Retirement Age Americans With Zero Savings

[VanceMack]

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.



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.

it would be great of people didn't aspire to jobs at Walmart and McDonald's, were in actual careers that could provide for their families, didn't procreate irresponsibly, and could afford the luxury of having a stay at home parent if that's what they choose.

 

[the_recruit]

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.

First of all, we're obviously discussing the former. We were talking about people that would actually starve to death if we adopted a hard Darwinian stance. I'm glad you finally concede that that would be terrible.

Second of all, this talk of "willfully cripple" themselves is utter nonsense. To truly believe that you must have an incredibly naive understanding of human psychology and motivation. Nobody makes a conscious decision to be poor so they can get foodstamps. That's like suggesting paraplegics sever their spines so they can take advantage of handicapped parking spots. Think about it. It doesn't make a shred of ****ing sense. The advantages you stand to gain (food stamps) from deliberately keeping yourself in poverty do not outweigh the disadvantages (not having enough money to put food on the table or provide for your loved ones and all the misery and stress that comes with it), just like the advantages you stand to gain (front row parking, spacious public restrooms) from being paralyzed do not outweigh the disadvantages (not being able to walk).

Now hold on. Keep your pants on and listen for a second before you respond. That doesn't mean that everyone who is poor is unable to lift themselves out of poverty (or even that they're not to blame for their own poverty). Not at all. In fact, many, maybe even most, are able to. It just means that the reasons for poverty are a bit more nuanced and complex than "they do it for food stamps and obama phones!". There are a wide variety of factors that lead to individuals being poor who have the capability to move up the ladder. The idea that the incentive of welfare assistance is a primary factor is, quite frankly, just stupid - given how the incentive of getting welfare is completely dwarfed by the incentive of being wealthy. Anybody with a shred of common sense can see that. So the idea that cutting back welfare is going to push poor people to become wealthy without addressing the real factors that actually lead to poverty is equally stupid.

 

[VanceMack]

First of all, we're obviously discussing the former. We were talking about people that would actually starve to death if we adopted a hard Darwinian stance. I'm glad you finally concede that that would be terrible.

Second of all, this talk of "willfully cripple" themselves is utter nonsense. To truly believe that you must have an incredibly naive understanding of human psychology and motivation. Nobody makes a conscious decision to be poor so they can get foodstamps. That's like suggesting paraplegics sever their spines so they can take advantage of handicapped parking spots. Think about it. It doesn't make a shred of ****ing sense. The advantages you stand to gain (food stamps) from deliberately keeping yourself in poverty do not outweigh the disadvantages (not having enough money to put food on the table or provide for your loved ones and all the misery and stress that comes with it), just like the advantages you stand to gain (front row parking, spacious public restrooms) from being paralyzed do not outweigh the disadvantages (not being able to walk).

Now hold on. Keep your pants on and listen for a second before you respond. That doesn't mean that everyone who is poor is unable to lift themselves out of poverty (or even that they're not to blame for their own poverty). Not at all. In fact, many, maybe even most, are able to. It just means that the reasons for poverty are a bit more nuanced and complex than "they do it for food stamps and obama phones!". There are a wide variety of factors that lead to individuals being poor who have the capability to move up the ladder. The idea that the incentive of welfare assistance is a primary factor is, quite frankly, just stupid - given how the incentive of getting welfare is completely dwarfed by the incentive of being wealthy. Anybody with a shred of common sense can see that. So the idea that cutting back welfare is going to push poor people to become wealthy without addressing the real factors that actually lead to poverty is equally stupid.

You should work with the population a bit. You are simply naive if you think 'dependency' isnt an industry unto itself.

 

[the_recruit]

You should work with the population a bit. You are simply naive if you think 'dependency' isnt an industry unto itself.

:roll: I understand your inability to actually address my arguments.

 

[Del Zeppnile]

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.

LOL! That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. That is like saying Las Vegas stole retirement money.


Face it, the biggest contributor of being poor is being stupid.

 

[ttwtt78640]

First of all, we're obviously discussing the former. We were talking about people that would actually starve to death if we adopted a hard Darwinian stance. I'm glad you finally concede that that would be terrible.

Second of all, this talk of "willfully cripple" themselves is utter nonsense. To truly believe that you must have an incredibly naive understanding of human psychology and motivation. Nobody makes a conscious decision to be poor so they can get foodstamps. That's like suggesting paraplegics sever their spines so they can take advantage of handicapped parking spots. Think about it. It doesn't make a shred of ****ing sense. The advantages you stand to gain (food stamps) from deliberately keeping yourself in poverty do not outweigh the disadvantages (not having enough money to put food on the table or provide for your loved ones and all the misery and stress that comes with it), just like the advantages you stand to gain (front row parking, spacious public restrooms) from being paralyzed do not outweigh the disadvantages (not being able to walk).

Now hold on. Keep your pants on and listen for a second before you respond. That doesn't mean that everyone who is poor is unable to lift themselves out of poverty (or even that they're not to blame for their own poverty). Not at all. In fact, many, maybe even most, are able to. It just means that the reasons for poverty are a bit more nuanced and complex than "they do it for food stamps and obama phones!". There are a wide variety of factors that lead to individuals being poor who have the capability to move up the ladder. The idea that the incentive of welfare assistance is a primary factor is, quite frankly, just stupid - given how the incentive of getting welfare is completely dwarfed by the incentive of being wealthy. Anybody with a shred of common sense can see that. So the idea that cutting back welfare is going to push poor people to become wealthy without addressing the real factors that actually lead to poverty is equally stupid.

Giving "safety net" assistance does little (if anything) to change the need for it - so it has remained needed by about 15% of the population for the last 50 years. Our current poverty programs do not seem to affect the poverty rate but simply allow the poor to be more comfortable at an ever increasing cost.

 

[Del Zeppnile]

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.

When you boil it down, communal behavior is less about compassion and empathy than it is about serving the self. The idea here is that you provide only enough to others so that you aren't in a constant struggle to protect your own resources.

 

[the_recruit]

Giving "safety net" assistance does little (if anything) to change the need for it - so it has remained needed by about 15% of the population for the last 50 years.

It's not intended to reduce poverty. It's intended to keep people from starving to death, etc. Which it succeeds very well at.

Our current poverty programs do not seem to affect the poverty rate but simply allow the poor to be more comfortable at an ever increasing cost.

....then we need to continue investigating the factors that cause poverty and potential solutions. Not give up and let people starve to death.

 

[ttwtt78640]

It's not intended to reduce poverty. It's intended to keep people from starving to death, etc. Which it succeeds very well at.



....then we need to continue investigating the factors that cause poverty and potential solutions. Not give up and let people starve to death.

All carrot and no stick simply guarantees the need for lots of carrots.

 

[Manc Skipper]

All carrot and no stick simply guarantees the need for lots of carrots.

The reverse is unthinkable in a civilised society.

 

[the_recruit]

All carrot and no stick simply guarantees the need for lots of carrots.

This is an even worse over-simplification of the already over-simplified argument I just got done destroying. People aren't poor by a lack of incentive. The incentive of being wealthy dwarfs the incentive of welfare benefits. Reducing welfare isn't going to cause poor people to go "Oh jeez. no more welfare. Gravy train's over. le sigh. I guess today i'll go out and get wealthy instead." How can any serious person believe such nonsense.

 

[ttwtt78640]

The reverse is unthinkable in a civilised society.

The reverse is the basis for our criminal justice system. You do not get carrots for obeying the law but you do get whacked with a stick if you break that law.

The idea that the "safety net" programs should continue to be simply a reward (however modest) for failure is insane. To assert that the lack of a reward is, in and of itself, a punishment is wrong.

I do not advocate no carrots but do advocate requiring a behavior change (stick) for continuation of those carrots

 

[Manc Skipper]

Any insanity lies in viewing the provision of a safety net, however ungenerous, as a reward of any kind.

 

[ttwtt78640]

This is an even worse over-simplification of the already over-simplified argument I just got done destroying. People aren't poor by a lack of incentive. The incentive of being wealthy dwarfs the incentive of welfare benefits. Reducing welfare isn't going to cause poor people to go "Oh jeez. no more welfare. Gravy train's over. le sigh. I guess today i'll go out and get wealthy instead." How can any serious person believe such nonsense.

That ignores the current moronic scheme that transforms (qualifies?) a poor person into a "needy household" by adding a dependent (or two or three). Note that the federal poverty level is defined based on household size. Which requires more effort; getting a better paying job or having a dependent?

 

[Risky Thicket]

LOL! That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. That is like saying Las Vegas stole retirement money.


Face it, the biggest contributor of being poor is being stupid.

Actually, attempting to bait me is being stupid. :2rofll:

 

[Del Zeppnile]

All carrot and no stick simply guarantees the need for lots of carrots.

Apply enough stick and people will eventually find the necessary inspiration to get their own carrots.

My grandad (born in the 1890s) always said, "Cold and hunger are the finest motivations ever imagined by God" and "Envy is the the idle work of the devil".

 

[imagep]

This is an even worse over-simplification of the already over-simplified argument I just got done destroying. People aren't poor by a lack of incentive. The incentive of being wealthy dwarfs the incentive of welfare benefits. Reducing welfare isn't going to cause poor people to go "Oh jeez. no more welfare. Gravy train's over. le sigh. I guess today i'll go out and get wealthy instead." How can any serious person believe such nonsense.

That may be true, but continuing a system of means tested welfare isn't going to motivate them to aspire to be in the middle class where they are self sufficient.

I believe that we should replace the welfare system with a system that rewards hard work and self sufficiency. Unfortunately, many on the far right think that we should eliminate the welfare system, and replace it with nothing. Some on the far left believe that we should expand the welfare system. I suspect that rational people, those who subscribe to neither extreme ideology, probably feel and think more like me. Now if I could only figure out how to eject the extremist from both parties, then join the remainder of the two parties, those who can think for their own an who are reasonable and rational, into a new party, we might could make some real progress on this. Of course I obviously live in my own fantasy world.

 

[the_recruit]

That ignores the current moronic scheme that transforms (qualifies?) a poor person into a "needy household" by adding a dependent (or two or three). Note that the federal poverty level is defined based on household size. Which requires more effort; getting a better paying job or having a dependent?

Again, this is not due to a lack of incentive. Anybody that can recognize the benefit of adding a dependent can also recognize the benefit of steadily increasing their income. In which case, their failure to do so is not for lack of incentive.

Your example assumes laziness. Laziness is not a lack of incentive. And cutting welfare benefits does not fix laziness, and, hence, would not fix this individual's poverty.

 

[the_recruit]

That may be true, but continuing a system of means tested welfare isn't going to motivate them to aspire to be in the middle class where they are self sufficient.

I believe that we should replace the welfare system with a system that rewards hard work and self sufficiency.

But what would such a system look like? There already are huge rewards for working your way into the middle class - like dramatically improved standard of living. If that isn't reward enough to motivate someone, what could you possibly offer that would?

And I think there are often other factors at work than simply lack of motivation or laziness.

 

[imagep]

Again, this is not due to a lack of incentive. Anybody that can recognize the benefit of adding a dependent can also recognize the benefit of steadily increasing their income. In which case, their failure to do so is not for lack of incentive.

Your example assumes laziness. Laziness is not a lack of incentive. And cutting welfare benefits does not fix laziness, and, hence, would not fix this individual's poverty.

My issue with means tested welfare is that it is gradually phased out, in such a manner that the gain of income is not neccesarily contributing sufficiently enough to offset the loss of welfare benefits, when one considers that they actually have to WORK HARD to achieve pay raises and promotions.

I actually have no problem with government provided benefits, as long as they are not directly means tested. It's the means testing of benefits that creates the environment where people often become locked into poverty.

 

[imagep]

But what would such a system look like? There already are huge rewards for working your way into the middle class - like dramatically improved standard of living.

But I don't believe that to be accurate. I have to work crazy hard and crazy long hours to have a standard of living "dramatically improved" over someone who existing on welfare. Many welfare reciepients have the advantage of low cost housing (sometimes as cheap as $10/mth in the projects), they are able to enroll their children in the same schools that my children go to, they take the public transportation system and thus dont have the expense of a personal automobile, their food is provided for them, etc. I have to work for every single thing that I get. So which is easier, welfare or work? Many people choose welfare over work.

One of the things that most people "demand" is leisure time, and low stress easy work environments. those who demand that the most, often tend to be happy with living in poverty on means tested welfare, rather than wasting their leisure time working difficult jobs that require skills and responsibility.

If that isn't reward enough to motivate someone, what could you possibly offer that would?

And I think there are often other factors at work than simply lack of motivation or laziness.

I have absolutely no issue with providing support for the profoundly handicapped. However, I would guess that a large percent of welfare reciepients aren't handicapped.

In my fantasy world, I would increase the benefits of work relative to the benefits of slacking. This could be done exponentially by fine tuning in multiple directions.

So here we go...

1) Increase minimum wage to whatever the economically optimizing rate is. This incentivizes people to work.
2) Shift much of the tax burden, especially income taxes, from the worker/consumer class to the rich (again, increasing the value of working)
3) Eliminate all forms of means tested benefits. Some of this could be done by providing EVERYONE with the same governmental benefits, regardless of income (such as health insurance and free school lunch). By doing this, working for income becomes relatively more valuable that slacking (which would then provide no income).
4) Fund social security and medicare from the general fund, instead of funding it directly from worker/consumer class paychecks

I believe that this would create a push-pull effect. It's pushing people off of welfare by eliminating it, and it's pulling people to work by increasing the benefits of work, even if it is low skilled work. Thus, the power of this plan is exponential.

Of course all of this would be phased in over a period of five to ten years as to allow time for people to adjust (gain work skills/education/stop having babies that they can't afford, etc).

 

[VanceMack]

:roll: I understand your inability to actually address my arguments.

Understand that the vast majority that live ****ed up lives do so not because of tragic unforeseen circumstances or unrecognized best efforts. They live that way due to ****ty parents, ****ty effort in life, ****ty work ethic, poor preparation, and foolish decisions.

 

[rhinefire]

Having gone though all the threads here ending up off the subject as all long topics do getting back to my point. Who is going to pay for all these 36%ers? You and their children and grandchildren. Where are they going to live as I would guess with less than 1,000 dollars saved they have paid little attention to things like mortgages, etc.? This adds up to be a new classification of needy people. Perhaps they could live with the 30,000,000 illegals living here that we pay taxes for.

 

[imagep]

Having gone though all the threads here ending up off the subject as all long topics do getting back to my point. Who is going to pay for all these 36%ers? You and their children and grandchildren. Where are they going to live as I would guess with less than 1,000 dollars saved they have paid little attention to things like mortgages, etc.? This adds up to be a new classification of needy people. Perhaps they could live with the 30,000,000 illegals living here that we pay taxes for.

I would think that they will simply have to live on social security. That doesn't mean that I am going to have to pay for them, any more than anyone else drawing social security. If they don't have a paid off house, I would assume that many of them may chose to live with family, others may chose to supplement their ss by working a part time job as long as possible.

I would also guess that the percent of new retires who have no personal significant personal assets may be somewhat lower than that 36% figure. Surely at least some of those people own real estate, or have non-cash type investments. At this point, I have little in cash savings, but I do have a small IRA, equity in commercial property, and significant amount of chattel that hopefully may retain some of it's value (antique furniture, collectables, etc). If the question on the poll was "how much cash in savings account do you have", the results may have been a little misleading.

Additionally, I would think that a chunk of that 36% have some other pension, either public or private sector. Maybe that explains why they didn't bother to save much cash. My mother draws state teachers retirement pension, plus social security. She owns her own home and her house is paid for. She does have some savings and investments, but between the two pensions, she has ample money to live the lifestyle that she chooses without having to dip into savings.

 

[GhostlyJoe]

Keeping people dependent does NOT model empathy nor compassion.

"Dependency" is a conservative buzz word without a lot of meaning. It has some emotional impact, but what good is it when talking about policies that will affect the standard of living of millions?