Talk:Retirement/Archive 1

Untitled comments
Whomever wrote this is obviously not even close to reitrement age! F. Lee Horn


 * Well, then, fix up whatever's wrong with it. I haven't written the whole thing, but I did do some work on it, and I've still got a very long way to go till retirement :) --Robert Merkel

I will help with it as soon as I can. Technically, I was "retired" from the US Army because a parachuting accident disabled me, but I still work at a wide variety of things. :) F. Lee Horn

Is conquer a noun? Lorraine Lee

Where are the "political leanings" that 24.170.136.148 indicates?

Rewording
I changed this,
 * "While most view 65 as normal retirement age, most Americans retire before then, mainly due to job-loss, disability or wealth."

to this,
 * "In the United States, while most view 65 as normal retirement age, many retire before then, sometimes with contributory causes such as job-loss, disability or wealth."

The first sentence implies that most Americans experience either "job-loss, disability or wealth." --Bookandcoffee 04:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

"Many scientists, lawyers, TV anchormen and professors still work well into their 70s." That's a kind of silly sentence.

forced retirement
Someone should add something on forced retirement such as when the law specifies a maximum working age for specific professions (police, fire, etc.) or when a employee forces their older employees to retire before they are ready. --Cab88 13:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

"musicians only work until their 30s"? I do not think so!
I disagree with this statement, because firstly it is too general (this varies by the genre of music) and there are plenty of active musicians in their 50s and beyond, such as Valery Gergiev, Colin Davis, Mstislav Rostropovich (deceased), and Murray Perahia. Would somebody please revise this statement, with evidence! I agree with the above tag. --Svm2 11:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Those who blow their dough before it's time to go
You mention careful financial planning. Say what happens to those who blew their dough too fast; those who miscalculated and ended up living longer than planned and their money ran out or whatever happens in such cases. Jidanni 23:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Monte Carlo
I removed a section and source relating to Monte Carlo calculator because the source does not meet WP:RS. There have been no articles about or quoting the author or the website that I can find, the website has very few links, traffic or references, and the owner himself says he's not a financial planner. Please only add the edits or website back when it achieves notability or provide links and articles that show it already has (i.e. quoted in an article like this: http://www.businessweek.com/1999/99_29/b3638002.htm). Flowanda | Talk 08:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Any discussion of retirement planning calculators that doesn't include Monte Carlo Simulation is incomplete. Here are a couple of sources from a quick google search http://www.businessweek.com/2001/01_04/b3716156.htm and http://www.nysscpa.org/cpajournal/2007/907/essentials/p56.htm and http://www.capitalspectator.com/WM/2007/03/a_sure_bet_1.html. Also, here's a reference to demonstrate WP:RS http://www.smallcapinvestor.com/articles/personal_finance/retirement_planning/10/19/2006/retirment_planning Magellan nh (talk) 15:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but the info and source you keep adding are not notable and don't meet the requirements of WP:RS; two of the websites you list are obviously non-notable; the other two do not mention your website at all. At best, any section discussing this information could include the businessweek article as a source, but not your website. Flowanda | Talk 07:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * First, thanks for not undoing the changes while we discuss this. Your earlier comments seemed to show a lack of expertise on the subject and I thought the links above would bring you up to speed.  They were chosen for their information content as much as their notability.  This is a rather esoteric subject and notability is relative.  So hopefully we're done debating whether Monte Carlo Simulation belongs in the article.  Next, the section in question is called "Calculations using actual numbers", so it seems reasonable to include references to relevant tools (and noncommercial free tools seem better than expensive ones).  So now we're left with your concern that this one tool doesn't meet WP:RS.  I provided a couple of references from reasonable sites but that hasn't convinced you.  The calculator was also featured in the Motley Fool retirement newsletter and the IndexInvestor newsletter, but you can't view those articles without a subscription.  Clearly, the reference improves the article overall and has been in the article for well over a year without anyone else questioning it.  Is there a different Monte Carlo calculator that you have used that we could reference instead that would make the article stronger? Magellan nh (talk) 16:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy 591/2 Birthday!
"Happy 59½ Birthday™ | Welcome to the Penalty-Free Zone!™"

This seems like a questionable reference—more of an ad, if you ask me, so I've removed it. If I'm wrong, feel free to revert. myrmidon (talk) 14:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Ambiguous "This"
In the first few lines of the introduction "This usually happens upon reaching", this seems like it might refer to "semi-retirement" in the preceding sentence. Maybe the "preceding sentence" was added after the quoted portion was written. I leave it to others more involved with this article to reword it if they see merit in my comment. Fholson 12:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought
That retirement is also a hurricane name that either caused a lot of deaths, a lot of damage, or both. Weatherlover819 (talk) 07:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Retirement calculations
It seems that a lot of people Google 'retirement calculator' and probably they search for it on Wikipedia too. Today I added paragraphs, inclusing math, giving some guidance to people wanting some reassurance before perhaps basing their life on one of those useful but worrying black boxes. Comments welcome.--Keith1952 (talk) 15:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

good topic to discuss,but we want more opinion and view for retired people to know real feeling and life after retirement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.79.30.46 (talk) 15:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

"Size of lump sum you need: Is a million enough?"
What kind of section title is that? Who is like God? (talk) 14:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)