Retire by 30, thanks nursing!

agent66 · Dec 12, 2007

Only $4000 a month, hmmm... impossible for most of us to put aside into savings. Wow, but good for you if you make that much that you can do that and still have fun too. I obviously work in the wrong country?

mikethern · Dec 12, 2007

By the way, open a Roth IRA right away. A Roth IRA allows you to invest $5,000 into individual stocks, and when you retire, you withdrawals with be 100% tax-free.

mikethern · Dec 12, 2007

Only $4000 a month, hmmm... impossible for most of us to put aside into savings. Wow, but good for you if you make that much that you can do that and still have fun too. I obviously work in the wrong country?

$4,000 a month is $48,000 a year. Very do-able if you have no kids and don't buy stuff you do not need. Travel nursing is the way to go because you get free housing.

cardiacRN2006, ADN, RN · Dec 12, 2007

Zero experience listed because this OP has not even GRADUATED YET!

Please read posts carefully prior to responding (does nobody do this anymore???). My post was NOT directed at the OP. It was directed at another poster. It was directed to the person who I quoted in my post.

Valanda · Dec 12, 2007

Honestly if you're 21 and want to be a travel nurse, I would suggest going for your BSN and going into the military at age 23. After 20 years you retire with 50% of your income, up to 75% at 30 years. So you can realistically retire at age 43. If you make Lt. Colonel (O-5, which, as far as I know, is very realistic), you will be making (according to 2008 scale, which absolutely will go up each year) 7409/month. 1/2 of that is approx 3700/month, or 43000 a year. You can also put part of your paycheck (say, 10%) in a 401k that the military offers. If you put an average of 500/month, or 6k a year, at 20 years and not including interest you'd have 120k in a retirement fun. So you are then guaranteed 43000 a year before taxes, and have 120k in a retirement fun, which you can then use, once you're out, to buy (or put a fantastic down payment) on a house. You also get the medical, dental, & vision, guaranteed job, and aren't required to work 60+ hours a week. It's a more realistic goal, imo.

I have a friend who has basically done this. She joined the army for 4 years, then went into reserves. Her full time job has been working as a nurse in the state prison. She plans to retire next year and collect benefits from both federal and state. She will be 44.

mikethern · Dec 12, 2007

Drawback of the military is you will move every couple of years and might end up in a country you do not enjoy. I was stationed on Guam for 2 years when I was in the Army. Yeccck!

If you do join, join the Air Force. They get treated the best.

DutchgirlRN, ASN, RN · Dec 12, 2007

Reality is that the OP is 21 years old and is a starry eyed novice unlike this weathered ole battleaxe. Why would anyone want to retire at 30 y/o anyway? To save money, yes! that is an awesome goal.

Lawsuits? Nurses worry incessantly about lawsuits, while hardly any nurses are ever sued. It's very easy to deal with, if someone is that worried: buy some liability insurance (for almost everyone reading this, less than $100 a year) and forget about it.

It's very easy to deal with? Just pay the $100 per year and forget about it? I don't think so. I think that is a callous attitude.

Mistakes? Everyone makes them. Even those who work 8 hours a week. Or whatever. The rule is be the best nurse you can be, do the best you can be, and, again, don't worry about it.

Be the best you can and don't worry about it? We're taking care of human beings not potted plants.

I've been a nurse for 32+ years and everyday that I work I check and double check not because I worry about getting sued but because I don't want to harm anyone. I could handle being sued, I think, but causing permanent damage or killing someone, no I don't think I could live with that, at least not without alot of therapy.

In it for the money? Who cares? I'd far rather see someone in it for the money, than the crusading do-gooders who are there "to help people." Those "in it for the money" are usually competent, qualified, organized nurses who don't operate with the illusion that nursing is some kind of religious order.

Who cares? Patients care!! Whatever your personal opinion is...there is a difference between the care a nurse gives who cares for his/her patient vs just being there for the money. I'm a kind, compassionate, professional nurse, I do cash my generous paycheck and I am not a member of a religious order, I just don't believe in organized religion but what's wrong with being in a religious order? That's makes a nurse a bleeding heart do-gooder. No it does not.

Keeping patients safe is one of the most basic nursing responsibilities. In November, the Institute of Medicine released its report, “Keeping Patients Safe: Transforming the Work Environment of Nurses,” which recognized the role of nurses in patient safety.

The risk of making an error was significantly increased when working more than 40 hours a week and was even higher when nurses worked more than 50 hours per week. The majority of errors and near errors were medication-related.
The relationship between hours worked and errors and near errors did not appear to be affected by the age of the nurse, the size of the hospital, or the type of hospital unit.

The responsibility for ensuring patient safety rests with health care organizations and nurses. The results of the Rogers study suggest that both groups need to address the number of hours nurses work. Health care organizations have the responsibility not to expect or require nurses to routinely work long hours and to create checks and balances systems that identify potential errors before they occur and prevent them from occurring.

Nurses have the responsibility not to work beyond their limits. When emergent situations do require long hours, nurses and hospitals must be aware that errors and near errors are more likely to occur and must implement checks and double checks that ensure patient safety.

Hospitals and other health care organizations can and should create policies regarding the hours nurses can work on a daily or weekly basis. Nurses also have to make decisions about the total hours they work. Many nurses like longer shifts or more hours and many nurses work overtime and/or more than one job to make additional income.

The Rogers study should raise the awareness and concern of health care organizations and nurses that longer hours can be detrimental for patients. Using the easy way to fill nurse needs at the end of a shift or when someone calls in by having nurses who have already worked their shifts or 40 hour weeks work longer hours can compromise patients, as can nurses who voluntarily work longer hours. We all know that a large part of the problem goes back to not having enough nurses, but we cannot willingly put our patients in danger because we cannot find solutions to that problem.

http://www.nurseweek.com/edNote/04/082304_bethulrich.asp

Satori77, ADN · Dec 12, 2007

$4,000 a month is $48,000 a year. Very do-able if you have no kids and don't buy stuff you do not need. Travel nursing is the way to go because you get free housing.

But in the original post, he talked about being a stay at home dad. He either has kids, or wants them. That means tons of extra expenses, and as a mom of two, LOTS of stuff you don't really need.

DutchgirlRN, ASN, RN · Dec 12, 2007

But in the original post, he talked about being a stay at home dad. He either has kids, or wants them. That means tons of extra expenses, and as a mom of two, LOTS of stuff you don't really need.

How many people plan their life out at age 21 and it turns out just like they invisioned? I know mine didn't, not even close.

Perhaps I should have used my "easy" button years earlier!

bagladyrn, RN · Dec 12, 2007

$4,000 a month is $48,000 a year. Very do-able if you have no kids and don't buy stuff you do not need. Travel nursing is the way to go because you get free housing.

Mike - A couple of "reality checks" on travel nursing. I speak from the vantage point of being a travel nurse for 11+ years now. One year is the bare minimum to be accepted by some agencies as a travel nurse. Some agencies require a minimum of 2 years experience in your specialty area, particularly critical care areas. Some hospitals are requiring the proposed traveler to have a minimum of 5(!) years experience in the area.

As for "free housing" - the housing allowance is only tax free if you maintain a tax home - which among other things requires paying rent or mortgage, utilities on a permanent residence (NOT a storage unit, p.o. box or relatives address as a mail drop). Otherwise, all money for housing, travel, stipend is taxed as income. So you are not getting out of paying housing expenses somewhere.

Don't forget that as a traveler you have "down time" between assignments, even if you go from one to the next there is the travel time involved. You don't get any pay for this time, or for any sick days (in fact you have to reimburse your agency for the cost of your housing for any missed time).

Traveling is great, but not the pot of gold that some people tend to think it is.

mikethern · Dec 12, 2007

Hi baglady. I was a travel nurse too. I made $35/hr plus free furnished housing. Yes, you pay tax on the housing, but it is still free housing. It's not the travel nurse agency's fault that you are taxed.

As for down time between assignments, you don't have to work just 13 weeks at a time. You can keep extending as long as they welcome you. I did 3 travel assignments and all 3 bosses asked me to extend my contract. As for vacation time, the original poster did not seem interested in taking vacation.

Also, if your goal is to maximize your income, you can work as a travel nurse in California because they have the highest salaries.

Bottom line, if you want to make as much money as possible as a staff nurse, travel nursing is the way to go.

treysdaddy08 · Dec 12, 2007

Okay, I am an RN who has been picking and buying my own individual stocks since 1999. Your goal is easier than even you think it is.
You only need to save $4,000 a month.

SAVE 4,000 a month. If the OP is correct in stating that his living expenses will only be 2500 a month, that means that he needs to make (after taxes) 6500 a month. Which means you need to TAKE HOME 78k/year. If you're taxed at 28% (his number) then he needs to make a little more than 9k a month. That number is even higher than his proposed 8100/month he believes he will be making. 9k/month is 108k/year. In Washington State (which has no state tax, thereby taxed less per pay check) if you make 108k/year and have nothing taken out, and claim '0' dependents, you will 'take home' 5841.02/month, which is still 658.98 dollars a month short. So the OP would have to make that up by working approx 16 more hours of overtime (guesstimating here) to still his his "only" 4k/month, which means he "only" needs to work approx. 76 hours a week, every week, or 14 hours a day for 5 days, and then an 8 hour work day on saturday. It's fantastic that he is so zealous in earning potential. Most of us are just saying it's probably not as realistic as one might think. 80 hours a week is possible (I've done it as an NAC), but not very likely, or safe, esspecially for 9 straight years.