|
In Reply to: Planning for retirement posted by Reposter on August 29, 2004 at 00:21:48:
A lot depends on what is meant by retirement. As long as people are healthy, they may want to work whether they need to or not. When I think about retirement for myself, it's more like a career shift to something less demanding (and less lucrative) than I do now.
I'm not interested in living on a fixed income and amusing myself with endless amounts of leisure time by playing cards and watching game shows. But maybe if my health declines in a substantial way, playing cards and watching game shows will be the extent of what I can manage. I might like to have more leisure time (and the resources) to travel or look after grandchildren, but if I'm not healthy, none of that is going to happen.
Stuff happens as we age. People develop arthritis, hypertension & stroke, heart disease, cancer. Despite the disability these conditions might impose, aging people can live a number of years with fairly high quality of life. Nevertheless, they aren't necessarily going to be able to engage in a 40 hour/week job.
Declining health and disability are the real issue with aging, because this affects income earning capacity and financial assets like nothing else. As Achiek pointed out, if an aging family member develops Alzheimers' disease, it really doesn't matter how good the retirement savings are. What really matters is social support--who's there to take care of the failing family member and make the necessary health care decisions.
Taking care of family members doesn't necessarily mean taking them into your home; it just them as their health and vigor decline. While it's generally true that the more income & assets you have, the better long term care you can afford to buy, there's no substitute for family members who are engaged in the process of looking after the needs of their loved ones.
Well, there's that "loved ones" thing. I had abusive parents. I discovered my feelings toward them changed radically as they aged and became increasingly feeble and dependent. I also believe some things are the right thing to do, and taking care of vulnerable people is one of those right things. There aren't enough social safetynet resources available in the US for everyone who needs them, particularly a demographic group as big as aging Boomers. If you're a US citizen who supports tax cuts, start planning to use your personal gains from these cuts to help yourself & other family members, because there isn't very much being put into the community chest these days, and it definitely goes to the very poorest of the disabled poor.
This should be a real concern for SGs, btw, because you can bet TF won't be running any CTP nursing homes for its disabled aging membership. FGs are entering peak years for cancer, heart disease & stroke: If the individual does not get an early cancer diagnosis and seek aggressive treatment, that person will need hospice care as they decline & die. Stroke & heart attack victims who survive aren't likely to make their litnessing quotas or be very productive as they go through recovery, either. I can't imagine Family Homes taking on the responsibility of disabled members, unless, of course, the disabled member happens to be a blind welfare queen living on the tithes of her loyal slaves.
