[humble_pie]

Any gov program that is available will be utilized, i'll take it without apologies.

& so you should. My point is that you are peering forward 25 years, around a quarter of a century. No one has any idea what canada will look like at that future date.

GIS itself might not exist, other than as emergency payments to the genuinely impoverished. By that far-off future date the gummint will most likely have placed all senior supplements on a needs-based household income framework.

 

[humble_pie]

bright young undergraduate explained his retirement philosophy to me a few months ago

it's a reverse retirement. Student graduates college, travels the world, starts one or more nano-businesses & isn't financially ruined if they fail, goes back to school to pursue a new interest if he feels like it.

then around age 35 student settles down with a job & acquires the standard appurtenances of life, ie wife, kids, house, mortgage (his voice fell, he shrugged his shoulders & sighed as he listed the JWKHMs)

"It's a great plan. The only problem is i haven't figured out yet how to finance Phase One," he said.


.

 

[like_to_retire]

2. There's something I never understood - why do retired people keep investing money rather than enjoying it? ..................................... That's one trap I haven't fallen into.

I think you'll find it's human nature and a matter of habit. When you have spent your life in the pursuit of saving, saving, investing, investing to ensure you have enough for retirement, don't you see how difficult it is to suddenly do the opposite? I've been retired for twelve years now and still haven't cracked that nut. If you have want for nothing more than you have, why would you need to spend more, and especially "as fast as you can"?

ltr

 

[Userkare]

IMO you are making a common mistake in perception-your perception is that the more money one spends the more enjoyment they will get-it doesn't work like that at all in the real world. Ask Kate Spade about that one. Having a high net worth and spending relatively little is fun for a lot of people even though you don't get it-it is very politically incorrect.

I never said or believed that more money = more enjoyment, but most of the things people do enjoy happen to require some money. When I was in my 20's the idea of camping and sleeping on the ground appealed to me; it was cheap, too. Now if it isn't at least a 4 star hotel, I'm not interested in staying there; for sure it's way more expensive than campgrounds. I also owned klunker cars that I loved to work on; now I'm not so interested in spending any time under a car and will pay a shop instead; also not as cheap as DIY repair. I would not go back to doing those things unless I absolutely had no other choice ( i.e. money ).

What I'm saying is that if you know what you need to be happy, beyond basic sustenance, and have that money available to you, why would you deprive yourself so that your heirs can go nuts and enjoy the money you didn't enjoy for yourself? At some point you have to realize that given your chosen lifestyle, whatever that is, and the amount of money you've saved, there is no more reason to try to squeeze a few more percent from the untouched principal. If OTOH if someone is truly happy knowing they'll provide enjoyment to others by their death, then go ahead, be happy!

 

[Big Kahuna]

I never said or believed that more money = more enjoyment, but most of the things people do enjoy happen to require some money. When I was in my 20's the idea of camping and sleeping on the ground appealed to me; it was cheap, too. Now if it isn't at least a 4 star hotel, I'm not interested in staying there; for sure it's way more expensive than campgrounds. I also owned klunker cars that I loved to work on; now I'm not so interested in spending any time under a car and will pay a shop instead; also not as cheap as DIY repair. I would not go back to doing those things unless I absolutely had no other choice ( i.e. money ).

What I'm saying is that if you know what you need to be happy, beyond basic sustenance, and have that money available to you, why would you deprive yourself so that your heirs can go nuts and enjoy the money you didn't enjoy for yourself? At some point you have to realize that given your chosen lifestyle, whatever that is, and the amount of money you've saved, there is no more reason to try to squeeze a few more percent from the untouched principal. If OTOH if someone is truly happy knowing they'll provide enjoyment to others by their death, then go ahead, be happy!

The thing is-simply looking at someone's lifestyle from the outside you don't know if they are depriving themselves or if they just don't care-here is an example-if I won 100 million in a lottery tomorrow, I could obviously afford to wear a $50000 wristwatch-would I? Probably not-I have no interest-I might just pick up a $10 watch at Walmart to infuriate those people who know I have 100 million plus.

 

[Userkare]

I think you'll find it's human nature and a matter of habit. When you have spent your life in the pursuit of saving, saving, investing, investing to ensure you have enough for retirement, don't you see how difficult it is to suddenly do the opposite? I've been retired for twelve years now and still haven't cracked that nut. If you have want for nothing more than you have, why would you need to spend more, and especially "as fast as you can"?

ltr

It wasn't difficult at all for me to cash out all non-guaranteed interest investments and to start spending the principal; we had planned for years what we wanted to do once I retired. Seeing that come to fruition was more joyous to me than any yearly statement listing the pittance that I had made from not touching the money. Mind you, I truly suck at investment decisions, and had enough setbacks to make me wary of the whole process. If others have had 'Buffett-esque' results from their investment strategy, and are making astronomically more money than they could ever spend in their lifetime, I could see how they would want to continue on that path and leave a family trust in their name for many future generations of heirs to enjoy.

My parent's generation were born in the early 1920's; everything was booming. People believed they would get rich in the stock market. We saw how that turned out; by the time they were teenagers, the world was in a global depression. Finally, they reach the age of 20 where they could go out and make their own living, and BAM, a global war that takes them away for a few more years. Post-war, I could see why they drilled into our heads the importance of saving money; they knew what it was like to "go-without". When an unexpected windfall comes our way, I honour their memory by spending it as fast as I can, and not to go-without. We actually spent it on replacing our eaves-trough, some new furniture, and having a backyard deck built. That helped the local economy, too!

 

[Userkare]

The thing is-simply looking at someone's lifestyle from the outside you don't know if they are depriving themselves or if they just don't care-here is an example-if I won 100 million in a lottery tomorrow, I could obviously afford to wear a $50000 wristwatch-would I? Probably not-I have no interest-I might just pick up a $10 watch at Walmart to infuriate those people who know I have 100 million plus.

I hope you bought a lotto ticket, good luck!!!!. At least spring a few more bucks than a $10 Walmart watch; maybe buy a custom hand-made MAGA hat!

 

[ian]

I have found it challenging to draw down from our resources. Starting to get used to it. Not as difficult though because the market has done very well for us over the past six years of retirement. We need to enjoy those hard earned resources now while we have the health to do so.

 

[james4beach]

then around age 35 student settles down with a job & acquires the standard appurtenances of life, ie wife, kids, house, mortgage (his voice fell, he shrugged his shoulders & sighed as he listed the JWKHMs)

"It's a great plan. The only problem is i haven't figured out yet how to finance Phase One," he said.

I think I have a slightly better plan. This video does a pretty good job at explaining what I'm thinking:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyahH2o9AAk

I'm in my 30s and have savings. The word "retirement" doesn't explain what I'm thinking of. Instead, I plan to keep working off and on for the next 40 to 50 years. That's a long time! So I want work and life to be interesting, invigorating, and healthy. I'm going to get bored doing just one thing, and I require more vacation and leisure time than jobs allow.

So I'm planning, over my working career (40 to 50 years) to take frequent breaks to rest, enjoy life, learn, re-train, and re-shape my career. I've been working for 8 years in a particular field, and it's time for a change. Maybe now I'll go travelling and hiking for a while, and then try a different line of work once I've cleared my head.

I could see myself doing this for the next half century. Work a few years, break for a few years, with constant change to keep things interesting and fresh. Hopefully have a child, etc.

I have the luxury of not being dependent on work. Even if I never earned another penny, I could live for 15 years off my capital. But of course I will keep working and earning more income. What I expect will happen is that my capital will keep growing over the decades, but with periods of decline as I live off it. There will be periods of cash inflows, periods of cash outflows, with net additions and net capital growth in the long term.

I've already been doing this for 20 years, which is why I think it's feasible. I ran a small business (cash inflows), then went to university (outflows), then worked (inflows), then travelled and had fun (outflows), worked some more (inflows). Over this period my capital increased by 330K even through the 2000 and 2008 bear markets. So why not keep doing this kind of pattern? As my capital level increases, it becomes more self sustaining.

Do any of you do something like this? It's completely unlike the traditional retirement advice.

I have found it challenging to draw down from our resources. Starting to get used to it. Not as difficult though because the market has done very well for us over the past six years of retirement. We need to enjoy those hard earned resources now while we have the health to do so.

I'm thinking the same thing, though I'm in my 30s. I'd like to start getting used to drawing out of my capital now, while I'm healthy and can really enjoy the fruits of my labour. Additionally I can practice and refine my money management techniques. I want to make it a lifestyle routine, not a distant goal.

 

[humble_pie]

I think I have a slightly better plan. This video does a pretty good job at explaining what I'm thinking:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyahH2o9AAk

... Do any of you do something like this? It's completely unlike the traditional retirement advice.

jas4 sorry i didn't reproduce your entire quote, nor have i looked at your video yet. But i will.

in the meantime i think your complete post is very fascinating & it's right-on-the-money, in the sense that people nowadays want to get highly creative about how they will mix & shape work, play, finances, study across their lifetimes, not to speak of relationships, kids, family. You're onto some excellent ideas imho.

i have a few good examples & they are doing everything upside down. But like the best peach upsidedown cakes, everything is turning out delicious. Even some whipped cream here & there.

on the whole, the examples are youngish. The oldest is a couple barely into their 50s.


.

 

[Parkuser]

I think I have a slightly better plan...

Well, life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans. Are you sure you will never have a significant other with other plans? Are you sure there will be no kid(s) you will be responsible for, requiring stability?
Now you are at a peak of your abilities, you experienced only being on a raising part of a curve. You do feel invincible. But pretty soon you will notice a need for stability, and your sight will be going, problems with your back, memory problems, etc.

Recently, I’ve met a couple in their fifties, with grown-up kids, embarking on a remote year. The husband experienced burnout at his hi-tech job. Decided the only way to survive was to quit. They sold their house. They planned to move from place to place every few months and work remotely on freelance jobs. Something like this:
https://remoteyear.com/
Looks amazing. But I wonder how they are doing because their freelance job plans (e.g. travel writing by somebody who has never done it before) looked very iffy.

 

[james4beach]

I completely anticipate having kids and raising a family, and I don't see any reason I won't be able to do that. I'm still talking about working most of my next 50 years.

Now you are at a peak of your abilities, you experienced only being on a raising part of a curve. You do feel invincible. But pretty soon you will notice a need for stability, and your sight will be going, problems with your back, memory problems, etc.

No, I'm past my peak. These days, after having my *** kicked daily at my job, I come home on Friday and then sleep to about noon on Saturday just to recover from the exhaustion of work.

I don't feel invincible. In fact what prompted me to shift in this direction is realizing I'm getting old. Burn out from work, and the health consequences of not ever taking vacations, is far more dangerous. It will accelerate the mental deterioration, physical deterioration, create more back problems, heart & stroke due to stress, etc.

I didn't say I will move from place to place every few months, or live off freelancing or odd jobs. I mean that I will have real career jobs, but with plenty of breaks in between. I believe this is healthier and more sustainable in the long term.

There's also the important matter of a changing economy. On my time scale of 50 years, the economy will change a lot. Entire industries will collapse, and new ones will form. I think one really has to stay on their toes and be dynamic -- constantly changing -- rather than settling into a routine of some particular job.

Parkuser, to put it another way, the job and career stability you describe does not exist any more. Every job I've worked at so far has laid off virtually everyone after a few years. Employers don't offer stability or pensions. Industries will not last for 50 years. Diversifying my skill set, which means frequent breaks and retraining, seems like a safer path.

If one settles into a single career path, and becomes married to their employer, then what exactly is that person going to do once they are laid off, as that industry restructures, especially when they have back problems, failing eyesight, memory issues and nothing else they can do? It would be enough to shatter someone's outlook on life. The path you describe... though quite normal 40 years ago, sounds awfully dangerous to me.

 

[Parkuser]

...
Parkuser, to put it another way, the job and career stability you describe does not exist any more. Ever job I've worked at so far has laid off virtually everyone after a few years. Employers don't offer stability or pensions. Industries will not last for 50 years. Diversifying my skill set, which means frequent breaks and retraining, seems like a safer path.

If one settles into a single career path, and becomes married to their employer, then what exactly is that person going to do once they are laid off, as that industry restructures, especially when they have back problems, failing eyesight, memory issues and nothing else they can do? It would be enough to shatter someone's outlook on life. The path you describe... though quite normal 40 years ago, sounds awfully dangerous to me.

When my kid talks about getting old I find it cute. Sleeping till noon Saturday, this is the proof? Going to bed at 10 pm every day, this would be more like it.

We are talking about professional technical jobs. I am sure things are different now, but it is bizarre to think that in the past one would do the same thing the same way for years. Even in the same position, in the same job, you had to constantly upgrade your skills, because what you were doing kept changing dramatically. That’s my experience. Support jobs disappeared (secretaries, draftswomen, Xerox machine operators, etc.), not professional. Do industries keep disappearing? Well, IBM is what, 70? HP, keeps splitting but around 80. Even Apple certainly 40. Microsoft is getting there.

I have no experience of hopping from job to job (4 job changes over 40 years, less than my kid in 10 years), but while you are getting older, even with retraining and upgraded skills, these hops are becoming more and more difficult. Myself, when hiring, I preferred hiring somebody younger I could mold, rather than an older person settled in his/her ways. When you enter the management track, hopping is even more difficult, because in order to keep your brand up you have to move higher and higher. This is difficult without doing your time.
I am not arguing with you, just suggesting that a career plan based on 40-50 years of incessant change may in practice be untenable, life will mess it up.

 

[OrganicRain]

And if TFSA's are penalized in terms of OAS/GIS reduction, I'll just sell my invested TFSA and move the money into a larger or more expensive principle residence and draw down from that.

 

[james4beach]

We are talking about professional technical jobs. I am sure things are different now, but it is bizarre to think that in the past one would do the same thing the same way for years. Even in the same position, in the same job, you had to constantly upgrade your skills, because what you were doing kept changing dramatically.

I have no experience of hopping from job to job (4 job changes over 40 years, less than my kid in 10 years), but while you are getting older, even with retraining and upgraded skills, these hops are becoming more and more difficult.

I realize it's difficult to re-train or switch jobs. But if you can point me to a good career/industry and employer, that you think can employ me for the majority of my next 50 years, I'm happy to consider it. I need a place where I won't feel like a slave, where I will be intellectually stimulated, with a pension and great benefits. I need the people in my surroundings to be interesting and pleasant. If you know of such a place, I'm all ears.

I've been working in tech and let me tell you, tech (Microsoft, Amazon, Google, etc) are not places that will employ me for 50 years. For one, it's a young man's game. There are way too many software developers around, and the newer methods in computer science are already automating away many of the automation jobs. Most managers are redundant and the managers will be eliminated over time. The staff will shrink over the years. And the cultures are very stressful, constantly pushing employees to work harder and faster. There's a reason they only employ young people.

I'm not trying to make life more difficult than it has to be, but I'm also reading the writing on the wall. I am not aware of any field or any company that can employ me for a time span of 50 years. If you go back to the video I posted, you might understand my reasoning. I like the idea of diversifying my skill set, not becoming a super expert in X or a senior manager who specializes in X and can't possibly land any other job.

Will my income suffer as a result? Absolutely! There will be a price to pay, and I'm willing to pay it. There's more to life than just a salary. I refuse to become a salaryman.

Myself, when hiring, I preferred hiring somebody younger I could mold, rather than an older person settled in his/her ways. When you enter the management track, hopping is even more difficult, because in order to keep your brand up you have to move higher and higher. This is difficult without doing your time.

There are lots of advantages of the traditional track, starting in a field when you're young, and working your way up -- all within the same field. But there are disadvantages too. Our different opinions on which is preferable probably has a lot to do with our personal values, interests, fears, etc.

I am not arguing with you, just suggesting that a career plan based on 40-50 years of incessant change may in practice be untenable, life will mess it up.

I don't think a career plan that assumes 40-50 years of stability is doable either. For one, such an employer (or a field) has to exist for that long. Secondly, I'd have to be comfortable doing essentially the same thing, with the same kinds of people, for nearly half a century.

 

[like_to_retire]

I'm not trying to make life more difficult than it has to be, but I'm also reading the writing on the wall. I am not aware of any field or any company that can employ me for a time span of 50 years.

Canadian federal government, with a fully indexed defined benefit pension.

ltr

 

[hboy54]

Canadian federal government, with a fully indexed defined benefit pension.

ltr

Likely fails the "intellectually stimulating" test.

 

[humble_pie]

I have no experience of hopping from job to job (4 job changes over 40 years, less than my kid in 10 years)

there you have it. Your kid changing jobs more than 4 times within 10 years. This is what jas4beach is writing about.

your stable career pattern of steadily-upward promotions with almost no employer or even job changes across 40 years is a wonderful model. Every congratulation to you. But it's a model that's actually disappeared in our times.

"working" is more what jas4 describes. It requires a lot of ingenuity, a lot of creativity, a lot of flexibility. Most of the under-50s i know have several income irons in the fire. They may have contract jobs w salaries but they're also free-lancing, teaching a course here or there, running a nano-business through the internet.

the quebec economy is booming. Canadians are moving here in noticeable numbers from other provinces because there are jobs plus affordable housing plus all that lively latin culchah. I don't know if it's a trend but i see a noticeable number of young people going into the trades, or wishing they had attended trade school instead of graduating college with a BA in sociology.

.

 

[humble_pie]

Likely fails the "intellectually stimulating" test.

that it does!

in addition, are civil services still offering full-pension-w-benefits to newbie hires? very doubtful, imho

 

[like_to_retire]

Likely fails the "intellectually stimulating" test.

Not everyone in the government is a clerk. Lots of engineering positions.

..in addition, are civil services still offering full-pension-w-benefits to newbie hires? very doubtful, imho

The only change I know of was in 2013 when they raised contributions to employees and also raised the official retirement age from 60 to 65.
There is a bill now being considered (C-27) that would allow federally regulated private sector and Crown Corporation employers to offer a TBP pension to their employees, or to convert an existing DB pension plan into a TBP (Target Benefit Plan).

ltr