Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I think it is a bit specific to individual people, but the period between having little kids and retiring is a good proxy.
My sister and I are two years apart in age. But, she had her last kid at 29 and I had my last kid at 43. She is now an empty nester and I have a 3 year old. We are both middle aged, but our middle age looks very different. She spent a few hours babysitting for me a couple of months ago and she needed a nap afterwards. She is probably in better shape than me because she has more time to work out, but mentally she is no longer able to tolerate the tedium of little kids that I deal with every day. In that sense, I am not yet middle aged because I can’t move on to that mental stage yet while my sister can embrace it.
That's not how it works. At 46, you are middle-aged. It's not dependant on how old your kids are. Having your kids late simply means you had your kids late. It has nothing to do with the stage of life you are in.
My uncle is 91 and has a much younger girlfriend of 86. He travels, jogs, hits the gym, lives on the beach in California, golfs, dances, travels a lot. He only retired at 80. He has no plans to die. I don’t consider him elderly at all.