I'm with Jenncoolfla......I still teach, and plan to die in the classroom even if I won the lottery.......There's nothing else to do........

That too is where I'm at. I will work until I drop. I made that choice in sending my 3 children to top colleges so that they would have opportunities open to them that I didn't have. It's a sacrifice I don't regret. Just praying to stay ihealthy enough to work a long, long time.

If you supported them for so long perhaps it's time for them to reciprocate. Show up at their door with a suitcase.

We have saved, not borrowed ourselves into a hole, worked lots of 50-60 hour weeks, and have a solid nest egg. We plan on retiring by age 62, moving to Oregon, building a house, and living quietly there. We will travel some, but nothing extravagant.

Neither of us were executives, but were are both college grads with solid management jobs. Not super high pay for either of us, but consistently employed (even now). I went back to get my CPA certification at age 40, and I am so glad I did.

We are lucky, but I also think we tried to be responsible too. We didn't buy the boats, fancy cars, or big deal vacations, we saved and bought our cars cash, we have a lovely house that will be paid off in a couple of years, but keep our appliances, furniture and cars for a minmum of 10 years, so we haven't made big outlays for such things.

Many people had no change in their income, but they went and spent far more using their credit cards and HELOC's/2nd mortgage withdrawals. They paid for expensive 4 yr college educations for their kids when they could have sent them 2 years to junior college and saved the $$$. New phones, computers, cars, appliances, cd's, toys for kids, toys for adults.... I don't know why folks can't seem to spend only what they have instead of borrowing to overspend.

Not saying that was you, jenn. Just commenting on where the folks I know lost perspective.

I guess never. Since by the time 2048 rolls around when I collect my SS, it will be gone. So, unless I get rich.

I plan to work hard for the next 25 years and see what happens.

I agree with alot of what you say about being responsible, but instead of giving workers real wage increases, the banks gave everyone a credit line; while the executives stock piled all the real cash away for themselves.

Ah yes Destroyer, the old higher wages concept. But you forget that you got the "higher wages" with all of the benefits those employers also had to add (health, vacations, etc.) While banks did give MOST everyone a credit line, we didn't have to use that credit line, did we? Yes, I did use it, because I was self-employed and needed the equipment to conduct the business. I paid for my college education myself working full time after the first three years (bank loans for those) and went back to school at 48 to get my massage therapy training. I'm self-taught in several software programs that enable me to now run my ad agency/graphic arts business. I'm also 65 (in one month) and semi-retired with early SS. Will I ever quit working? Not until my body/mind no longer allow me to. Why? Because it is an active body and mind that keeps you going. That is one advantage of being self-employed. You can do what you have to to survive. Believe me, you can't survive on just your SS.

Take heed you younger ones. Plan now for your future. Don't get yourself heavily in debt with things you don't really need. SAVE, SAVE, SAVE in a local credit union. Don't trust your money to IRA's, 401K's, or any other "investment" program other than bare land. Why bare land? Because we are going to run out of that some day soon and it has greater "value-added" than real estate with a building on it.

Also - Employers had to pay double for healthcare insurance the past years too, so they couldn't afford pay raises on top of it. So employees lost both ways - less health insurance, no real pay increases, and using credit with high interest rates to cover the income they should have had.

Another thing - investment firms snookered many into thinking they should have their investments heavily in the stock market. Why? They got more commissions that way. If your only retirement savings was given to a casino in Las Vegas, you would complain that it was too risky. Yet everyone did that in the stock market. Some in the market was a good idea. 100% as many had left them totally exposed to the latest"bubble". So many lost their investments to market swings. People need to be more conservative with their retirement savings - and gamble only with a percentage...

Take heed you younger ones.

That's ironic from the gen that allowed SS to go down the tubes such that current SS is paid out of current workers taxes instead of outs of securities where it was supposed to be invested.

Maybe if more of those earners had saved anything whatsoever they wouldn't have to keep working now. Let me see...gen born 1945-1963 is primarily responsible for the invention of all out credit lending that started in the 1980s and even encouraged the spend attitude and shift after years of saving for things instead of using credit to pay for them.

The generations under them simply are following the bad example.

anti-trust - I think IRA's and 401k's are good ideas on top of your other suggestions about saving and being self sufficient.

Investments that earn tax free income, and some of it getting a company match, is a great way to grow your savings faster. The key is not investing these funds in things that are too speculative.

If a person has the money to buy land, pay taxes on it, and not need access to the cash value quickly, then land can be a good long term investment. But you really have to know the market in the area, so I'm not sure it is for just anyone......

Too many thought their houses and the stock market were automatic wealth makers. They must know a few basic rules in economics and personal finance -

• There is a relationship between risk and return on investment. The higher the return, the greater the risk. If you are offered a quick money-maker, there are usually serious risks that could also cause you to lose this money.
• If you can't afford to lose the money, don't invest in anything high risk.

Hi, I will probably wait till 66-70 as my full retirement age is 66. Until then, the government sees fit to offest by PERS retirement in social security which I think is unfair. I worked 34 years in social security and 11 in PERS so I'm at a loss as to why they choose to reduce the benefits. Unless they change that ruling, I'll just work till 66, then retire. Shame since if I retire, it opens up a job for a younger person. Seems counterproductive to me.

You are right Dee. My 401K lost every dime the company put in (matching funds) until I wised up and got out of the Blue Chip, and then mutual funds. The only way my 401K made any money was having all of it put into bonds (that was during the period 2000-2004.) I left the company in May 2004 and used the funds to start my own business.

No matter where you live, bare land will always be a good investment because some day down the road, we won't have any other land to develop without tearing down a bunch of decrepit buildings. I look at what is happening in Central America where developers are going in and buying up all of the acreage they can so they can build gated communities for the expats from North America and Europe who can no longer afford to live in their own countries. That might also be a good investment for some of you. Look into buying land in Panama. They have great "investment" opportunities there....especially in reforestation projects.

I am aiming to retire at 50. I will have a PERS pension and full medical benefits. I am now 48 and have been saving like crazy in my deferred comp account. My plan is to have my deferred comp account supplement my income until Social Security kicks in at 62. I will have a nice little nest egg, a small pension and medical coverage. I also will own a home outright once I move. We are moving out of California to probably North Carolina and I will be completely debt free.

I may toil in some part time/temporary work. But even at 48, my thinking is life is too short. Give me a blue sky, a pretty lake and a sack lunch - and peace and quiet! I want to see the country. I've seen too many people work until 60, 65 or more and drop dead right around retirement. All to maintain a very materialistic lifestyle. It is not worth it!

Do it as soon as you can!

Anti, you make some good points, but for most of the plans you suggest, you need capital, and lots of it. I say executives who took home more than 400 times what the average employee made, including all of these benefits you speak of, got all of the real value from those increases. When the companies failed they filed for bankruptcy and walked away with huge personal fortunes. Why is it, you suppose, that 50 years ago a family of 4 could survive on one income, buy a house, send their kids to college and receive a decent retirement, and now they barely make it on two, or three incomes?

65 or 67 is full Social Security, depending on your age. But you have to look at the pay-back time of waiting to collect. For most people, it pays to take it early. Right now, if you collect at 62 versus 65, you lose 20%, but you collect for 3 years. So, for a round number example, if at 65 your monthly check would be $1,400 and you start collecting at 62, your monthly check would drop to $1,120 ($1,400 minus 20%). Not counting cost of living increases, for 3 years that would be a total collected of $40,320. How long would it take to re-coup that $40,320 on the other end? Well, about 144 months or 12 years.

Even for those of us that won't reach full Social Security until 67, it will still pay to collect at 62. We will lose 30%, but using the same $1,400, at 62 my monthly check would only be $980.00 ($1,400 minus 30%) but I would collect it for 5 years which would total $58,800. To re-coup that on the other end it would be 140 months or almost 12 years.

Obviously I did not factor in increases, inflation, etc. But, statistically, I don't see why you would wait until full retirement age unless you think you are going to live way past 80. And if you do, will your lifestyle - travel, socialising etc. be to the same level then as in your 60's or 70's? Probably not. I think most people would rather have the money when they are younger.

Deetoo, I agree with most of what you said except for the 4 year college vs. 2 year junior college. Unfortunately, that was my and my husbands' parents philosophy, and that was a disadvantage that followed us throughout our lives. I believe if your children can get into an Ivy League school, that they should go- it absolutely opens up more opportunities for them down the road. Where you go to college follows you for the rest of your life.

aligater (sp)...there's nothing else to do? You've got to be kidding!

And you may have to wait until you are 67 or older if you want to draw "full retirement" SS. Remember that 65 is no longer "full retirement" age for Social Security.

65 or 67 is full Social Security, depending on your age. But you have to look at the pay-back time of waiting to collect. For most people, it pays to take it early. Right now, if you collect at 62 versus 65, you lose 20%, but you collect for 3 years. So, for a round number example, if at 65 your monthly check would be $1,400 and you start collecting at 62, your monthly check would drop to $1,120 ($1,400 minus 20%). Not counting cost of living increases, for 3 years that would be a total collected of $40,320. How long would it take to re-coup that $40,320 on the other end? Well, about 144 months or 12 years.

Even for those of us that won't reach full Social Security until 67, it will still pay to collect at 62. We will lose 30%, but using the same $1,400, at 62 my monthly check would only be $980.00 ($1,400 minus 30%) but I would collect it for 5 years which would total $58,800. To re-coup that on the other end it would be 140 months or almost 12 years.

Obviously I did not factor in increases, inflation, etc. But, statistically, I don't see why you would wait until full retirement age unless you think you are going to live way past 80. And if you do, will your lifestyle - travel, socialising etc. be to the same level then as in your 60's or 70's? Probably not. I think most people would rather have the money when they are younger.

Don't be depressed Lynn....I have a friend that still works at his desk at home and he was diagnosed with prostate cancer 15 years ago......It's the slowest growing cancer.

And when caught early, one of the easiest to cure also. Good luck Lynn.

Actually Lynn, with current treatments, you will probably live well past retirement age. I've met many with prostate cancer and with treatment, they have a long life expectancy. Good Luck.

Take heart, Lynn. You can beat this thing. My stepfather did and he is now 83 and very active.

you are hired

You forgot the other one....."Would you like paper or plastic"??

I'm not saying this sarcastically, but get your health in order. Why are you on so many medications? Is it because of bad habits (smoking, drinking, poor diet/exercise, etc.)? Those things you can correct. If they are due to hereditary illnesses, that is another matter. You can heal yourself and get off of many meds by changing your lifestyle, then reach retirement age and enjoy life.

To anti-trust proponent - you should not jump to conclusions. Maybe this person's health issues were not caused by bad habits. I just lost a former co-worker who was in tip top shape - ate right, did not smoke or drink, was not overweight, ex-Navy who was just getting ready to work for a major airline and return to what he loved to do - fly airplanes. He had a young family and cancer took his life last week at the age of 44. It had nothing to do with heredity either - his parents are still living.

Read what I wrote wjb. I wasn't jumping to conclusions. I was simply pointing out that IF it was due to bad habits that medications are required, THAT can be corrected. And cancer in many cases IS hereditary....scientists are discovering that more and more. Other forms of cancer are caused by environmental issues and/or lifestyles. If your co-worker was ex-Navy, maybe he was exposed to something during service that led to the cancer. With each individual, it is different. But, and the point of my comment, each individual has the responsibility for their own health and well-being. Our lifestyles help determine our health.

I agree with one thing that you said that some forms of cancer are caused by environmental issues and/or lifestyles, but your initial response to the post was if you were chastising him or her because by them taking medications, it was their fault and a lifestyle change was all that was needed. I think that person is intelligent enough to know what his or her medical issues are and why. You also mentioned healing yourself. Give me a break. You seem arrogant and pompous.

I worked for a company that was sinking with nepotism and cronyism so at 40 I went back to school and changed careers at 45.I have my own company now and I can work as long as I want to and will enjoy it. I would give serious consideration to getting out if you can,there is nothing worse than going to a job you hate.

You are so right Joe. If you feel stuck in a job you hate, it is up to you to find something you enjoy doing and go for it. Some say this is not the time to do that, but it really is the best time for it. I went back to school at 48 to train to be a massage therapist and I've trained myself in several software programs that now allow me to do graphic arts/ad agency work for several clients. I even published a small monthly tabloid for 44 issues that I took "green" February 2008. I now work on keeping my community informed of non-profit events through its related website.

Hehe, that's a good one Bobby, thanks for the laugh.

Knowing my work ethics, I'm more likely to get re-fired than retired

Pension? What's a pension? I'm turning 50 in a little while and my generation never saw any such animal. We're the YOYO Generation: You're On Your Own.

Actually SS maxes out when you wait until 70, but if you run a spreadsheet you will find that unless you have longevity in your family, you are better off taking it at your full retirement age or possibly even at 62. Check with SS for your monthly payouts at each age (62, full, 70...since the full retirement age now varies between 66 & 67 depending on your year of birth.) Then take those monthly amounts and post them on a spread sheet where you do a subtotal for each additional month. For most people it takes 15-18 years before the lower 62 payout becomes a disadvantage over waiting until "full retirement." If you can afford to live on that lower amount by itself or combined with other sources of income, then do it. But there are two additional catches to "early retirement." You can only earn a certain amount of money (this year it is $13,400) before they deduct $1 for every $2 earned over that limit from your SS check. If you wait until full retirement, the amount you can earn without penalty goes up by about $20K. The other penalty is if you are self-employed. You can't work more than 40 hours per month without penalty.

65 or 67 is full Social Security, depending on your age. But you have to look at the pay-back time of waiting to collect. For most people, it pays to take it early. Right now, if you collect at 62 versus 65, you lose 20%, but you collect for 3 years. So, for a round number example, if at 65 your monthly check would be $1,400 and you start collecting at 62, your monthly check would drop to $1,120 ($1,400 minus 20%). Not counting cost of living increases, for 3 years that would be a total collected of $40,320. How long would it take to re-coup that $40,320 on the other end? Well, about 144 months or 12 years.

Even for those of us that won't reach full Social Security until 67, it will still pay to collect at 62. We will lose 30%, but using the same $1,400, at 62 my monthly check would only be $980.00 ($1,400 minus 30%) but I would collect it for 5 years which would total $58,800. To re-coup that on the other end it would be 140 months or almost 12 years.

Obviously I did not factor in increases, inflation, etc. But, statistically, I don't see why you would wait until full retirement age unless you think you are going to live way past 80. And if you do, will your lifestyle - travel, socialising etc. be to the same level then as in your 60's or 70's? Probably not. I think most people would rather have the money when they are younger.

Smart thinking. Remember those financial planners are making their living off of getting you to invest through their plans. Talk about ponzi schemes. It is those same firms that put us into our financial meltdown we are currently in. Sell off all of your stocks. Close out all of your bank accounts and pay off all credit cards. Then put your money into your local credit union. There you have a say as to what happens with your money. You might not earn as much, but it is much safer.

Take heart Simply. There are small retail businesses who prefer older workers. Why? Because we are more dependable. I manage a small retail store for a friend. Every time we hire a younger person, they last at best 3 months. The older staff has been with us for three years or more. I'm currently looking for one more part-time employee to work 6 days/week at 2-4 hours per day mid-day M-F and Saturday mornings. The only catch is that they do need to be computer literate since we are on a Point of Sale system and do graphics work (custom apparel/paper print shop.) Those people are hard to find here in the US Virgin Islands.

So anti-trust proponent

How do I semi retire down there in USVI.

you are joking right. no one is unreplacable in this world. EVEN YOU.

Hmmm, that depends on the job. Maybe this person owns his/her own business and hasn't found anyone who understands what the business entails.

Robert - Thank you for the service. I certainly appreciate what our serivce people do for us.