Hambrick had a long career in the manufacturing and hospitality industries but retired in the early 2010s with limited savings. Her husband has been caring for sick relatives for the past several years and doesn't have an income. Additionally, he's 57, and his Social Security check won't kick in until he's at least 62.
So they retired when he was 45ish, and now we're supposed to feel sorry for their poor choices? Out of all the bad stories in this article these two can go fuck themselves.
I get what you’re saying, but retirement is a number in your bank account, not an age. Also, if you cannot work due to disability, you’re on disability, not retired. They are completely different animals. If they are disabled they need to push for disability. It’s not easy to get, but it’s better than wallowing in financial limbo.
If people literally retire with insufficient finances it’s a bad decision.
You’re right, we don’t know their health circumstances, but at face value these folks don’t seem like the best decision makers.
Are there even 57 year old boomers? 57 years old means born ~1967. Wouldn't that be Gen X? I know generational divides aren't rigid but I feel like 22 years after ww2 ended is not part of the post-war baby boom.
The smarter ones already know this and won't leave. It's putting even more pressure on the younger generations who can't get promoted into better positions, which will further compound, screwing their opportunity at retirement too. This shit is not sustainable.
Sounds like me waiting for an 80 year old to retire so that I can get a full time position at my job instead of just a "part time" one working 40hours a week