Man Plans to Retire to Holiday Inn Instead of Nursing Home Because It’s Cheaper
distractify.com
distractify.com
Clearly this man is capable of taking care of himself, which is great. He doesn't even need assisted living. He would fare just fine in a regular retirement community or just in a regular apartment, so the question is not how a Holiday Inn compares to a nursing home. It's how a Holiday Inn compares to an apartment.
Suppose it also helps if you only really want to have a suitcase or two worth of possessions.
Assisted living could be covered by Medicaid but there’s usually a waiting list of years for that. Also there is a limit to their care before they send you to a nursing home.
In either case Medicare won’t cover the cost of assisted living, but it will cover some of the cost for inhome care.
I think it is pretty rare to see a similarly located London hotel < £100 a night. Certainly i have airbnb'd for ~55-60 comfortably - but with way less personal space.
For my city, at least, i dont think it would be cheaper but if the monthly rate thing is true can imagine it being similar order of magnitude?
I reckon costs being of "similar magnitude" is plausible (if the monthly rate discount is truly ~50%). Interesting trade offs imo
This frequently happens in areas with aggressive tenancy laws but "temporary accommodations" are exempted. So then you get the discount that comes from not being subject to a bunch of rules that make it harder for the property owner to get rid of a bad tenant, which can affect the cost significantly, exceeding the value of those rules to a good tenant.
But even when you compare like for like. A one bedroom in the same complex would have total around $2000 a month with rent and utilities.
The extended stay had people going to work in suits, a school bus picking up kids, and crew from at least two films that were being shot in the area were staying there.
If you live in the USA, please talk to your parents/spouse/friends about long term care.
If not? I get checked into the same home as a LTC user with Medicare. I pay for it until I am broke, then Medicare takes over.
I really don’t see the upside. In the case I have a large estate and need LTC, the LTC insurance protects my estate so I can pass more of it on. But as not a huge fan of generational wealth, I see no benefit to me or the world to buy LTC insurance. In fact, less money to enjoy now or grow my estate.
Genworth’s stock more than halved when they announced they had to take additional LTC write offs a few years ago.
Having lived out of a suitcase at a competitor's inn for 3 years on a job out of town I think Planning Man is in for a care let-down. Or if dementia sets in, perhaps not.
As someone who has moved to SE Asia (Vietnam) and is 'only' 45, I think almost daily about how much money I'm saving for my eventual 'retirement' and how much happier I am.
How did you cope with the loss of (connection to) friends/acquaintances/possibilities/family/children? They can't be dead with 45.
Even better is that you learn about new cultures and ways of thinking. Maybe it is selfish, but I'm getting to experience so much more out of life than I ever have before.
My dad and a few friends have come to visit me. I can and have gone back to visit friends. But the reality is that you do make new connections and communities. No different than moving to a different state, except the flight is longer.
I will add that the thought of retiring to a hotel chain is awful. For even less money, you can retire to a nice house in the countryside of SE Asia (not that far away from anything really) and hire a local for 24/7 care.
Again, not for every one, but in my particular case I'm super happy with my choice.
We took care of them growing up, we gave them the advice and financial backing to help them get their lives off to a good start. It’s up to them to not mess that up.
I’ve told my parents the same thing - I am an only child. They should enjoy their lives to the fullest and not worry about me. We’ve had discussions that they brought up. They know I’m not keeping the house and I am going to sell it as quickly as possible if they pass and not worry about optimizing what I get out of it. I’ve done the real estate thing before. It’s a headache when you live close by, let alone when you are a hundreds of miles away. They know we aren’t keeping anything in the house besides the pictures.
They have long term care insurance, but if they didn’t and it meant selling the house to qualify for Medicaid - so be it. They said it is just “stuff”.
My parents are in their 70’s and they both retired in their mid 50s when they were both healthy enough to enjoy themselves. They are still relatively healthy today. They didn’t have millions in the bank. My dad was a factory worker and my mom was a school teacher.
Of course she did have guaranteed access to health care insurance. My dad has less than a million.
In Australia this largely seems to work better. There's obviously public aged care but that can be a crap shoot in many ways. Like there might only be a place for you 200 miles from where you'd been living, which might be a challenge to maintain contact to friends and family. But if you have some capital behind you (eg you own your house and sell it) then you have private options, which tend to be a lot better. Typically, you pay a "deposit" (for lack of a better word) and then the facility collects 85% of your aged pension. When you die, your deposit is returned to your estate. The size of that deposit varies a lot. It might be as little as $300k or it might be $1m+. It depends on what you want.
The whole thing seems a lot less "gougey" than what I know about aged care in the US, for example.
[1] https://www.aplaceformom.com/blog/2013-2-2-cruise-ship-retir...
There are assisted living residences in urban areas, of course, but even then you may need to use public transit or taxis to get to all of the activities you enjoy.
I doubt the statement is always true, but it feels like it might be true enough of the time for it to be worth a “Hunh, that’s an interesting conjecture to explore.”
Simple arithmetic says that once the taxpayer/dependent ratio will hit that of Germany, it will be very very hard. Either you have a very strong industrial economy, or you study Greek.
Having some kids, and expecting them to give back one day does not seem to be anything unnatural to me. Though, I hope I will get some humility by then, and not have them bail out me financially by my fifties as my own parents did :(
Apropos... I wouldn't worry about retirement per se, I would worry about their being an intact ecosystem to retire in.
There is really little risk of being long term unemployed as a software developer if you keep your skills in line with the local market and keep your network strong. This is coming from being a developer for the past 20 years. I’m not talking about how much I have personally saved, just how easy it is to get a job or at least a contract. It’s even easier for dual income earners. You can literally save an entire second income or put it toward net worth building.
On second thought, the best “investment” I guess is a working spouse and a happy marriage. Statistics back that up.
If American tax rates will reach that of Europe, even dual income high earners, will just break the comfortable level — way less what I deserve with my position in society. And even that will worsen further over time.
At some t/d ratio, the nation will simply turn into a "transfer economy" — when cash value of all pensions/savings withdrawals/welfare/rents will begin closing on on the total income of working populace. That's something close to what we had in Eastern Europe when Bloc collapsed.
You don't realise the severity of issue until you calculate that NPV of an average boomer generation person, might've been higher 40 years ago, than NPV of savings and future contributions of highest earning young people today.
There is an easy answer to that: a pro immigration policy for both high skilled labor that creates a jobs by starting businesses and low skilled labor that can do the work that our native born society is too old to do.
And people don't immigrate to economically unsuccessful nations.
We could have a progressive (not politically/mathematically) immigration policy to keep the number of workers/retirees in the right ratio.