If sibling and I had not stepped up, my mother would have barely scraped by, probably having to choose between food and meds. She simply had no sense in her earning years.
I tell my kids that they have gotten two huge gifts from us. 1. No college debt. 2. The assurance that their parents won’t be asking them for money.
@IxnayBob so true for us also! Down to a parent who made some bad decisions.
Totally agree with norichenough’s post 9498.
To add, there are so many people who lose their mental facilities as they get older. We all think it won’t happen to us. It’s important to have that income you can always count on, we don’t want to see our senior citizens on the street. I don’t consider Social security as an investment instrument for me, but an investment in our seniors.
Both DH’s parents and mine had nothing (and I do mean nothing) in savings other than what they got in pensions and SS. Three of my four siblings have no retirement savings (all are 49+).
My brother has stage 4b cancer and has no insurance. His state didn’t expand Medicaid. He is relying on charity doctors and hospitals for his care. His new wife has been doing the same thing for years. Can’t afford the ACA prices, and they go without and hope a doctor will take them on.
Three of my sibs would not be able to come up $500 in an emergency.
CD - That’s a tough family dynamic.
Our retirement savings are not at our goal (which by the way is LOTS lower than $10M - that had me chuckling the other day). But it seems pretty good after reading the recent posts here 
Holy cow, CD, I hope they aren’t looking at you for a rescue.
For sure, CountingDown, yikes! Cuz once you start taking care of them, it may never stop until you’re broke.
Glad to see that this thread has lived on…and is providing so much useful info to many… 
I know that many on this thread are excellent planners and have everything figured out!
The following post is really for the rest whose retirement plans aren’t yet well-funded.
One thing that many EMPLOYEES who hope to work “forever” (or at least until 65-70+) need to keep in mind is that employers are getting very aggressive about laying-off their senior employees to reduce their costs (older employees often have higher wages, expensive pension plans, more vacation weeks and other bennies).
I was on the phone with my cousin and learned that in the past few months, that she, her brother, and her brother’s wife have all been laid-off, even tho they had excellent records, and they had all been with their companies for 25-30+ years. They are ages: 57, 59, and 61. Two are engineers, one is a CPA. All had planned on working until 65-70. Lucky for them that they are under their companies’ “old retirement plan” which is quite generous.
My own husband retired 2 years ago at a time when his company was seriously-downsizing. Virtually everyone over 50 was told that their jobs would be ending within a few months, EXCEPT they kept ONE 57 year old and laid him off a year later. H chose to retire rather than transfer or look elsewhere. The timing was OK for him because he qualified for full retirement (old pension plan) due to age and years of service. That said, H retired at a time when we naturally thought that he’d be working for another 5 years, at least. H was 60.
My older brother retired earlier than he originally planned because he read the tea leaves and saw that his position was likely being eliminated. He still has 1 child to put thru college. 
So…since a number of companies have long-time high-salary employees still under their “old generous expensive retirement pensions,” companies are getting aggressive by trying to “move out” those employees.
It’s something to think about.
We often see posts from people saying that they’re not saving much for retirement (yet) because they plan on working “forever” or until they’re 65-75. The problem is…the decision isn’t always theirs to make. And, finding another job, with similar pay, is often next to impossible. And if losing their jobs means suddenly having no health insurance, less-coverage, or a pricier policy, that can also be a shocker.
Just something to think about if your “retirement plan” involves working past age 60.
Great post, @mom2collegekids! I want to “like” it, but I can’t, with all those layoffs happening! It is a really good reason for people to keep their unions (if they still exist in their workplace), that kind of age discrimination is harder to get away with. Sounds illegal, actually, if only the older people are getting laid off. I hope they are all doing well enough to just consider this an early retirement, and enjoy their lives.
<<<
discrimination is harder to get away with. Sounds illegal, actually, if only the older people are getting laid off
[/QUOTE]
Companies get away with it by either including a few younger people (that they wanted to fire anyway…lol)…and/or by holding back some older ones and then laying them off a year later.
Or trumping up reasons why the great employee is no longer “great”. In many states, it is “at will” employment and discrimination can be hard to prove.
Or the companies offer some sort of severance that you only get if you sign papers and the older employee feels compelled to go with the deal.
That seems like a lawyers dream case, it’s so obvious, and if the employee has been there for years and is productive, how do they justify it?
That is probably true. My cousin said that their severance is 1 week for every year of employment. My H’s company had the same offer. They were allowed to accept the severance even though they were technically retiring.
<<<<
Or trumping up reasons why the great employee is no longer “great”. In many states, it is “at will” employment and discrimination can be hard to prove.
<<<
I have heard that many companies are now routinely giving “average reviews” to their employees as a “COA” in case of later lay-offs, etc. If the scale is 1-5, employees are seeing a lot of 3’s on their reviews.
Last time I was laid off, at a pretty large high-tech company, they actually handed out a list that contained titles and ages (no names) of everyone getting laid off, I’m sure in order to cut off any legal action.
I think a lot of large companies that have been around for a while cut way back on hiring 10-15 years ago, especially college hiring, and as a result have an “old” workforce. And people are trying to hang on to their jobs longer.
H was surprised he was allowed to keep working until he was ready to retire after 45 years with his employer. He/we always were concerned about his position being eliminated and tried to save as much as we could.
He was offered several attractive early retirement enticements, but we had kids’ college tuition and expenses plus mortgage to cover.
It’s correct that many employers try to shed older, more experienced workers in various different ways. Several of my friends (RNs and other professionals) have had to find new jobs after decades with their employer while in their late 50s. It’s a tough job market for older employees.
Been in an organization that would first reorganize and then cut that group later. Amazingly enough the people they wanted to get rid of were in the new organization. Then comany was shielded from age and sex issues. HR made sure numbers were right. For me, first they determined that neither the other older female or I wanted to run an international organization. Then they combined our groups and found a younger male who would - lasted for 2 years. Then dispabanded that org and brought it back to what they had originally but with younger leadership. They could do the long game.
My DH is sufficiently intimidating that noone has asked, which surprises me. DH is a fed EE, so whole we aren’t rolling in it, we have a good safety net. Given my medical expenses and college tuition, we still have to be careful with spending. We’re anxiously waiting to see what my chemo drugs will cost next year. Caremark is taking it off the formulary.
I’ve always had the impression that these kind of shenanigans are less likely with fed govt jobs than private sector jobs. Not sure if that is true or not?
Depends on the agency, but DH is a subject matter expert in a hot area, so they worry more about him leaving or something happening to him than about getting rid of him. OTOH, a friend’s son works in the VA and has to sweat through a couple of reorgs.
The golden handcuffs for us are the pension and medical. There are times I wonder if he’d leave this job and go private industry (much better paying, but riskier), if it weren’t for my medical stuff, but he really likes the policymaking aspects of his job and feels like he can be a more effective reformer on this position.
The reality is that we can’t afford to support other family members. A couple of my sibs are givers, and I would do what I could in a heartbeat. Other sibs take everything they can get (one is really milking my dad), and I know if we did anything, the hand would be outstretched forever.