656
This 81-year-old still works at Home Depot to support herself and her 90-year-old husband
(www.businessinsider.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 04 Aug 2025
656 points (100.0% liked)
A Boring Dystopia
13322 readers
908 users here now
Pictures, Videos, Articles showing just how boring it is to live in a dystopic society, or with signs of a dystopic society.
Rules (Subject to Change)
--Be a Decent Human Being
--Posting news articles: include the source name and exact title from article in your post title
--If a picture is just a screenshot of an article, link the article
--If a video's content isn't clear from title, write a short summary so people know what it's about.
--Posts must have something to do with the topic
--Zero tolerance for Racism/Sexism/Ableism/etc.
--No NSFW content
--Abide by the rules of lemmy.world
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I feel sorry for the 81 year old and her husband. However, they have made nearly every wrong financial decision over most of their lives.
They've truly had some horrible timing and luck, however I truly hope their situation improves.
You might be able to make an argument for this grandma, but there are countless others. You can't deny we have a systemic problem that leaves seniors out in the cold
My comments are only about the couple in the article. The reason that is important is that the couple in the article are not the archetype we need to solve for. Its, as you point out, all the countless others. In effect, we should not look at this couple to see how to solve the problem of our senior citizens not able to age/live gracefully.
Who gives a shit? No one should have to spend their 80s working
I understand the sentiment but what he is saying is also important. Imagine, starting tomorrow everyone above 60 will get 5000 dolars every month. Will this couple in particular be able to live with it or will they make more bad choices.
I'm 100% pro supporting the retired community but Financial literacy is also very important, otherwise it doesn't matter how much money you give them.
It's so important to teach finamcial literacy from an early age
edit: just to add I'm not american. My.mother is 70yo and in my country retirement is supported by the government, but she still makes shitty choices from time to time.
That's why you don't give out money, you subsidize what people need in their age - rent, mobility, care. You can't make wrong decisions with money that is bound to services - it also means whatever comes, they are neither threatened by homelessness nor isolation. But that would be socialism, and we know how the US thinks about that, regardless of consequences like letting old people die in the streets.
I will be able to afford to retire where I live, I cant afford to retire in Manhattan or Monaco.
Is that really the only solution? A one liner?
It should rather be possible for some people to live in a retirement home.
I'm sure it was just an example.
An example of something that doesn't work, is not a very good argument that it is impossible to make work.
They are today still making choices which are forcing them to work. They might be able to not work if they move to a cheaper area and give up their expensive car.
Like move to a different state? They have family and friends there probably and also moving can be expensive.
But I agree, some people can make bad financial choices, but mostly it's not educated choices. So they need help either way, probably financially and consulting.
Then they have a new problem; isolation. Given having to work or be isolated, work is better
What you said doesn't address what he said.
Were they supposed to use their crystal ball to predict the 2008 grift and subsequent rebound?
In your list, nearly everything that comes after that is a symptom of trying to navigate financial hardship.l and being old enough to face age discrimination in the job market.
Which symptom cause the husband to quit his nearly $200,000/year job in 1994 and start a band without saving for retirement first?
Why is it that every comment chain about an unfortunate event has at least one callous person who is obviously victim blaming but trying their best to downplay it?
I'll ask you directly, why are you doing this, partial_accumen? Are you trying to convince yourself that this couldn't happen to you? Are you perhaps trying to convince yourself to stick with your soul-sucking yet decent paying job? What's your motivation?
I can't speak for every comment chain, only this one. For this one I CAN respond to you.
For so much of life we are powerless. The forces and events are beyond us and we're simply swept away suffering whatever fate chances gives us. Its frightening and very real. As an example, someone born into a war torn country had no control over the geography of their birth. They are at constant risk of death. There are only a few small things a person can do in that situation and very few of them will result in meaningful change. They will likely be victim of the circumstances that were handed to them through no fault of their own.
None of that is what this 80+ couple is.
This couple has had opportunity after opportunity handed to them. They chose again and again to choose the risky, easy, or comfortable path. They are still doing that even today in a couple areas! This couple is NOT simply victims of circumstance. They had power and ability to affect massive positive change on their present and future existence throughout the second half of their lives (which is as far back as the article goes). Instead at many turns they chose options that point to THIS path. The one with the wife having to work at Home Depot at 81.
Conflating my prior example and this couple together as simply victims does a disservice to the former. It also paints a picture that the couple's path is inevitable for all of us, and it isn't! It is valuable to learn from the mistakes of others so that we do not make the same mistakes ourselves.
It won't. Something else will, but THIS won't. Others that look at and learn how this couple lived will also be spared their fate, because we can examine what mistakes they made and change course ourselves so that we don't end up in their avoidable situation.
I feel sympathy for them, as I have stated multiple times. I fully understand that we all make mistakes. None of us are perfect. Circumstances did a number on them, but they are not blameless for their situation. There are many in similar situations to this couple that are blameless. Those others have much more sympathy from me.
I would argue that they were in fact victims of circumstance. The 2008 mortgage implosion seems to be the root of their troubles. I doubt they thought they were making subpar choices in the aftermath. Putting the blame on them really shifts focus from the elephant in the room, that our society should provide a baseline level of dignified existance for the elderly and infirm no matter the quality of their life choices.
Suggesting they move to west virginia because it's cheaper is a ridiculous idea that only someone who lacks life experience would propose. I'm calling out a kid, aren't I?
Your writing is too verbose and lacks tact.
I would disagree with you. The root of their trouble started in 1994. The husband was making the equivalent of $195,221.66/year and quit that job to start a band. They could have been set for life if he worked just a few years at that job and saved for retirement. How badly would you blame anyone today that quit a nearly $200k/year job to start a band, and then had a tough time covering their basic needs in retirement?
It looks like right now they're paying on a vehicle that cost at least $37,000. They are still making bad choices.
I'll be the first one to say we need something like UBI, but we do have a system in place that provides a baseline level: Social Security. As I pointed out, their income they are receiving today would give them hundreds of dollars in surplus if they didn't live in Connecticut, but instead in a lower cost of living area. Again, they're choosing to live in a more expensive place forcing the wife to work. It was no mystery how much they would be getting in Social Security when they retired. I can look up right now how much I'll get when I retire. The disconnect seems to be them not doing simply math to see what a sustainable path is. Now, I'm sure there is more to it that my simplification above for their specific circumstances, but even with additional complexity the simply math by itself doesn't add up to a sufficient answer before adding any other life complexity/challenges.
I lack life experience? I think I could accuse you of that if this is your take. Life doesn't always go as we want. You don't get to do something just because you want to. You do what you have to in life to live. Sometimes that means moving for work, or making choices you wouldn't like to do otherwise. This is a lesson our couple didn't seem to learn as it looks like they're living above their means and having to kill themselves working far into their years to continue on this path, nor is it one it sounds like you've had to experience yet. What the wife is doing, working at Home Depot, isn't sustainable. What is their plan when she can't work? Who is going to pay the rent and the expensive car payment? They have no plan B. They still aren't looking at their circumstances and making changes to secure their futures for the years they have level.
Further, West Virginia was an example of cheaper cost of living place to live. I'm not prescribing that's the only place on the planet they can go and live within their means. I wouldn't not have told them to end up where the are in circumstances. I am simply taking what they have left and suggesting an alternative that addresses the fire in the room, her working at 81 to keep a roof over their heads. On this current path, they're headed for homelessness if they don't change course.
Sorry, this is how I talk and write. You're under no obligation to interact with me if it bothers you that much. I'm certainly not changing just for you.
Your first response to me was accusing me of victim blaming. I'm following your tone on tact.
I get where you're coming from, but I don’t think it holds up the way you’re framing it. Pinning the root of their trouble on a decision made in 1994 is a bit of a reach. You’re talking about a 30-year-old choice—one that may not have panned out financially, sure, but let’s not act like anyone who steps off the traditional path is just writing themselves into a future of failure. People take risks. Sometimes they pay off, sometimes they don’t. That doesn’t make someone reckless or undeserving of support three decades later. You’re applying hindsight like a hammer, and it oversimplifies everything that likely happened in between.
And honestly, the “$200k job to start a band” line feels a little too convenient. Maybe he quit for health, burnout, family reasons—we don’t know. Framing it as a dumb, selfish move is an assumption dressed up as fact. Life’s not a spreadsheet. People don’t always make optimal economic choices, and pretending everyone has the foresight, stability, and circumstances to do so just isn't realistic.
As for the $37,000 car—yeah, that’s not ideal. But again, you’re pulling one purchase out of what’s probably a complicated financial picture and using it to write off their entire decision-making process. Have you priced reliable vehicles lately? Even used ones? You don’t know if that was their only option after a breakdown or if it was financed under pressure. It’s easy to diagnose “bad choices” from the outside when you’re not in the thick of it.
And about “doing what you have to”—I agree in principle. Life is about hard choices. But let's not pretend that “just move to a cheaper state” is some silver bullet. Moving costs money. Leaving behind your doctors, your social support network, everything familiar—that’s not nothing. It’s not just a matter of pulling up Zillow and hopping a U-Haul to West Virginia. The fact that you think that’s a simple fix kind of underlines how disconnected this solution is from the reality of aging in poverty.
You say they have no Plan B. That’s fair, maybe. But they also don’t have many cards left to play. Working at 81 isn’t ideal—but it’s what they’ve got. And instead of asking “why didn’t they plan better 30 years ago?” maybe ask why we expect any 81-year-old to be keeping a job just to afford rent. That’s not a personal failure—that’s a systemic one. The fact that they’re still working shows grit. The fact that they have to shows a breakdown in the system we’re all supposed to be able to rely on someday.
You’re focused on their past decisions like they were filling out a retirement strategy on a clean whiteboard. But most people aren’t living with that level of control, especially over decades. You don’t know their full story, just some snapshots, and you’re building a moral framework around it. That’s fine if you want to play armchair financial advisor, but don’t pretend it’s empathy.
And yeah, they're in a bad spot. But treating them like a cautionary tale instead of real people facing a brutal system isn’t going to help them—or anyone else headed in the same direction.
I just read your post and you responded to 10 or 12 of my points, which I appreciate. However, in all but 2 which you had good faith responses you strawmanned ever single other one misrepresenting what I said or claimed I said the exact contradictory language to what I actually said so it fit your point.
I don't think there's a path forward we can continue conversing on this. I hope you have a nice day.
Bwah ha ha. This may surprise you, but one of the reasons apartments are so cheap in WV is that there are no jobs in WV. And definitely not jobs for octogenarians.
If they are living in WV, as an example, they don't need the additional income from a job to live. I'm suggesting they move *so they don't have to work.
Sorry but your last point is absolutely asinine. It ignores the hardships caused by relocating, the fact that rural hospitals like those available in WV are continuously shutting their doors as they are deemed unprofitable (the husband has health problems), and the fact that, based upon a wealth of international studies, the isolation from social support networks that they'd assuredly face, is pretty much a death sentence.
So, from that point alone, your statement could be paraphrased as: "They don't need to live in such an unaffordable place; they could just die instead."
They are THIS CLOSE to homelessness right now. Is homelessness for an 81 year old woman with a 90 year old husband not also a death sentence?
....and...
What do you call being forced to work at 81 (with a 90 year old non-working husband), and only being able to work 4 of the 5 hour shift because you're exhausted? How about the fact that they are THIS CLOSE to being homeless if she doesn't work? They've had bad luck and made bad choices for most of the second half of their lives. We don't have any good solutions left only least worst.
You're saying that moving is a death sentence. I'm saying homelessness is, which is what is in their near future.
I call it "absolutely fucked up".
Maybe I took you the wrong way, if so, my apologies. I think that this is a case of both statements bring correct. They are effectively being murdered through fiscal policy and corruption.
Pretty much all rural hospitals will close when the Medicaid cuts take effect after the next midterms.
Cool. A majority of people my age are in the same boat without being cursed/dipshits.
Can’t give a fuck about a poor boomer. Fuck em.