I feel totally the opposite of this. We have three children and I want to leave them as much as possible. Financial security is important and who knows where this country will be in the future.
I'm somewhere in between:
- We have paid for 100% of their college educations and sent them out into the world with no debt, a good car, and a good work wardrobe. We helped our oldest a bit as she transitioned into her first apartment, and we will do the same for our youngest child. Our oldest is doing great; she's on a path to be debt-free (even her mortgage!) by age 27. Our youngest is still in school, and the choices she's making are different; her goal is to buy a few rental houses to serve as passive income. Essentially we've chosen to help them on the "front end" instead of the "back end".
- We intend to help our (future) grandchildren with their college costs too, our thought being that a degree (earned in their youth and available for their whole lives is superior to an inheritance received in middle age).
- We have money saved, and we plan to use the 4% plan; that is, spend the interest - never touch the principle. If we earn 4% every year, that'll be a decent retirement ... plus we'll have my pension and our Social Security checks and a small passive income stream, all of which will bring us up to more than we're making now while working.
- Ideally we'd never touch the principle, and likely we won't while both of us are still living. My husband is older than I am, and I am in better health; the likelihood is that I'll take care of him in his elderly years ... but it's possible that I'll need to dip into the principle when I reach my last years. Still, it's unlikely that we'd ever use ALL the principle.
- The children will inherit whatever's left of the principle, our house, and some additional property ... but we aren't going to scrimp in our retirement years so they can inherit more money after our deaths.
Good luck to your DH! A lot of times the decision to let people go are not based on how much they do for the company but how much they cost. The bean counters reduce people to a number that does not reflect their true worth.
Yes, that's what's at the root of the age-ism problem. You've got a guy who's been in a professional job for 25 years, and his salary is $100,000 (plus 5 weeks of vacation and other benefits). Yeah, he has experience and has proven himself reliable, but the company can let him go and bring in two new college grads for $35,000 each (with only one week of vacation and lesser benefits). Two people for $70,000 or one guy for $100,000. It stinks, but it's not personal.
Thanks! We think he'll land fine if he does get laid off. He's a nuclear engineer with 30 years of experience--he already has feelers out to do contract work. He could earn $100/hr plus benefits. On the good side, he could work 4 months out of the year. The down side is, he'd likely be away from home for 3 of those 4 months. But, we could make it work, for sure.
That said, I know we're lucky--engineers are one of the few groups where experience/age doesn't count against you so much. When DH took his current job 3 years ago, he was north of 50, and had companies fighting over him. Plus, we have a cushion if we need it. Others aren't so fortunate.
Ironic! My husband is a nuclear engineer who was laid off after 30 years of work. In his experience, age definitely counts against engineers. The engineers in this area seem to have an "expiration date", and it seems to be 50-55. He's seen it happen to the older guys, and now it's happened to him.