The first line of the article is:
"This article was posted September 1, 2006."

How can you guys waste time reading stuff by someone who doesn't even know how to read a calender?

Regards.

Originally posted in thread: 52919

I am 56. I retired 2 years ago at age 54. Tomorrow I go back to work. I don't need the money. I am just bored. For 2 years retirement was fun, but now I am bored with it. What I did for two years:

I traveled a lot.

I went to India and meditated for two months.

I took art classes and discovered I didn't have much talent.

I took creative writing classes and learned that even though most people who like to read think they want to write a book, the truth is that writing is very very hard work.

I joined the YMCA and got in shape, which I plan to continue with, but that only takes a few hours a week.

I read, went to movies, had lunch with friends, wrote lots of stuff like this on the internet.

And so on.

Retirement was fun, but I am tired of it. I have realized that one of the most fun and creative things I ever did was write software, which I did for a living for 30 years. Tomorrow I go back to work.

Originally posted in thread: 52919

congrats for being able to do what you want.

Originally posted in thread: 52919

I agree with brooklyn, congratulations on your own freedom. Your story illustrated a great point that what is right for one, may not be right for others.

Originally posted in thread: 52919

.
I am a long way off retirement, but came across this piece of advice the other day by Stan Hinden - "Whatever you decide to do in retirement, your plan should have one main objective: to keep yourself mentally and physically active and in close contact with other people. That is the way to achieve a successful retirement".

This sounds like wise advice that I need to remember in 20+ years.

Robert

Originally posted in thread: 52919

Earnabuck,

Rob is free to dismiss my advice as complete and utter garbage if he wishes to. I am certainly not an expert(yet) in personal finance, but I do know a thing or two about the subject. I am also capable of doing simple math, and I can tell you that a nest egg of $300,000 won't last someone in his mid 50's with a wife and two kids.

I think most posters would agree with my advice, but then again I might be 100% wrong.

John

Originally posted in thread: 52919

By my count Rob has about 10 years till he can start to draw SS, and hey if you watch for sales at the supermarket, you can get canned tuna pretty cheap. Money isn't everything. But seriously, why on earth would someone advertise their personal life the way he has, I mean he's created his own personal "Truman Show". It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.


Jeff

Originally posted in thread: 52919

"God wants me to figure out what I need to do to retire early. God wants me to figure out what I need to do to be able to spend my time doing fulfilling work. God wants me to figure out what I need to do so that I can afford to take my boys to Disney World."

There's a story that goes like this. I'm sure many of you have heard it before (and could probably tell it better than I.)

There was a massive flood in a town and one man managed to make it on top of his roof. Luckily, a boat came on by, but the man said "if its God's will to save me he'll save me!" Next, a helicopter came by. Again, the man said if God wanted to save him he would. Eventually, the man dies.

The man gets to heaven and he asks "God, why didn't you save me?" God says "I sent both a boat and a hellicopter for you!"

I don't believe in a god, but it's a good parable anyway. What Rob is saying would be the same thing as saying "If god wants me to have money I'll win the lottery!"

I never understood the animosity towards hocus before. Now I understand.

In conclusion:

Dude, get a freakin job so you can take your kids to Disney World. How can you be so selfish?

Jay

Originally posted in thread: 52919

From that link, it appears that you only have about $300,000 left.

Over the past four years, I've seen thousands of references to my personal financial circumstances put forward by people seeking to defend the conventional methodology safe withdrawal rate studies (I am the person who discovered the analytical errors in those studies, which have since been written about by people like Bill Bernstein, Scott Burns, Peter Ponzo ("Gummy"), Raddr (owner of the Raddr-Pages.com site), and John Walter Russell (he posts here as "JWR1945"). It's theoretically possible that there were one or two posted somewhere that stated the facts with a reasonable amount of accuracy, John. There have been too many posts of this nature put forward for me to have studied each of them carefully. All that I can say with certainty is that I don't recall ever having seen one.

Rob

Originally posted in thread: 52919