# Retire Early and Live Longer



## Belguy

Too much stress in your life? Is your job making you sick? Read on:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...-you-may-live-a-little-longer/article1949952/

Any thoughts of comments?


----------



## Guest

Belguy said:


> Too much stress in your life? Is your job making you sick? Read on:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...-you-may-live-a-little-longer/article1949952/
> 
> Any thoughts of comments?


From the article ... "The Canadian results don’t contradict the notion “that individuals tend to take on behaviours that are harmful to their health when economic conditions are good,” the authors said." ... which says in the context of retirement, the more money you have in retirement, the more likely you are to take on harmful behaviors ... hmmm ... what to do ... as if


----------



## brad

Seems like the main message is that when people lose their jobs they have more time for exercise, get more sleep, and are less likely to resort to alcohol and risky behaviours to alleviate stress.

It's possible for some people to exercise more and get more sleep even when working a demanding job, just by shifting priorities and cutting out extracurricular activities that keep them up too late or that prevent them from making time for exercise. So I don't think these findings argue for early retirement per se; rather they point to things we could do during our working lives to improve our health and life expectancy so we are better able to enjoy our retirement years.


----------



## Brian K

Well - I retired a year and a half ago at 53 when the company restructured and I got an offer I couldn't refuse.
Since then I have started to work out twice a week for about 2 hours, started to watch my blood pressure more regularly (with a personal monitor) and do something about it, monitor PSA etc. - oh yes and walk the dog twice a day for 1/2 hour each walk. So I tell people my job now is to take care of me - something I just didn't do when working because I spent so much time trying to do the best I could at work at the expense of my health and I knew it. I heard about "Work/life balance" but it was just a catch phrase and not my reality.
So from my perspective -I have wayyy less stress now and if 'stress = a shorter life', I vote for early retirement (if you can afford it).
Apparently Shell did a study and the conclusion was that for every year under 65 that you retire, you tend to add that year onto the average age of death. 
My 2 cents


----------



## Square Root

I am much healthier since retirement. Lost 24 lbs(off for 3 years now), blood pressure declined to 110/78, cholestrol and all other blood tests much improved, averaging 300 strenuous workouts per year since retirement, getting more and better sleep. Better health seems to be a real benefit of retirement in my experience.


----------



## HaroldCrump

Let alone the retired folks - as a much younger person, the best health I've enjoyed at any time during my working years was a brief period of time a few years ago when I was working exclusively from home.

For a period of about 8 months, I worked entirely at home.
I was working almost 10 hrs. a day but I was still able to find time to work out twice a day, eat healthy home-prepared meals, read, etc.
I got my weight down and everyone would tell me that I looked 5 to 8 years younger.

I was able to pace my work i.e. worked 3 hrs. took an hr break, then another 3 hrs. and break, and so on.
I was able to split my meals across 4 - 5 smaller portions rather than gouging 3 large meals a day, as we tend to do.
During my breaks, I either worked out at the gym or read or stretch or whatever else.

Alas, those days are only distant memories now.

There is no doubt whatsoever that retiring (or even substantially reducing work hrs.) must have a profound impact on health and wellness.


----------



## brad

HaroldCrump said:


> Let alone the retired folks - as a much younger person, the best health I've enjoyed at any time during my working years was a brief period of time a few years ago when I was working exclusively from home.


I've been working at home since 1992 and despite a generally heavy workload (lots of 70-hour weeks) I agree that I'm in a lot better shape than I'd be if I worked in an office during all this time. Plus as you say it allows you to cook your own meals, exercise at home whenever the opportunity arises, etc. The downside is isolation, but on the other hand it's good to be mostly free of office politics.

However, I still think the key isn't so much "retirement" but keeping busy with things you enjoy doing. My role model is a friend of mine who's 73 and has never retired; he recently went back to school and started a new career. He's in great physical and mental shape, works out daily, is a runner, and has the body of a 30-year old athlete. In addition to his job he has a very busy social and extracurricular life with teaching, going out with his wife to shows and concerts several times a week, etc. -- he's living life to the fullest and has never slowed down.


----------



## HaroldCrump

New study : cutting your work hrs. in half improves productivity

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/good-news/less-success-successful-people-4-hours-day-182803282.html


----------



## brad

The company that wrote Rework (http://37signals.com/rework/) instituted a four-day workweek and they've found the same thing: people are much more focused and productive when they have less time to get everything done.


----------



## the-royal-mail

There is NO doubt that herding tremendous crowds of people into congested downtown areas is detrimental to the quality of their lives. It is completely unnecessary there days, but as long as the establishment insists on ramming their "teamwork" rhetoric down the throats of rank and file employees, there is no hope of change. They see no benefit to improving the quality of lives, happiness and productivity. They would rather "see" staff at work and sitting in cube farms ("part of the team") where they can monitor every move. The argument against working at home is pure rhetoric, nothing more.

This is also why there's no parking downtown, lineups at every restaurant and coffee shop during break and lunch hours and traffic congestion in the morning and afternoon.


----------



## andrewf

TRM: doesn't play well with others. 

Believe it or not, some people like it downtown. I appreciate being able to walk everywhere (not that I'm a huge fan of downtown living).


----------



## Four Pillars

andrewf said:


> TRM: doesn't play well with others.
> 
> Believe it or not, some people like it downtown. I appreciate being able to walk everywhere (not that I'm a huge fan of downtown living).


+1 Downtown works very well for me too.

Like most normal humans - I'm adaptable. Downtown, suburbs, country - I think I'd be just as happy/unhappy either way.


----------



## MoneyGal

+2

Maybe I'm just a sheeple. Who knows? I'm about to take my lunch break and walk next door for an amazing coffee. 

Or maybe I won't walk to that coffee shop but one of the other half-dozen independent coffee shops within a 10-minute walk from my office. 

But I could just stay here; the exposed brick walls - here in this renovated piano factory - are lovely and I like my peers. Plus the sunshine is streaming through our abundant windows. I'll probably hit the lunch room and socialize for a bit before I go out...or I could take my lunch to our enclosed courtyard for some greenery. 

Or I could wait for my coffee and get it at any one of the shops I cycle by on my brief but invigorating ride home. Hmmm. The options for me to get what I want seem endless!


----------



## brad

I've been working at home since about 1994, and there are definitely times I wished I worked downtown -- it can get very isolating. I only see my colleagues once every few years (my last trip to the home office was in August 2009) and I manage entire teams of people whom I've never met. I've been working closely with one colleague since 1999 and we still haven't met face to face. I've gotten used to it, and I don't miss the office politics, but overall I'd prefer to be around people.

Many jobs cannot be performed at home, and not everyone is cut out for working at home. I have colleagues who tried working at home for a few months or years and then went back to the office. Claiming that "the argument against working at home is pure rhetoric, nothing more" doesn't resonate with my experience.


----------



## Square Root

We have a condo downtown and it is great. Over 100 restaurants within walking distance. Traffic downtown isn't too bad it's the drive to/from the burbs that's the issue. Don't drive much when in town anyway. Used to walk to work in 5 minutes.


----------



## hystat

this urban/rural lifestyle preference thing is just personal choice...

but this comment is very valid:


the-royal-mail said:


> There is NO doubt that herding tremendous crowds of people into congested downtown areas is detrimental to the quality of their lives. It is completely unnecessary there days, but as long as the establishment insists on ramming their "teamwork" rhetoric down the throats of rank and file employees,


There is a LOT of unnecessary urban congestion.... people going to sit at a desk or cube to do what they could very easily do better at home.


----------



## the-royal-mail

Thanks hystat. Also the cost of fancy clothes, gas and oil changes in the car, wear and tear on the car, parking expense, higher risk of catching something from all the people who sit around you and cough all day long, higher risk of car accident, pollution/environmental damage caused by all those cars and buses etc etc.


----------



## HaroldCrump

On days that fate takes me in the direction of Union Station, Toronto, I cannot help but marvel at the sea of humanity rushing and running over each other trying to catch the 4:39 to somewhere or the 5:17 to somewhere.

Everyone is over-stressed, over-dressed, and overwhelmed by their own helplessness.


----------



## Four Pillars

HaroldCrump said:


> ...
> 
> Everyone is over-stressed, over-dressed, and overwhelmed by their own helplessness.


And you know this for a fact?


----------



## MoneyGal

Four Pillars, just step away. Clearly, as a downtown dweller and worker, you are too overstressed and helpless to even be able to *evaluate* the extent of your stress and helplessness. In fact, I'm not even sure how I'm able to muster the wherewithal to type!


----------



## Jungle

HaroldCrump said:


> On days that fate takes me in the direction of Union Station, Toronto, I cannot help but marvel at the sea of humanity rushing and running over each other trying to catch the 4:39 to somewhere or the 5:17 to somewhere.
> 
> Everyone is over-stressed, over-dressed, and overwhelmed by their own helplessness.


Well they are the 905'ers that are trying to catch their train to the burbs. (not toronto burbs) The commute is brutal and consumes like 2-3 hours of their day alone. 

When they exit the train, you can see grown adults in suits, SPRINTING to their cars in the GO Train parking lots, because it takes 10 minutes to get out of parking lot as it clogs up!

I always said that once that GO Train lets out, it's like diarrhea. The discharged just goes everywhere and makes quite a clogging mess.


----------



## the-royal-mail

You are correct jungle. But I think what Harold and I are trying to point out is the absurdity of the whole situation. It's completely unnecessary for the majority of computer white collar jobs to be located in the locations most poorly suited for their presense. Spread out and locate these companies in places people actually want to live in. The volume of people on those trains and on the highway should make pretty clear where people enjoy living and raising families. White collar companies should follow suit. No need for people to "SPRINT" and fight for an inch of space.


----------



## Four Pillars

MoneyGal said:


> Four Pillars, just step away. Clearly, as a downtown dweller and worker, you are too overstressed and helpless to even be able to *evaluate* the extent of your stress and helplessness. In fact, I'm not even sure how I'm able to muster the wherewithal to type!


Lol. 

Funny thing is that Harold's description of Union Station is not inaccurate. 

My point is that even if someone's commute (or part of) sucks - that doesn't mean their entire life is hell.

Also - the big city/small city divide is not that clear to me. Someone reading TRMs fantasy posts might think that Toronto is Gotham City (or worse) where every single person is unhappy and that every city outside Toronto (that isn't too big) is some sort of Shangri-la where birds tweet in perfect harmony, people work from home and everyone has their three tiers of savings topped up.


----------



## brad

the-royal-mail said:


> The volume of people on those trains and on the highway should make pretty clear where people enjoy living and raising families.


Or it could have something to do with the fact that house prices in the suburbs might be half those of comparable dwellings downtown. I know plenty of people who would love to live in the city but can't afford it; living in the burbs works for them even if you consider all the money and time they spend on transport.


----------



## Square Root

HaroldCrump said:


> On days that fate takes me in the direction of Union Station, Toronto, I cannot help but marvel at the sea of humanity rushing and running over each other trying to catch the 4:39 to somewhere or the 5:17 to somewhere.
> 
> Everyone is over-stressed, over-dressed, and overwhelmed by their own helplessness.


Speak for yourself. Urbanization is here to stay. Just ask the Chinese.


----------



## the-royal-mail

Square Root:

Harold most certainly doesn't speak just for himself. Urbanization is the cause of numerous problems as have been clearly outlined in this thread. There is absolutely no reason all those people need to crowd into such congested areas where there is no room and we've explained why in great detail. Your brief post completely ignores everything that has been said on the topic.


----------



## HaroldCrump

Yes, China is a good example.
Cities like Shanghai are becoming huge, integrated metropolis.

But just because it is happening doesn't mean it is desirable from a sustainability perspective.

Rampant urbanization creates many more problems than it solves.
Late developing countries like China, India, Brazil, etc. are not best able to deal with such problems, compared to how traditionally developed countries of Europe and North America (US & Canada) are.
Therefore, it is worse for them than it is for us.


----------



## MoneyGal

the-royal-mail said:


> There is absolutely no reason all those people need to crowd into such congested areas where there is no room and we've explained why in great detail. Your brief post completely ignores everything that has been said on the topic.


I can't hear you over the sound of whoosing traffic and crying babies. 

Oh wait, that isn't my reality at all.


----------



## loggedout

Interesting essay on cities and ambition, that sums up a feeling I had about the benefit of cities that I couldn't quite describe myself. Here are some excerpts:

http://www.paulgraham.com/cities.html


"Great cities attract ambitious people. You can sense it when you walk around one. In a hundred subtle ways, the city sends you a message: you could do more; you should try harder."

....


"When you talk about cities in the sense we are, what you're really talking about is collections of people. For a long time cities were the only large collections of people, so you could use the two ideas interchangeably. But we can see how much things are changing from the examples I've mentioned. New York is a classic great city. But Cambridge is just part of a city, and Silicon Valley is not even that. (San Jose is not, as it sometimes claims, the capital of Silicon Valley. It's just 178 square miles at one end of it.)

Maybe the Internet will change things further. Maybe one day the most important community you belong to will be a virtual one, and it won't matter where you live physically. But I wouldn't bet on it. The physical world is very high bandwidth, and some of the ways cities send you messages are quite subtle."


----------



## Square Root

Interesting Loggedout. Perhaps a little sophisticated for this group though.


----------



## cannon_fodder

I'm sorry. I thought this was a thread about retiring early and living longer (and hopefully better). Since I'm thinking of retiring next year (still a few years from turning 50) would someone kindly direct me to the relevant discussion?

Thank you.


----------



## hystat

loggedout said:


> "Great cities attract ambitious people. You can sense it when you walk around one. In a hundred subtle ways, the city sends you a message: you could do more; you should try harder."


a few years ago, I recall standing in New York looking at some apartment buildings across the street from central park. They had razor wire along the 2nd floor balconies. 
2nd floor! cities do attract ambitious people.


----------



## MoneyGal

Hystat: that may well have been for pigeons, not people.


----------



## brad

MoneyGal said:


> Hystat: that may well have been for pigeons, not people.


If it's New York, it's probably for people. New York City is in a class by itself when it comes to crime. I remember walking through a residential section of Queens a few years ago, lots of nice-looking houses with little yards, but every house had prison-style heavy metal bars over the first-floor windows, and some had the bars over the second-floor windows as well.

In the 1980s and maybe even today you had to be very careful where you left your car at night: people would come in the middle of the night and remove your wheels and everything else of value. It happened to a few friends of mine in the city, and whenever I went to the city I'd see pillaged cars on the streets. When stores close in NY City, they pull out sliding metal grids to protect the doors and windows from thieves and vandals.

But New York is the exception, not the rule.


----------



## I'm Howard

I know many Friends who retired, some early some not, and in many cases when every day was Saturday, they got bored and frustrated.

Some work the Summers on the Golf Courses for minimum wage and free golf, others returned to part time jobs, a Lawyer we know continued to work into his seventies, his body was found slumped over his desk.

Retirement is good, but it must be meaningful retirement, you don't want to e an old fart meeting your buddies at Tim Hortons.


----------



## loggedout

brad said:


> If it's New York, it's probably for people. New York City is in a class by itself when it comes to crime. I remember walking through a residential section of Queens a few years ago, lots of nice-looking houses with little yards, but every house had prison-style heavy metal bars over the first-floor windows, and some had the bars over the second-floor windows as well.
> 
> In the 1980s and maybe even today you had to be very careful where you left your car at night: people would come in the middle of the night and remove your wheels and everything else of value. It happened to a few friends of mine in the city, and whenever I went to the city I'd see pillaged cars on the streets. When stores close in NY City, they pull out sliding metal grids to protect the doors and windows from thieves and vandals.
> 
> But New York is the exception, not the rule.


There can be crime in suburban and rural areas. How likely it is and how violent it can be in an area doesn't necessarily relate to that area's population density. There's a number of other social and environmental factors that come into play, with socioeconomic status tending to be the most important factor. If you follow trends in the US, you'll notice a city like NYC with declining crime rates (in fact these days, far from its seedy 70s/80s past it is one of the safest cities in the US) and an increase in crime in small town America.

NYC isn't really a dangerous city these days. I've been to really dangerous cities (Detroit, Rio, Sao Paulo, Caracas), it's not even in the same league.


----------



## loggedout

I'm Howard said:


> Retirement is good, but it must be meaningful retirement, you don't want to e an old fart meeting your buddies at Tim Hortons.


Not everybody needs meaning. I think it depends on the person.


----------



## MoneyGal

loggedout said:


> NYC isn't really a dangerous city these days. I've been to really dangerous cities (Detroit, Rio, Sao Paulo, Caracas), it's not even in the same league.


One of my brothers has had to travel to Venezuela, Colombia and Peru many times for work - he is provided with armed guards.


----------



## Square Root

I'm Howard said:


> I know many Friends who retired, some early some not, and in many cases when every day was Saturday, they got bored and frustrated.
> 
> Some work the Summers on the Golf Courses for minimum wage and free golf, others returned to part time jobs, a Lawyer we know continued to work into his seventies, his body was found slumped over his desk.
> 
> Retirement is good, but it must be meaningful retirement, you don't want to e an old fart meeting your buddies at Tim Hortons.


Do you or any of your friends have a "meaningful retirement"? Mine is as meaningful as I want it to be.


----------



## I'm Howard

One neighbour Golf Marshall, here and in Florida, gets to Play Champion Courses without paying.

Neighbour has set himself up as Home Handy Man, does small jobs at minimal cost to retired people in this area

My S in L does Dragon Boat, also does Dog Grooming for neighbours from her home,, very active in finding homes for a breeder who no longer wishes to breed the animal, also Battered Womans Shelter, local Hospital, and Ronald McDonald House(obviously Single).

Moi, active DIY Investor, look after Family monies,sort of a golfer, Hiker, active Gardiner.

Wife, in Florida has activities every day, but volunteers at local School to help the Teacher, primarily by working with five year olds on their reading skills.


----------



## Square Root

Thanks Howard that helps explain what you mean by meaningful. Sounds like it is mostly "keeping busy doing fun things". Under that definition I have a very meaningful retirement.


----------



## marina628

My Husband retired at 42 and after 4 months off he went back for 1-2 day a week.There are some days we get on each other 's nerves which i suppose could shorten ones life span. These days I keep him busy outside doing the yard work and he has to build a garage.Although I won't state his exact income ,we save about $300 a week by the change in the lifestyle ,less eating out ,his commute expenses and other misc expenses he had by working full time.
If you can afford it then I recommend trying it.I have no desire to retire as I work for myself and enjoy my work.I get to travel 2-3 times overseas a year meeting my clients and If I had to retire I think i would go crazy.


----------



## Karen

It's interesting that it's easy to find articles that claim we tend to live longer if we retire early and others that say the opposite - that working longer is better for longevity. I retired a little early - at 63 - and it's been a very good decision. I hadn't planned to do that because my federal government job was the only job I'd ever had with a pension plan, and I had only been there for 16 years, but I was newly remarried and my new husband was retired so I decided to retire early. As it happened, my husband only lived for four years after our marriage, so I was very grateful that I had left work when I did. We did quite a bit of travelling during those four years that wouldn't have been possible if I had stayed at work.

In any case, I think the answer to how long one should go on working depends very much on the individual; there's no simple answer for everyone.


----------



## cannon_fodder

Early retirement is a wonderful opportunity to embrace. But my wife is taking much longer to warm to the idea. 

For me it's about looking forward to doing what I want to do when I want to. And with recent successes at an investing strategy I can plan for a future where my investment income is greater than my earned income is today. 

My wife takes the position that she wants to leave behind the negative aspects of work rather than take advantage of the time to do what she wants. 

With all of the volunteering, traveling and learning possibilities I can't imagine being bored very often.


----------



## Jon_Snow

Come hell or high water I'm quitting the "rat race" by 45... whether or not I find another less taxing occupation or some part time work is up in the air. Depends on how I feel... thats the beauty about ER... you have alot of choices. Right now, during my "accumulation phase" I have no choice in whether or not I have to get up 5 am every morning. 

Bring on ER...


----------



## the-royal-mail

^ Good post by Jon Snow - I completely agree and feel the exact same way. The key is "have to" get up at 5. As you get on in years and have accumulated more capital this becomes less of a "have to" do and more on a basis of choice. You also put up with less BS.

Of course, there is the issue of pensions also. Want to make sure you don't jeopardize that. That's actually the #1 important thing to protect if you're thinking of retiring early. Someone who retires at 55 could have 30 years + of living left, if they're in good health. Need quite a bit of money saved to survive through those years. Having built up a good pension through your "have to" years will give you maximum protection.


----------



## kcowan

I think the old image of retirees sitting on the rocking chair waiting the the reaper is hopelessly out-of-date. Retiring early makes it even more likely that people will find different avocations. Whether they are paid or not is usually a reflection of the confidence of the retirees in their financial plans.

I do find the preoccupation with golf to be strange. I used to golf when it was an excuse to get the afternoon off from work. But now, spending 5 hours seems to be a waste a valuable retirement time.


----------



## Jon_Snow

TRM, I do worry about my pension if I do indeed retire as soon I want... I have a very good DB pension that would look after me very well if I worked to 55... trouble is, I don't want to. 

Its creepy to even talk about it, but I am in line for a sizable inheritance sometime down the line so that will likely more than compensate for my diminished pension.

Add to the fact that my wife LOVES her job and will likely keep working until at least 55. If my wife continues to work and I quit, am I retired or just a "kept man"?


----------



## the-royal-mail

Interesting questions, Jon. My only question is what would you DO if you stopped working now? Would you be bored after the novelty wears off, and end up hanging out in the mall food court? Remember you will lose a lot of your daily social outlet if your life turns into running errands and cleaning the house, checking the mail etc. Also remember the figures on your pension statement assume contributions until proper retirement. If you go early then the payout will be less, because the contributions were less. Also need to be careful with CPP as I believe you are required to apply when you retire, even if you don't need the $. That could impact your pmts if you go too early. Be careful, check into this.

But really I'm mostly curious about what you would do for the next 45 years. lol


----------



## Plugging Along

Jon: I think you would be considered a kept man, maybe a trophy husband, or a homemaker.


----------



## marina628

Jon and my husband can become travel buddies while we wives work lol


----------



## I'm Howard

I had a Sales Rep who was/is a very good friend, at 30 He was retiring at 40, at 40 it was going to be 50, now He is 52, and He is thinking 60, and so at 60 I have no illusions as to what He will say.

He finds his job boring, but He makes so much money He has Golden Handcuffs,a nd when the company eventuallly eases him out for a younger person He will not be happy as he will see all that money going to someone else.

The income He makes is in excesss of $700,000 a year, that is why I believe Commission Sales is the best job you can have.


----------



## loggedout

I'm Howard said:


> I had a Sales Rep who was/is a very good friend, at 30 He was retiring at 40, at 40 it was going to be 50, now He is 52, and He is thinking 60, and so at 60 I have no illusions as to what He will say.
> 
> He finds his job boring, but He makes so much money He has Golden Handcuffs,a nd when the company eventuallly eases him out for a younger person He will not be happy as he will see all that money going to someone else.
> 
> The income He makes is in excesss of $700,000 a year, that is why I believe Commission Sales is the best job you can have.


Wow. How do you get into such jobs? What are these reps selling that amounts to that much $ in commissions?


----------



## OhGreatGuru

1. The originally posted article was about a correlation between unemployment rates and life expectancy, not retirement rates and life expectancy. So most of this discussion is not relevant to the article in question, and the title of the thread is misleading.

2. In any case I have just been reading a book on statistics, which makes the point that "Correlation does not imply causation".


----------



## Jon_Snow

I am completely honest when I say that the ONLY time I am bored is when I'm at WORK...

I have so many hobbies and interests that don't get the attention they deserve because my job is all-consuming...

I have property on an small island on the B.C. coast which is really the place where I am truly at peace. I have kayaks there and on any particular day you might be paddling along when a pod of 30 orcas swims by... that particular feeling cannot be matched by ANYTHING that happens to me at work...

To those who feel satisfaction and joy in their work, you are indeed lucky...


----------



## cannon_fodder

OhGreatGuru said:


> 1. The originally posted article was about a correlation between unemployment rates and life expectancy, not retirement rates and life expectancy. So most of this discussion is not relevant to the article in question, and the title of the thread is misleading.
> 
> 2. In any case I have just been reading a book on statistics, which makes the point that "Correlation does not imply causation".


So the original article was about unemployment and not retiring. Yet it spawned this correlated discussion as titled above. Sounds like there is some causality IMO. 


----------



## HaroldCrump

This topic was addressed (indirectly) in a segment on the Lang-O'Leary show on CBC last week.
Lang & O'Leary interviewed Dr. Lorne Greenspan, a Toronto physician who talked about how typical corporate jobs make people unhealthy and unhappy.
He addressed stress, diet, and related issues.

The interview is available here:
http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/TV_Shows/Lang_&_O'Leary_Exchange/1308689786/ID=1963857962


----------



## MoneyGal

Uh. I watched that and he talked about people not eating adequately before work, being sedentary all day (and presumably not adding activity before or after work), eating poorly during the work day and then "going out after work" for "garbage nourishment." Then topping that off by not getting enough sleep at night. 

How is that actually related to work? Those are all lifestyle choices. Except for the sitting at work, which is fairly unavoidable in office jobs, every single one of those things have nothing to do with work.


----------



## the-royal-mail

I think it's a good idea to save as much as you can (and not waste it) during your working years, try for a pension or tier 3 savings as much as you possibly can. Save save save. When you're in your 50s you'll be glad you did.


----------



## brad

MoneyGal said:


> Except for the sitting at work, which is fairly unavoidable in office jobs


Actually I splurged earlier this year and bought myself a sit-stand workstation after reading all the scary articles about how bad extended sitting is for your health (one study published earlier this year found that no amount of exercise can counteract the negative impacts of sitting for 8-10 hours/day).

It was expensive but worth it -- I start the day standing up and work that way until I get tired, then drop the desk down to sitting height, work that way until I start feeling stiff from sitting, and raise the desk again.

You can even get silent treadmill workstations now that allow you to walk slowly while you work, burning calories and keeping your body moving all day long.

Of course, how many employers will pay for these things is another question...I paid for my own sit/stand desk.


----------



## HaroldCrump

MoneyGal said:


> How is that actually related to work? Those are all lifestyle choices. Except for the sitting at work, which is fairly unavoidable in office jobs, every single one of those things have nothing to do with work.


Complex issue, IMO, and of course there is an element of individual choices involved.
However, modern corporate culture fosters a lot of this negative behavior among workers.

Typical list of activities causes everyone to be running around all the time.
Thus the "meals on the go" and junk food culture.
An ever increasing global/international corporation stretches the day and often means meetings at all times of the day, esp. during lunch hours.
Socializing after work (drinks, snacks, smoking) is often perceived as desirable from career growth perspective.
Extra long commute put further pressure on an already long day.

I guess what I'm saying is that work culture and practices put a lot of pressure on individuals.
A lot of it has to do with the corporation and its resistence to flexibility and change.
The rest has to do with individual choices.


----------



## MoneyGal

You gotta be willing to go against the grain. I don't make anyone else responsible for my choices. No one forces me to eat food that isn't aligned with what I'm up to. I hold most of my meetings standing up. I take regular breaks at work to move around and, of course, I bike to and from work. 

I'm sure I sound like a broken record on most of these points. But just like no one else is responsible for my finances, no one else is responsible for my health and well-being. We live in a VERY consumerist culture, in which most people believe that problems can be solved by spending money. This whole board exists in the face of that cultural conversation - people here think that it is possible to be wealthy and frugal without feeling deprived, and that "keeping up with the Jones" is actually a form of disease to be avoided. 

I'm making the same argument about health. Avoiding the easy way out is no more difficult with health than it is with saving money and taking responsibility for your financial future.


----------



## Financial Cents

Well said MG, I agree with you on all points. 

Last time I checked, a big part of being an adult is taking responsibility for your decisions, whether they are good or not so good.


----------



## the-royal-mail

Well of course MG. I don't think anyone disputes your general comments. The issue comes on the implementation side. It's MUCH easier said than done. I've had people preach to me (and I'm not saying you were preaching) on those very points many times and usually there is condescension in their voice or approach. They make the solution sound so simple, yet if they actually had to implement such solution, would find themselves with the same challenges and realize it's not so easy. Harold is right. A lot of this is out of the control of the individual.


----------



## Four Pillars

the-royal-mail said:


> A lot of this is out of the control of the individual.


You're going to have to be a lot more specific than that. Why can't you choose what foods you eat or how much exercise you get? Why is that in someone else's control?


----------



## Toronto.gal

What is easy in life; most things require discipline & effort. 

Fantastic post M.gal, +++1.


----------



## brad

It's not out of an individual's control, though. You walk into a meeting and there are donuts and croissants and muffins, and everyone's eating them. You don't have to eat them yourself. Bring your own snacks and eat those instead if you're hungry. A handful of nuts or a few olives can satisfy your hunger for hours. I work out in the morning before work and am always ravenously hungry around 10am; I can eat one or two olives and I won't feel hungry again until lunchtime. If I eat a muffin I'll be hungry again in 45 minutes.

You go out with colleagues for supper after work and they go to a bar and have nachos and other junk food. You don't have to eat it; you just have to be prepared to bring your own stuff with you. You might feel like a party pooper and you might suffer a bit of ribbing from your colleagues, but I suspect most of them will be secretly impressed with your self-discipline. I was listening to a radio show last week where everyone was tasting cheeses, but one guest abstained, saying he was on a diet. Nobody chided him for it, they just took it in stride.

I take almost all my phone calls standing up; it's my rule: the phone rings, I stand up. I also use a portable phone and typically pace around my office while talking. It doesn't burn many calories, but it burns more than sitting, and over a day it adds up.

I have colleagues in our company headquarters who commute 3 hours per day (1.5 hours each way) and they work long hours, but they still make time to exercise during their lunch hour. It can be done, you just need to make up your mind to do it and make it a priority. Heck, President Obama in the US is a very busy guy, working 7 days a week, but he and his wife still make time to exercise for an hour almost every day. Granted he doesn't have a commute, but he does travel a lot.


----------



## MoneyGal

I was thinking about how I might respond to TRM's post on my bike ride to work this morning, but as it turns out, lots of people have already chimed in. 

But this is what I was going to say: it just seems really odd to me that on one hand we would suggest that people should take the time and effort to manage their own finances, and we would even chide people for conventional thinking and behaviour in the realm of finances; but, on the other, we'd say "oh, but when it comes to your health and well-being, you get a free pass because if you work in an office/in a high-stress job/for a corporation, your circumstances are largely out of your control." 

I didn't say doing this was easy. It isn't. But it is a great challenge and I feel really liberated (most of the time) by the choices I make. And I like being responsible for my choices, and not having my circumstances dictate my outcomes.


----------



## Plugging Along

I'll be the first to admit that I don't find the time to exercise, and don't always eat the healthiest. However, I would never say that it's out of my control. It's all about the choices I have made. I have kids, work full time, run a business, and consult/teach part time. If I really wanted too or if I was really motivated to, then I would make different choices. 

If you're not living the life that you want in terms of health, money, etc, then it's up to you to own. Don't use that things are out of your control as an excuse. Admit that you're not making it a priority, or that you don't want it enough. That's the first step it realizing that you do have a choice. Once you realize that, then you realize that the change that is not going to come from anywhere else.


----------



## Karen

I couldn't agree more with MoneyGal about taking responsibility for our health. In my case, I'm a diabetic who keeps my blood glucose normal (in the non-diabetic range) by following an extremely low carbohydrate diet. It has worked so well for nearly nine years that I wouldn't even consider eating any other way. But I'm often shocked by the number of people on my low-carb-for-diabetics website who say that their doctor has forbidden them to continue with the diet, so some of them (who have improved their blood sugar levels significantly) meekly go back to the more traditional diebetes diets because they think they have to do what their doctor tells them to do, even though their blood sugars soar again. Others simply lie to their doctors and continue eating the way they know is best for them. I know far more about my diabetes than my doctor does, and it's my responsibility to do what I know works best for it.

As an aside, my doctor, who disapproved strongly when I started my low-carb diet, has come around to some extent. He admits that I'm his only diabetic patient who maintains normal blood sugars.


----------



## MoneyGal

Hi Karen! I eat very low carb as well, although I don't have diabetes. It is nice to hear about another person who does this (I know Steve41 is another low-carber). I can't join everyone in the coffee lounge because I need to walk to the gym to end this day.


----------



## Karen

I'm delighted to hear that, MoneyGal. My personal opinion is that everyone would be better off on a low-carb diet, but I know I'll never convince most people of that. My diet is even more restricted because I was diagnosed with celiac disease a few years ago. I've just finished makiing a Mock Fried Rice dish for dinner that uses grated cauliflower instead of rice. It's delicious!


----------



## Four Pillars

Plugging Along said:


> Admit that you're not making it a priority, or that you don't want it enough.


That's exactly it - priorities.

p.s. - PA - you should be a blogger.


----------



## marina628

I am one who can say exercise is out of my control but even with my limited strength in my body I pay a trainer to work with me twice a week .It really bugs me when i see people who are able bodied not to take care of themselves as I have to work so hard(physically and mentally) to maintain what I have in terms of physical ability.


----------



## MoneyGal

Karen said:


> My diet is even more restricted because I was diagnosed with celiac disease a few years ago.


Hee. I'm lactose-intolerant. My diet is basically meat, eggs, fish and vegetables.


----------



## Karen

Oh poor you! I'd find that even harder to deal with. I don't know how I could go on living without cheese, yogurt and cream! Lots of meat, eggs, and veggies, too, of course, but I'm grateful I don't have to go without treats like my low-carb cheesecake!


----------



## brad

Karen said:


> My personal opinion is that everyone would be better off on a low-carb diet, but I know I'll never convince most people of that.


I think most people would in fact be better off on a lower-carb diet, it's just that there are lots of varieties of low-carb diet and you have to choose carefully. The medical establishment has long accepted the biological fact that carbs (especially simple carbs) raise blood sugar and cause an insulin response. There's also strong evidence that low-carb diets are the most effective in achieving short-term weight loss (several studies have demonstrated it). I think the controversy lies in the lack of balance in some prominent low-carb diets, in which you most likely aren't benefiting enough from the protective qualities of fruits and vegetables, and you're getting large doses of protein and saturated fat that many studies suggest are hard on the heart, kidneys, and bones. That's why many doctors advise against staying on low-carb diets long-term. But if you have a more balanced low-carb or moderate-carb diet, it can be healthy and sustainable.

It sounds like the low-carb diets you and MoneyGal are pursuing are more balanced and nutritious than some of the others, and it's a diet you can probably maintain for a lifetime with no ill effects. I'm not so sure the same can be said for all low-carb diets.

In my household we basically follow a classic Mediterannean diet (which actually isn't even followed in much of the Mediterranean anymore): we are big fans of complex carbs and gluten; I make all our own bread (mostly whole wheat) and we eat brown rice, whole-wheat pasta, etc., but we try to keep our intake of those carbs moderate. We eat lots of fruit and vegetables, quite a bit of seafood and some chicken, eggs, and use olive oil instead of butter for just about all fat. That and regular exercise keeps us healthy and at a healthy stable weight; we both weigh the same in our 50s as we did in our 40s and 30s. I'd like to get back to where I was in my early 20s, which would require losing about 8 pounds and keeping it off, and the fastest way for me to do that seems to be to cut down further on carbs.

There are lots of diets that work; I think many of us are genetically predisposed for certain diets to work better than others. But to be sustainable over the course of your life I think a diet needs to be varied -- as my girlfriend, who's French, puts it: "un peu de tout, rien de trop" -- a little of everything and not too much of anything. Humans have always been opportunistic omnivores; I think the real "paleo" diet translates to eating a wide variety of foods rather than rejecting whole classes of foods that have been shown to provide important nutritional and health benefits.


----------



## cannon_fodder

This thread constantly gets off topic. While obviously a healthy (pun intended) discussion with significant importance, the last few pages should be moved to a different thread. 

Perhaps the moderator has retired early?


----------



## the-royal-mail

cannon, please join us in the ban the user thread!


----------



## Square Root

MG's post on 06/06 was a classic. Totally agree. I'm a little surprised that some on this site(that generally have a very do it yourself, take control and responsibility of your finances attitude) wouldn't have the same attitude when it comes to personal health? Go figure.


----------



## the-royal-mail

I'm actually pretty careful about what I eat as well. It wasn't always this way but 2 years ago I decided to shape up and have been following a 2000-2500 cal/day food guide diet. I basically replaced harmful food that I like (pizza, burgers, chocolate etc) with healthy food that I like (subway turkey sub no sauce, yogurt, rye/brown bread, chicken wraps, salad, berries etc) and I had lost up to 45 lbs just by doing that. 10 of those came back, which I attribute to restaurant and takeout meals (loaded with salt and other baddies) enjoyed while in social situations. It's under control, I am being more careful than before. You can solve so much just by eating properly and setting goals without a particular timetable. It's not necessary to become a spandex warrior.


----------



## brad

the-royal-mail said:


> It's not necessary to become a spandex warrior.


You mean like this?


----------



## MoneyGal

Or this!


----------



## the-royal-mail

Sexy. Do you really look like that?


----------



## brad

I don't really look like that, no. 

[I think I've just demonstrated the utility of quoting.]


----------



## cannon_fodder

Anyone read the special report in the latest Canadian Business Magazine? It states that "remaining in the workforce is a good way to stay healthy". 

I infer that many people are reliant on work for physical, intellectual and social activities. I can certainly understand the social aspect but it's sad that with so much freedom people aren't taking advantage to engage in healthy activities nor keep the mind sharp.


----------



## sags

I have a confession to make,

Working never fulfilled me. 

Not only did it not satisfy me, but it didn't even generate any tingling feelings. 

I never yearned for work. I did it solely for the cash.

There I said it, and feel much better having confessed. I hope to feel "normal" some day, so I can shed the feelings of guilt and shame, having failed to intertwine my personal and work lives as tightly as I could have.

Meanwhile, I will have to be satisfied to plod along in my dismal retirement regime of doing whatever I want........when I want.

It is my cross to bear.


----------



## HaroldCrump

cannon_fodder said:


> Anyone read the special report in the latest Canadian Business Magazine? It states that "remaining in the workforce is a good way to stay healthy".
> 
> I infer that many people are reliant on work for physical, intellectual and social activities. I can certainly understand the social aspect but it's sad that with so much freedom people aren't taking advantage to engage in healthy activities nor keep the mind sharp.


My theory on that report would be those folks were so enslaved to their jobs, mentally and physically, they they cultivated no hobbies, no interests, no friends, and no passions outside of work.
More and more folks these days don't know what to do with themselves if they have a free moment or day.

I take my kids for swimming or soccer lessons and find parents can't focus on the game or their kids' activities even for a moment - they need to keep thumbing away at their Blackberries or iPhones like spastic chimps.

It appears in this day and age of 24x7 availability, people don't know what to do when they are not "working".


----------



## the-royal-mail

spastic chimps, that's funny.

True though. I notice mgmt at work do that all through meetings and act all distracted when walking down the halls and in elevators. Gets them out of actually communicating with staff.


----------



## kcowan

Yes when your day is consumed by communicating in text, a day off represents such a break from routime that it might be difficult to adapt.

This suggests that something needs to change. I think it is the work habit!


----------



## Jon_Snow

sags said:


> I have a confession to make,
> 
> Working never fulfilled me.
> 
> Not only did it not satisfy me, but it didn't even generate any tingling feelings.
> 
> I never yearned for work. I did it solely for the cash.
> 
> There I said it, and feel much better having confessed. I hope to feel "normal" some day, so I can shed the feelings of guilt and shame, having failed to intertwine my personal and work lives as tightly as I could have.
> 
> Meanwhile, I will have to be satisfied to plod along in my dismal retirement regime of doing whatever I want........when I want.
> 
> It is my cross to bear.


This is the best post I've seen in a long time, as it expresses my feelings about work to a tee. Come he'll or high water I'm pulling the rip cord on the rat race at 45 or before. I will probably have to grow/catch much of my own food, but at least I'll still be young and fit enough to do it. Maybe I won't be able to afford a truck anymore... But I'll have the TIME to bike or walk pretty much anywhere I need to go. It's pretty much certain I'll healthier in ER because I won't be able to afford many of the luxeries in life, most of which to not promote good health anyway.


----------



## Zara Mari

lol.... every worker (or at least every one that I know of) will say that they are overworked and underpaid. Well, regardless of whether their situation permits the statement to be true or not, working can really be lame. I remember when I used to be a high school student. no unpaid overtime work, no bills and no tax. live was a breeze back then, after a few years, here comes the career. man the first few years was good. i was happy, but after some time, it could be stressful. I really wish that maybe for a year or two i could just get out and maybe travel or something. but I guess I either have to resign for that or wait for my retirement.

anyways, I guess work can really be stressful and it could cause early demise in this world or something - no wonder stand by's get to live longer or something o_o


----------



## Russ

This is an enjoyable thread even though it has wandered away from the original topic now and then.

I am almost 65 but not contemplating retirement from employment for one or two more years. I enjoy my work well enough, and I would like a more financially secure retirement. But the work can be stressful, and too much stress is probably not healthy. 

Whenever I talk with various colleagues who retired before age 65 they invariably say early retirement was the right decision for them. I assume there is a financial sacrifice as a result of retiring early, so I ask if that has had an impact on their satisfaction. Generally the answer is "no".

The simple conclusion I draw from this is: Early retirees seem happy and relaxed. Reducing stress improves health. Improved health leads to a longer life.

Therefore I really should retire...


----------



## the-royal-mail

Zara Mari said:


> ... high school student. no unpaid overtime work...


You never had homework?


----------



## Jon_Snow

Yes, Russ, you really should.

Quite honestly, despite these weird rumours I hear of people actually ENJOYING their work, I don't know why some people work one minute longer than they have to.

There is an incredible world out there, full of endless wonders to experience... how can a JOB even compare?


----------



## HaroldCrump

Work burnout: Are you feeling the heat?

http://www.metronews.ca/london/work/article/896764--work-burnout-are-you-feeling-the-heat

_With the great expectations placed upon people in today’s always-connected work society, many are feeling the effects of burnout.

Posen says high expectations lead to high levels of effort, which drain people of their energy and lead them to physical, mental and emotional exhaustion.

Some of the early warning signs include mental and physical fatigue, irritability, impatience, sleep disturbance and decreased concentration._


----------



## Financial Cents

If you don't have your health, you don't have much, in retirement or otherwise.


----------



## Square Root

Maybe this is so obvious it doesn't need saying, but people generally work to make money. People need money before they cuan retire. Some people actually enjoy their work, at least for a while. Others don't. If you don't enjoy it, stress may be an issue. But remember, work is not the only possible source of stress. Once you can afford to retire and you don't enjoy your work, you should retire. If you use the extra time that retirement provides in healthy pursuits you health will probably improve. 
Pretty simple in theory but maybe not in practice.


----------



## Brian K

Of the few retired people I've talked to no one has ever said that they wish they were still at work. And on your death bed - do you think you will say "I wish I worked longer" no matter how much you loved your job?
"Retirement - It's the best job I've ever had!" Now I take care of me - health and finances - which is my 'new' job. I'm my own boss. 

When asked about his thoughts on when to retire, a friend once said "Pick the age you want to retire - then go 2 years early and that will be about right" (assuming you can afford it of course). I did just that and believe he was right. Sometimes it does take a push though.

Now I like the week days better than the weekends - there are fewer nuts out and about. The lineups are shorter where ever I go. However, I do notice that there are more police out with radar guns looking to increase revenue for the city. They were rarely out when driving home from work at rush hour. But now I'm not in a hurry to get anywhere so I just go the speed limit which really annoys those in a hurry. Afternoon naps are a real treat too!


----------



## Eder

I really decided to ER when work related stress & fatigue became so great I would start thinking about ending it and letting the family reap my life insurance.

It's been over 2 years now and I just bought my 5th pair of flip flops. I'm never going back.


----------



## Jon_Snow

I'm pretty much set on giving ER a go in couple of years... I will be 42.


----------



## brad

Our next-door neighbour had supper with us the other night; he said he retired at 52 and now he wishes he'd continued working much longer. He liked his job well enough and found himself bored with retirement; he has since started doing freelance contract work to help keep himself busy.

I think everyone's different: if you love your job, there's no reason to retire. If you hate your job or it's keeping you from doing the things you really want to do, then early retirement can be a way to spend your time on more fulfilling pursuits. Some people need to stay busy in order to be happy; others are content to loaf around. What works for me may not work for you and vice versa.


----------



## Four Pillars

brad said:


> Our next-door neighbour had supper with us the other night; he said he retired at 52 and now he wishes he'd continued working much longer. He liked his job well enough and found himself bored with retirement; he has since started doing freelance contract work to help keep himself busy.
> 
> I think everyone's different: if you love your job, there's no reason to retire. If you hate your job or it's keeping you from doing the things you really want to do, then early retirement can be a way to spend your time on more fulfilling pursuits. Some people need to stay busy in order to be happy; others are content to loaf around. What works for me may not work for you and vice versa.


The problem is - how many people either hate or love their job? I suspect there are a lot who are somewhere in the middle.

The other thing is that there are a lot more options than just "early retirement" if you don't like your job. Switching jobs/companies/careers/starting business, going part time etc.

@Jon - I don't think you will quit at 45 - you are too risk adverse.


----------



## Jon_Snow

Here's the thing: once our mortgage is paid off we will be hard pressed to spend 30k a year. My wife (who loves her job) makes about 50k after taxes. In a couple of years our investments should be able to generate about 30k worth of dividends. So, with my wife's income plus our investment income we will pull in about 80k... while living on 30k. We are still saving upwards of 50k per year. 

Why on earth would I continue to work in an industry I loathe?


Perhaps due to the fact that my wife is still working, I should not be considered "retired" - instead I could be considered a "kept" man.


----------



## Four Pillars

Jon_Snow said:


> Perhaps due to the fact that my wife is still working, I should not be considered "retired" - instead I could be considered a "kept" man.


Call it what you like, I'm still jealous. 

We could probably start a new thread on the definition of "retired".


----------



## Maybe Later

Jon_Snow said:


> Why on earth would I continue to work in an industry I loathe?


Why not seek alternatives earlier? If your wife is still working and it ends up taking a few years longer to retire, but you don't hate every minute of it, it may be worthwhile.


----------



## Jon_Snow

Maybe Later said:


> Why not seek alternatives earlier? If your wife is still working and it ends up taking a few years longer to retire, but you don't hate every minute of it, it may be worthwhile.


My skillset is very industry specific... basically I've been in the same job since I was 17 years old. I am good at what I do, make good money, so I think I will just grit my teeth and hang in there for a few more years, saving as much money as possible. Every year I can hang in there, my decision to quit working gets easier and easier.


----------



## Maybe Later

Thanks, I can certainly respect that.

I struggle with the idea of early retirement for me. It seems that in a lot of careers the 'hard' years are early on and much of the payoff for that hard work comes later. I'm not sure I'd be willing to leave some of that on the table, even if ER was achievable. Of course being undecided about ER makes one much less likely to plan for ER. So, in the absence of a more proactive approach it would be unlikely to happen. Procrastination may be my Achilles heel.


----------



## brad

Maybe Later said:


> It seems that in a lot of careers the 'hard' years are early on and much of the payoff for that hard work comes later.


Believe me, the later years are "hard" too. I don't work any less hard in my early 50s than I did in my early 20s, it's just that with another 30 years of experience and built-up expertise I can work much more efficiently. All that means is that I get more work and have more responsibility, and of course a higher income to reflect my greater experience. But I work more now than I ever did, and sometimes I think back fondly on the years I worked an 8-5 job with weekends free. My last two-week vacation was in 1987.


----------



## Maybe Later

brad said:


> Believe me, the later years are "hard" too. I don't work any less hard in my early 50s than I did in my early 20s, ...


I wasn't thinking 'hard' as in effort expended at work as much as 'hard' - starting out, really figuring life out, lower incomes, larger mortgages, waking up in the middle of the night with young kids, more rungs on the ladder ahead than behind - the whole shebang. The payoff would be the choice to take on those other things you listed - greater responsibilities and concomitant income streams, finding your niche and where you excel, more efficiency, flexibility and choice.

I've been with my employer for less than a decade. There is no way I would want to start over today. When I started my more senior colleagues told me exactly the same thing. It's not that my day-to-day job is any easier, but I'm better at it and I can see where I can chart my course to have my career take me where I want to go. That's the payoff as it all comes together.

If I had to choose ER vs. a lake property where I could take my kids every weekend in the summer, I don't think I'd retire - assuming I still like my job. A modified career path that suits my other interests though - that I could see.


----------

