Thanks Slava, as someone in his 50's, I am keenly aware of my savings and trying to truly understand what I will need. For me, the tough part is the fact that life expectancy is so long (not that this is a bad thing!), that there is a fear of simply running out of cash. I have many colleagues that are retiring in their mid to late 50's which sounds great, but they may need to fund for 40 years of retirement.
It seems to me the article has it right that it might be necessary to work later in life, maybe to 70 or so. Those later years that you are earning rather than spending are huge. I also think will be good for me personally, as I enjoy my profession and I hope to keep it going so long as I am able.
I also have a few quibbles with the article, in particular that last paragraph:
Here’s the scariest thing: even in the best-designed systems, almost no one today will earn enough money in their lifetime to not work for 20 or 30 years at the end of their life. This is true no matter who pays for retirement—the individual, their employer, or the government.
Almost no one? That seems a bit much.
__________________
From HFBoard oiler fan, in analyzing MacT's management:
O.K. there has been a lot of talk on whether or not MacTavish has actually done a good job for us, most fans on this board are very basic in their analysis and I feel would change their opinion entirely if the team was successful.
|