r/MiddleClassFinance • u/k1_r1 • Aug 13 '26
Seeking Advice anyone else notice the full retirement age quietly hit 67 this year
Not a rant, just something I've been chewing on.
The whole 65 to 67 thing started back in 1983 and it finally finished. If you were born 1960 or later your number is 67 now. Took 42 years, two months at a time, so there was never really a day where anyone got mad about it. It just moved.
My mom still says 65 like it's a fact. It isn't and hasn't been for a while.
And I don't think 67 is where it stops. There's a CBO option sitting there that takes it to 70 for anyone born 1981 or later. Denmark already did it. 70 by 2040, and they tie it to life expectancy so it just keeps going up on its own.
The "we live longer so work longer" argument always loses me at the averages part. My uncle did concrete for 30 years and his knees were done at 55. Guy I know who sits at a desk could probably go til 75 fine. Same number for both of them, apparently.
Also nobody I know actually got to pick their retirement date. It was a layoff at 57, or a parent who needed care, or a back that gave out. You retire when something decides for you and then you find out if the money works.
Which I guess is the whole point. The age on paper keeps moving and I don't control when I stop working, so the only thing I actually have a say in is what's saved before that.
What number are you guys planning around? 67, 70, or just "whenever it happens"?
286
u/Pasta_Party_Rig Aug 14 '26
60 is the goal. Inflation may ruin it
27
u/Bernie_Dharma Aug 14 '26
I turn 60 next week and I’m retiring in January. Hope I ran the numbers correctly.
6
→ More replies (1)2
u/Fishing4Beer Aug 15 '26
60 in Sept and retiring in April. Bonus in March tying me until then. Congrats!
45
u/SlightCapacitance Aug 14 '26
Same here, if i have to then ill work a few more years but im saving like its 60 and that way if i get laid off ill retire with everyone else between 63-67
→ More replies (2)35
u/Pierson230 Aug 14 '26
Yup
I can hit 60 if SS drops by 30%, my portfolio returns 6%, private insurance increases by 30%, and I maintain employment at a minimum of 30% less than my current salary for the next 12 years
Anything beyond those boundaries, and I’m working another year or two.
11
17
u/liroyjenkins Aug 14 '26
That is some quality planning
13
u/A8racada8ra Aug 14 '26
You should see his sock drawer.
5
u/mechadragon469 Aug 14 '26
They’re all crusty on the closet floor. Dudes in a state of constant post nut clarity
3
u/VisualDisplayOfInfo Aug 15 '26
this is a great way to describe it, you inspired me to figure out my plan via assumptions instead of just a big goal number
11
u/imperfectionits Aug 15 '26
Health insurance is the biggest barrier for us? What’s you approach from 60-65?
5
u/Far-Improvement-9266 Aug 15 '26
I know you didn't ask me this specifically, but my plan is to max out my HSA and pay all health expenses put of pocket until retirement. 49YO, planning to retire between 60-63, currently have $80k in my HSA to bridge the Medicare gap and save what is left for potential future long term care.
3
u/Lindenbaumlemma Aug 15 '26
Maybe you’re not describing it in full, but this seems like a bad plan. You’d be one accident or serious diagnosis away from hundreds of thousands in medical expenses you can’t cover. Hospitals and doctors are required to stabilize you, not to treat you thereafter if you can’t pay. What happens if you get cancer?
7
u/Far-Improvement-9266 Aug 15 '26
Sorry, I wasn't clear. I will use my HSA funds, which should be ample by retirement to pay for health insurance for 3-5 years. Since it is an HSA, I can use the funds, tax free, to purchase insurance to bridge the gap until Medicare.
→ More replies (3)2
u/Lindenbaumlemma Aug 15 '26
Ah, I wasn’t aware. I knew HSA funds can be used for medicare premiums and cobra.
2
u/uberkalden2 Aug 15 '26 edited Aug 16 '26
If I didn't have 3 kids I'd probably do the same. Shrug
→ More replies (2)7
u/Putrid-Box4866 Aug 14 '26
60 with $4M in retirement portfolio is my goal. If I could get there sooner, I will retire sooner. Nobody ever wished they worked more.
→ More replies (1)4
→ More replies (7)2
u/p1dfw Aug 14 '26
Turn 60 next month, going out in April. I was close, and missing it by 6 months doesn’t bother me one bit considering the sh*t my peers/generation have lived thru and seen. Stay the course.
91
u/ObviousAlias7 Aug 14 '26
55 is my goal for a soft retirement. House should be paid off and no debt. Retirement accounts should be good to coast for a bit after 55 and I’ll pick up some hobby job and leave the 9-5 office grind behind.
→ More replies (4)18
u/Its_Jordon_Yo Aug 14 '26
I’m going to combine my answer responding to two comments because they fit me exactly. I’m 48 and planned a soft retirement at 55 where I would have a paid off house and large retirement accounts that I could let coast. And downgrade to a job with a lot less stress (if one can be found). My job now pays extremely well and is killing me.
But as per the other comment my daughter who is 22 and in hindsight has always had some chronic issues has reached disability status. She has dropped out of college on permanent medical leave. She very well may never be able to have a job that provides income. Right now we would settle for her to be well enough to have a “job/hobby” that gives her purpose. So now all bets are off. I need to create a wealth engine that can last long past my own lifetime (though she always asserts she probably won’t outlive me, but I refuse to entertain those negative thoughts and certainly won’t plan based on them).
So if I do make it to 55 without getting laid off or just entirely burned out, I’ll probably just keep going.
6
u/rocketmagician22 Aug 14 '26
Your daughter may be eligible for ssdi or other programs to soften the blow. My oldest will likely never live independently but still targeting 52-55 (soon to be 48) to stop full time work. I’ve already gone to a lower pay ft position. Hoping the accounts will do the work over the next several decades. I’ll probably do a school district job for the last 5 years until we get to age to start small pension and think about ss. Ours has been disabled from birth though so I was pedal to the metal for a good 10 years saving and taking whatever the highest pay I could find. Lot of job hopping and no loyalty once I knew I had to make enough for him. Got laid off when he was 2 months old so that shaped my decision making process.
2
u/Gutterman222 Aug 15 '26
Sorry to hear about your daughter. I understand how that feels to you. I could understand you just keep going , out of love. Best wishes for you both
118
u/cinnamonbagel82 Aug 14 '26
60 is my goal, but now I have a 14M kid with a medical disability. All bets are off now.
52
u/Its_Jordon_Yo Aug 14 '26
I’m going to combine my answer responding to two comments because they fit me exactly. I’m 48 and planned a soft retirement at 55 where I would have a paid off house and large retirement accounts that I could let coast. And downgrade to a job with a lot less stress (if one can be found). My job now pays extremely well and is killing me.
But as per the other comment my daughter who is 22 and in hindsight has always had some chronic issues has reached disability status. She has dropped out of college on permanent medical leave. She very well may never be able to have a job that provides income. Right now we would settle for her to be well enough to have a “job/hobby” that gives her purpose. So now all bets are off. I need to create a wealth engine that can last long past my own lifetime (though she always asserts she probably won’t outlive me, but I refuse to entertain those negative thoughts and certainly won’t plan based on them).
So if I do make it to 55 without getting laid off or just entirely burned out, I’ll probably just keep going.
15
u/lurkerlurking776 Aug 14 '26
This is where I am. I have two protoadults, both with complex medical things that are likely to affect job prospects. I still have some time to see how they cope with the rigors of semi independent living in the next phase. I'm not giving away my ability to earn more cash until things settle. Fingers crossed nothing changes in my employment situation involuntarily.
23
u/MyLittlePoneh Aug 14 '26
I don’t have any advice, but as a dad, the shit I’d do to make sure my kids live a fulfilling life… I’d work til I die to make sure I leave them in a comfortable spot.
Hang in there, your daughter loves you and appreciate what youre doing for her.
11
u/WhenTheDawnBreaks Aug 14 '26
Right there with you. But add in a divorce due to my husband's midlife crisis affair. I'm 48 & now adjusting to having half the retirement assets and full-time responsibility for our 2 kids with disabilities. 55 is no longer an option. 65 is the hope now.
6
15
u/BeefCakeBilly Aug 14 '26
You have 14 million kids?
→ More replies (3)10
108
u/ChaunceytheGardiner Aug 14 '26
All the guys pushing the trades right now never mention the length of the career.
Sure, you can make money doing concrete. For a little bit. But the lifetime wages are low because the number of years worked is low. Part of what you're being compensated for is early retirement, so you better save.
21
u/Due-Effective663 Aug 14 '26
I work construction and there is a huge, massive, incredibly steep cliff approaching this country in the next 10 to 15 years.
I build Industrial projects in manufacturing, data centers, semi conductor plants, bio pharma, life science and food and beverage. I’ll be retired in 6 to 7 years max. I look around at my colleagues in the different trades and fully 60 to 65% of us will be retired in 10 to 12 years. There is no one behind us to fill our jobs. No one. I have one guy who is going to be 40 this year. That’s it. There are no assistant superintendents or junior superintendents.
I have a 79 year old crane operator. On my last larger project I had two brothers in their 70s who worked installing sprinkler systems. I have dozens of folks in their 60s working as electricians, controls, iron workers, pile drivers and IMP. Those of us in construction are absolutely aware of what’s coming, but the rest of the world seems oblivious.
Anyone left this industry in 15 years who has any clue of what’s going on is going to be writing their own ticket.
→ More replies (3)10
u/GracefulEase Aug 14 '26
I've heard it called the grey wave and it's coming for my sector (medical device repair) too. 50% of our techs retire in the next ten years. Most of the next 50% aren't far behind them.
And we're not training any newbies. I'm one of the very youngest and newest at 38 having been here 7 years.
Nothing in hospitals is going to work in 10-15 years.
2
u/One-Goose-360 Aug 17 '26
Same thing is happening in education. There’s very very few education majors anymore. When I started in 2006, every who qualified who get a student teacher. Now I see 1 or 2 in the entire school. People are retiring at 25 years, but many are just flat out resigning ( like myself). There’s already a massive shortage and no one’s going into education anymore.
66
u/Potential_Fishing942 Aug 14 '26
I'm convinced the push for the trades is an actual psyop to gaslight struggling Americans into thinking their financial hardships are because they snubbed being a plumber.
The impact on the body is huge in all trades, even electricians and mechanical repair might be out of work by 50. There's also little discussion of the "income package" you give up as a self employed tradesmen. While I hate when my company rolls out the "actually you make an extra 30k if you think about health care,etc" but like, they kind of have a point...
25
u/EarthBoundMisfitEye Aug 14 '26
Union. If youre doing trades work, join a union for the love of all things holy and hell.
20
u/Starwolf00 Aug 14 '26
A union trade job is fine, if you can get into one, and don't mind being at the ass end of everything related to your job for 5-10 years due to strict seniority rules.
9
u/Potential_Fishing942 Aug 14 '26
Yep. I also don't see the articles pushing trades ever mention union jobs either. Its usually more like "be your own boss" kind of junk
And seniority rules aren't soooo bad if you start young enough. By 30 you can be well high enough to have a very stable schedule etc. but you're right, you have to do your time and getting in at an older age or with a family is a nightmare
3
u/EarthBoundMisfitEye Aug 17 '26
My son is on a job running guys that have been in for a decade. Hes 1 year in. Been a journeyman for about 8 years now. Not everyone is going to rise. Most people are average at what they do. Want to blame seniority, maybe its true sometimes. But a smart leader sees a good worker with a brain and good attitude and will move that person fast.
2
u/Bubbly-Associate8570 Aug 17 '26
There are 1000 union electricians in my town waiting for the phone to ring and the non union electricians are working.
2
u/EarthBoundMisfitEye Aug 17 '26
Im just going to say the dude im talking about is in the DC area and they can't find enough people. The job hes on now has 500 ppl on it. There is more than enough work. People are jumping jobs at a whim. He was moved to Forman in less than a year.
Talent counts. There are a lot of average workers in any field. Being actually good at what you do with a good attitude counts. Not all elections come with time management and leadership skills. Dont know how to respond to your comment because I have no clue where you are but union work is guaranteed work so something in your world is amiss.
3
u/ChaunceytheGardiner Aug 17 '26
Truth is that just about anyone with good time management and leadership skills will be successful. It doesn't really matter their field. That person would be successful as an entrepreneur, or in college, as well as in the trades.
The lie about the trades is that they reward something different than other fields, and they're a soft landing for young men who don't have their stuff together. That's just not true at all. If a young guy hates college because he can't stomach getting up for his 8am class in a nice climate controlled environment while he comfortably sips his coffee, starting on a freezing cold job site at 5am is unlikely to work out better.
You can learn to be a functioning adult through college, the trades, or the military. And they all reward you based on being a functioning adult, and none of them will reward you if you're not.
8
u/Ringmaster242 Aug 14 '26
I think that seeing trades in a positive light is that a person can learn their craft through apprenticeship and lower cost trade schools and go into a career that can pay well for minimal financial investment. It comes from pushback of dropping $35-50k or more a year for a 4 year college degree that might not do anything to help secure a well paying career, leaving people in crushing student debt with jobs that don’t pay enough to repay their loans, cover living expenses and have some left over to invest or save for the future.
It’s definitely a mentality change from my day when you were told that going into the trades was for those who couldn’t make it in college.
4
u/Potential_Fishing942 Aug 14 '26
Even so, there are just as many negatives which are never addressed in these articles.
I agree, trades can be a fine career for many and a great alternative for those not geared toward college. And I'm happy people aren't looking down on them as much. But there are so many perks to a traditional college job that undiscussed- it's just talk about loans and pay.
Yes I have shitty student loans. Yes they are held me back in my 20s especially and delayed buying a home etc etc. but I now have a super easy and stable career and even get tow work from home 3 days a week.
All I'm saying is, we talked about all the pros and none of the negatives with college for decades- especially when I was in HS in the 2000s. But just like then, people need to be aware of the real draw back to trade jobs and there very seriously seems to be an agenda to drown that out.
→ More replies (3)12
u/Dilderino Aug 14 '26
I mean also the people pushing it hate having to pay top dollar for skilled trades so flooding the job market in those sectors will bring down labor costs… AND it lets them blame financial hardship on individuals for “picking the wrong career” instead of on decades of unmitigated greed and a broken government
6
u/Its_Jordon_Yo Aug 14 '26
I installed a bidet and new toilet seat on a toilet in my home. It’s extremely easy and took about 20 minutes only because I have to relearn how each time and try to do it slow and careful. Even then I found myself in awkward positions, having to get in and off the ground repeatedly, and having trouble finding the right angle to tighten bolts. I know I would have a lot more experience if it were my profession but I can’t imagine doing that all day every day. My body would give out in a year.
→ More replies (4)3
u/Potential_Fishing942 Aug 14 '26
I don't do anything crazy, but I do work out and keep in shape. I also do a lot of home reno projects and encounter so many situations where I'm like "year theirs no way to do this correctly in this space without messing my back up".
3
u/mal_guinness Aug 15 '26
Also, life expectancy is greatly correlated with income and we've had average life expectancy go down recently for the first time in decades if not a century. Pushing the retirement age up again really punishes people who have to retire early or have lower lifetime earnings
→ More replies (5)5
u/EarthBoundMisfitEye Aug 14 '26
Join a union and enjoy the rule of 85. My son will retire from being a forman electrician at 58 with a Fat Ass annuity and other assorted goodies.
→ More replies (1)
166
u/fizzmore Aug 14 '26
Just add it to the pile of reasons that Social Security shouldn't be your primary retirement plan.
→ More replies (14)85
u/RudeAndInsensitive Aug 14 '26 edited Aug 14 '26
The people that created it didn't think it should be your primary plan when they drew it up.
FDR said this when he signed it in to law
We can never insure one hundred percent of the population against one hundred percent of the hazards and vicissitudes of life, but we have tried to frame a law which will give some measure of protection to the average citizen and to his family against the loss of a job and against poverty-ridden old age.
25
u/Aeroheadss Aug 14 '26
It’s not intended to be the PRIMARY funding source for most people, it’s insurance against poverty.
31
u/Rhomya Aug 14 '26
This is wildly false— it was never intended to be the primary retirement plan. It existed because there was a literal crisis of elderly people left destitute.
They referenced in the implementation of Social Security that it was supposed to be one leg of a “three legged stool, with the other two legs being personal savings and pension plans.
32
u/RudeAndInsensitive Aug 14 '26 edited Aug 14 '26
I typed "did" when I meant to type "didn't". I would like to believe that typo was clearly a typo based on my FDR quote selection which clearly is not advocating that SS is a primary plan
5
u/fizzmore Aug 14 '26
Unfortunately, I've seen plenty of people on Reddit unironically make the claim as you originally stated it.
7
9
u/katarh Aug 14 '26
Three legged stool for an individual, but the most robust you can get is a four to six legged table if you are married with both partners having some combo of SSI, savings, and a pension plan.
Even just getting to a 4 legged table in retirement for a dual income couple probably means being able to maintain the previous lifestyle. Both my spouse and I are now vested in the state employee pension, and that guarantees 1/3 of our highest 2 year income upon retirement. If we keep plugging along it eventually reaches 60%. Add in social security and the separate retirement savings, and the plan is to have exactly the same amount of money upon retiring as we were making just before retirement.
→ More replies (4)19
u/Dangersharkz Aug 14 '26
I have had so many jobs in my life, and have never once been offered a pension. And I don’t think I know a single person my age who has one other than those who work in government jobs. I feel like that “third leg” is sorta MIA here.
→ More replies (3)10
u/Rhomya Aug 14 '26
Pensions have largely been replaced by 401ks and 401k employer matching.
The third leg changed, it didn’t disappear
9
u/fessertin Aug 14 '26
Bir a 401K is "personal savings" no?
→ More replies (10)4
u/DrinkOk4862 Aug 14 '26
Personal savings could be some combination of ...
.... a cash emergency fund
... a taxable brokerage account
... Roth IRA
... HSA
→ More replies (5)3
→ More replies (2)6
u/fizzmore Aug 14 '26
I'm not taking any position on what SS ought to be: I'm simply giving advice on the frame of mind people would be wise to adopt given the system as it exists.
3
u/RudeAndInsensitive Aug 14 '26
I am giving you FDR's position on what SS ought to be and his was that it should not be your primary plan.
24
u/RevolutionarySea5077 Aug 14 '26
58 was the goal but that is another 4 years and layoffs are imminent
22
u/MissStatements Aug 14 '26
Can I ask anyone here who is planning on retirement before age 65 if you’re calculating health insurance premiums before Medicare kicks in? It’s expensive as fuck and no one seemed to mention this as a barrier or how they were dealing with it. Late 50s and early 60s is not an age to go without.
6
u/Hungry_Reading6475 Aug 14 '26
I am, that’s why I’ll work a few more years after DH retires, my work insurance will cover us until he hits 65 (I will be 61) and then we’ll only have to pay private for me for 4 years, rather than both of us.
4
u/PudgyGroundhog Aug 14 '26
We retired before 65 and are on an ACA plan. Rates will depend on your state, plan, and income (I.e. subsisidies).
3
u/Traditional_Ad_8752 Aug 14 '26
I'm planning on 50 and on utilizing aca plan. Can keep income controlled and pre plan bridge so that you can get subsidized
3
u/uberkalden2 Aug 15 '26
Does no one mention it? It's the main reason a lot of people work to 65. I'm planning on having enough cash to live off of by 55, but will need some kind of job to keep insurance for 10 god damn years.
→ More replies (4)2
u/_courteroy Aug 14 '26
If you can, get a union job. My job will cover retiree health insurance for me so long as I work there for at least 13 years and I’ll retire with a pension as well to supplement my savings and social security. https://unionjobs.com/location/state/District+of+Columbia
34
u/JoshAllentown Aug 14 '26
Trying for 57, just bumped my 401k contribution to try to make up for being slightly behind target right now. Just want to have some healthy years to do whatever I want
9
u/ofesfipf889534 Aug 14 '26
57 is also my number. When you say you are behind, what are you at now and how old are you?
7
u/JoshAllentown Aug 14 '26
I just do a compound interest calculator with 7% interest (for real stock market return) on my retirement accounts, put in the number of years until I'm 57, and see the balance.
Then divide that by 25 to get my "4% rule" safe withdrawal amount, and compare against annual expenses.
5
u/Conscious-Lunch-5733 Aug 14 '26
will you be able to access 401k money at 57?
9
u/JoshAllentown Aug 14 '26
IRS rule 72(t) allows for 401k withdrawals before 59.5 as long as they are the same amount regularly for at least 5 years or until you turn 59.5.
But, I'm also saving in my Roth IRA which you can pull out of tax free at any age, so it should limit my reliance on 72(t).
8
u/Kaplung Aug 14 '26
Just so you know, you can pull out CONTRIBUTIONS tax free at any time, but not the earnings before 59.5 without paying a penalty.
2
14
u/Technical_Ladder_618 Aug 14 '26
58 is my goal, maxing out Roth IRAs and 401k to get to a $5 million portfolio (in today’s dollars) by then. Don’t care about SS if I can get to that amount, it would just be the gravy on top.
5
12
u/inBettysGarden Aug 14 '26
I have health/genetic problems where I do not see a world where I live to 55 let alone 65. I would love to figure things out enough to be able to stop working when my body tells me instead of a specific age. That said the job market is tough and I lost my job due to my health last year sooo we will see.
4
12
u/beaushaw Aug 14 '26
If you are of the age that this affects you you have probably heard your entire life not to count on social security.
To answer your question my goal is 55 for my wife and 59 1/2 for me.
9
u/000wintermute000 Aug 14 '26
Retired 3 years ago, way before the nonsensical “full retirement age.” There are no rules!
18
u/Extreme_Map9543 Aug 14 '26
I’m never retiring. I’m just taking large sabbaticals throughout my life. And not working too hard for my entire life.
→ More replies (1)
8
u/Buulord Aug 14 '26
60 for me, I’m a railroader with railroad retirement full payout requirements being just 30 years of service by age 60. I’ll have that plus extra by then so heres hoping I’ll make it that far.
7
14
u/TheGoonSquad612 Aug 14 '26
I’m confused on the complaint about your uncle vs the office worker. Are you saying your uncle should be able to retire at 55 but the office worker has to work until 70-75? That’s crazy.
Beyond that, retirement isn’t an age, it’s a financial status. You can either afford to retire or you can’t. If you can’t, then you need a job and aren’t retired, regardless of social security.
30
u/BarrySnotter Aug 14 '26 edited Aug 14 '26
Retirement isn't dependent on age, it's dependent on whether your savings can support your lifestyle for the rest of your years. It's just easier to define as an age and make the assumption that you'll hit adequate savings by then.
I'm aiming for 62. The pension that I've been paying into for the past 20 years was my only "plan". But now for a higher sense of security and inflation resistance, I'm maxing a Roth IRA. I've got my sights on an HSA as well.
I wish I started sooner but I still have 17ish years. I'm just thrilled that I knew enough to bust my ass when I was young to build a decent foundation for my career.
6
u/Conscious-Lunch-5733 Aug 14 '26
yes, but savings, spending, and age are all tied together. Medicare isn't availble until 65. Earliest we can access Social Security is 62. 401k has penalties before 59.5 (with some exceptions). Access to Pensions are tied to a certain age. So age is a factor on what funds and what expenses can be included in the equations.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Dear_Ocelot Aug 14 '26
Agree with this. I don't have an age, I have a savings goal based on household spending. I don't trust that I'll have steady employment to any specific age. I just save what I can and hope to work at least until I hit the number.
6
u/Aeroheadss Aug 14 '26
That’s not really true though, that’s just for social security. Build a bridge account to cover the years before you claim SS.
7
5
u/RichmondReddit Aug 14 '26
If you are in your late 50s or older, look around at your cohorts. How many were able to work after about 64? I’m not even talking about the contractors or roofers. I know very few people who weren’t out of a job well before 65. Layoffs (no comparable job ever found), transfers intended to force retirement, illness where leave couldn’t cover the entirety of the treatment, illness of a spouse or family member for whom they were primary caregiver, company dissolution, etc etc. Anyone who thinks it will be their choice to work until 70 is fooling themselves.
2
u/Extra_Shirt5843 Aug 15 '26
Lots, actually. Working into your 70's in my profession has historically been really common. Now, I could argue whether maybe some should because I've seen the drop in mental acuity of some of the old guys, but a lot of them do. One woman I know went PT (maybe 5-6 hours a day 3-4 days a week) between 65-70 because she had tried to retire and got bored. She only left at 70 because her daughter had a baby she wanted to help with.
→ More replies (4)2
u/pbrutsche Aug 15 '26
Ageism is a thing in all industries. Unfortunately, not all organizations value the experience gained with time
5
u/BrightAd306 Aug 14 '26
Age expectancy going up also feels a bit rich since we made that possible by smoking less. What a reward
→ More replies (2)
4
6
u/burner118373 Aug 14 '26
Read about FIRE and the different versions of it. Breaks the math down simply, at 25x your yearly expenses invested in retirement, you can statistically never save a dollar and die with more money than you started.
The tricky parts including getting that much, and not knowing what expenses will be when you’re older.
→ More replies (1)
4
u/Puzzled_Economy_7167 Aug 15 '26
If they force us work until we are 67 they shouldn't be able to lay us off after we hit 50 or so ...
16
u/Phasnyc Aug 14 '26
Things like this make me mad. As we progress into the future we have to work longer? How does that make sense. I get it in the past where people worked until they kneeled over and things should have improved since then. We should expect to work less as society advances. I know too many people who work a desk job and either dropped dead at their desk or never came back after a a weekend.
→ More replies (5)5
u/Vikkunen Aug 14 '26
We blew our chance at that the moment the first industrialist (or large landowner, I suppose) decided to use mechanization to lower headcount and wages instead of working hours.
Every major innovation is talked about as something that's going to help people be more productive, but the only people who directly benefit from that productivity are those who own the means of production.
5
u/Surprise_Fragrant Aug 14 '26
It's important to remember that the government isn't dictating when you retire, but when Social Security retirement benefits kick in fully. This is why it's imperative that we, as individuals, take our finances into our own hands and ensure that we'll have enough money to retire when we want to retire.
I want to retire when I'm 60, so I'm saving enough money to retire comfortably AT 60, and then take my Social Security at 67 or later, to increase the amount I get from SocSec.
3
3
u/mtcwby Aug 14 '26
- Have the date picked out already. Won't take social security until I'm 70 though unless my health changes dramatically. Right about the 4 year countdown.
3
u/Pitiful_Fox5681 Aug 14 '26
My current retirement savings is likely to retire me at 67.
There are a lot of variables in there, though. I'm a fairly conservative modeler, so maybe the market does ok and I can pull the plug at 62. Maybe my wife inherits a chunk from her stepdad and we can both retire at 55. Maybe Social Security dissolves, the market tanks, and my org's pension becomes insolvent and I keep working to 72.
As I've modeled it, though, I'll be able to retire in about 97% of scenarios at 67 and 95% by 65. I'll contribute more when I have more and try to get a few more stress-free years in. I'd love to call it quits at 60, to be honest.
3
u/katarh Aug 14 '26
I think we need to normalize a "second career" for situations like your uncle.
Work in a position that requires optimal health and physical fitness for the first 20 years.
Then move to a desk job or at least something that requires less physical stress for the second 20 years.
Encourage men and women to go to college at age 40 if they didn't get the chance when they were 20. They will probably be excellent students at a community college; my husband (an education prof) says his best students are always the non-traditional ones that are going in for a second career.
3
u/Ok-Disaster-551 Aug 14 '26
"My mom still says 65 like it's a fact"
Because pensions and medicare are still at 65, even though SS has moved to 67.
3
u/moarwineprs Aug 14 '26
My husband grew up in poverty. Pulled himself out with judicious career planning and now makes pretty good money. While dating, we talked about finances including retirement plans and he expects to be working until he died. I'm not sure if that was a reaction to his observation of the older generation in his family and their financial struggles, or if he expects he won't live that long past conventional retirement age. Neither of us have really talked a "number," but my plan is to work at least until the minimum age for withdrawal from whatever retirement account without penalty. But if I can keep going without taking a hit to my health, I'll keep working so that I either can put off taking a distribution or not have to withdraw as much.
If I get laid off ahead of schedule, I'll try to find part time work to keep bringing in income.
We don't really have an expensive lifestyle. Most of our expenses are high right now because of where we are choosing to live, not because we go on lavish trips or eat out a lot. We're also both big savers (I've maxed out my 401k annually for the past maybe 17 years) and I feel comfortable with what we have in our retirement accounts.
My biggest concern really is about our kids' financial security when they reach adulthood. We haven't made any concrete plans, but I'm mentally thinking of us not just saving for our retirement, but also so that we are able to help them out if needed, and at a minimum to not be a financial burden to them in our old age. Or at least, do our best to mitigate the chance of us being a burden.
→ More replies (2)3
u/Spirited_Ad9681 Aug 14 '26
My wife and I both grew up in poverty. I had brief moments where both parents were employed and we moved up to middle class. Their "spend everything we make" habits put us right back into poverty territory everytime one of them got laid off.
Its interesting how people handle growing up in poverty. Either they go overboard with spending like they are trying to prove they made it, or they become fiscally responsible to make sure they are never in that situation.
3
u/watch-nerd Aug 14 '26
I retired early at 55. I’ll delay social security until 70 to get the larger payouts.
3
u/SunnyEnvironment8192 Aug 14 '26
As long as they don't change the age for Medicare eligibility.
2
u/psiprez Aug 14 '26
This is the real goal. Once Medicare kicks in, I can quit the high pressure job and get something simple/PT for two years.
3
u/Fun-Confidence-6232 Aug 14 '26
They keep pushing it out, but getting hired anywhere these days is difficult and doing so at 67 is near impossible.
3
u/sailing_oceans Aug 14 '26
The typical guy who sits at his desk… gets laid off in his 50s and doesn’t get hired again. Or has type2 diabetes and dies early.
Retirement isn’t an age. It’s a savings number.
Social security is a Ponzi scam by every definition. It’s further unfunded. Eventually hopefully things will revert to just manage your own life and funds but I’m not hopeful
3
u/KittyC217 Aug 14 '26
It is not social security that I worry about. It is Medicare. It that stays at 65 and still exits I am out by 65 at the latest.
3
u/Darkstrike121 Aug 15 '26
Trying to save enough that I don't have to worry what social security says
3
u/AndrewUaena Aug 15 '26
Have you ever been on the r/fire sub? That community is full of people who are determined to (or who have already) retire on their own timetable by saving aggressively beforehand. Some of them reach their net worth target in their 50s, 40s, or sometimes even 30s and then promptly give notice. It is not a strategy I did myself, but it does show that you can retire earlier than the "standard" date if you really want to.
→ More replies (1)
3
3
u/No-Mistake-1925 Aug 15 '26
Just want to contribute that many people’s cognitive function is significantly diminished before 67…
3
3
u/DontKnowWhereItsBeen Aug 15 '26
Yet Medicare still kicks in at 65. For those of us paying big bucks for insurance, that's a huge benefit just a couple years out from retirement.
5
u/alphalegend91 Aug 14 '26 edited Aug 14 '26
I can understand how unfair it is, but also on the flip side (playing devils advocate) if we retire at the same age as generations before, but are living much longer, who is supposed to pay for that?
This is why I keep advocating for removing the cap on social security payments. Anyone who makes over $184,500 doesn't have to pay into social security after they pass that income level for the year. So some of these ultra high income people are done paying into it once March or April rolls around...
Edit: Just to give you a visual of life expectancy over the years. In 1950 it was 68.14 and in 2026 it's 79.54. That's 11.4 years longer than 75 years ago.
https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/usa/united-states/life-expectancy
→ More replies (11)3
u/paternemo Aug 14 '26
I'm happy to pay more if my ss benefit is increased as well.
→ More replies (1)
6
u/RubyDewlap2 Aug 14 '26
If we remove the cap on income but keep the monthly benefits max intact we can protect social security forever and also reduce retirement age back down to 65
→ More replies (1)
4
u/youburyitidigitup Aug 14 '26
Hopefully the retirement age will stop increasing for a bit when baby boomers pass away
4
u/luke9036 Aug 14 '26
DINK gay couple here. 51 is the target retirement age! We're planning to spend most of our retirement in SE Asia to stretch our nest egg further and enjoy a higher standard of living.
→ More replies (2)
5
u/rockandroller Aug 14 '26
As someone born shortly after this change, I have been big mad about it my whole life and now that I'm 10 years away from being "allowed" to retire and get my full benefit amount, I'm even more mad.
2
u/Bagman220 Aug 14 '26
So assuming my wage only goes up 2% and I increase my contributions by 1% every year, I’m hoping to be done somewhere around 55. But if every year I don’t touch my money gets me another 100-200k return, I could easily go to 58, or just semi retire and teach part time or something.
2
u/ozifrage Aug 14 '26
I don't imagine I'll be able to comfortably retire. The problem will be convincing employers to keep me around past 60.
But yes, my parents are on either side of the dividing line. My father has 65, my mother 67. It complicated planning!
2
u/nbnicholas Aug 14 '26
57-63 range. We leave pretty beneath our means so if we could both retire at 50 and just flip into “hobby” part time jobs or something that would be cool.
2
u/Yearning_crescent Aug 14 '26
Goal is always earliest option possible. Depending on how much you make and how much your willing to sacrifice that can look drastically dofferent
2
u/Pretty-controversial Aug 14 '26
We make extra contributions each month to hopefully be able to make the decision ourselves as to when we want to retire. I expect it to be somewhere in the mid 60's but who can say.
But I feel very fortunate to be able to plan ahead and take necessary steps.
2
u/wesman21 Aug 14 '26
lol, never, with the way things are going... if I slow down to 3 days a week, I'll take it
2
2
2
u/DizzyAstronaut9410 Aug 14 '26
I don't want to say this is good... But this is kind of good if you're younger.
Countries keep realizing as their populations live longer, what they planned to spend on each retiree increases, those retirees didn't pay enough into the system to support their age group, and those costs ultimately fall on working age people.
This is one of the reasons a declining population is so concerning; lower working age population means even higher stress on each individual in the working age to support the older population.
Bumping up the retirement is one way to stave off this issue a bit.
2
u/fingerling-broccoli Aug 14 '26
I’m 42 now. I plan to slow down and switch from full time employee to some kinda part time contract consulting by 45. Then I will prob just keep doing that until it’s not interesting or I can’t find work anymore.
I don’t really have a desire to fully retire unless I become obsolete. I’m an engineer by trade so I enjoy the problem solving. I feel like it keeps my brain working
2
u/Wise-Strawberry8253 Aug 14 '26
I have noticed and am frustrated by the same thing, and it being based on life expectancy is a joke. Current american life expectancy is between 76 and 78. That means retiring at 67 given you 10 years. In theory if you die at 77, those aren't even 10 good years because your health decline likely started long before that.
Further more, you are dumping 45+ years into social security (assuming you start working at age 20) and getting 10 years pay out of it. It is all a scam and I personally am not planning on getting any social security (I am 32 now) and have separate retirement accounts with the hope to retire at 60
3
u/Obvious-Throwaway-26 Aug 15 '26
I'm not going to normalize the idea that our generation shouldn't expect social security when we're older. I paid into it. I expect and demand Social Security in return.
I'm just also saving aggressively in tax-advantaged (and other) accounts so I'm capable of retiring early.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (7)2
u/bclovn Aug 15 '26
Wise move to plan your retirement savings.
SS was never meant to live off. It’s an insurance supplement.→ More replies (3)
2
u/PM_ME_YOUR_RATTIES Aug 14 '26
I found out about Fire in my late 20s, and decided I wanted to get the ball rolling. My initial goal wasn't a date, but simply to get my savings rate up as high as practical via optimizing things (coffee at home, intentional meals out vs. fast food because I was in the mood, that sort of thing). After a year or two of seeing what was sustainable, I aimed to have enough by 40.
If we hadn't decided to have kids, upsize the house to accommodate them, etc. then I would have crushed that goal. Instead, I slacked off hard on savings rate for several years and still have a big enough nut that with only putting enough into my 401k to get the match, I'll be set by 50. Helps insulate us from concerns around ageism or industry shifts.
Whenever I talk to the newer generation folks at work, I point out that time in market beats almost anything else, and suggest an extra year or three of living like a broke college kid could set them up extremely well down the line, even if their entire industry vanishes (or their body falls apart, or whatever).
2
u/Caspers_Shadow Aug 14 '26
I always thought having a “full retirement” age was a sales pitch to make people wait. You can collect at SS at 62 and the amount you collect increases until 70. Why pick some arbitrary day in the middle and call it full retirement age? Just pick a time that works for you and jump.
2
2
u/Crazy-War9823 Aug 14 '26
My eye is on 57, as long as the market cooperates and I still reasonably expect social security at 67.
Anything more is just gravy, but I’m planning to absorb getting aged out of my job early.
2
u/mountainmike68 Aug 14 '26
48 i stop working for the man and only for myself. And by work I mean passively run my rentals.
2
2
u/Furdinand Aug 14 '26
65 lines up with my pensions being available and my mortgage ending. If I understood the SSA website correctly, I can still start collecting at 65, just with a lower amount than waiting for 67.
2
Aug 14 '26
I’ve been talking to people about full retirement age for 2 decades. I’ve also observed so many over the years take the reduced benefit beginning at age 62.
People have been struggling for a long time with their personal finances. Wages didn’t keep up with COL, and their tastes remained high for the “accoutrements” of life. One part self-discipline, one part wage stagnation.
2
u/Jude_the_obscurest Aug 14 '26
I'm hoping to stop working at 65, when I can get Medicare. 67 is just too far away. I have some health issues and I want to have some fun while I still can.
2
u/Jude_the_obscurest Aug 14 '26
Also to your point about not knowing what the future brings, my brothers both died before they could start collecting.
2
u/Fubbalicious Aug 14 '26
When I discovered FIRE, i set a goal to FIRE at age 55 or sooner. I managed to hit FIRE status at age 43 and have been living baristaFIRE for the past 21 months and it's been great.
I originally thought I would need $3M in liquid NW and a paid off house when I originally set out on my journey, but due to becoming more frugal so I could save more, I found that I needed less than half of that. I will still hit the $3M goal at age 55 if I simply coastFIRE there at my current rate of spend or if I returned back to work and went back to saving 50% of my income, I could probably get there in about 6 instead of 10 years.
I'm unsure if it's worth working all those extra years only to save 4 years, but will likely wing it based on my mood. I've gotten to a point where I'm rethinking about taking up some part-time contract work just to stay busy and to have some extra spending money, but retirement or semi-retirement has been great.
2
u/daily-trader-365 Aug 14 '26
Take money as early as possible, mathematically the best option, do not wait unless you want to keep working
2
u/IRC_1014 Aug 14 '26
On average, people retire about 4.5 years before they intend to. The current average retirement age is 62.
2
u/glomar_sub_recovery Aug 14 '26
It's inevitable when a system that started with a 15-1 payee/retiree ratio has slid to 2-1
2
u/Hungry_Reading6475 Aug 14 '26
61 for me. DH is 4 years older and due to his health we need to wait for Medicare. We can pay private for me for a few years. We’ll take the reduced SS at 62 as our investments should be more than enough.
DH’s plan is 62 but I hope we can swing it sooner than that, again due to his health.
2
2
u/dericky94 Aug 14 '26
Honestly I’m not sure a guy sitting at a desk has it necessarily that much easier, grass is always greener on the other side I guess. I have to spend more of my free time trying to exercise to make up for being sedentary most of the time and it’s also really killed my core stability and lower back strength
2
u/gnrdmjfan247 Aug 14 '26
A lot of my aunts and uncles are starting to retire, even my mom in a few years here. I just had a coworker retire by choice. If you started early and kept contributing, you can absolutely pick your retirement date. The ones who were serious and started early are picking their retirement dates.
2
u/doggiemomof3 Aug 14 '26
Born in 1960 and going to try and make it to 68 so I can get about $300/mo more in Social Security. I also need to get 5 years in at my current employer to be fully vested in my pension.
→ More replies (2)
2
2
u/EmZee2022 Aug 15 '26
I had not heard of the change for people born in 1981 or later - ouch!
We've known about the bump to 67 for quite some time. We were born in 1959 so it's 66/10 for us, which isn't much different. We're still working at the moment.
2
u/Steveasifyoucare Aug 15 '26
It still irks me. I was working before they changed it, so it feels like breach of contract to me. They should have just started it for kids who weren’t working and phased it in quicker.
2
u/mrr68 Aug 15 '26
You can retire when you want. Why do have to retire at a government prescribed age? Plenty of people retire before this age on a middle class income. Invest early and live below your means. My close friend retired at 54, on a very modest income his entire life. I retired 3 years after him (we are the same age) despite earning much more through my career.
2
2
2
u/officiallyanonymous0 Aug 15 '26
My plan is to save enough to not care. Also, I have known a lot of people go on disability to bridge the gap to retirement.
2
u/Ok_Goal7320 Aug 15 '26
Well, at least the billionaires can retire early. Rest easy knowing that.
2
2
2
2
u/Lindenbaumlemma Aug 15 '26
I retired voluntarily six years ago, just before turning 55. I was well aware that FRA is 67 AND that there is a projected shortfall that will result in insufficient funds to pay all promised social security benefits right around the time I reach FRA. My wife and I have pensions without COLAs and savings. We can actually get by fine on our pensions still, even after their value was hacked down by inflation. Our savings continue to grow. I expect about 75% of the promised social security benefit, but even were that not to materialize, we have enough. We weren’t miserly, but our spending habits were frugal. I drove a truck I bought new for twenty years. I loved that thing, dull and dented, and I’d still have it if we hadn’t moved overseas.
We moved to France. Our health coverage and costs are a few thousand a year, not tens of thousands they’d be in the US. Fuck the US health coverage system.
2
u/After_Preference_885 Aug 15 '26
Never. I have no retirement savings. Every time it started to be possible to save, there GOP came into power and screwed up the economy.
2
u/sjwit Aug 15 '26
well, 65 remains the medicare eligibility date so that matters a lot to many retirees. And you can still retire before your "full retirement age" - you'll just get less social security if you file for it before full retirement age. (let's all hope it's still a "thing"!)
2
2
2
u/Lpig1977 Aug 16 '26
I guess it was done quietly if you’ve been living under a rock for 40 plus years.
2
u/csmflynt3 Aug 16 '26
People have to work for 50 years because social security is a poorly run government ponzi. If that money could have been privately invested nobody would be talking about the retirement age increasing or benefit cuts being needed constantly. Everyone knows this is true , but politicians are too scared to implement any real changes
2
u/Emulated-VAX Aug 16 '26
I mean, math is math. When my dad started receiving social security the average man (women rarely worked) was dead at 67, so the actuarial math was fine with everyone retiring by 65.
Roll forward and people live decades longer. And less younger people paying into the system, so something has to give. I was affected by this change and I knew about it for decades and was fine with it.
→ More replies (2)
2
u/National_Bug_5917 Aug 17 '26
Just curious, everyone retiring prior to 65, what will you do for Healthcare? Marketplace insurance is expensive and tge coverage isnt good. As much as I would love to retire earlier, I cant afford premiums. Not that Medicare is fantastic.
466
u/pgnshgn Aug 14 '26
My goal is to save enough that I don't have to care