G5 SIC slots

[OPECJet]

OJ..I'm talking about the poster who believes the 70 y/o should leave to make an opportunity for a younger pilot. It's his job; he should be able to stay until he decides to leave or unable to pass muster. JMHO.

Fair enough. Part of me agrees with you. My wallet however.....:smash:

 

[OPECJet]

Yes the baby boomers aren't retiring and many will never retire, but it's not necessarily because they're greedy. Unlike the baby boomers parents, who lived in the same craftsman home for 50 years and retired off of a pension, millions of baby boomers chose to keep buying/mortgaging bigger homes, bigger boats and better cars every time they got an extra $100/week raise all while not putting any/enough money away for retirement.

The current generation of retired baby boomers has record credit card debt, a mortgage and even back in '06 they said the average baby boomer only had an avg of $60K in retirement savings.

Unlike their parents, keeping up with the Jones has come full circle to bite the boomers in the arse.

You're dead nuts right. The trickle down from this is folks my age will not get the chance to enjoy the lifestyle our parents did. The opportunity isn't there.

 

[rajflyboy]

You're dead nuts right. The trickle down from this is folks my age will not get the chance to enjoy the lifestyle our parents did. The opportunity isn't there.

You are forgetting about the fat cat pensions that many employers used to have and no longer do.

Only the government employee's have the big pensions now

Yes. You are paying tax dollars for many people to live big

 

[OPECJet]

You are forgetting about the fat cat pensions that many employers used to have and no longer do.
No, I think those lost pensions are the reason behind baby boomers working past the traditional retirement age. Sure there's some who are married to Helga and "enjoy the flying", but I think they're the exception.
Only the government employee's have the big pensions now

Yes. You are paying tax dollars for many people to live big Not so. I'm working for a Gov't Contractor now. The Gov't folks I work with have a version of a 401K and must contribute just as we do. Their insurance benefits are more expensive than what we have. The only place they have a benefit advantage over the private sector is in leave. They are also under an ever present threat of a RIF. Couple in the hiring freeze that's on right now and workloads have been steadily and rapidly increasing as the budget cuts are answered with early retirements and those positions are not backfilled. I've heard the rhetoric from Rush about Gov't employees and he's flat wrong, at least at the Federal level. It's not the cake job it used to be.

..........

 

[realityman]

the old farts that won't go away. That's MUCH, MUCH worse.... a few months ago i had recurrent with a 70 year old guy. This dying dinosaur has no live at home, so he hangs around and takes an opportunity away from a younger guy. Selfish A-HOLE...It pisses me off to no end

Were you in my recurrent class? I was in recurrent a few months ago and my sim partner was/is 72. No life at home and he only does this to get out of the house.

He is one of the old guys that has a reputation for doing NOTHING except flying the plane (no bags, interior cleaning, Jepp revisions, etc...).

However, he is still sharp as a tack mentally, and flies the plane very well. Based on his physical condition and mental and motor skills in the aircraft, there is absolutely no reason to remove him from the cockpit. And he has many years of invaluable experience if the brown stuff hits the fan.

On the other hand, based on the fact that there is a lot more to this job than just flying (bags, interior cleaning, Jepp revisions, etc...), if he can't, or won't, do ALL the work that comes with this particular job, then I agree, he should get out.

I just finished a tour with a guy who is in his upper 60's. Based on his performance doing the ENTIRE job, I can find no good reason to force or ask him to leave his position. The guy was sharp, exercised good judgement, flew very well, and did all the other heavy lifting (including throwing bags and moving the raft in and out of the aircraft). I've flown with much younger guys here who did a lot less.

As for the rest of it, it's a personal decision. I think that if you set a goal for retirement (for example, I will retire when I have $2 million in my 401K) then it is the right thing to do to retire when that goal is met. There are younger folks who are just starting out, struggling, with families who could use the pipeline to move a bit more in order to have a shot at it. The trouble is, you just don't know someone's personal circumstances.

I really enjoyed the guy on here who said if your pension vanishes and/or your 401K tanks that it's your fault and you should have planned better. Spoken like someone who has yet to have life really kick them in the balls! Not to mention the absolute ridiculousness of saying someone should be able to forecast what a company will do with a pension or what the market is going to do with your 401K. How about a serious illness in a family member that may not have medical insurance? Suppose a pilot helps out a nephew with Leukemia, in order to keep him from dieing. That may take a huge financial toll to supply that help. Poor planning from the pilot? Please. That's BS. The pilot made a good moral decision, but then should be forced out of the cockpit while his finances are in shambles just because someone younger thinks it's their turn?

As I said, I think there are times when the older pilot should make the ethical decision to retire, especially if they've met their own personal goals to retire on. But the younger folks may be closing doors they might need later in life if we start forcing people out just because they believe it's their turn. It'd be a real karmic bitch to grow old, have life take a nasty turn on you later in life, and then listen to some younger creep tell you that it's only because of poor planning that you're in the situation you're in and you should get out.

Be careful what you wish for.

 

[rajflyboy]

..........

You are mostly uninformed about government retirements. Many of the government workers who retire actually get a pay raise >> because they also collect social security on top of what they collect in retirement.

Although in the future I hope these types of retirements go away. This country can't afford it.

 

[Semore Butts]

Why not give something back to the younger guys for the great career that you had?

What exactly did they give to me that I need to give something back to them?

Trust me young geniuses, I'm saving as much as I can to get out of your way.

I always hear these young guys talk about how messed up some of these old guys are. I would be curious to hear the old guys opinion of these very same young guys?

Where will you be in 5 years? I promise, you don't know. (Divorced? Being sued? Terminaly ill?)

I'm glad I didn't waste alot of time responding to this thread....Geez, what a goat screw!

 

[shroomwell]

If you are gonna have 2 million in your 401k at retirement and be young enough to enjoy it, than you ought to get into the hedge fund business.

There is no way you will get that kind of return from max contributions to get to 2 million.

 

[OPECJet]

You are mostly uninformed about government retirements. Many of the government workers who retire actually get a pay raise >> because they also collect social security on top of what they collect in retirement.

Although in the future I hope these types of retirements go away. This country can't afford it.

We don't represent the entire Gov't retiree population, but my family hasn't seen it. Dad spent 30+ yrs working for the Army, uncle spent 30+ working for the state of NJ. Neither hit the lottery upon retirement.

Talking to the guys in the office getting ready to hit the door, they aren't leaving as millionaires either. The younger guys in here have the same type of retirement we do, just under a different name.

Used to be that you traded salary for job security and retirement by going to work for Uncle Sam. Now, you get paid more than the private sector but lost the retirement and job security unless you claim veterans preference.

 

[BentOver]

If you are gonna have 2 million in your 401k at retirement and be young enough to enjoy it, than you ought to get into the hedge fund business.

There is no way you will get that kind of return from max contributions to get to 2 million.

If you maxed it out for 30 years it's $720K....Compounded interest, dividens and such one could easily reach 2 million assuming they started young and retired around 65...

 

[shroomwell]

Bent, run a spreadsheet. The only way to get to 2 million, using max contribution + company 50% match, is to use a fantasy investment return.

 

[realityman]

If you are gonna have 2 million in your 401k at retirement and be young enough to enjoy it, than you ought to get into the hedge fund business.

There is no way you will get that kind of return from max contributions to get to 2 million.

I started young. Actually, I am right on target to have $3 million when I retire (planned retirement at age 67, but wouldn't mind getting out sooner). I still have 25 years until retirement.

I sat down with my financial adviser. He wanted to take what I currently have, calculate a 10% average return over the next 25 years, including continuing to max the 401K and 50% matching (but we did not include the catch-up contributions that can be made after I turn 50), and he came up with a number very close to $5 million.

However, i wanted to go more conservative and use an average return of 7%, 'just in case'. I should have about $3 million at retirement.

Pie in the sky? Maybe. But looking back to when I started contributing, and factoring it out to where I am now, and that includes the big losses of 2008, I am almost EXACTLY where I would be expected to be in order to reach my goals.

If I stop contributing to my 401K right now, I would still reach almost $1 million by age 67. That's using a very basic 'rule of 72', which says your money will double every 72 months. It has been working out almost perfectly with that rule so far.

Obviously, I can not predict what the market will do over the next 25 months, let alone 25 years, but I don't think expecting a 7% average return over that time period is unrealistic. Also, I can't predict how much will go into my 401K over the next 25 years (may have an emergency where I need the money, or we lose company matching in future negotiations), but based on past performance of the market, even including 2008, it's looking really good for meeting my goals.

And hey, if my adviser is right, and I actually average 10% over the next 25 years, I'll retire with a bunch more than $3 million (possibly $5 million), or be able to retire 4 or 5 years earlier, which would suit me just fine.

The REAL questions is something else in your post. Will I be young enough to enjoy it? Don't know. 67 really isn't all that old these days. If I continue to take care of myself, and avoid any major mishaps, then I could have many years of enjoyment after 67. Or not. That's harder to predict than the market.

 

[G4dude]

I started young. Actually, I am right on target to have $3 million when I retire (planned retirement at age 67, but wouldn't mind getting out sooner). I still have 25 years until retirement.

I sat down with my financial adviser. He wanted to take what I currently have, calculate a 10% average return over the next 25 years, including continuing to max the 401K and 50% matching (but we did not include the catch-up contributions that can be made after I turn 50), and he came up with a number very close to $5 million.

However, i wanted to go more conservative and use an average return of 7%, 'just in case'. I should have about $3 million at retirement.

Pie in the sky? Maybe. But looking back to when I started contributing, and factoring it out to where I am now, and that includes the big losses of 2008, I am almost EXACTLY where I would be expected to be in order to reach my goals.

If I stop contributing to my 401K right now, I would still reach almost $1 million by age 67. That's using a very basic 'rule of 72', which says your money will double every 72 months. It has been working out almost perfectly with that rule so far.

Obviously, I can not predict what the market will do over the next 25 months, let alone 25 years, but I don't think expecting a 7% average return over that time period is unrealistic. Also, I can't predict how much will go into my 401K over the next 25 years (may have an emergency where I need the money, or we lose company matching in future negotiations), but based on past performance of the market, even including 2008, it's looking really good for meeting my goals.

And hey, if my adviser is right, and I actually average 10% over the next 25 years, I'll retire with a bunch more than $3 million (possibly $5 million), or be able to retire 4 or 5 years earlier, which would suit me just fine.

The REAL questions is something else in your post. Will I be young enough to enjoy it? Don't know. 67 really isn't all that old these days. If I continue to take care of myself, and avoid any major mishaps, then I could have many years of enjoyment after 67. Or not. That's harder to predict than the market.

Sounds like you are doing all the rights things, realityman.

 

[BentOver]

I started young. Actually, I am right on target to have $3 million when I retire (planned retirement at age 67, but wouldn't mind getting out sooner). I still have 25 years until retirement.

I sat down with my financial adviser. He wanted to take what I currently have, calculate a 10% average return over the next 25 years, including continuing to max the 401K and 50% matching (but we did not include the catch-up contributions that can be made after I turn 50), and he came up with a number very close to $5 million.

However, i wanted to go more conservative and use an average return of 7%, 'just in case'. I should have about $3 million at retirement.

Pie in the sky? Maybe. But looking back to when I started contributing, and factoring it out to where I am now, and that includes the big losses of 2008, I am almost EXACTLY where I would be expected to be in order to reach my goals.

If I stop contributing to my 401K right now, I would still reach almost $1 million by age 67. That's using a very basic 'rule of 72', which says your money will double every 72 months. It has been working out almost perfectly with that rule so far.

Obviously, I can not predict what the market will do over the next 25 months, let alone 25 years, but I don't think expecting a 7% average return over that time period is unrealistic. Also, I can't predict how much will go into my 401K over the next 25 years (may have an emergency where I need the money, or we lose company matching in future negotiations), but based on past performance of the market, even including 2008, it's looking really good for meeting my goals.

And hey, if my adviser is right, and I actually average 10% over the next 25 years, I'll retire with a bunch more than $3 million (possibly $5 million), or be able to retire 4 or 5 years earlier, which would suit me just fine.

The REAL questions is something else in your post. Will I be young enough to enjoy it? Don't know. 67 really isn't all that old these days. If I continue to take care of myself, and avoid any major mishaps, then I could have many years of enjoyment after 67. Or not. That's harder to predict than the market.

Very good job with your money and nice post!! I was on the same path...Banked $50K in 2 years at NJA (max contribution plus started maxing it out in Spring 2008. Stopped when the furlough pay ended) Now I'm down to just Traditional IRA, hoping to make some smart moves over the next few years to maximize that potential.

My mothers side has all lived well into their 90's with good diet and exercise and NOT smoking ever.... I intend on retiring whenever I feel it, and enjoying 25+ years of retirement with my daughters kids when she is older

 

[shroomwell]

First off lose your financial advisor. Anybody who assumes a 10% return in a Zero Percent Interest Rate (ZIRP) environment, is either ignorant or a charlatan. To get 7% you need to take a lot of risk. And risk means you could lose.

The rule of 72 you refer to actually means to divide your expected rate of return by 72 to get the time to double. Therefore if you rate of return is 9% the doubling time is 8 years.

I say all this so people understand there is risk. It is best to assume the worst and hope for the best, that way anything extra is a bonus. Also you should never have all your eggs in one basket, meaning don't invest your entire 401k into the stock market. Just think if you had invested all your money in the Nasdaq in 1999, 12 years later you are still looking at a substantial loss of principal. Also over the last decade government bonds have outperformed stocks. Don't take short term thinking (gambling) and apply it to your retirement. You need to have a long term focus on it, and you need to be safe.

 

[realityman]

First off lose your financial advisor. Anybody who assumes a 10% return in a Zero Percent Interest Rate (ZIRP) environment, is either ignorant or a charlatan. To get 7% you need to take a lot of risk. And risk means you could lose.

The rule of 72 you refer to actually means to divide your expected rate of return by 72 to get the time to double. Therefore if you rate of return is 9% the doubling time is 8 years.

I say all this so people understand there is risk. It is best to assume the worst and hope for the best, that way anything extra is a bonus. Also you should never have all your eggs in one basket, meaning don't invest your entire 401k into the stock market. Just think if you had invested all your money in the Nasdaq in 1999, 12 years later you are still looking at a substantial loss of principal. Also over the last decade government bonds have outperformed stocks. Don't take short term thinking (gambling) and apply it to your retirement. You need to have a long term focus on it, and you need to be safe.

Shroom, that's good advice. I'm actually scheduled to meet with my adviser again (gotta do more tweeking with the switch to Schwab). I'll see what he has to say. You are correct, I'm in mostly high risk stuff right now.
I did suffer some very significant losses in 2008 as a result of my portfolio.
But the market has come back, along with my money, and while my gains over the past few years have been flat because of that, if you look at the bigger picture, say the past 8 years, my total investment is up 12.5%. I'm not counting on that kind of long-term return, but even with a truly horrible year or two in there along the way, I think I'll be alright.

You keep saying it can't happen, it won't happen, only in a fantasy spreadsheet. I don't understand your logic, as it IS happening, exactly as my adviser has predicted. Sorry, not going to put my actual numbers up here for the world to see, but based on what my adviser has told me to expect, and what my money is actually doing, the rule of 72 is working fine, and by dollar cost averaging my contributions, I'm doing well enough. I won't be riding in the back of the planes I fly in the future, but will have a comfortable retirement.

Things can change. I can't predict the market, or life, with any amount of real accuracy. My plans do include shifting sizable chunks of money into safer investments as things progress. You're right in that I'm HOPING things continue to work out as planned. It's all I can do, but they seem to be doing alright so far.

I'll talk to my adviser about your advice. But I think I'll keep him. He's a pretty smart fella.

 

[jonjuan]

Shroom, that's good advice. I'm actually scheduled to meet with my adviser again (gotta do more tweeking with the switch to Schwab). I'll see what he has to say. You are correct, I'm in mostly high risk stuff right now.
I did suffer some very significant losses in 2008 as a result of my portfolio.
But the market has come back, along with my money, and while my gains over the past few years have been flat because of that, if you look at the bigger picture, say the past 8 years, my total investment is up 12.5%. I'm not counting on that kind of long-term return, but even with a truly horrible year or two in there along the way, I think I'll be alright.

You keep saying it can't happen, it won't happen, only in a fantasy spreadsheet. I don't understand your logic, as it IS happening, exactly as my adviser has predicted. Sorry, not going to put my actual numbers up here for the world to see, but based on what my adviser has told me to expect, and what my money is actually doing, the rule of 72 is working fine, and by dollar cost averaging my contributions, I'm doing well enough. I won't be riding in the back of the planes I fly in the future, but will have a comfortable retirement.

Things can change. I can't predict the market, or life, with any amount of real accuracy. My plans do include shifting sizable chunks of money into safer investments as things progress. You're right in that I'm HOPING things continue to work out as planned. It's all I can do, but they seem to be doing alright so far.

I'll talk to my adviser about your advice. But I think I'll keep him. He's a pretty smart fella.

Your Financial Advisor isn't very bright if he's telling you that the Rule of 72 says that your money will double in 72 months. In reality it's the number by which you divide your expected annual rate of return to get the number of years your money will double. http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/ruleof72.asp#axzz1lWLFb84t
If you are using 72-months for a double, you need an annual average return of 12%. Don't count on that as you shouldn't count on the frax model/payrates/401k match to be around forever.

 

[realityman]

Your Financial Advisor isn't very bright if he's telling you that the Rule of 72 says that your money will double in 72 months. In reality it's the number by which you divide your expected annual rate of return to get the number of years your money will double. http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/ruleof72.asp#axzz1lWLFb84t
If you are using 72-months for a double, you need an annual average return of 12%. Don't count on that as you shouldn't count on the frax model/payrates/401k match to be around forever.

No worries, I'm not 'counting' on anything. I'm hoping. What else can I do? Unless you have some way to accurately predict what the market, my job, and my life are going to do over the next 25 years, I can only go by what is currently happening.

As for the rule of 72, you guys keep saying it doesn't work. But my returns have been almost EXACTLY what you would expect with the rule of 72. People keep saying "It doesn't work". Really? It's been working just fine for me. Maybe you're trying to say "don't count on it continuing to work.". Okay, I can live with that. But what you're saying is just as much a guess as my adviser saying it should work. Which of you is right? Only living until the future will give that answer.

So I will continue to make the best guesses I can and hope they work out.

 

[shroomwell]

Never use the past eight years to try and predict the next 25 years. That is short term thinkg and no one can predict that far out. The best thing to do is take the past 60 or 70 years and use that to TRY to predict the future.

You must not that Zero interest rates are going to have a tremendous effect on your returns. You cannot expect good returns in that environment.

As for your Financial Advisor. I suspect he is a guy who tells you what mutual funds to invest in. If you pay him for his time that is best, but if he is getting a commission from the funds you chose, than lose him, his interests are not aligned with yours. Besides he didn't know what the rule of 72 is and he thinks you can make 10% returns, which is BS. If he is that good he should be running a hedge fund making billions of dollars, and most of the guys who make that money in hedge funds cheat to some degree as well.

In today's environment I am happy to make 2-3% on my 401k money and be able to sleep at night knowing it is not at much risk. Sure it is horrible return on capital, but with the government/Fed keeping interest rate down at zero, it is what it is. Think of all the old people who used to live off of CD's at the bank getting 6-7% a year, they have essentially been put in the poor house by these policies.

Moral of the story is, be safe not greedy, it is you and your families future.

 

[realityman]

Shroom,

If you go back over the past 60 or 70 years (which is one of the things my adviser did) you see a historical return over that time frame of slightly better than 10%.

I expressed many of the same concerns to him that you are now expressing. The point he was making was that if you look at any 8 or 10-year block of time on the market, the returns are around 10-12%. If you just looked at 2008 and 2009 you'd say 'Holy crap! The market is killing everyone!". But his point was that if you start at the end of 2011 and go back 8 or 10 years, the return was actually an average of 12.5%. He showed me the historical data on the market going back pre-depression era. Even in the depression era, if you looked at any given 10-year block of time, the returns were overall good.

Now, is history a precursor of future returns? That seems to be the point you're trying to make. I don't know. I don't think you know. I doubt anyone on here knows. So, does my financial adviser know? No, he doesn't KNOW! If he did, he'd be a billionaire as you suggest. But I trust his educated guesswork more than most of the pilots I know.

I'm not looking to be rich. Even retiring with my hoped-for $3 million isn't rich, as that money may have to last my wife and I 30 years or more (another guess). However, I'm willing to take a higher risk portfolio now, and hope things pan out.

For everyone saying my adviser doesn't know what he's doing and I should dump him, why? My money has done EXACTLY what he said it should be doing. Why would I dump someone who has been right? I sure don't blame him for 2008. I don't recall talking to ANYONE who foresaw a drop like that coming.

At any rate, I pay him directly. He gets a (very small) percentage of my returns. A little less than some of the fees in my Schwab account (on a percentage basis), so he has a vested interest in my accounts doing well.

Shroom, it's as you say. The market is a gamble. But it's working out okay so far. Everyone has advice on what to do to make money, or stay safe, yet I don't see a whole bunch of these folks retiring early, or living large. I suspect most folks' best guesses aren't any better than what my adviser is telling me. I'm not trying to be greedy. I'm on a slow build-up which, if things go averagely well, should meet my goals in 25 years. Seems reasonable to me.