<p>My DH has our retirement house planned, but he neglected to consult me! I really don’t want a 5 bedroom house for my golden years. I want a small log cabin with good insulation in Voyageurs National Park, with a small lake access, maybe on Kabetogama. We decided will eshew the warmer climes for a less crowded locale. And, we can live off the protein of black flies forever (they are, I swear! The State Bird of Minnesota.).</p>
<p>fencersmother- ah. So you don’t like the crowds of the warmer climes, but in return you’re willing to dine on black flies.</p>
<p>Ok, let’s discuss your priorities . . . or at least your food habits. :)</p>
<p>(And thanks for the laugh of the day.)</p>
<p>Alot of my parents’ friends moved north in later years which always surprised me. They had homes in Maine and Vermont that they summered at and retired to after that. So beautiful, but the snow!! and being inside so much of the time? But they all seem very happy with their decisions.</p>
<p>There’s a fellow around the corner who summers in New Hampshire and comes down here to N. Florida for winters. (?? it gets into the 30’s in the winter here, but its refreshing, I guess) I like the snowbird idea.</p>
<p>love this thread. lots of good suggestions.</p>
<p>we’ve always dreamed of a retirement to the outerbanks of north carolina. we lived in virginia for a while and would travel to the outerbanks for vacations. i always think back to our visits of the outerbanks and remember it being so tranquil there.</p>
<p>we’re in the midwest now and landlocked…so hoping to one day be on the coast. </p>
<p>the winters in virginia were so very mild (we lived in the tidewater area) as compared to our harsh midwestern winters.</p>
<p>we have family in the se and ne and visiting them would be much easier if we were on the east coast.</p>
<p>some of the midwestern retirees i’ve met head to texas, colorado and arizona for their retirement living. surprisingly, i’ve met some that go north to michigan for their retirement and vacations.</p>
<p>See this article. Don’t know much about the author.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/17309704.htm[/url]”>http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/17309704.htm</a></p>
<p>Bailey, your link didn’t work.</p>
<p>Sorry. Here is most of the article:</p>
<p>Andrew L. Yarrow: Early retirement is an act of selfishness</p>
<p>By ANDREW L. YARROW</p>
<p>April 6, 2008</p>
<p>When I hear my fellow baby boomers gleefully talk about their elaborate plans to retire ASAP, head for the Tuscan hills or otherwise continue their lifelong quest for self-actualization, I have to bite my tongue.</p>
<p>It’s not that I’m all work and no play. But there’s just something – make that lots of things – wrong, in general, with retiring at 55, 62 or even 65. I would go so far as to call it selfish and unpatriotic.</p>
<p>Dropping out of the workforce while still in one’s prime means ending one’s contributions to America’s strength, mortgaging our children’s and grandchildren’s future and leeching trillions of taxpayer dollars from the economy. An exaggeration? Perhaps. Some people, it is true, do not have the good health to continue working. And, yes, many jobs are pretty miserable; it’s easy to understand the desire to say, “Arrivederci, 9 to 5.”</p>
<p>However, if Americans retired later, either staying in their current jobs or taking up “encore careers” – what Marc Freedman of Civic Ventures calls do-good, later-life jobs – we significantly could slow the growth of our multitrillion-dollar national debt, which largely is driven by rising Medicare and Social Security costs (as the latest Social Security trustees’ report makes abundantly clear). We also could keep more people in a labor force that no longer would be growing appreciably if not for immigrants.</p>
<p>Thus, working longer would increase national output and personal wealth. And given our nation’s crying need for teachers, social-service workers and public servants, millions of seasoned citizens could serve our communities while giving meaning and money to people with decades of life and activity left in them.</p>
<p>When Social Security was enacted in 1935, with full benefits kicking in at 65, the average life expectancy in America was 63 and the average American worked nearly until he (or she) died. Today, life expectancy at birth is 78, and the average retirement age is 62. Well, maybe all of this is about achieving the “good life,” “pursuing happiness” and other bromides suggesting it is great to stop working as soon as possible. Some Silicon Valley multimillionaires retire in their 40s and are widely envied.</p>
<p>However, since most Americans are much healthier at 60 or 65 than their grandparents were, we should be able to work longer. Few 62-year-olds in our youth-obsessed culture would want to be called “old.” Yet three-fourths of 62-year-olds draw benefits from Old Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance – otherwise known as Social Security. No wonder that the Urban Institute’s C. Eugene Steuerle calls Social Security a “middle-aged retirement program.”</p>
<p>For individuals, working longer can mean more income and savings and something to bequeath to one’s children. For the nation, if millions of us worked until 67 instead of 62, Americans’ wealth and consumption would increase appreciably, fueling stronger economic growth. That added income would provide about $800 billion in additional tax revenue and reduce government benefit costs by at least $100 billion in 2045, according to Urban Institute calculations. This alone would cut the projected deficit in 2045 by 159 percent.</p>
<p>To encourage such behavior, Social Security benefits taken before age 66 or 70 could be more highly taxed, and employee rates of Social Security taxation could be progressively reduced for each year worked after 66 or 70. Or the government could provide a similar sliding tax credit for Americans who continue working beyond age 70.</p>
<p>Sen. Herb Kohl, D-Wis., has introduced legislation to reduce lost public and private benefits for those who work until 72. Other disincentives to working longer could be eliminated. Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., has proposed creating 401(l) accounts – tax-deferred accounts with employer matches – to help middle-age workers fund their retraining and education.</p>
<p>For everyone’s good, Americans should at least be able to work as long as their shorter-lived, poorer grandparents did. By doing so, they would be unselfishly helping preserve and strengthen our nation’s future by alleviating – rather than worsening – our national debt and making hands-on contributions to our children and communities.</p>
<p>Andrew L. Yarrow, vice president of Public Agenda and a professor of U.S. history at American University, wrote this article for the Baltimore Sun.</p>
<p>© 2008 Star Tribune. All rights reserved.</p>
<p>What makes Mr Yarrow think that we will not contribute to society. While we may be forsaking full time employment most of us will be vacating our spot to younger up an comers who will be very thankful for the opportunity to progress in their profession.</p>
<p>Meanwhile we will transition to volunteerism, that 1000 points of light that GHW Bush honored.</p>
<p>And as I age I can do so without the stress which could add to the medical burdens of old age, substituting hours behind a desk for healthful exercise and activity.</p>
<p>It is now time for my wife and I to cede our careers to the generation following behind us, raising families and striving to build retirement saving which will insure their independence like we have managed to do.</p>
<p>And as I draw on my investment and retirement accounts i will continue to pay the taxes supporting national, state and local services without the need to have our grown children supported in the costly education system. Yep, I will be pulling my own weight.</p>
<p>Hear, hear, Originaloog. Agree completely. I’m not at the point where I can “retire,” but when H and I make it economically feasible, we sure won’t be spending any of our time playing shuffleboard, mah-jong, etc. There are a million useful, creative, healthful, and giving things I want to do with my time. The fact that no one wants to pay me for them makes them no less so.</p>
<p>Just a note re Social Security and retirement. I have no problem with making SS means tested for retirees below the age of 70 or some other age where actuarially you would not be expected to withdraw more than you had contributed with a small ROI. </p>
<p>Of course Medicare cannot kick in until 65 and given the difficulty of seniors in getting private insurance, that should not change so as to give the Federal government some incentive to improve the overall health care system in this country.</p>
<p>BTW, I have refused to join AARP because imho it is a one issue interest group promoting government senior benefits regardless of how they will impact the non-senior population. And as a corollary I intend to do what I read one senior couple did; take the senior discounts and save that money throughout the year and donate it to a local children’s charity. I might give mine to the local school district.</p>
<p>While H and I are planning to “retire” and move to a new place within the next five or six years, we certainly won’t be leaving the workforce, just in H’s case, leaving a super stressful for job for one less demanding. We both plan to work at least part-time in our new location. </p>
<p>We watched my FIL doggedly cling to his job (didn’t have to, they were financially ok) until he was almost 70, ignoring MIL’s pleas to quit and move on to retirement in a coastal community where they had always wanted to live. After he finally gave in,they moved to their dream location. He suffered a stroke less than a year later and has been in poor health ever since, unable to enjoy retirement and the life they dreamed of. Most of their time there has been spent with MIL as full-time caregiver.</p>
<p>While good health is not guaranteed at any age, the situation his parents are in has prompted DH to make plans and decisions about an earlier retirement age rather than following his father’s course.</p>
<p>Retirement frees up the senior positions to the mature people waiting for them. Some jobs are highly time consuming and/or stressful- a “lifetime” of work has been accomplished in less time. In particular, physicians who have to work long hours and keep the same call schedule as their younger peers should be able to at least slow down, some specialties are physically hard- eg surgeons. I’m sure others have equally good examples. There should be a life outside of work, no matter what your job or training it entailed you do not owe society any more of yourself than anyone else does. The medicare/social security arguments do not make sense- there will be someone earning the money and early retirement does not make one eliglble for benefits earlier. In fact, think of the boost to the economy if we spend our savings… create jobs to serve us…</p>
<p>We visited the Outer Banks recently, it is desolate in the off season. We already rejected Wisconsin’s Door County as a retirement place for similar reasons. We can only partake in local art scenes et al so much before we are bored, I would rather live in an intellectually stimulating city, preferably near water/woods, and visit many different relaxing places.</p>
<p>Two words for Mr Yarrow. Bite me. It’s my life and it’s not getting any longer soon so I’m going to take some time to do exactly as I please. Deal with it.</p>
<p>barrons, I agree. I’ve paid my dues inclucing a ton of taxes and social security and medicare deductions. It appears that Mr Yarrow is 50 years old. His perspective may change in another 10 years of so.</p>
<p>yes, it does!</p>
<p>Dream retirement - Summer in Alaska. Winter in the Carribbean. Lots of first class travel all over.</p>
<p>Reality - not unless I win the lottery or some unknown relative dies and leaves me a bunch of money (non of the known relatives have bunches of money plus I’d rather they stay around a while).</p>
<p>Did anyone see the study put out by Boeing that stated for every year you work passed the age of 57 you lose 2yrs of life on the back end. They based it on the number of retirement checks they paid out. They realized if they paid bonuses to stay ,they would save money in the long run! Smart business or just greed!</p>
<p>barrons:
</p>
<p>Not sure I would have the nerve to say that, but I absolutely applaud the sentiment !!</p>
<p>I will consider move to Manila. A city you can enjoy everything with low price tag. They speak English and the weather is super!
Come back to US during holidays.</p>