I'm glad you got a real pension, Mitch—and at a newspaper! No such thing anymore, outside of government work.
@Michael McKelvey posted:@Gordon Nichols, I found your comments about changing jobs in the computer business interesting.
My daughter worked for Apple. She quit and went to work for a start-up. It turned out they didn't actually have a product to sell.
So, she has been looking for a new job and didn't want to relocate from Los Gatos, CA. That really limits one's options.
She just took a job with a robotics company in Oregon so she will be commuting between California and Oregon.
That town caught my eye as I spent 8 years there myself till moving out of the growing traffic etc but still have a fond place in my heart for the town and my husband still does work for the local public TV based in the high school
I can also relate to the start up story, most fail it seems but I was lucky in that case 2x. If she has the spirit, and potential insanity required, it can work out nice. But it does take a lot out of you so it's not for the faint of heart 
Glad she found an opportunity that allows her that flexibility.
Out of all my friends and acqaintances I can think of, exactly one (investment banking) spent his entire careeer at one company. 12 hour days for the first 20 years. Retired at 57 (stress) with a nice buyout and huge pension. You pick your poison.
With buyouts, mergers, bankruptcies, downsizings, head hunted and trying the entrepreneurial route, it's the new normal to work in half a dozen or a dozen places over your career unless your self employed or in the public sector.
I started working for New York Telephone in 1991. Through a few mergers(NYNEX, Bell Atlantic) they eventually became Verizon in the late 90s. My paychecks still said NY Telephone on them LOL, all the way to the end!
Anyway, after 28 years and 10 months I put my papers in a bit early due to the incentive, and extra 1k a month for 4 years plus a nice extra lump sum. Anyway, it was and still is a great incentive, there is one more year left. Honestly I was leaving after thirty years anyway. It was only a little over a year early.
.
@edsnova posted:....I'm glad you got a real pension, Mitch—and at a newspaper! No such thing anymore, outside of government work...
Yeah, Ed. It often occurs to me I started out at exactly the right time in the news biz.
Ten minutes later, and I would have caught my tail in the door on the way out.
The editor at the UPI bureau where I started as a stringer still wore a green visor while editing copy (No, really). Reporters typed on Royal manuals, using three-copy paper. One copy for the writer, one got spiked on the editor's desk for reference, and one went to the teletype operator, who manually retyped the story in, creating a five-hole paper tape to be fed into the same machine for high-speed transmission out onto the wire when it was called in by New York.
In photo, we were still using the old analog fax-based transmission equipment that had been developed in the '30s. Ten minutes per b&w photo, over leased telephone circuits. I may not have realized it at the time but it was the very last breath of the old 'Sweetheart, get me rewrite' days.
Today, it's nice to reminisce about a world with job security, pensions, freshly baked apple pies cooling on the window sill, boy scouts helping little old ladies across the street, and carburetors.
.
Itinerant university worker here.
- UNC-CH - pension contributions before 1978, contributions to an IRA after
- U of Oregon - cashed out UNC pension, rolled over IRA and contributed for 3 years
- Duke - rolled over Oregon IRA, 25 years contributing to IRA with Duke match
- Brown - rolled over Duke IRA, 6 years contributing to IRA with Brown match
- Retired 3 years early and never regretted it.
A benefit from Duke was eligibility for retirement following the rule of 75. That meant you got special benefits when your age plus your years of service equalled 75 or more. I took Duke retirement when I was recruited to Brown and then got the following benefits until I reached age 65:
- Duke paid our son's tuition anywhere he attended. He went to Carnegie Mellon, so this was a big deal. It was called the golden handcuffs since it kept many of us from taking other jobs. I understand that this benefit has been reduced or eliminated since I left.
- We continued to use Duke's health insurance. With over 50K employees and a large health system, they had a very advantageous family policy.
- We were eligible to continue to participate in their 403B (like 401K) retirement plan. Brown's was better so we moved there.
I hired in to the FAA in 1989 at 22 years old. Worked 31 years at NYARTCC. Retired in 2020 at 53. Living the good life!
@LI-Rick posted:I hired in to the FAA in 1989 at 22 years old. Worked 31 years at NYARTCC. Retired in 2020 at 53. Living the good life!
.....Did you rub shoulders with "Kennedy Steve" ? :~)
After 20 years as a Teamster. I was lucky to receive early retirement at 62 w/ full funding as if 65, a Georgia Pacific 401k, put some away during my 9 years of being an independent Owner Operator trucker, wife's West Virginia Power Company retirement, two SS checks and the home shop pocket change. I don't know what younger ppl will do to fund their retirements~
@Alan Merklin posted:.....Did you rub shoulders with "Kennedy Steve" ? :~)
No idea who that would be. We had approximately 250-270 controllers in our center at any given time.
@Alan Merklin wrote: "I don't know what younger ppl will do to fund their retirements"
I must be one of the "younger people" because I never qualified for a pension when I was younger, and then my last three companies didn't even have a pension program - Everyone was left on their own.
All of them had $$ matching programs into a 401K, but all of them also gave out bonuses in stock options (think of it as free money, if it grew) which typically matured so you could then cash them out in 3, 5 or 8 years, depending on the program and if you stayed around. If you left the company before they matured, then they evaporated and you lost them.
If you were lucky and joined a start-up or growing company on the ground floor, and if it really took off, then they would perform "stock splits" over time, where they would issue, say, one or more shares for every outstanding share to keep the sell price on the stock exchanges within a range as the company grew. The face value would drop in half on a stock split, but you now had twice as many shares so your growth was amplified if the stock price went up. If the place continued to grow, this could be very attractive (those "golden handcuffs", mentioned above) and keep you there working like crazy, trying to drive the stock price up and waiting for your bonus shares to mature.
If you stayed long enough and the place grew enough, THAT became your "pension".
This is especially true for youngsters joining Internet start-ups. Most startups tank within two to five years, but those few that make it seem to be making it big and their principles are bailing with tens of millions after 5 to 10 years if the place gets bought by a larger company for $$$$$$$. All those other workers are still waiting for their place to "take off".
So you could keep working (there or elsewhere) while enjoying a stock-fueled wealthier lifestyle, or start your own businesses doing something completely different. The smarter ones hire a financial/wealth manager to make sure what they have will last as long as needed (30 - 40+ years).
Still, there seems to be a vast majority of people who don't or can't save much during their lives and I seriously don't know how they're going to enter into any sort of "retirement".
.
@Gordon Nichols posted:....my last three companies didn't even have a pension program - Everyone was left on their own...
...All of them had $$ matching programs into a 401K, but all of them also gave out bonuses in stock options...
Our newspaper offered a stock option plan for those of us who toiled in the trenches.
Something like a 10 per cent discount under market price, which seemed a good deal back in our salad days when the price was something like $50 per share.
A child of the depression, my dad always discouraged any investment in stocks, so maybe because of that I never bought any company stock.
Today, post bankruptcy, the stock trades at 75 cents.
I always felt a retirement plan should offer better odds than a Vegas casino.
.
@Sacto Mitch posted:I always felt a retirement plan should offer better odds than a Vegas casino.
... and yet, the idea that one could guarantee such a thing is a relatively recent conceit (when viewed through the lens of history). From the beginning of human history until the beginning of the 20th century, people were only able to secure their dotage by having children who would eventually care for them. It was a spotty system.
Regardless, all pension plans, IRA plans, 401k plans, and the like (even Social Security) depend on a rising population of young people, an ever-rising stock market, or both. Things are still built around everybody having a big family. Current workers can't really count on any of it. The odds are now stacked against them.
There have to be a lot more people paying into a defined benefit pension than pulling money out in order for the thing to stay solvent, or the pension fund managers need to be killer investors. This is generally not the current way of pensions or pension investments.
I personally have a weird cocktail of defined benefit pensions through the union (I contributed every dime), and a well funded IRA I contributed to outside the union, and Social Security which I'll be depending on in retirement.
The three-legged stool hasn't performed anywhere near as well as it would have for my parents' generation. I'm happy where I am at present, but I've been investing for 30 years and have contributed freakish amounts into a union pension fund. Both have missed a lot of return I was told I could/should expect. There will be the significant principle I put in along the way, but nowhere near the growth I was told to expect for the amount I've invested and for how long it's been there.
I stopped being concerned - partly because I've got other (non stock) investments, but mostly because my plans and goals have changed.
Many people wait to do things they want to do because the of the nature of their jobs. I've been able to travel with Jeanie, and can buy and do the things I want to do because of my job. I've got an inordinate amount of freedom in my current situation. I ground hard for 30 years, but I've really been about half-time for the last 5. I still run calls and pull my share of the crap-work in weather extremes, but I spend a lot of time chasing my muse as well. There's less money in it, but I don't care about that either. My kids are grown and my big stuff is paid for. I've found a balance that works.
Along the way, I realized I'd be less happy "retired" than I am working (as I am now), and changed my target retirement from right about now (59-1/2) to at least 65 (when I'll have a Medicare Advantage insurance plan). We'll see if my body cooperates.
That's at least 5 years. It's driving a lot of decisions I'm making now - I'm not putting off new knees, etc. I'm a simple man with some expensive habits. I've found that often when I have time, I don't have loose money to feed those habits. When I have loose money, I haven't traditionally had time. By continuing to work, I have both time and money - a situation I'd like to continue as long as it's physically possible for me to do the work.
The idea that a guy should be able to work 30 years and then retire with a golden parachute has only been around for 100 years or so, and it only works when the workforce and market is growing (as it did for the last 100 years). With the present stagnant population growth, a weird immigration policy, and a "mature" economy, that's no longer a given (outside of government work).
I've saved hard, but my retirement situation is much more tenuous than my dad's (who could always count on an increase in GDP which exceeded the rate of inflation, and a stock market which well outpaced them both). It didn't matter to him anyhow - he worked until he died because that's what he wanted to. He liked it. I assume I'll probably eventually inherit about 1/3 of what he never spent.
I think I might want to do exactly the same thing he did. We'll see how long I can keep the wheels on the bus.
@Gordon Nichols posted:my last three companies didn't even have a pension program - Everyone was left on their own.
All of them had $$ matching programs into a 401K, but all of them also gave out bonuses in stock options (think of it as free money, if it grew) which typically matured so you could then cash them out in 3, 5 or 8 years, depending on the program and if you stayed around.
Respectfully - you had all anybody ever has anymore at all those places AND your companies matched your contributions. That's making 100% on your contribution in year one (no matter what the market does) PLUS the 30+% you didn't pay in taxes on that money.
In addition, you received stock, which was eventually taxed as a capital gain, as opposed to income. I'd have loved to receive anything even close to that.
Nobody has defined benefit pensions anymore, because they're astronomically expensive.
For a "so-so" union pension (which dies with me), my company (me) contributes $16.29/hr into the funds. If you run the math, you can see why nobody does it - it's a horrible deal for the company and a bad deal for the recipient, because the "benefit" only runs as long as the recipient lives. Once he's gone, the excess reverts to the fund.
We ended up with a 401k/IRA system, because defined benefit pensions don't work anymore.
.
Stan, I think we share many of the same thoughts.
I'm not expecting a nanny state to take care of me in my dotage. If you don't start planning early, if you don't plan for the long game, it's just possible there won't be any game at all when you need one. Among other things, that was drummed into my head by 'the greatest generation', right along with a taste for mint chocolate chip ice cream.
What gives me pause are management teams that try to sell stock options or even 401K matching as equal alternatives to traditional pension plans. Lottery tickets aren't cash. OK, if you're lucky, if the roulette wheel spins tomorrow like it's been spinning lately, you'll be just fine. But, if they were entirely honest, management would also be asking, "Just how lucky are you feelin', kid?"
And ha, I just used 'management' and 'honest' in the same sentence.
.
Just to be clear, even the Federal Government doesn’t really have a traditional retirement plan anymore. CSRS was replaced by FERS in 1987. FERS is based on a 3 legged system, much like Stan said above. One component is a small annuity, the 2nd component is the TSP, which in reality is a 401k, with some matching funds. The 3rd part is Social Security.
IMHO, to fund a successful retirement, one must start early, contribute to the maximum allowed, and invest in broad based stock funds. Sticking money in a bank at 2% interest is not going to get it done. One must not panic when the market has corrections and you lose 20-30-40% of your balance. Stay the course, the market always has come back, you just need time.
That's great, Rick. The bond rating (pre-pandemic bailout) of Illinois was ready to slip into "junk" status due to the enormous unfunded (traditional) traditional public pension fund liabilities. Cops, firemen, garbage-collectors, teachers, and the like. The benefits promised are "generous" to say the very least.
My point was that pension funds invest in the markets, just like 401k, IRAs, etc. - and their solvency also depends on the ability of the managers to grow the money at a rate that is good enough to keep the fund, well, funded. Many times, in many different traditional pensions it's not. The sheet-metal workers' pension went bust 30 years ago - everybody lost everything. My local Steamfitters pension slipped through the 80% funded "yellow" level into the 70s "red" a couple of years ago. The solution was for the hourly contribution rate to increase, and the payout for hours worked going forward to be slashed in half. A 20 year old guy funding the same pension will get half as much money as the boomer who retired at 55 - simply because the managers never needed to be very good at investing in the past. They could always just count on a rising membership contributing to the fund to float the boat. It's the same thing with the laborers, the millwrights, the operators, etc.
Traditional pension funds require an ever expanding workforce to carry the retirees. That's not the USA we've created for 2022, so a pension is going to be a "trip to the casino" whether it's the employee investing, or a pension fund manager.
Fortunately, the odds in the market are better than the odds in a casino - even though both amount to gambling (to some degree).
There are no sure things.
There are two: death and taxes, but you know this LOL!
I have the same three legs as Stan. However I have all three because I did retire.
I had a defined benefit pension, which I took as a lump sum. It no longer matters if the company or the pension fund goes under. I have my money, and it is up to me to keep it, grow it, or lose it. But it also continues to be in possesion of my wife and kids after I'm gone, rather than stopping upon my demise.
I also have a 401k, which I deposited 6% of my pay into for the entire duration. The company matched that 6%, and that's what I've been living off of, for 3 years so far.
I can't touch my big pot until 59.5(1 year from yesterday). I do realize that I am EXTREMELY lucky to have both at the same company. The benefits I've got just don't exist any more, anywhere.
I'll probably take SS at 62 rather than later. The benefits of those extra 5 years outweigh the increase of waiting to 67.
I just have to muddle through this year as I've been and the next two after until SS. Then I'll decrease my draw radically off the big pot and let it grow for the last 20 years. I doubt I'll be around long after 82, if I make it that far.
But hey, when I retired, there was a guy who thought I "was doing something stupid" by retiring. Maybe, maybe not. As Tom Cruise/Maverick said: "It's lookin' good so far."
And really, that's all any of us can do. Make the best decision you can with the information you have at the time. Then ride it out and see where it takes you.
I have only two legs on my stool - savings/investments and Social Security. Due to several ill-timed layoffs the first leg is a bit shorter than I expected it to be at this age (66) but I passed the "full Social Security retirement age" for me of 66 and 4 months back in October. I could retire but Pam is just 62 and not eligible for Medicare for several more years, so having my company's coverage is very helpful. Still I was hoping to retire about now and pay the cost of coverage, but there's that short leg again. With Pam not working and having some health issues, it's just not advisable right now.
Then again, my job has changed so that I am now acting as a senior level software developer rather than a manager, and I am enjoying work more than I have in years, so hanging on a little longer, possible even to 70, is no longer the depressing thought it once was.
The reality is that, despite not being where we wanted to be financially, we're so much better off than most folks that I cannot complain. There are so many that have no safety net for their post-working lives and I don't know how they will make it.
@Sacto Mitch posted:.
Stan, I think we share many of the same thoughts.
I'm not expecting a nanny state to take care of me in my dotage. If you don't start planning early, if you don't plan for the long game, it's just possible there won't be any game at all when you need one. Among other things, that was drummed into my head by 'the greatest generation', right along with a taste for mint chocolate chip ice cream.
What gives me pause are management teams that try to sell stock options or even 401K matching as equal alternatives to traditional pension plans. Lottery tickets aren't cash. OK, if you're lucky, if the roulette wheel spins tomorrow like it's been spinning lately, you'll be just fine. But, if they were entirely honest, management would also be asking, "Just how lucky are you feelin', kid?"
And ha, I just used 'management' and 'honest' in the same sentence.
.
Lotto has always been a voluntary tax… the market has also been used as a lotto for funding by those who know how to use it …and yea management and honest wow … 401k is a lotto IMO due to the lotto of finding a general fin advisor who can help rather than a group defined pension plan where the plan has higher end management team to manage the fund. Also the 401 has absolutely reduced the company contributions to the pension plans of it’s employees.
Update ….I reread the posts and I do believe that planning retirement should be done as early as possible but, Keeping somewhat productive and earning cash flow is to me how one can keep sane something my spouse appreciates … you can only be on vacation for so long IMO.
I did a deep dive …. and adopted a carnivore life style which surprisingly reduced a lot of inflammation in my body that I had no clue were even linked to nutrition.
Back to finances, a lawyer friend has been into Real-estate for eons and so far he has kept ahead of the market and inflation and if you can endure the cycle the market has provided some speculation but he buys it for cash flow and inflation hedge … It is time consuming as it becomes another full time business as it grows.
Mary and I both have decent pensions, but the current stock market decline has really hit our investments hard. We'll just hang in, but right now supporting two adult sons doesn't leave us much left over each month.
But that's what families do - help each other when and as needed.
That is what a good father does Bob, not always easy but it is the right thing to do... good on you!
@IaM-Ray posted:
Update ….I reread the posts and I do believe that planning retirement should be done as early as possible but, Keeping somewhat productive and earning cash flow is to me how one can keep sane
I’ve only been on “vacation” for 3 years, but there has not been a day where I woke up and said to myself I’d rather be at work. I’ve found that people that define themselves by their work seem to have the hardest time transitioning to retirement. I feel like a teenager again; I get up in the morning and get to play all day, no major responsibility except to my beautiful bride.
I tell everybody that begins retirement. Every day is Saturday, make sure you keep things to do in bold letters on your calendar and be sure to take some of the time to do nothing at all and relax. At least that’s worked for me in the last seven years.
Preach it, Reverend Al!!!
I am looking forward to not having a fixed schedule. I am lucky that my current position allows me a semblance of that as well as the opportunity to work from home most of the time.
@Lane Anderson posted:Preach it, Reverend Al!!!
I am looking forward to not having a fixed schedule. I am lucky that my current position allows me a semblance of that as well as the opportunity to work from home most of the time.
~ Shortly after retirement commences, you'll wonder how you had the time to work ~
You've got THAT right!
But then, after a while, when the car was road-worthy and we had settled into retirement, I ended up doing volunteer work where-ever we happened to be, at a regional food bank down south (Second Helpings) and at a volunteer farm growing veggies and fruit for food banks up north (Community Harvest Project).
There's a lot that needs to be done out there, and not enough people to do it. Finding something meaningful to do and local to where you are is easier than you might think. And it sure as hell beats doing CrossWords!
.
Before retirement, you imagine that you'll no longer have any bosses, but this isn't technically true.
Your other boss just assumes a more senior role in management.
.
Ah, yes HoneyDoo...
Only if you made the mistake of marrying your boss in the first place.
@Bob: IM S6 posted:Only if you made the mistake of marrying your boss in the first place.
Words from a Scholar and taken to heart :~)
@WNGD posted:Out of all my friends and acqaintances I can think of, exactly one (investment banking) spent his entire careeer at one company. 12 hour days for the first 20 years. Retired at 57 (stress) with a nice buyout and huge pension. You pick your poison.
With buyouts, mergers, bankruptcies, downsizings, head hunted and trying the entrepreneurial route, it's the new normal to work in half a dozen or a dozen places over your career unless your self employed or in the public sector.
My dad ran his own fluorescent lighting fixture manufacturing plant for 20 yrs and retired at 52; he's still ticking after 32 years of doing absolutely whatever he's wanted to do (basically nothing and indulge in whatever hobbies he had at some point); I am 58 and will die with my boots on, it's looking like....
@Impala posted:My dad ran his own fluorescent lighting fixture manufacturing plant for 20 yrs and retired at 52; he's still ticking after 32 years of doing absolutely whatever he's wanted to do (basically nothing and indulge in whatever hobbies he had at some point); I am 58 and will die with my boots on, it's looking like....
You're in good company, my friend.
There's far worse things - like getting to the end of your life and finding you'd never really accomplished anything, and never really lived.
@Impala, me too.
I walked in to the door of the lR&D lab in the summer of 1966 as freshly minted Engineer for an internship. I finally retired for good from that fine institution about two years ago. Their system was a very generous matching (3:1) contributory in-house plan that morphed into a 401-K when those were invented. Always contributed to the max. First leg. Also, real estate been berry berry good to me. 2nd leg. Add in SS benies as the third leg and cash flow these days seems to be pretty good. At least on paper, considering all investments, it looks like I make more now that I'm not working, than I ever did in salary.
Footnote about SS: I hassled about this a lot, the question being about when to start taking your full-retirement eligible funds. Do it now or wait until the max/month is reached, which is an 8% increase in monthly payments for every year you defer? There is no end to advice about how if you do not actually NEED that cashflow, you should wait so the monthly payout gets as big as it can be later. So, I thought about that, and did some math. My instinct told me that the sooner you get your hands on the cash the better. Many argued against that idea. Well, for me it came down to: suppose I die first? Always a consideration. But put that aside and we'll look for happy healthy retirement until 99 1/2. Pick a number. What concerned me was even though the monthly payment when started early is low, it's not zero. It's not zero for five whole years. That turns out to be a pretty big chunk o' change. Suppose you don't in fact need that money, so you just take and invest it. Suppose further that your goal here is to live a really long time and get as much $$ out of SS as you can. There are other constraints one can impose on the question, but this seems to be the easiest to consider and the most frequently cited. [One idea is that you just take that early money and put it under the mattress. Then five years later, when you might have started getting more per month, you just take out some of that cash under the mattress to bump you up to what would be the larger (max) monthly. How long will the money under the mattress last? Turns out, it lasts a pretty good while.] So, take less per month for five years and make modest investments that grow over that time; or wait five years, then take more each month? At what point do you end up getting the same total dollars from SS by either method? Obviously, it depends on how well your investments do, but assuming for these long time intervals you do moderately well (+4%/yr??) you will need to get well into your 80s before the waiting-to-withdraw option exceeds taking it as soon as you can. Obviously, investment rate matters a lot here, and if you are bad at that, and lose money, then the cross-over point happens earlier. To me if you wait to start SS you end up leaving an awful of of money on the table for those first five years. So my advice is: take the money, as tomorrow is promised to no man. I made a spreadsheet, ran the numbers, looked at a lot of variables, lots of what-iffing. Took the money and ran.
@El Frazoo posted:I walked in to the door of the lR&D lab in the summer of 1966 as freshly minted Engineer for an internship. I finally retired for good from that fine institution about two years ago. Their system was a very generous matching (3:1) contributory in-house plan that morphed into a 401-K when those were invented. Always contributed to the max. First leg. Also, real estate been berry berry good to me. 2nd leg. Add in SS benies as the third leg and cash flow these days seems to be pretty good. At least on paper, considering all investments, it looks like I make more now that I'm not working, than I ever did in salary.
Footnote about SS: I hassled about this a lot, the question being about when to start taking your full-retirement eligible funds. Do it now or wait until the max/month is reached, which is an 8% increase in monthly payments for every year you defer? There is no end to advice about how if you do not actually NEED that cashflow, you should wait so the monthly payout gets as big as it can be later. So, I thought about that, and did some math. My instinct told me that the sooner you get your hands on the cash the better. Many argued against that idea. Well, for me it came down to: suppose I die first? Always a consideration. But put that aside and we'll look for happy healthy retirement until 99 1/2. Pick a number. What concerned me was even though the monthly payment when started early is low, it's not zero. It's not zero for five whole years. That turns out to be a pretty big chunk o' change. Suppose you don't in fact need that money, so you just take and invest it. Suppose further that your goal here is to live a really long time and get as much $$ out of SS as you can. There are other constraints one can impose on the question, but this seems to be the easiest to consider and the most frequently cited. [One idea is that you just take that early money and put it under the mattress. Then five years later, when you might have started getting more per month, you just take out some of that cash under the mattress to bump you up to what would be the larger (max) monthly. How long will the money under the mattress last? Turns out, it lasts a pretty good while.] So, take less per month for five years and make modest investments that grow over that time; or wait five years, then take more each month? At what point do you end up getting the same total dollars from SS by either method? Obviously, it depends on how well your investments do, but assuming for these long time intervals you do moderately well (+4%/yr??) you will need to get well into your 80s before the waiting-to-withdraw option exceeds taking it as soon as you can. Obviously, investment rate matters a lot here, and if you are bad at that, and lose money, then the cross-over point happens earlier. To me if you wait to start SS you end up leaving an awful of of money on the table for those first five years. So my advice is: take the money, as tomorrow is promised to no man. I made a spreadsheet, ran the numbers, looked at a lot of variables, lots of what-iffing. Took the money and ran.
If the fine investment institutions are giving incentives to wait, that's a pretty clear signal not too. If the banks are preaching variable mortgages since "they've always been the better bet" it was time to lock in ....
We approached social security from a different direction. Marianne took hers at 62 and I deferred mine and just took spousal payments. When I turned 70 we switched it around so I'm getting full benefits and she's getting spousal. The bet was that I'd live to age 70 and the payback is that she'll continue to receive a larger amount after I'm gone driving the twisties in the sky. Property rental and the big IRA fills out our monthly draw. So far so good.
As to Banks and Financial Institutions, and what they are looking for when giving advice. First off, they are not charities, so please consider that. Second, what they are looking for is your money. 'Nuff said??
Furthermore, Michael, I'm just me at this point. I know that the both-working-spouses-of-a-certain-age SS payout boogie-shuffle can be a nice dodge. Just not an option for me.