Retirement planning: Six myths, busted

Retirement planning can be complicated – the wants and needs that need to be accommodated in our retirement years vary from person to person, so it's hard to get sound advice. Still, there are certain myths about retirement that persist. Here are six of the most common, along with helpful tips and tools for taking some of the guesswork out of retirement planning. 

3. Myth: The typical retirement is a 30-year vacation

Andrew Wardlow/The News Herald/AP/File
A man takes a stroll along the beach at St. Andrews State Park in Panama City Beach, Fla.

For a number of reasons, the concept of stopping work completely somewhere around your mid-60s is quickly becoming outdated. For one, people are typically living longer. In 1935, the year Social Security was established, life expectancy for men in the US was about 60, for women, it was about 64. In 2011. it was about 77 for men and about 81 for women. That means Social Security, pension, and other retirement benefits have to be spread a lot thinner than they once were.

“Living for 30 years or even longer without an earned income is impossible,” Rick Edelman, a financial planner, told The Guardian in February. “Even if all you earn [is] $20,000 a year [in your later years], that’s going to have a huge impact on prolonging the lifespan of your money.”

What’s more, a growing number of Americans over age 50 expect to keep working well into their retirement years. In an Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll conducted last year, 82 percent of workers 50 and older said that it was at least “somewhat likely” that they would work for pay in retirement.  Forty-seven percent of the study’s respondents also said they expect to retire later than they thought they would at age 40.

Still, the rise of part-time and contract work in the US over the past decade or so means there are plenty of varied opportunities for retirees who want to cut back, but not leave the workforce entirely.

3 of 6

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.