
The Rule of 1,000 Hours in Retirement
By Jacob Schroeder
From Kiplinger's Personal Finance
The real national pastime isn't baseball. If you go by how Americans actually spend their leisure time, it's something even slower: watching TV.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics' American Time Use Survey, Americans spend nearly three hours a day watching television, making it the country's most popular leisure activity. Among retirees, that number rises to more than four hours a day.
'Unfortunately, many people think they're going to be someone different in retirement, but they're not. In fact, it's you times two,' says Robert Laura, founder of the Retirement Coaches Association.
That's because even after leaving work, many retirees fall into familiar routines, convinced they'll have more time later. This is a common psychological bias known as future time slack.
But free time in retirement isn't unlimited. Look closely at how retirees spend their time, and it adds up to roughly 1,000 hours a year of meaningful, discretionary time.
Related Stories
4/23/2025
4/24/2025
When it comes to building a fulfilling retirement, research and experts say that how you spend your time can be just as important as how you spend your money. And for the four million Americans reaching retirement age each year, the clock is already ticking.
What Is the 'Rule of 1,000 Hours' in Retirement?
The American Time Use Survey (ATUS) tracks how Americans spend their hours each day. It shows that the average adult enjoys about five hours of leisure time per day, or around 1,800 hours a year.
But not all of that time is high-quality. A closer look shows that the largest share is spent on passive activities like watching TV, scrolling online and casual socializing. When you account for how much leisure time is absorbed by low-effort habits, the truly discretionary, meaningful time—the kind you can intentionally spend on hobbies, passions, travel, volunteering, or learning new skills—shrinks to about 1,000 hours a year.
And that's just an estimate. Unexpected obligations, caregiving needs or health issues can chip away at it even further. That's why the 'rule of 1,000 hours' offers a more realistic framework: It's the amount of time retirees can reasonably expect to control and use with purpose each year.
Arguably, that time may be more valuable than money. As the authors of one academic paper put it, 'Time is a precious commodity in later life, made even more so by challenging post-retirement circumstances.'
When Free Time Becomes a Challenge
Many people underestimate the hidden losses that come with leaving work.
'You lose more than you gain in retirement,' says Laura.
While retirees gain time, they can also lose routine, structure, social connection, mental stimulation and a sense of purpose. As Laura notes, 'Golfing, fishing or watching the grandkids doesn't replace all of those things.' In fact, his research shows that 76 percent of retirees have seen someone struggle with the transition, and 51 percent say it takes longer than a year to adjust.
This helps explain why millions of retirees return to work after stepping away. According to T. Rowe Price, about half (48 percent) of retirees who work say they need to for financial reasons, while a similar share (45 percent) chose to work for social and emotional benefits.
Psychologists have also found that too much unstructured free time can actually lower well-being. A study published by the American Psychological Association reported that while well-being rises with more free time, it peaks around two hours per day and begins to decline when people have more than five discretionary hours daily.
However, other retirees encounter the opposite problem, Laura adds. 'Some retirees say they're busier than ever, but the tasks are meaningless. Over time, that leaves them feeling used rather than helpful.'
Awareness is the first step. The next is creating a plan for how you'll spend your time in retirement, just as carefully as you planned for your finances.
Making the Most of Your 1,000 Hours
Financial experts agree that a retirement plan works best when it's built around more than just numbers.
'When you stop working, you lose not just a paycheck but also a built-in schedule. That structure has to be replaced with something meaningful,' says Melissa Caro, CFP® and founder of My Retirement Network.
She works with clients to brainstorm how they want to spend their days. 'Once they map out an ideal week or month, we can align the financial plan around it. When time, money and purpose are in sync, that's when retirement feels truly fulfilling.'
Research backs this up. A 2022 study published in Acta Psychologica found that retirees who proactively prepare for life after work report more engagement in leisure activities, higher well-being and lower levels of stress.
Not all activities deliver the same benefits. A 2020 study identifies three clusters—physical, intellectual and social activities—that are linked to better mental and physical health outcomes later in life. Staying active, learning new skills and maintaining strong social connections can help retirees thrive far beyond just filling time.
That requires being intentional with how you use your time, says Jan Valecka, CFP® and principal of Valecka Wealth Management, who advises clients to dream five to 10 years ahead and budget for experiences like travel. 'If they have the money set aside, they're more likely to take the trip and not feel guilty about spending it. We spend a lot of time encouraging clients who have done a good job saving to enjoy their money, because either they'll go first class—or their kids will.'
Laura also recommends writing down what the perfect retirement schedule looks like. 'It helps people realize how much time they need to fill—and how quickly retirement can start to feel like a Groundhog Day scenario if they don't plan.'
It's a fitting reference. In the 1993 film, Bill Murray's character famously asks: 'What would you do if you were stuck in one place and every day was exactly the same and nothing that you did mattered?'
Perhaps that desire to avoid reliving the same life over and over is why two-thirds (66 percent) of today's retirees say they prefer trying new things in their leisure time versus doing things they've already experienced.
Workers most often associate retirement with the word 'freedom.' How you spend those 1,000 hours is ultimately up to you. If a movie marathon on TV happens to be your activity of choice, you might catch The Lord of the Rings airing during the holidays. And maybe, amid the adventure, you'll hear the wizard Gandalf's wise reminder:
'All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.'
©2025 The Kiplinger Washington Editors, Inc. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
The views and opinions expressed are those of the authors. They are meant for general informational purposes only and should not be construed or interpreted as a recommendation or solicitation. The Epoch Times does not provide investment, tax, legal, financial planning, estate planning, or any other personal finance advice. The Epoch Times holds no liability for the accuracy or timeliness of the information provided.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Sen. Chris Murphy Champions Youth Mental Health at Vogue Benefit
Kate Owen Every aspect of American life is being scrutinized, politicized, and altered under the Trump administration. Amid these challenges, editors, physicians, designers, and guests gathered to tackle one of the most pertinent issues facing Americans: mental health. On Sunday, June 2, New York-Presbyterian's Center for Youth Mental Health held its annual benefit, where Charlie Shaffer, MD, spoke with Senator Chris Murphy about the current developments on Capitol Hill. 'I think the burden is on the profession to pull yourselves outside of the medical model and really challenge policymakers when it comes to the societal factors that drive mental illness,' Murphy told the intimate crowd, which included Anna Wintour, Tory Burch, and Christopher John Rodgers. 'I believe that no social media company should allow any kid under 13 to have access to these sites,' Murphy continued. 'I don't think the algorithm should turn on until you're 18. I think it's the equivalent of a cigarette — this algorithm that just feeds you more and more polluted content.' Murphy was referring to research that has been done on the relationship between social media and mental health. He also raised concerns about the GOP's One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which would put 8.6 million Americans at risk for not having Medicaid coverage that includes mental health care. Coincidentally, the Center for Youth Mental Health event — co-sponsored by Vogue — took place the day before Murphy announced the launch of a new political action committee to oppose President Trump's agenda and seek to 'mobilize those who want to push back against the administration.' In a post to X, Murphy said that 'mobilization needs infrastructure. It needs organizers, technology, and logistics support.' The Trump administration is currently increasing ICE arrest quotas, swinging tariff rates, eliminating climate change initiatives, and scrutinizing the humanity of trans people. All of these factors and more affect the mental health of young people, which Murphy acknowledged during the talk. 'You've got to build a consistent and uninterrupted system of care,' Murphy explained, 'but you also have to get serious about the exposure to violence in our cities.' He said further, 'You have to get serious about regulating social media. You have to understand the links between intense poverty — and I think many are doing that, but it is not always the number one, two, or three bullet points for providers and professionals coming to Washington. So that is certainly something that could help us act on, I think, what we are admitting to be a really comprehensive set of factors that contribute to kids' mental illness.' Originally Appeared on Teen Vogue


Fox News
4 hours ago
- Fox News
DAVID MARCUS: Why Navy ships should not be named for gay rights icons
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth kicked off Pride month this year with a shot across the bow of wokeness, as his plan to rechristen a Navy ship honoring gay rights icon Harvey Milk has emerged. Milk was one of the first openly gay elected officials in the country as a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in 1978, and in that same year he was gunned down, leaving him a legacy as a martyr to the cause of gay liberation. Let's be clear about two things. First, Hegseth is absolutely trolling the woke left with this move and its timing. Secondly, he is absolutely right to do so, because a navy vessel has nothing to do with men having sex with each other and that is the only thing painting "Harvey Milk" on the side of the ship implies. Harvey Milk is not a hero to everyone in the United States. One can wholeheartedly support equal rights without celebrating homosexuality, and asking naval officers and civilians to serve on the USNS Harvey Milk does just that. The ship, which transports oil, isn't named after Milk, who happened to be gay; it's named after Milk because he was gay, and Hegseth is correct that this is wildly inappropriate. Why not the USNS Liberace? Think of the boon it would be to the domestic chandelier industry. Progressives seem deeply confused these days about why they don't appeal to young men, and I would like to submit that the USNS Harvey Milk is a pretty good example of why. You take some 18-year-old guy, maybe he watched "Top Gun Maverick" a few too many times and wants to be a warfighter, then you point and say, there's your ship, it celebrates dudes making out with dudes. Let's face it, most sailors in the Navy do not want to be sitting in a diner in 25 years wearing a ballcap that proudly states they served on the "Harvey Milk," and that's OK. Predictably, former House Speaker and San Francisco's own Rep. Nancy Pelosi decried the decision to rename the ship, calling it, "a shameful vindictive erasure of those who fought to break down barriers…" Is there an element of revenge in Hegseth's action? There might be, because for decades now Americans have been forced to swallow the bizarre notion that who you have sex with is something to be proud of, as if we should all applaud. For decades now, every June at ballgames and in TV ads, on municipal buildings and subway trains the rainbow flag has been everywhere, demanding your consent to celebrate gayness. In recent years, as the teal of the trans flag has bled into the rainbow, we have once again been told that we must accept an absurd lie that men can become women, as if this was just some a priori truth. Not this time, and as America rejects the trans movement, it is also realizing that bending over backwards every June to cheer on homosexuality makes no sense in a society where gay people face little to no discrimination. A warship has one purpose, to help to destroy our enemies. Everything about the vessel should be directed towards that goal, including the name emblazoned on it. "Harvey Milk" fails that test. Throughout the first quarter of the 21st Century, progressives have made enormous gains in American society, and they have generally assumed that once their new norms are established, they cannot be undone. Hegseth, as he has done before by restoring the names of army bases changed by progressives, is showing that we can indeed go back. History is not a one-way ratchet that only turns left. Progressives are firmly convinced that everything is an occasion for activism, that their preferred lifestyle and worldview should be threaded into every aspect of our lives. This is wrongheaded in general, but especially so in regard to warfare. Hegseth is popular with soldiers and vets alike because he understands that his primary job is to kill the enemy while keeping his guys alive. It's not to promote gay rights, it's not to foster social justice, it is to destroy. By all means, name a community center or a clinic after Harvey Milk, but not a warship. Those willing to put their lives on the line aboard deserve better.
%3Amax_bytes(150000)%3Astrip_icc()%2FTAL-johnson-city-tennessee-WANT2MOVE20525-fd814a8c5c1f4e8ea728ad975504d63b.jpg&w=3840&q=100)

Travel + Leisure
5 hours ago
- Travel + Leisure
This Is the No. 1 U.S. City People Want to Move to in 2025
Johnson City, Tennessee, is the most desired destination to move to in the U.S., according to a report by MoveBuddha. The university town is located an hour north of Asheville, North Carolina, in the Appalachian foothills, and offers an abundance of outdoor recreation. Johnson City was followed by Coeur d'Alene, Idaho (second) and Summerville, South Carolina (third). Americans are making major moves this year. And apparently we're all looking to move to the same spots. In March, MoveBuddha released its list of the top trending cities for movers across the U.S., forecasting where people will move from and to in 2025. The company considered internal data collected from its Moving Cost Calculator, analyzing searches made from July 2024 to March 2025 with a 'planned move date' at any point in 2025. Johnson City in Tennessee emerged as the most desired destination in the U.S. According to MoveBuddha, the city, which is home to 100,000 residents and is located just an hour north of Asheville, North Carolina, "is a university town nestled in the Appalachian foothills near the famed multi-state hiking trail, where mountain biking, camping, and fishing lakes beckon." Johnson City was followed by Coeur d'Alene, Idaho; Summerville, South Carolina; St. George, Utah; and Fairbanks, Alaska. "These cities suggest movers are particularly drawn to smaller cities with outdoor and scenic appeal," the company shared. "Meanwhile, interest in Duluth, Georgia, Summerville, South Carolina, and Gulfport, Mississippi, suggests plenty of interest in suburban enclaves away from larger cities." The company also noted that affordability seemed to be top of mind for all 2025 potential movers, as 26 of the 50 top cities it analyzed had an average home price under the national average. "Some top cities are relatively cheap: Johnson City, Tennessee; Huntsville, Alabama; Shreveport, Louisiana; Fairbanks, Alaska; and Kingman, Arizona, for example, all boast home prices under $300,000," it shared. "That's not only under the national average, but it also comes alongside desirable living conditions, whether it's Johnson City and Fairbanks' outdoor access or Huntsville's thriving job market." MoveBuddha noted that not everyone using their Moving Cost Calculator will actually make that final move. "We won't know for sure where today's movers really go until 2025's census data becomes available in the spring of 2026, but their interest can tell us a lot about their dreams and plans for the coming year before they even move," the website explained. Hawaii was excluded from this year's data. See the complete report at