that now. I'll need at least an hour or two of down time after lunch.

And also we're doing more around the house than we did when he was working and the kids were small--like right now we've got a ton of flowers that need almost daily tending (DH spent most of his morning on that), and we're still catching up on little improvements we've wanted to do for a long time, etc.

Mostly I'm guessing that people who are still in their 40's or 50's maybe don't realize how fast energy/stamina wanes.

[regentrude]

6 minutes ago, Annie G said:

The three bathrooms don’t get as dirty w just two of us but they still need to be cleaned, and for years I only did ours and the kids did their own. 

I love that our upstairs and  basement bathrooms remain nearly pristine. We're mostlt using the master bathroom and the half-bath on the main level.

I don't WANT housework to take up a lot of my time. If I can do it quickly and fit it in the odd minutes here and there while I work, why would I want to spend longer once I'm retired?

[SKL]

39 minutes ago, regentrude said:

Two thoughts:

1. taking care of the house for two retired people isn't really task that can fill life in retirement. Anybody who is working manages this on the side. 

2. There is evidence that challenging cognitive activity can contribute to combat dementia. This can mean that staying in a cognitively challenging job longer would be better than retiring to clean the house.

Eta: did the article compare men and women of the same age, or just state that there are more old women with dementia than men? The latter would be expected since there are more old women.

1) You are significantly younger than I am, so I think you may not be seeing what I'm seeing.  Also, I'm not really saying that housekeeping is all a woman wants or needs to do in old age, but my point is that a woman who leaves the workplace still has a pile of responsibilities.  This will take her more time as she gets older, leaving less time for other things she wants to do, like playing music, reading, volunteering, keeping up on the news.

2) I understand that cognitive challenge can slow cognitive decline, but the scientists haven't yet figured out how to completely stave it off.  We can't simply declare that we aren't gong down, period.  We can always continue to nourish our brains with or without a job, but being responsible to stay super sharp for others or for a paycheck is probably not the right plan past a certain point.  (As you yourself pointed out.)

3) The articles did compare people at the same ages for Alzheimers in particular.  I don't know too many details as I'm supposed to be working.  😛  I do think this question will be a good use of our intellectual curiosity going forward.

[Pawz4me]

2 minutes ago, regentrude said:

 

I don't WANT housework to take up a lot of my time. If I can do it quickly and fit it in the odd minutes here and there while I work, why would I want to spend longer once I'm retired?

Who has said that they want to spend more time on housework? What we're trying to tell you is that it takes more time to do the same things.

[SKL]

29 minutes ago, wintermom said:

I think that men's self-image is way more positive overall in terms of their capabilities to perform.

Well said, regardless of age.  😛

[regentrude]

1 minute ago, SKL said:

1) You are significantly younger than I am, so I think you may not be seeing what I'm seeing 

You said in the OP that 67 is 9+ years for you, so I guess that means you're shy of 58? I'm 56. Don't think that makes much of a difference. 

[regentrude]

5 minutes ago, Pawz4me said:

Who has said that they want to spend more time on housework? What we're trying to tell you is that it takes more time to do the same things.

The poster to whom I responded said 

19 minutes ago, Annie G said:

Partly because we’re not rushing like we did when we had full time jobs. I felt like I was always rushing to finish one task so I could move on to another.

I will still want to rush through the housework so I can have time to go hiking or kayaking. Housework has a tendency to fill whatever time one allows for it.

Edited June 9 by regentrude

[SKL]

26 minutes ago, Frances said:

From my older retired friends, what I see is the maybe around the late 70s or so, household stuff takes more of their time due to slowly declining mental and physical capabilities. And even the most tech savvy find keeping up with the ever increasing and ever changing tech stuff increasingly stressful as they age.  The tech stuff is a huge stressor for every elderly person I know.

I agree, except I think this starts before the late 70s for many people.  I think it's a mistake to assume we're suddenly going to have 40+ totally free & easy hours after we retire.

I look at my parents, who are still alive and functioning.  My mom had radical cancer surgery followed by chemo and radiation and a follow-up surgery in her early 60s.  My dad retired shortly after that at age 65, but he really has a busy life caring for my mom's many health issues, and taking care of the entire house including cooking etc. by himself, because my mom can barely stand up to walk to the kitchen and back.  My dad does have hobbies and interests which he mostly pursues from home.  His basement is a whole machine shop that he created for fun.  He enjoys keeping up on IT and scentific stuff, history, and keeping up with old friends and family (who are all going through different stuff, losing spouses, etc.).  My mom can't do much, but tries to keep up on the news in between listening to audiobooks and being a grandma.  She used to do the laundry until recently.  My folks would never have pictured their life like this 20 years ago.  No way.

Also, I agree with the tech stuff, and I should have mentioned it before.  I am OK with it, but let's be honest, it takes time to learn every "upgrade" that is imposed upon us.  That's true regardless of age, but beyond a point, age/maturity don't help.  😛

[historically accurate]

I've been thinking about the age of retirement for a bit. I've got 17 years before I can retire with my full state pension (I am turning 50 this year). I can retire in 9 years with a pension, but 17 years is the full retirement age for it; I'll lose some banked time if I retire before then.

I'm currently the Business Manager at a library and will be adding makerspace managerial duties with the launch of that area late 2025. Looking ahead 17 years, I'm pretty sure I will be unable to run the two departments concurrently when I'm 60+. I'm already a little leery of how I'm going to manage my current workload of accounts payable, financial reporting, and legal reporting while adding programming, inventory management, as well as learning how to at least troubleshoot, if not actually use to their fullest, all the machines that will be in the makerspace. 

I lost almost 20 years of income while homeschooling, and I feel a need to "catch up", but we age pretty poorly in my family, so I'm not sure what would be best for me.

Edited June 9 by historically accurate

[SKL]

23 minutes ago, Annie G said:

We’re in our 60’s and retired and home care takes longer than it did when we worked. Partly because we’re not rushing like we did when we had full time jobs. I felt like I was always rushing to finish one task so I could move on to another.  But for us, the sweet spot was when the kids were teens and really helped a lot with chores. As they moved out, dh and I took back those chores they’d been doing. Ds used to cut the grass, they all had kitchen duties and other chores. When I had teens in the house I rarely swept, ran the vacuum, dusted, etc. because they did it. Now it’s back to me and dh.  The three bathrooms don’t get as dirty w just two of us but they still need to be cleaned, and for years I only did ours and the kids did their own. 

Interesting point.  This is one reason I'm not trying to get my teens to take over household matters that aren't directly related to their own actions.  Because they may not always be around, and at some point I'll have to take it all back, LOL.  I actually enjoy keeping house, so other than making sure the kids know how to do stuff for their benefit, I just keep on keeping on.

And I also agree that there's more housework when two people are home all day.  More meals, more bathroom usage, more hobbies, possibly more health-related stuff.

[regentrude]

My perspective may be clouded by what I see with the elders in my family. My mom's house is on a hill, then 70 steps to the door. No vehicle access. Mom doesn't drive. She walks to the shops and brings home her groceries and takes care of the house and doesn't find enough to do. She's 82. She travels independently using public transportation. 

My grandma lived with us and did hill and stairs and shopping for six until age 93. My other grandmother worked part-time until she was 85. My dad started a second career at 65 and worked well into his 70s. 

So no, I'm not seeing the health decline in the 60s and 70s.

Edited June 9 by regentrude

[Pawz4me]

4 minutes ago, regentrude said:

The poster to whom I responded said 

 

Okay. That's fair, although to me it seems to be a very odd interpretation of what she said.

I'm finding lots of enjoyment in having time to be more mindful, whether it's a household task or something more fun. To me one of the greatest benefits of having more time is not having to rush for anything.

.

[SKL]

43 minutes ago, regentrude said:

Maybe this deserves a spin off... I have been wondering a lot what to do to combat that. I noticed that many of my older, but not yet retirement age, acquaintances no longer keep current on tech; there seems to be a feeling of it no longer being worth it since they'llretire soon. Like the older colleague who kept using an overhead projector for his 20 year old slides when everyone else had long gone digital. I wonder to what degree checking out in the 60s exacerbates the troubles in the 80s.

Nowadays, I get a lot of ads for training regarding how AI relates to legal and accounting careers.  Honestly, I don't have a desire to pour my soul into learning AI in my "spare time." 😛  I do have to learn a lot of new things all the time ... some may not consider this to be "technology," but every time the government re-vamps its online reporting systems, all the various banks and investment companies that have different security procedures that change all the time, the various other security stuff for sharing documents that also changes all the time, ... heck, just the six thousand freaking usernames and passwords that change all the time ... these take time and mental effort too.  Theoretically, technology makes things easier, but not always.

I use PDF a lot.  They just changed something, I don't know why, but they moved all the menu items from right to left, top to bottom and vice versa.  Why?  It must be young whipper-snappers not realizing that we don't have time to re-learn all these things in the middle of doing our jobs.

Edited June 9 by SKL

[SKL]

21 minutes ago, regentrude said:

You said in the OP that 67 is 9+ years for you, so I guess that means you're shy of 58? I'm 56. Don't think that makes much of a difference. 

Sorry, I thought you were younger.  However, I'm not just talking about myself right now.  I'm seeing my future self in others who are currently older than I am.  Including people who refuse to admit the changes that are definitely there.

[SKL]

20 minutes ago, regentrude said:

I will still want to rush through the housework so I can have time to go hiking or kayaking. Housework has a tendency to fill whatever time one allows for it.

And I hope you will be able to.  🙂  I do know a lot of older people (and younger ones for that matter) who keep their total housekeeping time short, but it shows up in how their house looks and eventually in their quality of life.  Especially if they become sick or injured and have no choice but to let things pile up.

Speaking of things piled up ... those of us who work outside the home often have housekeeping projects that we "need to get to someday."  The early years of retirement seem to be the perfect time to get to those projects.  Hopefully if we plan well, we'll get all those projects done before we are physically unable to do that.

[Pawz4me]

32 minutes ago, regentrude said:

Maybe this deserves a spin off... I have been wondering a lot what to do to combat that. I noticed that many of my older, but not yet retirement age, acquaintances no longer keep current on tech; there seems to be a feeling of it no longer being worth it since they'llretire soon. Like the older colleague who kept using an overhead projector for his 20 year old slides when everyone else had long gone digital. I wonder to what degree checking out in the 60s exacerbates the troubles in the 80s.

This is one of the things DH and I have chosen to be more mindful about. No, he's not still designing software, but we do make sure to keep up with new gadgets and tech stuff that we'll need or that will potentially be useful going forward. Things like updating our cell phones before the technology on the current ones becomes obsolete and there's a huge learning curve, figuring out how smart watches work (fall detection and emergency calling), ordering online with GrubHub and other delivery services, how to use Uber and Lyft, etc. It's not likely we'll need to know how to do digital slides, but driving will almost certainly become more challenging, and knowing how to use a service, or order what we need and have it delivered will be necessary. We know if we get behind on tech stuff it'll likely be a steep hill to climb to catch back up.

[Annie G]

20 minutes ago, SKL said:

Interesting point.  This is one reason I'm not trying to get my teens to take over household matters that aren't directly related to their own actions.  Because they may not always be around, and at some point I'll have to take it all back, LOL.  I actually enjoy keeping house, so other than making sure the kids know how to do stuff for their benefit, I just keep on keeping on.

And I also agree that there's more housework when two people are home all day.  More meals, more bathroom usage, more hobbies, possibly more health-related stuff.

Dh and I learned how to care for a house partly by doing chores as kids. That’s why we had our kids chip in with household chores- partly to be a contributing member of the family and partly to learn how to juggle responsibilities.  

 

[SKL]

1 minute ago, Annie G said:

Dh and I learned how to care for a house partly by doing chores as kids. That’s why we had our kids chip in with household chores- partly to be a contributing member of the family and partly to learn how to juggle responsibilities.  

 

I also did chores as a kid, and benefited a lot as an adult.

I'll be honest ... my kids are not even close to keeping after their own mess.  If they ever get to that point, maybe I'll consider giving them more to do.  Call it a parental fail.  😛 

[SKL]

I've also observed that after a certain age, elderly people just don't use the new stuff that is supposed to make their lives easier.

I've bought my folks things over the years.  For example, 2-3 years ago, I bought one of those robot vacuums.  Even though my dad is smart and relatively tech-savvy for his age, he never did figure out how to make it work for him.  It's sitting there on his living room floor, adding to the clutter instead of being a help.  He vacuums the old-fashioned way, and often hurts himself doing it.  (Maybe he still has "learn that friggin vacuum robot" on his "list of projects to get to.")

I remember when we bought my grandma a microwave back in the day.  She was afraid to use it.  She thought she'd blow the house up.  So she continued heating everything on the stove until she died at 87.

[TechWife]

28 minutes ago, regentrude said:

My perspective may be clouded by what I see with the elders in my family. My mom's house is on a hill, then 70 steps to the door. No vehicle access. Mom doesn't drive. She walks to the shops and brings home her groceries and takes care of the house and doesn't find enough to do. She's 82. She travels independently using public transportation. 

My grandma lived with us and did hill and stairs and shopping for six until age 93. My other grandmother worked part-time until she was 85. My dad started a second career at 65 and worked well into his 70s. 

So no, I'm not seeing the health decline in the 60s and 70s.

I think that you have a great point. Lifestyle plays a large role in quality of life as we age. Generally speaking, those who are more physically active have fewer mobility issues than those who aren’t. This is very much connected to bone density, flexibility and endurance. Also generally speaking, movement is good for mental health. All of this contributes to quality of life, including the ability to work a job. Like I said earlier, there are way too many variables for me to see a generalized, ideal retirement age for all women.

 

[SKL]

Three of my grandparents died in their 70s, and the 4th one died at 87.  Some of it was probably smoking (which I don't do), but it doesn't appear that I have longevity genes.

I do consider myself reasonably active ... but I'd be more active if I were retired, LOL.  I have a sedentary job.  Since I can't do everything myself, I hire some physical tasks like deep cleaning, lawn care, and grocery shopping/delivery.  I wouldn't mind taking some of those tasks back for both financial and physical health should I retire.  I'd also go for more walks/hikes, attend physical classes, and maybe add some physical volunteer activities.   I'd take leisurely baths, get massages, and see my chiropractor more often.

[wintermom]

10 minutes ago, TechWife said:

I think that you have a great point. Lifestyle plays a large role in quality of life as we age. Generally speaking, those who are more physically active have fewer mobility issues than those who aren’t. This is very much connected to bone density, flexibility and endurance. Also generally speaking, movement is good for mental health. All of this contributes to quality of life, including the ability to work a job. Like I said earlier, there are way too many variables for me to see a generalized, ideal retirement age for all women.

 

This is true, however sometimes you're just unlucky with what diseases hit you. 

[TechWife]

3 minutes ago, wintermom said:

This is true, however sometimes you're just unlucky with what diseases hit you. 

Of course. It also varies depending on what disease or health event occurs. But, having an active lifestyle doesn’t hurt anyone, nor does it hinder recovery. 

[wintermom]

11 minutes ago, TechWife said:

Of course. It also varies depending on what disease or health event occurs. But, having an active lifestyle doesn’t hurt anyone, nor does it hinder recovery. 

For sure! And it never hurts having that strong baseline when you're combatting new health issues.

[fairfarmhand]

1 hour ago, Annie G said:

We’re in our 60’s and retired and home care takes longer than it did when we worked. Partly because we’re not rushing like we did when we had full time jobs. I felt like I was always rushing to finish one task so I could move on to another.  But for us, the sweet spot was when the kids were teens and really helped a lot with chores. As they moved out, dh and I took back those chores they’d been doing. Ds used to cut the grass, they all had kitchen duties and other chores. When I had teens in the house I rarely swept, ran the vacuum, dusted, etc. because they did it. Now it’s back to me and dh.  The three bathrooms don’t get as dirty w just two of us but they still need to be cleaned, and for years I only did ours and the kids did their own. 

I am very very much dreading the time when I don’t have lawn mowing teens. Housework is easy and doesn’t take much, but cutting alllllll that grass…we divide it by 4 people right now.