Financially comfortable, health improving, still working – am I solving the wrong problem?

Rdwill

Thanks again for all the replies. One thing that has struck me from reading the thread is that very few people seem to have followed a neat, pre-planned route from full-time work to retirement.

A number of posters have described circumstances changing, jobs improving or worsening, opportunities arising, health issues appearing, or simply finding a different balance over time rather than making a single big retirement decision.

I found Albermarle's follow-up particularly interesting. What I had initially interpreted as a deliberate decision to work longer for financial reasons was actually more a case of work becoming enjoyable again and retirement therefore feeling less urgent. I suspect there is an element of that in many people's journeys.

One thing this discussion has challenged is my assumption that the choice is simply between "carry on working" and "retire". There may be a third option, which is some form of gradual transition or role redesign.

In my profession, reducing from five days to four often seems to result in almost the same workload for less pay, so I suspect any successful transition would need to involve a genuine change in responsibilities rather than simply working fewer hours.

Interestingly, my wife raised the possibility of reducing her own working week this morning, which perhaps suggests that this is not purely a financial discussion for either of us.

The thread has certainly challenged my assumption that the default answer should simply be to keep doing what I'm doing until a particular retirement date arrives.

For those who have successfully moved from full-time work into a reduced-hours role, particularly in professional or managerial positions, how did that transition actually happen? Did you redesign the role, move into something different, or simply negotiate fewer days? Looking back, was it a stepping stone to retirement or did it become a destination in its own right?

Yorkie1

For those who have successfully moved from full-time work into a reduced-hours role, particularly in professional or managerial positions, how did that transition actually happen? Did you redesign the role, move into something different, or simply negotiate fewer days? Looking back, was it a stepping stone to retirement or did it become a destination in its own right?

In the civil service, there are various pension schemes from various periods of time, but most people will still have a first part of their pension which can usually be taken at 60, with a second part at state pension age (both unreduced). If permitted by your department, you can partially retire at 60 with the first part of the pension, and continue contributing to the second part until you finally leave.

If you do that, you have to reduce your hours or job by a sufficient amount so that your overall pension + reduced income is not more than your original salary. Many people choose to drop to 3 days a week from full time, rather than drop down grades and continue to work full time at that reduced salary.

I think it is quite often the case that if you only go down to 4 days a week, you end up doing 5 days' work in those 4 days. With a 3 day week, that evidently isn't possible and so there has to be an element of job design to cut out some elements of the previous role.

So, for most people, it is a stepping stone towards retirement. But how long that period lasts, is up to the individual!

BikingBud

I started my current role on the understanding that it is 3 days per week and although I do shuffle sometimes to cover activities on non-working days that I flex across, I have been quite clear on the boundaries and the workload. This has meant I have missed some overseas trips that might have been enjoyable but on reflection that would have meant travelling time and lead to extended days with little opportunity to see the place you are visiting. Too much rush and no time to breath.

There was a short period where I covered for a gap and went up to 4 days and I have been asked if I want to go to full time, whilst people see the benefit for the company I cannot see any benefit to me of increasing my commitment.

So quite content with the deal - 3 day working week and 4 day weekend + good weather ⇒ time to ride, lots.

Rdwill

Thanks everyone for the thoughtful replies and for sharing your experiences.

The discussion has been genuinely helpful because it has challenged some of my assumptions.

The biggest thing I've taken away is that the question may not be "Can I afford to retire?" but rather "What do I actually want the next phase of life and work to look like?"

Having revisited my modelling, one thing that has become clear is that continuing full-time for another few years until around age 60 materially improves the resilience of the plan and provides a much larger margin for error. Equally, the discussion has reminded me that time and health are not unlimited resources and that there is little point accumulating money for its own sake.

I think my current conclusion is that there is no immediate need to make any major changes. The finances appear broadly sound, my health is currently improving rather than deteriorating, and I still enjoy my work.

What I will probably do is continue reviewing things over the next few years while keeping an open mind about whether a gradual transition, a redesigned role, or full retirement ultimately makes the most sense.

One thing I am certain of is that the thread has made me realise that continuing full-time indefinitely should not simply be the default option.

Thanks again to everyone who contributed.