"Retirement"

[QueenIsabella]

Wow. Just wow. Insult much?

It is evident from the replies on this thread that people have different ideas of what "retirement" is. I know what MY idea of retirement is. Apparently, it is different for different people.

Well, I have no idea if you're very new to the workplace--very young, maybe from a foreign country, or have some other reason why the concept of "retirement" might be new to you. Most people wouldn't even think of considering leaving a job to be retiring. You also didn't seem to grasp the concept of "putting in your time", which to most people means working until vested, or until accruing a pension and benefits (such as the military). If these terms are unfamiliar to you, you might want to learn more about them--eventually, everyone hopes to retire.

 

[DizBelle]

Good luck with this. I can't believe that the OP is actually an adult. She seems to be deliberately obtuse.

But then, maybe I'm not "discussing" by her rules.

FTR, I use SAHM, even though my youngest is 10. Theoretically, I could go back to work, but every time I glance in the direction of a part-time job, it seems, DH has yet another work emergency that requires very long hours, sleeping over at the plant, travel, or something. And we're once again reminded that having a parent who's available, if under-utilized, is a necessity.

I also wanted to mention that yes, pensions do still exists at some companies. Also, in the corporate world, "vesting"--being entitled to all retirement benefits--usually occurs after 5 years (10 years if you're GE). Quitting after vesting STILL doesn't mean the same thing as retiring.

Wow again. More insults. Although, I have to say I'm becoming less and less surprised at how insulting it gets here.

 

[Kitty 34]

For what it's worth; my definition of retirement is having put in the time at a job/career that now either pays you pension or you can draw from a 401K. Both DH and I are finally retired after 30 some years. We live off the money we have invested and now just work around the house!

 

[DizBelle]

a discussion is not just agreeing with your point of view. I still don't get it - snarky



No 1 year does not vest you in a retirement system. Retirement from one job does not preclude you from working another. I can retire collect my pension from my primary career then go become a Walmart greeter. I am still retired

If you leave after a year it is called quitting

I don't care if someone agrees with me or not. But insulting someone while disagreeing with them is uncalled for.

You could be vested after 1 year if the vesting structure is set up that way.

 

[NHdisneylover]

I don't care if someone agrees with me or not. But insulting someone while disagreeing with them is uncalled for.

You could be vested after 1 year if the vesting structure is set up that way.

To more fully address your OP----"retired" is one of many words which commonly has more than one meaning---and the vast majority of people can deduce which meaning you are using based on context.

I assumed the thread was started in reaction to the WWYD retirenment thread in which that OP explains she can retire a month earlier than planned and then start working for her husband.

So, in that case---she is retiring from a career in which she has invested considerable time and apparently also will receive a pension once she retires---but not from working all together.


"retired" can also mean---not working at all, or only limited hours and more for fun. This is most often the case when the inevitable "what do you do" question comes up and the answer is "I'm retired"

Similarly, from contexr---virtually any native English speaker would have interpreted the "put in their time" comment to indicate many years of work. I am not sure why that context is missing for you---and i don't think it is wrong/bad that you misunderstood. It really did come across to me like you were intentionally being obtuse---and that is what I think people were reacting to, and then you got very upset at those reaciotns. --- your line at the bottom of your respone to that, about people not wanting to discuss on a message board, was actually the rudest thing I have seen on the thread. Perhaps, that is based on you missing some context again? Maybe see if you can step back and look for context and larger meanings before getting so worked up? Or just ask what you are missing?

 

[DizBelle]

To more fully address your OP----"retired" is one of many words which commonly has more than one meaning---and the vast majority of people can deduce which meaning you are using based on context.

I assumed the thread was started in reaction to the WWYD retirenment thread in which that OP explains she can retire a month earlier than planned and then start working for her husband.

So, in that case---she is retiring from a career in which she has invested considerable time and apparently also will receive a pension once she retires---but not from working all together.


"retired" can also mean---not working at all, or only limited hours and more for fun. This is most often the case when the inevitable "what do you do" question comes up and the answer is "I'm retired"

Similarly, from contexr---virtually any native English speaker would have interpreted the "put in their time" comment to indicate many years of work. I am not sure why that context is missing for you---and i don't think it is wrong/bad that you misunderstood. It really did come across to me like you were intentionally being obtuse---and that is what I think people were reacting to, and then you got very upset at those reaciotns. --- your line at the bottom of your respone to that, about people not wanting to discuss on a message board, was actually the rudest thing I have seen on the thread. Perhaps, that is based on you missing some context again? Maybe see if you can step back and look for context and larger meanings before getting so worked up? Or just ask what you are missing?

I would say that suggesting the post is a joke and trying to shut down the discussion is not wanting to discuss. I don't think it was rude. It was just an observation.

I didn't get upset over anything in this thread. I welcome rational and logical posts. As for the other nonsense and insults, I just laugh and call them out for what they are - insults.

 

[Marchand63]

I don't care if someone agrees with me or not. But insulting someone while disagreeing with them is uncalled for.

You could be vested after 1 year if the vesting structure is set up that way.

First I would love for you to tell me one corporation, government agency or anywhere that a person is vested in 1 year. You can't because it doesn't exist. Paying into a retirement system is not being vested immediately, it usually takes years to be vested.

I see no insults. You seem to be just want to be argumentative. If someone says white you will say black.

 

[DizBelle]

First I would love for you to tell me one corporation, government agency or anywhere that a person is vested in 1 year. You can't because it doesn't exist.

I see no insults. You seem to be just want to be argumentative. If someone says white you will say black.

I didn't say that any actually exists. However, they can exist. I'm not aware of any rules or laws that say a company can't have vesting structure of 1 year. As far as I know, a company can set it up however they want. If you know of such a law that dictates how vesting structures have to be, please let me know.

Calling me a child and deliberately obtuse are insulting.

If someone says white and the evidence says black, then I'll say black.

What we've got here is a word (retirement) that seems to mean different things to different people. There's nothing wrong with that.

 

[Marchand63]

Okay

BLACK

NOW GO!!!!

 

[RedAngie]

In that case, I was retired for most of my adult life, and have now returned to the work force...

(I've rarely ever been paid for the work I've done.)

That's good. "Un-retiring" is a viable option.

 

[wvjules]

You could be vested after 1 year if the vesting structure is set up that way.

First I would love for you to tell me one corporation, government agency or anywhere that a person is vested in 1 year. You can't because it doesn't exist. Paying into a retirement system is not being vested immediately, it usually takes years to be vested.

I didn't say that any actually exists. However, they can exist. I'm not aware of any rules or laws that say a company can't have vesting structure of 1 year. As far as I know, a company can set it up however they want. If you know of such a law that dictates how vesting structures have to be, please let me know.

HUH???

Also - Yes, a person can be vested after one year. However it is typically only vested at 20%. Most plans have a 5 year cliff and vesting is 20% after one year up to 100% vested after 5 years.
And there are laws set up so that a company can't "set it up however they want". That's how a lot of people lost their pensions many years ago. They worked and worked and worked and never became vested. That is against the law now. There are rules set in place to make sure employees don't get screwed out of their pension plans.

 

[robinb]

Is it really "retirement" if you going to start another job?

I you receive retirement benefits from your old job then yes, it's "retirement".

 

[Missy1961]

First I would love for you to tell me one corporation, government agency or anywhere that a person is vested in 1 year. You can't because it doesn't exist. Paying into a retirement system is not being vested immediately, it usually takes years to be vested.

I see no insults. You seem to be just want to be argumentative. If someone says white you will say black.

My first job. Of course, I started working there in 1983, and 1 year later, I was vested in the profit sharing plan. But you're correct, almost no company, etc. does that anymore.

OP, I think you're being a bit sensitive here. I don't think anyone is trying to be insulting to you. They're just trying to figure out why you're asking the question. Which is often part of a conversation.

 

[Magpie]

That's good. "Un-retiring" is a viable option.

But by some definitions, I'm still retired since I work for myself, part-time.

Although, there's been the whole "stay-at-home-mom" thing, the "homeschooling mom" thing, the "novelist" thing, the "crafter/artist" thing, the "tutor" thing, etc... It's always awkward at my husband's office parties when people ask me, "So, where do you work?" I'd tell them I'm retired, but I think my husband would be jealous if I officially retired before him.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

If someone retires from the military at 38 only to start another full-time job, I don't really consider them "retired". When my dad retired from teaching at 57 and started drawing his pension, I considered him retired even though he took a part time job (that he could have quit any time he wanted).

 

[jt'smom]

I think of "retirement" as the time when someone leaves their job and starts drawing social security benefits. Because no one in my family, including parents, and other relatives, worked for companies that had pensions, they relied on their 401Ks and personal savings and investments. My mother, for example, "retired" at 65 and started collecting social security, but continued to work part time for the extra income up to the limit she could without losing SS. I considered her retired, but like many older Americans, simply in a situation where she needed additional income on top of what was available to her from SS and 401K, to meet her financial needs.

And as a side note OP, you do seem kind of argumentative for the sake of being argumentative. I just assume you are in a mood to do a little pot stirring, lol.

 

[powellrj]

My DS retired from his job in May only to start a new one the next week. He is considered retired from his old job because he is on retiree insurance and gets a pension from it. The new job is less hours and much easier so its more like a part-time job.

 

[aprilgail]

I don't think so... When I'm retired I will report to ZERO...count them...ZERO bosses. I will do whatever I want for the day on a whim if I feel like it. That is when I will officially be retired (if the day ever comes).

I did that for a year when I retired- then went back to work part time doing something I liked.

I always think of retiring from a job as putting in x amount of years usually somewhere between 20 and 30 and getting some sort of retirement pension.

I worked 30 years at a job I didn't like- stayed because the pay was decent but the benefits and pension were what kept me. I now have paid health care for the rest of my life, on the first of the month my pension is deposited right into my checking account and it basically amounts to more than my take home pay when I worked there since I no longer pay state tax, union dues, retirement tax etc. I took a year off and now work part time doing something I love- so its a win-win for me. I still consider myself retired, I put in my time and collect a pension.

 

[Hikergirl]

To me retiring means ceasing to work after a lifetime of working.

 

[DizBelle]

My first job. Of course, I started working there in 1983, and 1 year later, I was vested in the profit sharing plan. But you're correct, almost no company, etc. does that anymore.

OP, I think you're being a bit sensitive here. I don't think anyone is trying to be insulting to you. They're just trying to figure out why you're asking the question. Which is often part of a conversation.

I asked the question to see what other people think. It really is that simple. No ulterior motives.