$280,000 for a retired couple?

Health, Fitness, Insurance, ...
Farm_or
Posts: 412
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2016 8:57 am
Contact:

Re: $280,000 for a retired couple?

Post by Farm_or » Sat May 26, 2018 6:45 am

That story is more inline with the reality that I know.

Interesting tid bit: those with the smallest savings were the biggest spenders in retirement. Not a coincidence.

Those with the most savings= most frugal. Ask again - is frugal for the rich? The tail doesn't wag the dog...

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 10533
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 73
Contact:

Re: $280,000 for a retired couple?

Post by jacob » Sat May 26, 2018 8:46 am

Only relatively, Spending 12% of 857k ~ 100k >> Spending 25% of 30k ~ 7k.

classical_Liberal
Posts: 492
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2016 6:05 am

Re: $280,000 for a retired couple?

Post by classical_Liberal » Sun May 27, 2018 1:57 am

Clarice wrote:
Fri May 11, 2018 10:23 pm
I am thinking of getting a tattoo on my chest that says, "No tube feeding". :roll:
I've considered the same type pf thing . .. Unfortunately, it's not enough.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc1713344
Resuscitate a vegetable, ask questions later.

Clarice
Posts: 168
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2017 4:45 pm
Location: California

Re: $280,000 for a retired couple?

Post by Clarice » Sun May 27, 2018 8:56 am

@CL:

Wow! So sad...

IlliniDave
Posts: 2208
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2014 7:46 pm

Re: $280,000 for a retired couple?

Post by IlliniDave » Tue Aug 21, 2018 7:59 pm

https://www.morningstar.com/articles/87 ... 18-ed.html

More happy numbers. Hope keto works!

User avatar
7Wannabe5
Posts: 4156
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: $280,000 for a retired couple?

Post by 7Wannabe5 » Wed Aug 22, 2018 7:23 am

@IlliniDave:

I don't think the statistics were uniformly depressing. The majority, 57.5%, are predicted to need to spend less than $25,000 on long term care.

Since over 80% of care is provided by friends and family, it is obviously good practice to become polyamorous after completion of child-rearing phase of life. If you start at 55, you will have approximately 30 years in which to develop/maintain/renew approximately 3 relationships of a degree of intimacy great enough to depend on for services, such as week of home care after bout of pneumonia, for which you would either have to call on your children, or pay a stranger a good deal of money.

The decline in birth rate in developed realms combined with the likelihood of resource depletion in the semi-near future means that many of us could end up in situations, such as is depicted in "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory", where 4 members of the oldest generation are tucked into bed together being cared for by just 2 members of 2nd and 3rd generation. Therefore, it might be best to get a jump on choosing your final bed mates.

Since you have the male early death advantage reducing the likelihood that a peer partner will go first, and you might even be able to round up some significantly younger partners due to the high level of innumeracy in our culture, if you enter into 3 long-term partnerships, your risk of being left without care-buddy could easily be as low as maybe (.6)(.6)(.6) = approximately 22%. If you maintain good, active practice in procurement of new partners, your risk could go much, much lower, because even if your confidence level for new mate procurement within 1 year is as low as .5, the marginal annual death rate for your female cohorts is only 1/20 after age 75, and 1/7 after age 85.

One of my role models, Jane Juska, revealed in her latest book "The Last Thing to Go: Age, Sex and Desire" that at the age of 80, she has a new lover who is 73. I also find that watching any of Catherine Deneuve's more recent movies will render me more cheerful than reading bleak statistics on aging.

IlliniDave
Posts: 2208
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2014 7:46 pm

Re: $280,000 for a retired couple?

Post by IlliniDave » Wed Aug 22, 2018 11:51 am

7Wb5, having contemplated all of that, I'm still rooting for keto to work. :lol: Triple redundant SO functionality is way beyond my juggling skills.

Jason
Posts: 1533
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 8:37 am

Re: $280,000 for a retired couple?

Post by Jason » Wed Aug 22, 2018 1:45 pm

Helen Mirren is my ggilf of choice.

User avatar
7Wannabe5
Posts: 4156
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: $280,000 for a retired couple?

Post by 7Wannabe5 » Wed Aug 22, 2018 2:48 pm

@IlliniDave:

Gotcha. Not everyone is as risk-adverse as moi.

@Jason:

How about Raquel Welch and Diane Sawyer for second and third legs on your stool?

IlliniDave
Posts: 2208
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2014 7:46 pm

Re: $280,000 for a retired couple?

Post by IlliniDave » Wed Aug 22, 2018 3:18 pm

7Wb5

I was being risk averse by sticking with the keto!

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 10533
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 73
Contact:

Re: $280,000 for a retired couple?

Post by jacob » Wed Aug 22, 2018 3:22 pm

I think we got the range of the Overton window of physiological ivol: keto<------>racquel welch

Jason
Posts: 1533
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 8:37 am

Re: $280,000 for a retired couple?

Post by Jason » Wed Aug 22, 2018 4:39 pm

I didn't mean to derail the thread, but Jane Fonda recently announced that she has shut down all activity south of the border and it led me to deep contemplation about the nature of such things as a new generation of poster-girls become octogenarians. And maybe this deserves its own thread, but this article got me thinking as well. Also, I knew a family who housed a prime-Catherine Deneuve in order that she could film in the US and they mentioned how plain she looked IRL but I just thought that's the deceptive beauty of women with perfect faces.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/21/nyre ... -past.html

As my 13 years old self gets older, I have started to ask myself such questions as "Is it better to ride the older, wooden roller coaster" even though they are not as exciting as the new fangled tungsten/alloy based ones. I mean they are still generally safe and the lines are usually much shorter and all height restrictions have fallen by the wayside.

Anyways, in order to at least contribute something completely meaningless as opposed to mere distraction or more likely sub-standard and cringe inducing, I have done pilates everyday for the last month and its done wonders. Maybe the best $300 expenditure of my life. Great for the joints.

jennypenny
Posts: 5974
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:20 pm
Location: Stepford USA

Re: $280,000 for a retired couple?

Post by jennypenny » Sun Aug 26, 2018 12:33 pm

So I had to google Jane Fonda after Jason said she gave up sex. She's unrecognizable! WTF?! How can she butcher her own face like that and still pretend that she's comfortable with her age?

Sorry for continuing the OT ... it just pisses me off how many of the standard bearers of feminism turned out to be hypocrites.

User avatar
7Wannabe5
Posts: 4156
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: $280,000 for a retired couple?

Post by 7Wannabe5 » Sun Aug 26, 2018 12:54 pm

@jennypenny:

I think "new feminism" (which is already 20 year out-of-date-sigh) allows you to have some work done in order to fair compete due to the whole men-are-most-attractive-at-41/women-are-most-attractive-at 21 dichotomy. However, your motivation MUST have something to do with your career. For example, the book "How Not to Look Old" published around 10 years ago relates the quest more to job interview than dating. So, if you are an actress, anything goes.

jennypenny
Posts: 5974
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:20 pm
Location: Stepford USA

Re: $280,000 for a retired couple?

Post by jennypenny » Sun Aug 26, 2018 1:19 pm

I have no problem with 'having a little work done'. I don't see it as any different than getting dental implants, coloring your hair, etc. I was put off because Fonda looks like she's had more work done than Joan Rivers. I seriously wouldn't have recognized her. I don't think she's trying to look good for her age, I think she's trying to look a different age. That's too much IMO. It's like makeup ... the women who wear it best are the ones who don't look like they're wearing too much or trying to hard.

Don't listen to me, though. I've decided to give up hair dye and let my hair go grey so I'm a little touchy about this subject at the moment. :lol:

Post Reply