My projected pension at retirement

[lazysundays]

Just looked at our online HR website. It allows me to see how much is in pension and how much will be at projected retirement.
Currently have $20245 and projected Amount in 2043 with anticipated 1% raise per year ( we seem to be getting 3% every 3 years) will be $780,661!!!!! And that's just the pension growing at 5% per year. never mind the 401k that's at $20k and growing a bit slower. Do I need that much?
I don't think I should reduce the 401k because the company could decide to stop the pension or downsize or I may need to change jobs.
How are you faring?

[Deleted]

My company's administrator has a "headline" as soon as I sign in telling me that my $245K will get me $52K per year starting at age 65. A real miracle, since I'm 58 already. I dug into the details once and found they had SS factored in there. Idiots.

Fortunately, that's not my only savings.

[lazysundays]

Duplicate post

[lazysundays]

That leads me to next question- what's a good calculator to use? I don't expect ss to exist when I retire

[❤ mollymouser ❤]

I'll be eligible for SS in 16 years and I expect it to exist in some form then (2027).

[dancinmama]

Jul 4, 2011 19:28:51 GMT -5 lazysundays said:

How are you faring?

We started contributing the max to DH's 401k when he was 24. He is now 55 and we came out pretty darn well, in spite of the fact that we had to take some pretty big risks to get here. He also has been working for the same company his entire career. He will get a pension from his Fortune 500 company, but it's value in no way compares to what public sector workers are "supposed to" get.

For example, many public sector employees get 3% of pensionable earnings for every year of service. So for 30 years of service at $100K in pensionable earnings, most would get a pension of $90K a year or a pension of 90% of pre-retirement earnings. At an equal rate of pay and equal years of service, DH will get less than 1% of that same $100K (i.e. less than 30% of pre-retirement earnings) or less than $30K a year.

I THINK that is ONE of the reasons that baby boomers are in trouble with their retirements. They were expecting to be lifers and get really great pensions like their fathers, so they did not contribute very heavily to their 401ks when they came on the scene. They did not fully understand that the company match in 401ks would replace part of what had been their father's pension benefit. Then times changed and switching companies became the thing to do to get ahead, but by that time they had already lost years in contributions/compounding in their 401ks, had established a lifestyle that did not lend itself to start max 401k contributions, and by leaving one job for another, gave up years of accrual toward getting a pension at all. Yes, if you worked for a company for "X" number of years, you might have become vested in the company's pension, but the monthly benefit might not even be enough to buy groceries 20 or 30 years later.

Many may have comforted themselves with the thought of receiving social security. Big mistake....big....huge.

Thoughts?

[Gardening Grandma]

"Do I need that much?
If you withdraw no more than the recommended 4%, that'd be a bit over $30K/yr. Whether or not you need "that much" depends on whether and how much other income sources you will have (SS/income from 401k/other)

Could you live on $30K/yr? With likely increasing medical expenses?

[dancinmama]

Jul 4, 2011 22:06:10 GMT -5 Gardening Grandma said:

"Do I need that much?
If you withdraw no more than the recommended 4%, that'd be a bit over $30K/yr. Whether or not you need "that much" depends on whether and how much other income sources you will have (SS/income from 401k/other)

Could you live on $30K/yr? With likely increasing medical expenses?

Should anyone "young" really count on ANY income from the government (i.e. social security) at this point? Maybe someone your age can, but we are 54 and have never planned on any SS income in our retirement calculations since we were in our early 30s. Our big mistake was counting on Medicare.

[lazysundays]

The original number makes sense, if I add it to a basic compounding calculate, the number is only around 250.000 at retirement, but it's not accounting for adding another 5% per year by employee contribution, and between 3-8% market growth over 32 years, so then 3/4 mill makes more sense.
GG- I guess we will be living off of twice that at the rate I'm going. I have 20k in pension with $6000 per year addition (and it grows with each raise) and 20k in 401k and I have it set at 6% which is also equal to $ 6000 per year.
$60k per year might be alot if mortgage is paid off, but GG, like you noted, gotta think about the increasing medical expenses. So I will keep increasing my 401k % contribution with time.

[dancinmama]

Jul 4, 2011 19:28:51 GMT -5 lazysundays said:

Just looked at our online HR website. It allows me to see how much is in pension and how much will be at projected retirement.
Currently have $20245 and projected Amount in 2043 with anticipated 1% raise per year ( we seem to be getting 3% every 3 years) will be $780,661!!!!! And that's just the pension growing at 5% per year. never mind the 401k that's at $20k and growing a bit slower. Do I need that much?
I don't think I should reduce the 401k because the company could decide to stop the pension or downsize or I may need to change jobs.
How are you faring?

I know that $780,661 SOUNDS like a lot of money, but it will not be worth nearly what it is worth today 32 years from now.

[lazysundays]

I found the calculator!!!

the final number does not include SS

www.youngmoney.com/retirement-pension-planner/

and it says :
Your plan provides $896,378 when you retire. This retirement savings may run out at age 73. This is based on retirement expenditures of $122,519 per year. This amount is 90.00% of your last years income of $136,133

[lazysundays]

Your plan provides $1,928,561 when you retire. This retirement savings may run out at age 86. This is based on retirement expenditures of $122,519 per year. This amount is 90.00% of your last years income of $136,133

This projects both the pension and the 401k.

Ok, I'm set if I want to die at 86... too bad I can't expect the pension to be around for the next 32 years.

[dcmetrocrab]

Inflation is the big scary that a lot of retirement calculators don't take into account. If you really want to live off of 90% of your income ($122,519), according to this inflation calc, that equates to $278,909.18 in 2042. Multiply that by 25 to get $6,972,729.50, which is the magic number you'll need to sustain the much lauded 4% withdraw rate recommended by experts.

www.halfhill.com/inflation.html

[cronewitch]

I THINK that is ONE of the reasons that baby boomers are in trouble with their retirements. They were expecting to be lifers and get really great pensions like their fathers, so they did not contribute very heavily to their 401ks when they came on the scene.

That could be one reason but many of us weren't offered them early. I was offered one a month before a lost a job in 1990 then again in the early 90s. It was limited to 15% of my wages of less than 30K. I changed jobs about a year later and the new job didn't have one. It got one later but limited to 15% but only a year before I left that job. So the entire 90s I had 2-3 years of 15%. Nothing again until 2003. I did the max whenever I could but still only had a very few thousand at 55. The one I started in the spring of 2003 has grown to 234K since they raised the limits and allowed catchup contributions. Older boomer didn't tend to have 401K long enough to save much before the 15% rule changed and IRAs used to be limited to 2K.

I told my brother I won't have pensions and he was shocked. He got two pensions, his wife one and mom two so 5 pensions at his house he assumed I would get one from my company. His wife took her 403B and got a 30 year annuity so it is like another pension for them.

[dancinmama]

Jul 5, 2011 0:44:55 GMT -5 cronewitch said:

I THINK that is ONE of the reasons that baby boomers are in trouble with their retirements. They were expecting to be lifers and get really great pensions like their fathers, so they did not contribute very heavily to their 401ks when they came on the scene.

That could be one reason but many of us weren't offered them early. I was offered one a month before a lost a job in 1990 then again in the early 90s. It was limited to 15% of my wages of less than 30K. I changed jobs about a year later and the new job didn't have one. It got one later but limited to 15% but only a year before I left that job. So the entire 90s I had 2-3 years of 15%. Nothing again until 2003. I did the max whenever I could but still only had a very few thousand at 55. The one I started in the spring of 2003 has grown to 234K since they raised the limits and allowed catchup contributions. Older boomer didn't tend to have 401K long enough to save much before the 15% rule changed and IRAs used to be limited to 2K.

I told my brother I won't have pensions and he was shocked. He got two pensions, his wife one and mom two so 5 pensions at his house he assumed I would get one from my company. His wife took her 403B and got a 30 year annuity so it is like another pension for them.

crone: First, what did you do for a living? And are you saying that the companies that you worked for early in your career did not offer pensions at all? Did you know that when you took the jobs?

The only reason that I ask is that you are 9 years older than we are. Maybe that I just don't realize that DH was LUCKY to work for a company that even offered a pension, but it seemed like most companies where he applied for jobs did (in the early 80s).

I was offered one a month before a lost a job...
I'm not sure I fully understand what this means. Was the offer part of a severance package?

It was limited to 15% of my wages of less than 30K.
So was this a lump sum payout of a pension that you had earned? And how long had you worked for the company?

EDIT: Okay, now I realize that you might have been talking about 401ks (and the fact that the companies that you worked for did not offer them) and max contributions of 15% - yes? And that later the law changed so that you could exceed 15% with catch up contributions.

So none of the companies that you worked for offered pensions? Or you didn't work for any one of them long enough to get vested?

Because I am NOT trying to blame the baby boomers who have a retirement savings shortfall, but am REALLY trying to understand the how some of them fell through the retirement savings cracks in an age where (I thought) most were working for companies that did offer pensions (whether they stayed long enough to get them is another issue) and the fact that profit sharing/401k programs came on the scene in the 80s. DH's company offered profit sharing (entry level salaried position) in the early 80s and later that money rolled over into what they were then calling a 401k (instead of profit sharing).

[lazysundays]

$6,972,729.50

[Deleted]

Jul 5, 2011 1:49:59 GMT -5 dancinmama said:

Because I am NOT trying to blame the baby boomers who have a retirement savings shortfall, but am REALLY trying to understand the how some of them fell through the retirement savings cracks in an age where (I thought) most were working for companies that did offer pensions <snip>

I'll give you my story as an example. I've been a diligent saver even before 401(ks) so I'll be OK, but a lot had to do with long vesting times and some involuntary job changes.

1975-1978. First job, had great retirement plan but I moved for better opportunities. If I were still there I could probably be retired by now if I hadn't died of boredom on the job.

1978-85. Company had a pension plan and was acquired in 1985. I was likely to be relocated (not feasible; husband had a good job where we were) or else lose my job. I found a new one. At the time, we had 10-year "cliff vesting"- i.e. you were 100% vested after 10 years. Zero before that.

1985-1995. Subsidiary of Prudential. Good pension plan, but "my job was eliminated" when the sub was spun off as an IPO. I'm vested in a pension of something like $15K per year. OK, it's a life annuity. I'll take it but it won't buy much when I'm 80.

1995-2002. Two small consulting firms. No pension plan at either.

2002-now. Sub of large company I'll call Giant Enterprise. Great pension plan. My sub was sold in 2006 and I was vested in another pension of about $15K, which starts in 2 years when I'm 60 whether I want it to or not. Acquiring company had a defined benefit plan but we weren't brought into it. Instead, they add 6% of salary to our 401(k) every year in addition to what we put in (even if you put in zero). Actually not a bad trade-off.

My story is probably typical- the real rewards for defined benefit plans went to those who spent their entire career at the same company and for many people that just wasn't possible. In that respect the current 401(k) plans are much better because at least you walk away with something. My two main complaints with it are that many companies just terminated their pension plans without providing a company match to the 401(k) (in other words, they kept all the savings from terminating the pension plans to themselves) and that many people are not equipped to take on the risks of managing their own savings and making them last through retirement.

[stats45]

I think that it is good to err on the side of 'over-investing' for retirement savings, but it is also important not to be paranoid.

I've seen more than a few people on here who are good savers and still seem like they spend way too much time fretting a number for retirement. The goal of savings is to be responsible and to help you feel secure. If you are in the 80th-90th percentile of savings, and you still don't feel secure, you may need to deal with the emotions you have about your finances as much as the amounts you are saving and finding a new retirement calculator every week.

Look at what the average middle-class family (in the US) has in retirement. The median household has a paid-off house (or nearly paid off house), relatively little net worth outside their home (less than $100k), and a career of SS contributions. They don't have the security that someone who maxed out their 401k's and IRA's have, but they are also not living in abject poverty and squalor.

I think some people need to take a minute to remind themselves of their good planning, just stay in the savings pattern for the long-term, don't sweat every small or large market fluctuation, and be happy about their future! This is the point after all, right?

[lazysundays]

stats- but like dcmetro showed with the inflation calculation- I may feel secure with 1.9million because it meets the goals in that estimate, but only 1/4th ready if I want to save for inflation. Do you think most people's savings are accounting for this?

[Deleted]

Jul 5, 2011 10:49:01 GMT -5 stats45 said:

I think that it is good to err on the side of 'over-investing' for retirement savings, but it is also important not to be paranoid.<snip>
Look at what the average middle-class family (in the US) has in retirement. The median household has a paid-off house (or nearly paid off house), relatively little net worth outside their home (less than $100k), and a career of SS contributions. They don't have the security that someone who maxed out their 401k's and IRA's have, but they are also not living in abject poverty and squalor.

I think some people need to take a minute to remind themselves of their good planning, just stay in the savings pattern for the long-term, don't sweat every small or large market fluctuation, and be happy about their future! This is the point after all, right?

I don't compare myself to the average middle-class family. Most of them are counting on subsidized senior housing, Meals on Wheels and Medicaid nursing homes when the money runs out. I don't want to live like that.

I agree with you, though, that you need to just keep saving and take a long-term view. During market downturns I've controlled the two things I could, which were keeping the savings on track and keeping new money in cash for awhile. The cash portion was something that wouldn't decrease in value, and I had plenty of other investments that would benefit when the market recovered. It did and they did. Well, most of them did. Weeding out underperformers is an ongoing job.

[murphath]

dancinmama: Since I was a public sector employee, I just want to mention that the vast majority of us do not get 3% of our earnings as a base for retirement. That is usually the firefighters and policemen: and they get that at age 55, I believe. For my class of employment, it was 2.5% max if you retired at age 63. For the professors, it was a max of 2.3%.

Since I retired last year at age 57, my base rate was 2.15%.

I know that public pensions are being cast as the big villain in the state's budget, but the fact is, most of us do not get the 90%, over $100,000 per year pensions. My SIL has been an elementary teacher for 34 years when she retires next year. She is married so she is choosing the option of leaving most of the pension to her DH should she predecease him. They estimate her annual pension at $42,000 per year. That's not bad but I truly believe she earned every penny. Also, since she did not pay into SS, she will not receive any unless her DH dies after age 65--then she'll get something from his--but not if he dies before 65 for some reason.

Now my BIL was a fireman. He retired at age 55 and is earning close to that $100,000 per year--and complains about it! Why? Because he's no longer able get all the overtime he was used to.

So it really cracks me up when the politicians talk about pension reform. They want to reform it for the teachers and folks like me, but not touch the firefighters and policemen when they are the ones that earn the most. I'm not saying that their jobs aren't dangerous and they don't deserve the money, but their pensions are definitely the most lucrative.

[stats45]

Inflation can be a problem, but good investing can make sure that your retirement savings grows around that rate without substantial risk. Some people make it sound as if they plan to transfer all of their retirement investments to a checking account they plan to spend down in retirement. Your money still can be made to work for you in retirement, even as you (if you) spend down some of it.

I don't want to be the average middle-class family, but the average middle-class retired household doesn't have subsidized housing or Meals on Wheels. They just have a steady or slightly declining standard of living in old age, and less resources to deal with emergencies and problems that can occur later in life.

Smart retirement savings is the best way to defend against that, but there is a problem if people are saving $2 million for retirement instead of $6 million, and they feel like they are still one step away from a Medicaid nursing home. The point of being financially responsible is to protect against risk, but stress is a huge risk factor to many health and relationship problems. I'm only saying that doing the consistent things that nearly everyone recommends will help you live well in retirement, whether that means $1 million in retirement savings or $10 million, depending on income, expenses, etc.

[cronewitch]

Jul 5, 2011 1:49:59 GMT -5 dancinmama said:

Jul 5, 2011 0:44:55 GMT -5 cronewitch said:

I THINK that is ONE of the reasons that baby boomers are in trouble with their retirements. They were expecting to be lifers and get really great pensions like their fathers, so they did not contribute very heavily to their 401ks when they came on the scene.

That could be one reason but many of us weren't offered them early. I was offered one a month before a lost a job in 1990 then again in the early 90s. It was limited to 15% of my wages of less than 30K. I changed jobs about a year later and the new job didn't have one. It got one later but limited to 15% but only a year before I left that job. So the entire 90s I had 2-3 years of 15%. Nothing again until 2003. I did the max whenever I could but still only had a very few thousand at 55. The one I started in the spring of 2003 has grown to 234K since they raised the limits and allowed catchup contributions. Older boomer didn't tend to have 401K long enough to save much before the 15% rule changed and IRAs used to be limited to 2K.

I told my brother I won't have pensions and he was shocked. He got two pensions, his wife one and mom two so 5 pensions at his house he assumed I would get one from my company. His wife took her 403B and got a 30 year annuity so it is like another pension for them.

crone: First, what did you do for a living? And are you saying that the companies that you worked for early in your career did not offer pensions at all? Did you know that when you took the jobs?

The only reason that I ask is that you are 9 years older than we are. Maybe that I just don't realize that DH was LUCKY to work for a company that even offered a pension, but it seemed like most companies where he applied for jobs did (in the early 80s).

I was offered one a month before a lost a job...
I'm not sure I fully understand what this means. Was the offer part of a severance package?

It was limited to 15% of my wages of less than 30K.
So was this a lump sum payout of a pension that you had earned? And how long had you worked for the company?

EDIT: Okay, now I realize that you might have been talking about 401ks (and the fact that the companies that you worked for did not offer them) and max contributions of 15% - yes? And that later the law changed so that you could exceed 15% with catch up contributions.

So none of the companies that you worked for offered pensions? Or you didn't work for any one of them long enough to get vested?

Because I am NOT trying to blame the baby boomers who have a retirement savings shortfall, but am REALLY trying to understand the how some of them fell through the retirement savings cracks in an age where (I thought) most were working for companies that did offer pensions (whether they stayed long enough to get them is another issue) and the fact that profit sharing/401k programs came on the scene in the 80s. DH's company offered profit sharing (entry level salaried position) in the early 80s and later that money rolled over into what they were then calling a 401k (instead of profit sharing).

I worked for the state of Alaska for 6 months that had a pension but it was tiny and I spent it to move.

I worked for a CPA who offered a pension from 1978-1989 but he stopped it in 1983 because he was too old to contribute for himself and we only had 3 employees. I got about 2K but my ex was drinking and I had to pay the mortgage.

I worked for another CPA firm in 1989-1990 but they were just starting a 401K when I got let go no severance or anything at the end of tax season.

Even companies with pensions didn't always put in very much and when you didn't vest until years in most didn't qualify for all of that. They changed the vesting laws so you had to vest in 5 years later but it used to take 7-10 years.

I don't know that most companies had pensions, most I worked for didn't but they were small and non union with low income people as the majority. They only gave pensions if the owner needed to give them in order to fund their own pensions.

[Gardening Grandma]

Jul 5, 2011 10:49:01 GMT -5 stats45 said:

I think that it is good to err on the side of 'over-investing' for retirement savings, but it is also important not to be paranoid.

I've seen more than a few people on here who are good savers and still seem like they spend way too much time fretting a number for retirement. The goal of savings is to be responsible and to help you feel secure. If you are in the 80th-90th percentile of savings, and you still don't feel secure, you may need to deal with the emotions you have about your finances as much as the amounts you are saving and finding a new retirement calculator every week.

Look at what the average middle-class family (in the US) has in retirement. The median household has a paid-off house (or nearly paid off house), relatively little net worth outside their home (less than $100k), and a career of SS contributions. They don't have the security that someone who maxed out their 401k's and IRA's have, but they are also not living in abject poverty and squalor.

I think some people need to take a minute to remind themselves of their good planning, just stay in the savings pattern for the long-term, don't sweat every small or large market fluctuation, and be happy about their future! This is the point after all, right?

This. Exactly. <karma>

I've never heard any of my retired friends say, "Gee, I wish we hadn't saved so much for retirement".... Quite the opposite.

At the same time, you don't want to worry and fret so much about retirement that you don't enjoy this journey. Life is too uncertain. Pick a goal (for retirement), put it on auto if possible, and then focus on enjoying the here and now.

[tskeeter]

what's a good calculator to use

I like Fidelity's Retirement Income Planner. Seems to be the most complete of the retirement calculators I've tried out. You need to put in lots of data. It'll take between 30 minutes and an hour, depending on how much information you have at your finger tips. It is nice that you can start with estimates, then refine your data later. This calculator uses a Monte Carlo feature to project the likelihood that your retirement savings will meet your needs under at least 250 different scenarios, rather than just using historical averages. This gives you a much better chance of meeting your retirement goals than the typical 50/50 probability inherent in many of the quickie calculators.

A do it yourself calculator may be fine if you are just getting started. But if you're within 10 or 15 years of retirement, I'd invest some time and money with a fee only financial planner to help dial in your retirement planning strategy. A financial planner can help you with both the accumulation phase of your retirement plan and the consumption phase of your retirement plan. Retirement is really too important and involves way to much money to cheap out and not get expert advice. (And your HR people do not qualify as "expert advisors".)

[Deleted]

I know that public pensions are being cast as the big villain in the state's budget, but the fact is, most of us do not get the 90%, over $100,000 per year pensions. My SIL has been an elementary teacher for 34 years when she retires next year. She is married so she is choosing the option of leaving most of the pension to her DH should she predecease him. They estimate her annual pension at $42,000 per year. That's not bad but I truly believe she earned every penny. Also, since she did not pay into SS, she will not receive any unless her DH dies after age 65--then she'll get something from his--but not if he dies before 65 for some reason.

I understand your point that many people with civil service pensions are collecting modest amounts (and have frequently gotten lower salaries while working in anticipation of that), but there's still a massive shift of risk that private sector employees don't have.

Let's say two employees, one municipal (A), one in a company (B), each have their employers set aside X% of their pay. A (municipal employee) has a traditional pension plan. B has the money deposited in a 401(k) plan. Thirty years later, both have had the same amounts contributed by their employer. The difference is that A has been promised a set amount, maybe even with annual COLA adjustments. B has whatever is there based on his/her investment decisions and the movements in the market. A will never outlive his/her savings. If the pension pot runs low, it's up to the taxpayers to ante up more money. If B runs out, tough luck (unless B ends up poor enough to also be bailed out by taxpayers).

You can see why taxpayers who are in B's spot (except that many don't have any kind of employer contribution) are not thrilled at footing the bill for A's retirement plan.

[dancinmama]

Jul 5, 2011 11:53:09 GMT -5 murphath said:

dancinmama: Now my BIL was a fireman. He retired at age 55 and is earning close to that $100,000 per year--and complains about it! Why? Because he's no longer able get all the overtime he was used to.

murphath: Honestly, I didn't understand the disparity in public vs private sector pensions until I was talking to my high school educated girlfriend a couple of years ago who is a clerk with a municipality with A LOT less responsibility than my corporate, senior manager DH. She makes about $70K a year (as a clerk) and her pension (3%/yr. of service) will be far greater than DH's (< 1%/yr. of service) with less years of service. I was .

Obviously the firefighter example is the one that is scary. Think about it, that municipality's pension fund is paying out ONE MILLION DOLLARS A YEAR for every (10) they have like your BIL. Now, estimate how many retired firefighters and police officers there are and how many will be retiring every year going forward. How long can that be sustained without breaking the back of the pension fund? Does he worry about the well running dry and is he preparing for that possibility? The thought of it would throw me into a panic attack.

That's when it's going to get UGLY in this country. I am afraid that there are going to be A LOT of people who were promised pensions and are counting on them (geez, I would be too), but if something doesn't happen with this economy AND FAST, the money simply won't be there to pay them.

[dancinmama]

For EXAMPLE, many public sector employees get 3% of pensionable earnings for every year of service. So for 30 years of service at $100K in pensionable earnings, most would get a pension of $90K a year or a pension of 90% of pre-retirement earnings. At an equal rate of pay and equal years of service, DH will get less than 1% of that same $100K (i.e. less than 30% of pre-retirement earnings) or less than $30K a year.

By the way, I used $100K because it is a nice round number that would easily illustrate percentages and amounts for the example and "an apple to apple comparison"; I was in no way trying to imply that most public sector workers will actually be receiving $90K/yr. in retirement.

[murphath]

athena: I don't dispute your statement at all and count myself as very lucky to have my pension. In the early 80's I worked for a nonprofit and the Board asked me to look into pension plans for employees. It was then I learned why so many companies no longer were offering defined benefit plans: all had to do with the regulations, which were created because so many companies and/or unions raided or "forgot" to fund their plans. I think the regs were "ARISA"--something like that.

Dancinmama: I do know some counties have their own retirement plans. I was speaking more to PERS which is the state plan I have. Teachers are under STRS. Contra Costa County is an illustration of a county funded only defined pension in real trouble.

I have nothing against firemen and policemen, but just wanted to point out that those are the two groups that cost the most--but also the two groups the politicians don't want to mess with re their pensions. As for BIL, he and SIL inherited a boatload of money from her parents, so unless they blow it, they should be just fine. I tell you, we have so many friends who have inherited a lot of money/stock from their parents. I'm going to have to have a discussion with mine when I see them in heaven! We definitely were not passengers on that gravy train. Anyway, I'd rather have the parents here than any amount of money. I miss them.

[Deleted]

Jul 6, 2011 5:59:28 GMT -5 @tbird said:

My parents retired 30/22 years ago, with a paid off house, 10K in savings, SS and 2 very modest pension. Mom pension was 40/month, lol. And she lied to get the job (5 yrs younger) and couldn't collect, lol! Dad's pension was about 250/month.

A very interesting cautionary tale about pensions without COLA adjustments. Thirty years ago, assuming 3% annual inflation, $250 would have bought what $600 buys now. It probably looked like it would pay a nice chunk of the monthly bills back when he retired.