this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2023
284 points (98.6% liked)
Asklemmy
43852 readers
697 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You are not forced to retire once, near the end of your life, for the rest of your life.
Go on. ...
I think the idea behind this is to spend your entire life alternating between periods of work and retirement. It's definitely an idea I could get behind, though society now is not built for it.
It's a nice idea, but perhaps doesn't work well in practice.
I think he's trying to say that retirement is voluntary and that you can still go back to work near the end of your life? Also that retirement isn't determined only by your age. But the wording of the comment makes it a bit difficult to interpret tbh
Search the web for the term "serial retirement". The idea is simple, but the implementation requires courage and goes against conventional thinking, although that is changing these days.
"I should totally spend some of my retirement savings in my 40s"
Yes, that does require courage and go against conventional thinking. Ask someone in their 80s how they would feel about having to go back to work in exchange for a few years off earlier in life. Call me small minded but this idea is not for me.
What if you spent some of that time off in your 40s figuring out how to generate even more money for your 80s? You might not do that if you're too busy spending 60 hours per week every week on your job.
What if you die at 55? Also possible.
Both models have their risks.
I understand why most people oversimplify and assume that waiting until the end of their lives to retire is the right way to do it. It seems safer, even though I'm not sure it is. Sometimes you outlive your money and sometimes the money outlives you.
Nah.
You don't need to "retire" for a few years in your 40s to figure out how to make money in your 80s. You're either going to be investing or developing projects or studying, none of which is retirement.
You don't have to work 60 hours a week from your 20s to your 60s. You could work 40 or even 30 hours a week and spend some time figuring out how to make money in your 80s.
Yes its possible to die at 55, but it's unusual, and it's daft to plan on that because obviously in the more likely event that you do not die, you might run out of money.
It's fine to focus on a good balance between work and life in your 30s and 40s, bit I think calling it a brief "retirement" in your 40s or 50s planning to return to work later isn't a great plan.
OK. So don't do it.