% of men retiring.

e.sillery wrote:When I was with NS I worked with several conductors and engineers that could have retired already. When I "tactfully" asked why they were still working past retirement age the answer I got most often was...

"My wife is not old enough to retire and when I do she will lose her insurance and it would cost too much to take out a policy just for her."

Made sense to me.

maybe she should get her own insurance, that makes sense to me

Controlled Speed wrote: maybe she should get her own insurance, that makes sense to me

Believe it or not there are wives that do not work. Out of pocket insurance premiums in most jobs today is very expensive. It doesn't matter why a person decides to stay beyond retirement age it's basically nobodies business but their own. If you want to blame anyone blame Ronald Raygun before he was president the railroad had a manditory retirement age of 65, he changed it all. As for those two gentlemen who are still working and collecting social security I sure wish I'm in as good a shape as they are at their age.

Agreed controlled speed. In the end, it all comes down to greed, no matter what excuse they try to come up with. The younger wife one is pretty common. I hear it all the time.

I'm not here to tell people when they should retire. I'm just trying to make new hires aware that the numbers reflect the amount that will be able to retire in the given timeframe.

The percentage that will is much smaller.

COEN77 wrote: If you want to blame anyone blame Ronald Raygun before he was president the railroad had a manditory retirement age of 65, he changed it all.

Comments like this just floor me...I never cease to be amazed that people expect OTHERS, government or business or whatever, to "take care of them" - to their own expectations and not to the convenience of the caregivers.

A person who trusts their future to someone else, when that person has no recourse or leverage...is a fool.

That's true - and proven - with Social inSecurity; that's been demonstrated with UAW pension fiascoes (less you think it's anything new, remember Studebaker in 1964); and it was demonstrated when RR Retirement jacked the age to draw benefits.

I'm aware of the politics behind the creation of the RRB. But somewhere along the line, the unions should have set up a private, professionally managed, retirement program; funded adequetely, that would protect members from the whims of politicians...a problem that has always been and ever will be.

In the meantime, with the amount of money we make on the railroad...there is NO EXCUSE for not setting aside money for life after the railroad. With the miracle of compound interest, it doesn't need to be much, for a younger man starting out.

Quick retirement recap...

So, is there a general rule of thumb percentage that one can go by for retirement (assuming full/30-60)?

100% of best 5
50% of best 5

etc etc?

I have read the RRB stuff, but still a little confuzzed

conrail_engineer wrote:

COEN77 wrote: If you want to blame anyone blame Ronald Raygun before he was president the railroad had a manditory retirement age of 65, he changed it all.

Comments like this just floor me...I never cease to be amazed that people expect OTHERS, government or business or whatever, to "take care of them" - to their own expectations and not to the convenience of the caregivers.

A person who trusts their future to someone else, when that person has no recourse or leverage...is a fool.

That's true - and proven - with Social inSecurity; that's been demonstrated with UAW pension fiascoes (less you think it's anything new, remember Studebaker in 1964); and it was demonstrated when RR Retirement jacked the age to draw benefits.

I'm aware of the politics behind the creation of the RRB. But somewhere along the line, the unions should have set up a private, professionally managed, retirement program; funded adequetely, that would protect members from the whims of politicians...a problem that has always been and ever will be.

In the meantime, with the amount of money we make on the railroad...there is NO EXCUSE for not setting aside money for life after the railroad. With the miracle of compound interest, it doesn't need to be much, for a younger man starting out.

Why does it floor you? It was an accurite statement. I've been on the railroad for 30 years I've seen to many changes. It was a fact that Raygun had also upped the retirement age to 62, of course we got it lowered back to 60 a few years ago. Your right when the goverment controls our pension plan we are under scrutiny. As for RRB we are in good shape the biggest obstical is further reductions of rail labor. Those that belong to the BLET have the option of a 401K plan which we didn't get till I was 40 years old and I stress this fact with new hires that starting with just 2%-4% investment it adds up over the years. We have experienced times on the railroad where we've seen reductions of our pay especially when the basic day milage went from a 100 mile day to a 130 mile day. Our wages have been stagnant compared to the economy the only thing we have on the railroad is the ability to work more hours which means giving up quality of life. That's a fact.

Why does it floor me? Because instead of looking for greater personal control, railroaders (not all of them) seek for a Great White Father to take care of them; and then are not pleased when things don't go their way...which frequently happens when you put control in government hands.

How in Hades would you expect Reagan, or any of his ministers, to understand what life is like on the railroad, why the industry is different from auto assembly and why an increase in the age isn't a good thing? The odds are slim that he or any of his people will have ANY contact with rail labor.

Had we worked to get more internal control of our retirement it wouldn't be an issue...not then, not now, and (most importantly) not in the future, where it WILL be an issue, again and again.

Do NOT expect a government minister or a corporate executive to give you something, just because you ask nicely, or because you have a sheet of paper.

Facts and logic change things. Paper and legalism can be overridden, and Big Government, like a big dog, can turn on you, and frequently has in the past.