Interesting information. My husband has zero plans on retiring. He loves his work and can continue doing it indefinetely. And he has tons of flexibility, should he choose to be flexible, which he is not terribly, but it's his choice, which is what matters.

I gave up my career, but work on projects occasionally.

I'd expect results of a similar nature if the surveys were taken of adults in general and not just retirees. I'm surprised there's so much similarity of satisfaction levels among all the groups who are not struggling or just getting by - all are about the same.

Having or not having comfortable financial means is a major factor in anyone's life experiences, at any age. Financial struggles are no fun and can have a negative compounding effect in leading to other problems. For those unable to change their life circumstances, their plights in life can be as real and unpleasant a prison as an actual one would be.

I've also mentioned before, I don't get how people can lead their lives having given no thought to retirement finances. Those who don't participate in company retirement plans when available (however limited they may be), who haven't set up even as much as a modest retirement savings fund. Expecting to rely on Social Security is not a viable strategy.

We're rate in-between Comfortable and Affluent at 100% Satisfied.

A factor not considered is location. For people on a fixed income or relying on a nest egg to meet living expenses, the difference between living in a high vs a low cost of living area can make a substantial difference. Look at the "affluent" stats. Someone with income and assets as stated would not be affluent if living in Manhattan or many other urban areas. Yet, those same figures could provide a very comfortable life in the many parts of the US and also in the many low-cost retirement areas some people choose to relocate to.

The monthly expenditures would seem to support people living in less expensive areas. Also, they only surveyed people with financial assets under $1,000,000. Hah! I wonder how 'satisfied' the rest of the retiree community may be.

There are some pretty big tradeoffs, which affect quality of life quite directly in choosing low cost of living areas, specifically want of excellent medical care.

I agree, zalco. Not all low cost of living areas are remote or rural. Still, in such places and elsewhere, many people choose locations to live where excellent medical care is simply not easily accessible. Simply having a hospital "in town" or up the road is no assurance that what may be needed could be available there. And I'm not thinking only of emergencies or acute situations.

There have been instances in this forum from time to time about people dissatisfied with medical care they've gotten but in response to questions, they've replied along the lines of "It's the only doctor (or dentist or whatever) of that type available near where I live".

In retirement years, we all need more and different types of medical care and having that available is something to plan for.

Interesting......could you post a link to the article? And did they give any mention to health status of the people surveyed? Health care access is important, but so are the simple costs of health care (a senior with a chronic health condition will have generally higher "maintenance" costs, depending on the condition).

Health status not addressed in the article Retirement Satisfaction.

"Health care access is important, but so are the simple costs of health care (a senior with a chronic health condition will have generally higher "maintenance" costs, depending on the condition)."

Most seniors in the US covered by Medicare (anyone over 65), and with the supplemental policies most have and can afford, have access to mostly all the physician, hospital, and drug services and ancillary healthcare services they need, at low cost. There are a few exceptions but most have very comprehensive coverage. For low-income seniors, Medicare is free. For those who spent their lives at low socio-economic income levels, their healthcare coverage as seniors is typically superior to anything they had along the way.

Medicare patients have the same immediate, no wait access to appointments, services, and treatments that any other patients have from our mostly private sector health system, no matter what insurance coverage others have.

"Medicare patients have the same immediate, no wait access to appointments, services, and treatments that any other patients have from our mostly private sector health system, no matter what insurance coverage others have."

Having moved to Florida from NYC the experience being on Medicare has mixed results. I don't want to get into details, but I feel my late husband would have had much better medical care if his insurance was private.

We had the best supplement to Medicare, but Medicare really does not pay much for top medical care.

Jane

I was thinking more about the costs of drugs and home equipment/supplies, rather than the cost of doctor's visits. Regardless, I'm sure you'll disagree with me ;)

jrb451 -- Thank you for linking the article. (I'm embarrassed to be so computer illiterate.)

Jane -- I could never afford my monthly infustions for multiple myeloma without Medicare. True, they are billed as in-patient, but the drug alone is $26,000 each time, plus the nursing and facility costs at the cancer center, and the attending oncologist.

Also, if you have comprehensive supplemental insurance, doesn't that cover any further costs? My Plan F from BSBS picks up *everything* Medicare allows -- the 20% Medicare doesn't pay for.

The only time I can imagine not getting 'the best care' would be if a provider doesn't accept Medicare assignment. AFAIK most MDs refusing Medicare do so to limit their caseloads and work 'on retainer' for patients. I doubt many are specialists.

So the conclusion is that the people with more money are most satisfied? I could have saved them the money spent on the study....

"was thinking more about the costs of drugs and home equipment/supplies, rather than the cost of doctor's visits. Regardless, I'm sure you'll disagree with me"

Sure, I think anyone should be encouraged to speak up when an uninformed person offers incorrect information. You've seen threads in this forum about drug coverage and the supplemental policies people get.

Here's a partial list of home equipment and supplies covered by Medicare, from a Medicare site. In addition, many supplemental policies offer additional coverage beyond what Medicare does. My coverage, for example, includes a $4000 allowance every 3 years for hearing aids.

Partial list of medical equipment covered by Medicare

sushipup, true! but look at the spread between the highest three categories: 8.1 to 7.8 -- so money doesn't buy you that much more satisfaction. As long as you have "enough", it's enough -- makes sense to me.

I also note the age range surveyed ... if they had included retirees older than 75, how do you (anyone) think satisfaction would differ? It takes less money to be happy because one (might) travel less and/or have fewer large expenses to fund? Or it takes more money to be happy because medical expenses increase as health challenges mount up?

"if they had included retirees older than 75, how do you (anyone) think satisfaction would differ?"

I think that, if they'd included older retirees, other factors than financial ones would come into play.  There's a metric called "Healthy Life Expectancy (HALE) - how many years a person can expect to live without a disabling condition.  In the US, that figure at birth is 65 years;  at age 60 it is an additional 16.35 years. So, as a person hits 75 or 76, medical issues, access to health care, and the quality of that health care, are likely to become a much bigger factor in people's thinking, and not just because of the additional financial burden they may impose.

"Having moved to Florida from NYC the experience being on Medicare has mixed results. I don't want to get into details, but I feel my late husband would have had much better medical care if his insurance was private.

We had the best supplement to Medicare, but Medicare really does not pay much for top medical care."

Jane, I'm truly very sorry for your troubles. There's no need of course for you to provide further details but i will say the bad experiences you allude to are quite different from my own and those of my family members. Most of them gravitated toward faculty practices of medical schools and got the very best of care. I've done the same. We have two terrific medical schools in our area to choose from and our experiences with them are the same, top notch. They have different strengths and we choose where we go accordingly. Both accept Medicare fully. As do most physicians.

The ones that don't are often those in concierge practices for primary care and of course what they're offering (and charging for) is service, response time, and attention. Not medical care.

Best wishes.

Like nickel_kg, I was struck by how little 'satisfaction' ratings changed for all but the Strugglers. I wonder if the study wasn't done to show that -- was intended for what audience?

I actually found the satisfaction to income levels challenging to believe. Itnwould seem to indicate most people are satisfied retiring and living highly truncated lives.

Maybe they're just happy to be here.

Speaking for ourselves, we are spending far less than we did before we retired. Housing is fixed, and we seem to have what we need/want. We don't need new cars, or new clothes, or new furniture, or new gadgets. Previously, a good portion of our gross income went into IRAs/savings accounts. Now I'm not sure how to spend it.

Zalco, I have family members who are like that. I think the frugal way we were raised had something to do with their reluctance to spend money now. Luckily for me and DH, our investment advisor early on gave us this advice: Whatever you want to do in your retirement, start doing now, or you won't do it then. For example, we wanted to travel, so we carved out time and money to take some nice trips with our DD. Rarely longer than a week and not in the most expensive accommodations, but enough to set a pattern of planning and enjoying travel experiences that is even more fun post-retirement.

"Itnwould seem to indicate most people are satisfied retiring and living highly truncated lives."

My thought was that they weren't truncated lives, but were the same lives they had before - i.e not using their increased time to do more things (travel, sports, hobbies etc).