Retirement Age Americans With Zero Savings

[rhinefire]

I think it was this past Tuesday nightly news where Brian Williams stated 36% of retirement age Americans have less than $1,000 dollars saved. Now I know this category of numbers tends to get jumbled but if this is near the truth think of what a burden this could have on the economy. I do not know what this plays out in actual numbers of people but it mist be substantial. We all know by now one cannot survive on social security. This could create a whole new group of welfare needy and where is that money going to come from? Kids without jobs moving back home, so do grandpa and grandma move back in with their children also!?

 

[VanceMack]

I think it was this past Tuesday nightly news where Brian Williams stated 36% of retirement age Americans have less than $1,000 dollars saved. Now I know this category of numbers tends to get jumbled but if this is near the truth think of what a burden this could have on the economy. I do not know what this plays out in actual numbers of people but it mist be substantial. We all know by now one cannot survive on social security. This could create a whole new group of welfare needy and where is that money going to come from? Kids without jobs moving back home, so do grandpa and grandma move back in with their children also!?

1-Its rather European and not ALTOGETHER a bad thing to have families living under the same roof. 2-Who BETTER to provide for the elderly than their family and 3-Considering the welfare state and the number of people that are on government assistance from their early 'adulthood' in the varying forms...how can this be a shock?

 

[Risky Thicket]

Like many things the issue is complex. Wall Street stole a lot of retirement money from a lot of people. It also took away their jobs and their futures.

 

[specklebang]

With as many welfare programs as we now have to bolster the entitlement programs (which are paid for to some degree), I don't see why anybody should bother saving any money for retirement when they can enjoy life now and be supported later.

I foolishly saved money all my life and now reap a powerful 1.2% return on my savings. Along the way, I bought 9 houses and rent out 7 of them, thus killing my qualification for free money. If I had known we would become a welfare state, would I have lived differently? I'll never know, But it sounds like a pretty decent deal and certainly, nobody will starve as a consequence.

 

[imagep]

I think it was this past Tuesday nightly news where Brian Williams stated 36% of retirement age Americans have less than $1,000 dollars saved. Now I know this category of numbers tends to get jumbled but if this is near the truth think of what a burden this could have on the economy. I do not know what this plays out in actual numbers of people but it mist be substantial. We all know by now one cannot survive on social security. This could create a whole new group of welfare needy and where is that money going to come from? Kids without jobs moving back home, so do grandpa and grandma move back in with their children also!?

Historically, younger generations have always taken care of the older generations.

Alternatively, we may need to increase social programs, including the benefit rate for social security. Thats indirectly the same thing as the first senario - younger people would provide more support for older folk. And although generally I don't like to use the word "fair" in economic discussions, it is applicable here because most of us will one day become old, and thus we will more or less equally benefit from a higher level of societal support of the elderly.

I recently saw a post where someone referred to social security as "insurance" - insurance that their parents would never be forced to live with them. Sounds reasonable to me. if thats the type of system that we desire, thats the type of system that we can create. I do believe that it is within the ability of mankind to turn our environment into anything we want it to be.

As our society continues to become more productive per work hour, increases in taxes to accomplish this shouldn't be a significant burden on younger generations. As our population continues to age, and the percent of people who are beyond normal work years increases, this would just create more job opportunities for younger folks, so that every family has at least one worker who can provide the family with an income.

 

[imagep]

1-Its rather European and not ALTOGETHER a bad thing to have families living under the same roof. 2-Who BETTER to provide for the elderly than their family and 3-Considering the welfare state and the number of people that are on government assistance from their early 'adulthood' in the varying forms...how can this be a shock?

I agree. however there is one downside, and thats the people who may slip between the cracks of that type of system. Some people simply don't have children worth a darned, others don't have children at all. So do we just let those old folk perish?

 

[VanceMack]

I agree. however there is one downside, and thats the people who may slip between the cracks of that type of system. Some people simply don't have children worth a darned, others don't have children at all. So do we just let those old folk perish?

You are a big fan of natural selection and evolution, right?

 

[imagep]

You are a big fan of natural selection and evolution, right?

Old folks rarely procreate, so I don't think that is applicable.

 

[Maenad]

I think it was this past Tuesday nightly news where Brian Williams stated 36% of retirement age Americans have less than $1,000 dollars saved. Now I know this category of numbers tends to get jumbled but if this is near the truth think of what a burden this could have on the economy. I do not know what this plays out in actual numbers of people but it mist be substantial. We all know by now one cannot survive on social security. This could create a whole new group of welfare needy and where is that money going to come from? Kids without jobs moving back home, so do grandpa and grandma move back in with their children also!?

If you earned a good salary while you were working and if you don't retire in debt, Social Security isn't so bad. Most retirees will be looking for something to do. I see a lot of them working at the local Wal Mart.

 

[the_recruit]

You are a big fan of natural selection and evolution, right?

You understand there's a difference between believing evolution is real and agreeing philosophically with social Darwinism. Right?

 

[imagep]

If you earned a good salary while you were working and if you don't retire in debt, Social Security isn't so bad. Most retirees will be looking for something to do. I see a lot of them working at the local Wal Mart.

I actually hope that I will always be able to work. I own a small business, I must like what I do because I've been doing it for the past 25 years, I hope that I will still desire to do it in another 25 years. What I don't want to have to do is to work 60 or 70 hour workweeks like I do now. If I didn't have upwards of a million dollars in debt (business and personal), I could semi-retire today even without social security, if I had social security, and no debt, then I wouldn't have a significant financial need to work, social security would come pretty close to meeting my minimum expenses (food, utilities, transportation money, and medical if I had medicare).

I can't imagine sitting around at home with little to do other than to stare at my old wife, just waiting to die.

I think that you have a good point that if you own your own home, have a car that still has a lot of life in it, then between medicare and ss, one probably doesn't need a lot more money, except for maybe luxuaries like travel or prostitutes.

 

[Maenad]

I actually hope that I will always be able to work. I own a small business, I must like what I do because I've been doing it for the past 25 years, I hope that I will still desire to do it in another 25 years. What I don't want to have to do is to work 60 or 70 hour workweeks like I do now. If I didn't have upwards of a million dollars in debt (business and personal), I could semi-retire today even without social security, if I had social security, and no debt, then I wouldn't have a significant financial need to work, social security would come pretty close to meeting my minimum expenses (food, utilities, transportation money, and medical if I had medicare).

I can't imagine sitting around at home with little to do other than to stare at my old wife, just waiting to die.

I think that you have a good point that if you own your own home, have a car that still has a lot of life in it, then between medicare and ss, one probably doesn't need a lot more money, except for maybe luxuaries like travel or prostitutes.

I'm retired, no debt, etc. etc. My private pensions pay all my medical insurance, live insurance, taxes on the house, etc. and I don't have debt. At this point, SS is enough. I've traveled a little on my savings, and it's nice to do that. I stay busy working around the house and in the yard. And I've started doing a little writing. I have been published in both professional and consumer literature. I thought I would throw some things out there and see if any of it brought in money. I have 5 things out there right now, and am just waiting to hear back. I've set out a regular time to write, so there will soon be more.

The biggest problem I have is structuring my time. I didn't work when the kiddos were little and I recall having a certain day for every task. The house was always clean and neat, but in those days there was so much stiff I HAD to do for the children, it doesn't really compare to what's going on right now.

If I were doing it over, I would get a Roth IRA. You pay the taxes on the front end of the Roth, whereas others you pay the taxes on the back end. Taxes are going nowhere but up, and I don't believe it would benefit a person to postpone paying it. But that's just me.

 

[VanceMack]

Old folks rarely procreate, so I don't think that is applicable.

Same principle. Natural selection...thinning of the herds...theres a whole bunch of crippled and dependent folks out there...and a large percentage of them arent senior citizens. Why not let nature run its course?

 

[VanceMack]

You understand there's a difference between believing evolution is real and agreeing philosophically with social Darwinism. Right?

I understand that as soon as you start talking about not dragging the crippled and dependent class through life a lot of folks start to clench up.

 

[the_recruit]

I understand that as soon as you start talking about not dragging the crippled and dependent class through life a lot of folks start to clench up.

A willingness to help the less fortunate, or "cripples and retards" perhaps you'd prefer, is known as empathy or good will. I consider such charity to be a good thing not a bad thing.

 

[the_recruit]

Why not let nature run its course?

Because nature isn't necessarily inherently good. I don't believe "crippled" people deserve to starve to death.

 

[GhostlyJoe]

Same principle. Natural selection...thinning of the herds...theres a whole bunch of crippled and dependent folks out there...and a large percentage of them arent senior citizens. Why not let nature run its course?

Cooperative systems are evolutionary. In ants -- and in humans -- communal behavior strengthens the species. It is an evolutionary advantage. Compassion and empathy are part of what make us "fit" to survive.

 

[imagep]

Same principle. Natural selection...thinning of the herds...theres a whole bunch of crippled and dependent folks out there...and a large percentage of them arent senior citizens. Why not let nature run its course?

If you ever became crippled, due to no fault of your own, I'm sure that you would change your outlook on that.

 

[VanceMack]

A willingness to help the less fortunate, or "cripples and retards" perhaps you'd prefer, is known as empathy or good will. I consider such charity to be a good thing not a bad thing.

Wonderful. And for the record I do...but of my own will. There is however a difference between those that truly cant take care of themselves and those that willfully cripple themselves. Our systems, our government, and yes...even our people have gone out of their way to create dependency. Others feed that dependency, though with the best of intentions. The point behind this is NOT that there are those truly in need but that there is an ongoing effort to create a dependent class and it has been going on for decades. Ironically...when people look to the 'creators of the poor, often the first thing they do is look to the rich, the wealthy, the successful. Sorry...they are not the ones responsible.

If things are ever going to change for the better, there is going to have to be a concerted and rather painful change in how we approach these problems. Just like a codependent family enables the addict and prevents them from reaching their own personal 'rock bottom' where they might actually begin to make changes for themselves, society does the exact same thing with the crippled and dependent pets.

 

[VanceMack]

If you ever became crippled, due to no fault of your own, I'm sure that you would change your outlook on that.

I'm very much NOT talking about those that are truly in need. They are the smallest fraction of those on assistance these days.

 

[VanceMack]

Cooperative systems are evolutionary. In ants -- and in humans -- communal behavior strengthens the species. It is an evolutionary advantage. Compassion and empathy are part of what make us "fit" to survive.

Keeping people dependent does NOT model empathy nor compassion.

 

[imagep]

Keeping people dependent does NOT model empathy nor compassion.

Maybe we should start destroying all children, for the good of society. They are dependent leaches.

 

[American]

With as many welfare programs as we now have to bolster the entitlement programs (which are paid for to some degree), I don't see why anybody should bother saving any money for retirement when they can enjoy life now and be supported later.

I foolishly saved money all my life and now reap a powerful 1.2% return on my savings. Along the way, I bought 9 houses and rent out 7 of them, thus killing my qualification for free money. If I had known we would become a welfare state, would I have lived differently? I'll never know, But it sounds like a pretty decent deal and certainly, nobody will starve as a consequence.

They had to pay for all the leftwing baby-mammas, which drained their savings.

 

[VanceMack]

Maybe we should start destroying all children, for the good of society. They are dependent leaches.

Maybe we should raise them with character, values, standards, and teach them a work ethic. Hell...maybe it would be REALLY cool if there were parents in the home teaching those things.

The 'retirement age Americans' of today are products of generations and decades of intentional dysfunction. This problem didnt spring up overnight. The reality is, those that talk the most about the dependent class truly are not invested in change...they are invested in keeping them dependent...and voting democrat. They make great pets.

 

[imagep]

Maybe we should raise them with character, values, standards, and teach them a work ethic. Hell...maybe it would be REALLY cool if there were parents in the home teaching those things.

So you advocate for a lower work force participation rate, like we had during the '50s and '60s? It's coming, I just hope that those stay at home parents catch on to what you are saying because I agree with you on that point.

The 'retirement age Americans' of today are products of generations and decades of intentional dysfunction. This problem didnt spring up overnight. The reality is, those that talk the most about the dephendent class truly are not invested in change...they are invested in keeping them dependent...and voting democrat. They make great pets.

I actually tend to agree with that also, except for the part about voting democrat. Both republicans and democrats had a hand in trapping the poor into poverty and keeping them dependent. There are lots of republican voters who believe in a "strong safety net system", which is something that I don't believe in (which may explain part of the reason that I turned my back to both major parties), even though people constantly accuse me of being a liberal. Republicans have had lots of chances to eliminate the means tested welfare system during my lifetime, but they never did it. I would probably be more inclined to vote republican if they actually had done what that part of their rhetoric promotes.