My Autobiography: David Balleza K(C)atague: Downsizing versus Aging-in-Place

Saturday, April 20, 2024

Downsizing versus Aging-in-Place

The following is an article I read recently that reminded me of a Bridge Buddy who has not made up her mind whether to downsize and reside here at THD or age-in-place in her huge single residence home with a huge backyard and all the familiar items/properties she has owned for several decades. I hope by reading this she will make a decision soon whether to downsize or remain in her home.

I wrote an article that Downsizing is not for the Faint-hearted recently. In that article I described how I felt getting rid of my possessions via estate sales, donations or just thrashing it, because I will be moving to a smaller place. I did age-in-place for a year with the help of Home Care Aides and occasional visits from closed relatives. I felt that after one year of living alone, it is time for me not to be isolated, be able to play bridge again and establish new friendships in a an active senior Living Community. THD is a perfect place for me for my well-thought downsizing decision. Downsizing was not easy, but after making a decision, I felt it was the best decision for the duration of the last stages of my life here on Planet Earth.

https://theintellectualmigrants.blogspot.com/2023/03/downsizing-is-not-for-faint-hearted.html

Here's a summary of the article I read on Downsizing versus Aging-in-Place written by Lauren Rosales-Shepard and the link is posted below. The other link is a article on the same subject. Please take time to read.

"The older population in the United States is greatly increasing, with the number of seniors (those 65 or older) expected to almost double by 2060. Life expectancy, too, has climbed. As a result, a growing number of homeowners find themselves en route to retiring into a conundrum: do I stay in my home and age in place, or do I downsize?

The pros and cons of each option seem at first obvious. If you downsize to a smaller home, you will have much less space to maintain (especially yard-wise!). On the other hand, if you stay in your home and age in place, you’re in your home–you know the space, the community, already. Downsizing requires moving, and when has that ever been anyone’s idea of A Good Time? But your current home is full of empty rooms, now that your children have grown up and flown the coop; it can be lonely.

It’s a tremendously weighty decision. Like any life-altering choice, there are complexities to consider, and there is no one-size-fits-all solution.

Downsizing

If the members of your household have dwindled to two or one, you would undoubtedly embrace being responsible for less space. You would have fewer rooms to clean if you downsized, not to mention less (if any) yard to mow and rake. Plus, were you to relocate, you might possess the luxury of choice–without needing to be near a job, you could choose to be near family, or in a more appealing climate, for example.

Homeowners who look to relocate into a smaller autonomous home may, however, run into severe cost issues. Purchasing a home in today’s market will subject one to skyrocketing mortgage rates amidst ever-rising inflation. Both of these factors may make it more difficult for you to sell your current home for the funds to purchase a new one—that is, if you can even find one! There is an extreme housing shortage. In addition, there is an even more blatant scarcity of smaller homes, as they are simply no longer being built. But seniors who would be open to apartment-living (no yard!) face an obstacle, too: the paucity of multifamily housing. Nationwide, there is very little zoning that permits multifamily housing to be built. Zoning often not only prohibits multifamily dwellings in particular, but also might limit the heights of buildings and include minimum lot-size and square-footage requirements. Those apartments that can be built tend to be luxury condos, or publicly-subsidized low-income housing–nothing in the middle, which is often the space that seniors on a fixed income would financially occupy.

Similar dynamics exist in the senior living industry, which is continuously innovating to present desirable options to aging adults of means. Senior living facilities often put on social events, and promote opportunities for residents, however independently they are able to live, to meet, mingle, and form friendships. This is great news for one’s health, as social isolation and loneliness frequently have deleterious effects on seniors–indeed, the related health risks are comparable to that of smoking and obesity! Frequent social interactions can slow symptoms of dementia in aging adults".

Aging-in-Place

"According to AARP surveys, 90% of seniors (65+) want to age in place–in other words, to remain in their current homes. The main reason for this preference is a desire for social connectedness; those who are already familiar with and active in their communities do not want to lose that built-in social network. Although many assisted living facilities, retirement homes, and luxury senior living developments do feature social activities and engagement, it is daunting for anyone to start from scratch and facilitate new friendships. It can be even more difficult for an aging individual who is more likely to want to cling to the familiar.

Familiarity is also key to a sense of agency and independence. While a new neighborhood could be difficult to navigate, if one were to age in place it might be easier to satisfy the basic needs–groceries, clothing, appointments, etc–without help. Access to affordable transportation options tends to be scarce, and so those aging adults who cannot or do not drive themselves become isolated and are far less likely to take active steps for self-care. Those who opt to age in place frequently do so because it seems like the best way to maintain their autonomy for as long as possible.

There are significant factors to take into account when considering aging in place. Do you foresee yourself needing assistance with activities of daily living? Will you require help with chores and additional home/yard maintenance? Even if you don’t think that either of these possibilities belong to the near future, it’s important to make a plan just in case. This plan can include at least budgeting for various potential home modifications, as well as for services you may later need–lawn care, snow removal, grocery delivery, dog-walking, routine in-home medical care, etc. If you live in a two-story house, you should be especially cognizant of the potential renovations that you may require: installing or tightening handrails, placing extra lighting and non-slip material on the stairs, even installing a lift in case of extreme loss of mobility. Bathroom renovations, in particular, may need to be extensive. You may want to consider whether it is possible to relegate your daily life to the main floor alone, as well( Does not apply if you reside in a ranch style home-no second floor as in my case)".

Conclusion: There is no one right answer for everyone. Aging-in-place may be statistically popular, but not all places are suitable for that plan. You must think of your own priorities, financial situation, as well as health profile to make the most logical, beneficial decision. Be sure to talk to your doctor, your family members, and your heirs to gather the most relevant and informed perspectives.

Source: https://www.unison.com/blog/downsizing-vs-aging-in-place/#

https://margolisbloom.com/planning-for-life/should-seniors-downsize-or-age-in-place/

No comments:

Highlights of My Professional Career

In my more than 40 years of professional career, I have experienced both working rank and file, as well as supervising the work of subordinates. I have worked in four private firms and the Federal Government, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), where I retired. I enjoyed the challenges and difficulties of both types of job situations. This is the highlights of my work experience story.

My first job after completing my doctorate degree was a Chemist for Chemagro Corporation in Kansas City, Missouri. It was a subsidiary of Bayer Corporation, a German conglomerate. I worked for the analytical chemistry department comprised of about fifty people; half that number was either chemists or biologists. My specific task was to develop analytical methods for the detection of pesticide residues in plant and animal tissues. I worked on my own, similar to six other bench chemists, and we all reported to the same supervisor.

The firm sponsored my visa conversion from a student to a permanent resident, and I was able to legally work and reside in the United States with my family. The company generously took care of its employees. At the end of each successful year, everyone received a 13th month salary bonus. The employees and their families celebrated wonderful annual Christmas parties in a downtown Kansas City hotel, with dancing and free drinks for the whole night.

Inasmuch as I enjoyed and loved working for Chemagro for five years, I found a new job which offered a substantially higher pay. Due to my exemplary work performance, my supervisor preferred and lobbied for me to stay with the company. I had to turn him down because they could not match the package presented by my new employer. It was also a chance for me and my family to move and live in the US west coast, where the mild winter climate is bearable compared to the Midwest.

My next job was at the agricultural research division of Shell Development Company in Modesto, California. I was a Research Chemist, and again I worked individually, same as five other chemists who all reported to a supervisor. My specific duty was similar to my previous job. I worked for them for five years, until the company decided to get out of the pesticide business. They closed their research facility affecting the jobs of more than 200 employees.

My third industrial job was with the agricultural research division of Stauffer chemical company, located in Richmond, California. I was a Senior Research Chemist doing the same project as my two previous jobs. I worked for twelve continuous years for the company, with outstanding annual job performance. I became a Principal Research Chemist, the highest attainable non-supervisory position.

One day in 1986, my supervisor informed me that my job had been eliminated, and I had one day to vacate the facility. It was the most dreadful lay off experience in my life. I felt anger, sadness and humiliation to be dismissed from work with one day notice, after all the years of hard work invested for the company. This was an unforgettable incident and was the gloomiest point in my professional career.
The company terminated sixty research employees, who were upset of the bad news.

One of the chemists was distressed and expressed his outrageous anger by threatening the company and its workers. He told his supervisor of his intention to bomb and burn down the laboratory. He was immediately escorted by the security staff out of the building and into his car. He was informed to leave behind his personal belongings; they will be mailed to his residence. He was warned never to show up again near the company premises or risk getting arrested.

My supervisor was kind and allowed me to take my time to pack up my belongings. It took me two days to clear up my workplace, after toiling for a long period in the same jobsite. We were provided clerical help and office space, in preparation to look for another job, such as updating our resumes, and using the computer and copy machine. We were given six weeks of separation pay plus benefits.

Fortunately, with the help of a friend who is a Church parishioner, I found another job thirty days after leaving Stauffer chemical company. He hired me as a senior research chemist and as a group leader with two technicians to supervise. It was in the same field as my expertise in my previous three jobs spanning the last twenty one years. My new employer was Chevron Chemical Company, and which was located in the same area as my former employer.

This job gave me the introduction and basic knowledge of managing the work of subordinates. I worked for Chevron Company for four and a half years. The company decided to consolidate their research facilities in Texas, and lay off all its research employees. This time I had enough distress and agony from working, and eventually getting laid off from several private companies. To avoid going through any more miserable layoffs, I made a vow that I would never again work for a private company.

In my work experiences, there were noticeable and unavoidable jobsite occurrences. One can never miss the office romantic relationships between co-workers, both illicit and permitted. Though it was frowned upon, there was a boss and staff relationship, which was used as a ploy to get ahead in the company. Some relationships had chemistry, no pun intended, but some never worked out. Oftentimes, there was a sense of distrust among bench chemists for some workers who unjustly obtained preferred work assignments.

Some employees resorted to bribing superiors to get special privileges, such as being able to attend choice conferences and meetings in exciting venues or locations. Likewise, politics was always present at the worksites. It was during an era when various forms of harassment, equal opportunity and discrimination laws were not yet enforced in the workplace. Occasionally, an unexpected chemical explosion happens in a laboratory setting, where luckily no one got seriously hurt.

In the three private companies I worked for, I was able to publish scientific journals for some of the research studies and analytical methods which I developed for the respective companies of Chemagro, Shell Development and Stauffer.

After deciding and making a vow to avoid working in the private sector, I made my new goal which was either to work for the state of California, or the Federal government in Washington, D.C. Four months after I lost my job in Chevron, I was lucky and joyful to be hired by the Food and Drug Administration as a review chemist in the fall of 1990.

In 1994 I was promoted as an Expert Research Chemist with a GS-14 rating. My expertise was on Anti-malarial and Anti-parasitic drug products. In 1997, I was again deservingly promoted to Chemistry team leader, supervising the work of six Chemistry reviewers including five with doctorate degrees.

As team leader, I was responsible for prioritizing, assigning, and assuring the technical accuracy of all chemistry, manufacturing and control issues for all new drug applications submitted to the Division of Anti-Infective Drug Products, Center of New Drugs.

It was part of my responsibility to give advice, instruct and promote high morale and teamwork in my group. My work in the FDA is confidential, until the drug patent on the products I worked on has expired. There are manufacturing supplements that I have approved that are now open for the public in the Internet.

In 1998, I won the Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Award. The citation reads, “For outstanding accomplishments in fostering the objectives of the EEO Program by hiring minorities and encouraging their professional growth while providing excellent leadership.” I have received numerous certificates of appreciation, awards in leadership and communications, commendation for teamwork and excellence in the accomplishment of the FDA mission. I have also received several letters of appreciation from private industry for my review work.

There are many good things working as rank and file while enjoying doing one’s job individually. It is a humbling, satisfying and productive experience, if one can work in harmony with one’s immediate supervisor. Working individually develops one’s skills in goal setting and scheduling. But in general, the financial rewards are less than a person who has supervisory responsibilities.

Managing the work of others has its challenges. Moreover, it develops one’s skill in handling and developing people, and the compensation rewards and benefits are better. Due to additional duties, responsibilities and leadership, supervisory work can be more stressful than working as a subordinate. However, supervisory jobs give one more personal growth and satisfaction, based on my personal experience. My work in FDA as a team leader managing the work of six scientists had been the happiest and rewarding work experience in my career in Chemistry. You might also like:

Saturday, April 20, 2024

Downsizing versus Aging-in-Place

No comments:

Post a Comment

Linkwithin

Write a Comment