My thoughts exactly. I’ve never had a tenant looking to move on other than for a job moving. At least half of mine all work for locally for RR and those who do not have guarantor leases, so I know the rent is always there 
My costs have not dramatically increased, so all the rents are kept the same, AND my tenants respect the properties. In all the time I’ve been letting, I’ve only had to chase one guarantor, so I suppose I’ve selected my tenants well.
1 Like
Thanks for all the comments. It is interesting - there seems to be a theme that at a certain point / age many look at the negative aspects of work (guess what - your boss, them above imposing daft rules, pay awards versus more responsibility) means that a decision to duck out becomes easy. The key influence is the calculation of can you live reasonably comfortably without a monthly wage and with other perhaps less secure forms of pay. And the pension calculation as well.
I’ve a suspicion that this issue exists for every level of employment and every sphere of work - from teachers through to service sector professionals (hey, I do not mean that teachers are not professional - its just that writing teaching professionals looked a but strange). And all in between / above / below (gawd, being inclusive is hard).
For me, and I’d like others opinions, this says that the work place is not serving older employees well. It seems to assume the career ladder is all. Or perhaps other misjudgments.
1 Like
There is a sense nowadays that being time served means jack $hit, and that bright young things clearly know far more than their elders and betters, even though they haven’t actually finished learning their trade.
Thats us, my state pension if I get there is next May, projected to be £258 a week, I’ll supplement that with my private one as and when, we have always been careful with money so I see no need to change .
I retired at 64, the wife at 60, best decision we’ve made for some time.
1 Like
It seems to be a growing trend as it can be observed elsewhere, too, but it has got nothing to do with shirking responsibilities. What we’re seeing results from a combination of several factors, some short-term, some longer-term. Corona has intensified a development that had set in before the crisis. Due to the demographic changes, millions of baby boomers are leaving the labour market while others are reconsidering their employment conditions and often re-orient themselves as long as it’s still possible. In total, more people are leaving the labour market than younger ones joining it. What makes things worse is that during the Corona crisis a lot of vacancies were not filled. This imbalance is turning the employers’ market into an employees’ market. The current crisis does not affect all sectors in the same way. As often, there’re winners and losers, the latter being the hospitality industry, airports, the care sector, just to name a few, and the former are logistics, discounters, and others.
I was one of them since I took early retirement at 63 accepting a life-long 10% reduction of both my state pension and company pension. But it was worth it and I don’ t see that I have shirked any responsibilities.
The solution seems to be to improve childcare facilities so as to encourage women to work full-time which would also be in their interest since women can no longer rely on a one-bread-winner model. Raising the pensionable age doesn’t seem to work and enticing foreign labour is also unpopular but apparently without much of an alternative in the long run.
1 Like
I agree about us not shirking responsibilities - I pitched that notion in because the concept of “opting out” seems to beg the question - of what?
I ducked out of full time work at 52 but worked in contracting (albeit part time) for another 4-5 years. But as I’m at the very, very tail end of baby-boomer generation I had gained on the property market and my first company pension kicks in at 60 (next year). So I could afford the luxury of determining my work/life mix and be able to be mortgage free. I appreciate that few will be so lucky.
For me the big issue was the crap fest that was work pressure - all assumed to be allowable because of the idea that people put up with it to (1) pay the mortgage / kids / lifestyle and (2) you just might get promoted. Its a game that favours the very few. In fact I am surprised that more don’t simply drop off the work place scene. Life is distinctly better after full time employment.
1 Like
Me too. I’d known at an early stage that I wanted to quit asap and came up with my own pension plan and started implementing it immediately by saving money and investing it in stocks and bonds and by using the returns for buying real estate property so that I wouldn’t have to pay a rent once I retired. It turned out that I became mortgage-free 10 years before retirement.
I’ve been thinking since I read this Thread this morning, and here are some more comments -
Although not a serious study, I have friends & acquaintances who were scientists, teachers, a lawyer, a museum curator, a lorry driver, a shop manager, a civil servant, a carpenter, a warehouse foreman, a doctor.
Almost without exception they have retired early, either by doing their own calculations or certainly none of them turned down any early retirement or voluntary redundancy offers
Two of them had to work the full term as they couldn’t afford to stop working until they got their pensions, but they were counting the days
A couple downsized their houses to fund early retirement
A common theme was low of morale, no more enjoyment or satisfaction, lack of communication, especially if their employer had just been taken over
Being fed up with political correctness, interference, and wokery, before that word was invented
Comments included -
I wasn’t happy in the direction the company was going
I got the impression the firm was working against me and not with me
Like most museums now, it’s been turned into a kid’s playground
We all used to be on first name terms, from the cleaners to the factory manager; after the place was taken over, it was 6 months before I spoke to anyone from the new lot, and that was only because they wanted some information
We used to have project meetings; now I get three lines of email and there’s about two months work in it
I was tired … just tired of it
I’d rather have my left eye poked out with a burned stick than carry on working for another five years
Most of them were concerned to appalled about the low standard of common sense, general awareness and English Grammar in new applicants, one comment was -
We seem to have produced a generation of school & college leavers that are both the most educated and the most useless at the same time.
One person was asked to return to their old employment, but declined
Several commented that a few years ago it was popular to get rid of older employees but now firms are having second thoughts, as they realise that often with them went their best and most knowledgeable & experienced people.
I don’t think anyone regretted their decision, and they (we!) are enjoying the freedom, doing our hobbies, and so on
This is quite intriguing. Women’s retirement planning is close to my heart. So, it would be insightful to understand the demographics of the half a million Britons. I’m assuming that all our gentlemen members have opted to early retire. A female’s perspective would be interesting.
Plot twist - Generally, women are more concerned about retirement than men are and have good reason to worry since women confront unique challenges as they strive to save for retirement and ensure that their retirement savings lasts a lifetime.
Some of these challenges include longer life expectancies than their male counterparts. Also, on average, women experience lower lifetime earnings than men due to lower salaries. This is further complicated by the responsibilities of motherhood which could mean disrupted work histories and more time spent in part-time jobs yet they will still have to stretch their smaller accumulated retirement savings over longer lifetimes.
To alleviate the worry that women feel about retirement, women can consider the following:
-
Women must start planning and saving earlier since women spend fewer years in the workforce than men.
-
Married women should take an active part in the financial plan for retirement since they may have different concerns to their spouse at retirement which can be addressed in their retirement plan.
-
Women should invest in their health to limit medical costs at retirement.
-
Women should plan for an extended life expectancy in their retirement plan.
-
Women should explore alternative income streams e.g. transform a hobby into an alternative income source to subsidise retirement income.
-
Women should seek expert financial planning advice when planning for retirement.
With the right foresight and discipline, women can worry less about retirement.
Yes, the list above is not specific to women and can be followed by men as well
Disclaimer: this comment does not constitute financial advice. Consult a qualified financial advisor to discuss tailored holistic financial planning.
You just have to do, what you have to do, whatever that is, and don’t look for a standard.
I’m also interested in the response to this from employers - the businesses & services that are losing these people from the work force. Are they aware that they are losing experienced, capable people and with that the knowledge and insight these people have? Or do they not care? Are they aware that recruiting replacement staff will either be harder as there are fewer people of such experience available or more expensive as they will need to recruit inexperienced people and invest in them for years? Or do they simply write off this cost?
And what is the reaction at a national level? What do trade associations and government bodies think about this and plan to do - or do they not care?
Older staff do tend to be more tired, less willing to adopt change (especially when they’ve already seen the same old same old “new” ideas come, fail, and go), sceptical and jaded. Especially when its a newly apponted, bubbly, wet behind the ears person telling thrm just how great things are going to be, immediately before they go and hide somewhere well away from the rockface.
1 Like
Yup, I think you’ve just described both experienced and inexperienced quite well.
I don’t think it’s always a bad thing for oldies to get out and clear the way for the youngsters though
I’d got a lot of experience in what I do and I’m also responsible for the graduate trainees going through a three year training programs
Course they’re snapping at my heels, I can keep ahead of them now, down to experience and because I’m not bad with tech, but I’d give it two years at most before they’d overtake me and I’d struggle to keep up. You just slow down as you get older, get less competitive and it all matters less. I won’t see this lot qualify, which is a bit sad, because I retire in March
So, if anyone comes out of the work force, I think it should be the oldies!
I’d agree. Apart from obvious reasons that make employees leave the labour market earlier like getting seriously and chronically ill, there are factors that tend to be frequently ignored as though they don’t play a role such as the fact that elder staff may not be competitive as well as mentally and physically fit enough to do their job as they age. A friend of mine admits that he can’t do physically challenging jobs at work any more and has to ask younger colleagues to do them. Another friend reveals that he increasingly finds it hard to keep up-to-date with the latest developments in his field and secretly admires early-career colleagues when they are presenting their research findings with a fluency and lucidness that leave him stunned.
There are many different reasons why people decide on taking early retirement.
2 Likes
I guess it’s down to a head v heart argument, akin to the cost of everything v value of nothing stances.
Trouble is that the oldies will need financial support at some point, which the relative youngsters will pay (on the ad infinitum cycle of such matters).
Unless, of course, we “off” those who it is no longer financially viable to allow to remain alive.
They do care to some extent. On a company level, if they want to avoid downsizing, they have to take pains to train their own staff while also trying to make their organisation an attractive place for young talent (employees’ market, work-life balance). On a national level, they need to make sure that people in low-paid jobs earn more and that mini-jobs are turned into jobs that are subject to social insurance.
1 Like
In every job I’ve ever worked in, there’s been an oldie in the corner, hanging on until their retirement 
And now it’s me!
1 Like
They also need to make sure the skills the oldsters have get passed on. And, let’s face it, us oldsters aren’t always keen on sharing their skills, knowledge is power!
I agree, if they want to attract people into the work force, they need to make sure the jobs at the bottom of the scale are well paid enough to be practical and that the terms and conditions are fair.
Zero hour contracts, unpredictable hours and poor working conditions don’t help or encourage employees to stay long term so you don’t get a work force with experience or loyal, and have to keep retraining
I always find devotees of the free market are OK with it when prices are high, jobs in support supply, so wages are low and employees hard to get
But they’re not so keen when shortage of labour means employees can be more picky and they have to pay higher wages and offer better conditions in order to compete for workers
What seems to be happening now is that employers aren’t upping their game in wages and conditions but keep moaning they can’t get staff
1 Like
I assume it’ll be a steep learning curve for some employers.