4 ms·
I find it really offensive that the Times describes 50-60 as a "vulnerable" time in these people's lives. That's the age of your peak prosperity, when you have
by hapless 16y ago
I find it really offensive that the Times describes 50-60 as a "vulnerable" time in these people's lives. That's the age of your peak prosperity, when you have the most assets to liquidate for here-and-now expenses.
The centerpiece of the story was a 57 year old female from Boeing. If her financial planning or outcomes were so poor as to leave her near-penniless at 57, she was going to be a bag lady sooner or later. It was just a matter of time. Imagining she could save for an adequate retirement in the ten remaining years of her career was delusional.
- harshpotatoes 16y agoI don't think this piece is about a woman who is near penniless at the age of 57, but rather a woman and her husband who might be forced into retirement 10+ years sooner than they anticipated. I think most financially responsible families would be hard pressed to make their retirement stretch an extra 10 years.
- hapless 16y agoThat's an equally terrible excuse. At the very least, you have to plan for the possibility that your health will force you into retirement. As you move into your 50s, your risk of catastrophic illness shoots upwards. That's not to say that there aren't a lot of hale, hearty 60 year old women in the world. It's just that one can no longer count on good health. It's important to realize this ahead of time. (In this case, this woman and her husband are really in pretty good shape. Sure, she's not working, but at least she is still capable of working!)