Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Some people just have that dog in them despite being worth $5M or $20M or $100M or whatever.
Yes. I am the first woman on either side of my family to have a graduate degree and I'd like to leave lots of money to future generations. It's a ego thing, I freely admit it.
How could that feed your ego? Your descendants won't care. They'll just take it. You'll be forgotten quicker than you can imagine.
It feeds my ego to be an executive rather than a retired old lady.
That is so sad.
Why? I do volunteer work I find meaningful, I travel, I have friends. No grandchildren yet. Why the judgment? It’s better to spend all day every day doing what you want and indulging yourself?
But you said the most meaningful thing in your life is your corporate job. All the other stuff makes you an "old lady". I think it's sad that being an older woman without a corporate job isnt enough. A woman in her 50s or 60s should be able to find her value in volunteering, travel, friends, family, hobbies, that is enough. It is sad to me that people bought the corporate kool aid about needing to keep working to be valuable.
Anonymous wrote:Read the other thread about what people that retired with that NW are doing in retirement. Not that inspiring.
If you like your job and have the ability to lean into work life balance while you continue to earn, live well and save, I see no reason to retire yet.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Some people just have that dog in them despite being worth $5M or $20M or $100M or whatever.
Yes. I am the first woman on either side of my family to have a graduate degree and I'd like to leave lots of money to future generations. It's a ego thing, I freely admit it.
How could that feed your ego? Your descendants won't care. They'll just take it. You'll be forgotten quicker than you can imagine.
It feeds my ego to be an executive rather than a retired old lady.
That is so sad.
Why? I do volunteer work I find meaningful, I travel, I have friends. No grandchildren yet. Why the judgment? It’s better to spend all day every day doing what you want and indulging yourself?
But you said the most meaningful thing in your life is your corporate job. All the other stuff makes you an "old lady". I think its sad that being an older woman without a corporate job isnt enough. A woman in her 50s or 60s should be able to find her value in volunteering, travel, friends, family, hobbies, that is enough. It is sad to me that people bought the corporate kool aid about needing to keep working to be valuable.
WTF, the only thing I am good for is volunteering, travel, friends, family, hobbies?
You do you, but don’t tell me what’s important for me or what “should” be enough.
What does it matter to you that I am still working? What is wrong with you?
Anonymous wrote:I think it’s weird that so many are working for generational wealth. Future generations will not know you or care about you, and your money will be gone quicker than you can imagine.
Not trying to be a jerk, but every wealth study shows that large inheritances are quickly separated and spent by indulged kids who didn’t work for the money, don’t understand how to make it, and feel undermined by it.
Think about it: if most people work because it’s a necessity and later because they’re good at something, a big inheritance just stops many from even trying.
This isn’t to say that you can’t help your kids, but doing everything for them and your grandchildren before they even try isn’t really a gift; it’s about you showing them how great you are.
Anonymous wrote:I’m 54 and there. I’m not ready to retire yet but have cut back on my hours by 1/3rd.
We plan on retiring in the next 2-6 years. I really like what I do and am fortunate to be able to do a few days a month if I want. So my idea of retirement is working 1/3rd of full time.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Some people just have that dog in them despite being worth $5M or $20M or $100M or whatever.
Yes. I am the first woman on either side of my family to have a graduate degree and I'd like to leave lots of money to future generations. It's a ego thing, I freely admit it.
How could that feed your ego? Your descendants won't care. They'll just take it. You'll be forgotten quicker than you can imagine.
It feeds my ego to be an executive rather than a retired old lady.
That is so sad.
Why? I do volunteer work I find meaningful, I travel, I have friends. No grandchildren yet. Why the judgment? It’s better to spend all day every day doing what you want and indulging yourself?
But you said the most meaningful thing in your life is your corporate job. All the other stuff makes you an "old lady". I think its sad that being an older woman without a corporate job isnt enough. A woman in her 50s or 60s should be able to find her value in volunteering, travel, friends, family, hobbies, that is enough. It is sad to me that people bought the corporate kool aid about needing to keep working to be valuable.
Anonymous wrote:I think it’s weird that so many are working for generational wealth. Future generations will not know you or care about you, and your money will be gone quicker than you can imagine.
Not trying to be a jerk, but every wealth study shows that large inheritances are quickly separated and spent by indulged kids who didn’t work for the money, don’t understand how to make it, and feel undermined by it.
Think about it: if most people work because it’s a necessity and later because they’re good at something, a big inheritance just stops many from even trying.
This isn’t to say that you can’t help your kids, but doing everything for them and your grandchildren before they even try isn’t really a gift; it’s about you showing them how great you are.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I quit my teaching job when we hit $5m. I just couldn't put in another 5 years. We pay out of pocket for insurance for 3, while my DH is on Medicare.
Your DH is old enough for medicare and you still have TWO kids on your health insurance?? Wow.
Can't kids be on health insurance until 26 or something? When can you get Medicare? 62? 65? It doesn't seem that bad to me.
65. And yes, 26. So youngest age is 39 to become that parent.
It's not too bad for a man, but is a pretty bad idea for a woman.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I quit my teaching job when we hit $5m. I just couldn't put in another 5 years. We pay out of pocket for insurance for 3, while my DH is on Medicare.
Your DH is old enough for medicare and you still have TWO kids on your health insurance?? Wow.
Can't kids be on health insurance until 26 or something? When can you get Medicare? 62? 65? It doesn't seem that bad to me.
Anonymous wrote:I’m 55 and probably at the peak of my career. I have launched a program that will take 3-5 years to be fully realized, after that I can pass it off to someone else and retire. Kids are still in high school annd I want to maintain great health benefits for one kid who has a lot of medical issues. Also, much of the wealth is new to us (dead parents) so it just doesn’t seem real. I still economize, despite our net worth being around 9m if I add it up.