Retirement savings crisis

America's transition to India is nearly complete. Once old people are starving in the streets, the work is done.

^ MARY!!!

When half of our populace lacks access to toilets, we'll talk, r1

Half of Americans between 55 and 66 have no savings for retirement.

You think the country's going to suddenly find it's inner Sweden?

I have a couple of friends who are now in their 60s and have nothing saved for retirement. I mean zip. Their plan is to work until they drop, which, of course, is easier said than done.

That's heartbreaking.

I've been hearing this for 30 years.

This is a complex problem because it plays into the "personal" part of personal finance. There are low earners who prioritize saving and planning for retirement and there are high earners who never put a dime away because they always increase their lifestyle to match their income.

But they have a new RAM 4X4 truck in the driveway, all the latest Apple products and are planning their umpteenth trip to Disneyland.

They don't have Apple. They have PCs so they can spread viruses through stupid downloads.

R9, I don’t buy that at all.

Unfortunately a lot of the lack of retirement assets stems from personal greed. Far too many people had zero control over their spending. They lack any concern for their futures and are only concerned with spending every dime they can get their hands on while they're working. When retirement time comes around they're then faced with a disaster in the making.

R8, there's also low wage earners who simply can't put anything away because it all goes into scraping by.

I'll be 50 this year and have no retirement savings. My retirement plan is my mother's life insurance and paid off house.

Yes, R13, I didn't say there aren't.

I don't find the cliche that r9 spouts any more convincing than the similar cliches about how everyone on welfare is just lazy, or anyone who can't find a job just isn't looking hard enough, etc. We have a whole slew of these cultural cliches that all say the same basic thing: if anything bad happens to you, it's all your fault.

I’m hoping my Madame Alexander dolls will pay for my retirement.

What I find incredible is the "financial advisors" who encourage everyone to set aside enough money to cover at least six months of living expenses.

I guess they missed the part about how many people live paycheck to paycheck. Many people blew through their retirement during the pandemic just to keep a roof over their head, food on the table, and keep up with inflation..

Just one medical emergency can bankrupt you, depending on how much you deductible amount is, and what percentage is covered by your health insurance plan.

[italic] Good Luck, America !

I've been following the rules of retirement savings-- (15%/paycheck into index funds. We need enough to last 30 years after retirements by taking out only 4% a year--so one needs to save $1 million for $40k/year)

The big problem is I didn't really understand retirement saving rules until my mid 30's. I know I'll have nowhere near enough, so expect to work much later.

[quote] That’s HALF of all people nearing or at retirement age having NOTHING.

And the GOP wants to make SS harder and harder to get

[quote] I've been hearing this for 30 years.

It's now that the baby boomers are of retirement age. Also, previously companies gave robust pensions and now that's gone.

Amazing how Americans gave up good pensions, good healthcare, good education, etc.

This is what they all voted for.

I was just talking to a woman in her early 30s and she said that she & her husband have no retirement - they're both independently employed. She was speculating that maybe they should do something, you know look into it, etc. and my response was YES, DO IT NOW!

I've saved $$ through 401Ks since my early 30s (I'm mid-50s now), by the truth is, if it wasn't for the $$ my mother left me, I'd be tough shape. Not living off cat food, but having to work, likely well into my 70s. So I have no reason to be smug, just painfully aware of how different things could've been for me.

Hi Sveta

The root of all of this is Americans don't get much, if any, financial educational at all. It should be mandatory in high school.

The rules aren't so complex about what one needs to save and how to save it, but the entire financial industry tries to keep it all hazy so you think you have to use them.

You'll soon realize the entire point of the financial industry is to take your money and transfer it to them. Advisors are completely unnecessary if one understands the basic rules.

[quote] it's inner Sweden

Oh, dear, R4.

I vote for the party that wants to keep social security, not the one talking about weakening it.

[quote] We need enough to last 30 years after retirement

R19, do you think most Americans are going to live to be 97? I would say 20 years, maybe 23-or-so years.

Wasn't this an Aesop fable?

So, what are the retirement savings rules?

1. Save 15% of your income each paycheck and place it into a financial vehicle--examples are 401K, and IRA (which is only allowed to a certain income). If your work has a Roth 401K, choose that option as it means you contribute after tax but, as the money grows over the next 30 years, you won't pay any taxes when you take the money out. Both 401K and IRA have limits as to how much you can put in each year. If your income is in the higher range and 15% of it is more than what you can save in a 401K and IRA, you will need to open your own personal account (at a discount brokerage like Fidelity, Schwab) and invest the rest of the money to make up that 15%.

2. Once you have your money in one of these accounts, you should invest in the stock market, so the money grows the best it can. Invest in index funds, funds that cover a spectrum of the market. Examples are funds that follow the S&P 500 or the Nasdaq, A good. (Index funds don't buy and sell individual stocks very often, your fees are very low in comparison to those of actively traded funds.) Keep your portfolio simple. Mine, for example, is 1/3 American stock index; 1/3 International stock index; 1/3 American bonds.

3. Keep investing, even through the ups and downs of the market. Try not to look at the funds much. As more goes into them over the years, they will multiply faster, particularly during the last 10 years of your work life (because of compounding interest).

4. The goal is to live many years while without any income at all (except some SS). You should have enough saved to take out only about 4% of your savings per year when you retire. That will nearly guarantee your money will last for 20-25 years. (That's means saving $1 million for every $40,000 per year you will use--sounds impossible but these rules will get you there.)

5. Be sure your house and car are paid off prior to retiring. You don't want to use your retirement funds to pay off your house. If your house is in an expensive location or in a high tax area, consider strongly downsizing and/or moving. Any profits can be used to bolster retirement savings.

6. If you start investing in your early 20's, even it's $100/month in the stock market, you will save $1 million more than if you start in your 30's.

6. Separately, saved in quickly accessible cash, you must have an Emergency fund that will cover you for 4-6 months if you get fired or someone gets sick.

7. After saving for retirement and the Emergency Fund, you can use the remaining money from your income to do whatever-- food, utilities, pay rent/mortgages/taxes, save for a house if you don't own one, go on a trip, buy clothes, etc.

8. If you fee you are living paycheck to paycheck, and can't save 15%, take a good hard look at what you're spending your money on. Is everything really a necessity? For most of us, there will be no magical retirement cash appearing-- even rich aunts can't be guaranteed to will anything to you.

[quote] do you think most Americans are going to live to be 97? I would say 20 years, maybe 23-or-so years.

True, our average life spans (about 77) lower than those in the rest of the world.

If we only stopped eating so much meat, exercised more, and voted in politicians who prioritized clean air and water, we'd have a chance to increase it.

Many people I know are secretly way behind financially, and burying their heads in the sand. I will be ok, but many of my peers are finding their horizons shifting, less potential to inherit assets because of the care expenses of the generation before them.

I hope I played it right. I am wrapping up my peak earning years and trying to put myself in the best environment for the future. It’s different for everyone, but you need a place to live that you can afford and enjoy, and then some “dry powder” liquid assets and cash to stay independent.my freer isn’t loss of status or prestige, it’s loss of freedom and autonomy.

^^”freer” should spell “fear”,d’oh.

Save save save. If you have to work longer, work longer.

Never underestimate how stupid so many people are.

Savings and investments are getting hammered right now. Inflation is eating up the value of a dollar, while the market is decreasing the dollars in your investments by double digits. That may change, but if you are near retirement, you may go poor or die while waiting.

This is Reagan’s America.

The average person has no clue about how much to save and where to save it for retirement. We all get disjointed message about 401k and IRA. There's just lots of confusion.

For people to save, they have to know how and why. Americans have never been told in a systematic way.

Finding Suze Orman's show was a saving grace. It was when I was first earning a good income. I had no idea what I was supposed to do with the money.

And then, by coincidence, I saw a Suze show and was hooked. Thank goodness for her. She spoke about middle class issues

When the market was still doing well, before the big crash toward the end of Trump's term, I changed my 401K from an aggressive portfolio to a very conservative one, and have only lost about 2% of the value of it, which I consider pretty good.

Meanwhile I've dropped my contributions down to the 5% that gets the employer 5% match, and the remaining money (which was only another 5%, I never could afford 15% into my 401K) is going into a savings that's getting 4% instead of the 401K. When (or if) things improve, I'll move that savings money back into the 401K. Right now though, especially with my other investments doing so poorly, I want cash in a savings account with a small but steady increase through interest.

R39, you do know that because of inflation, your savings account is actually losing money.

[quote] This is Reagan’s America.

Since Reagan, we’ve had 8 years of Bill Clinton, 8 years of Barack Obama and 4(?) years of Joe Biden.

This can hardly be blamed on Reagan. The crap economy lies squarely with the Democratic Party. If the Democrats were at all interested in the middle class, they would have done something about it by now. The billions being sent to the Ukraine could be used at home instead.

I'm 35, and only just now making a "middle class" salary. I'm putting away as much as I can for retirement, and the fund manager estimates I should be okay in retirement (barring a crippling depression or economic crisis), but I know I'm really fuckin' lucky to be where I am.

I was delayed by a decade of low wages and graduate school (my own choice!), and that will cost me, but I'm still in a better place than most people my age. Thank the fates I don't have kids to feed.

Most of my generation has nothing saved. We don't believe Social Security will still be around when we retire - if there's even still a United States by then. We also can't afford to buy homes or have/educate children. We have massive student loan debt. And a lot of us are earning less than our parents did when they were our age and doing similar jobs.

[quote]Since Reagan, we’ve had 8 years of Bill Clinton, 8 years of Barack Obama and 4(?) years of Joe Biden.

You're missing a few Republicans, two of whom were financially disastrous.

[quote] You're missing a few Republicans, two of whom were financially disastrous.

The point being that Democrats have had enough time to implement policy to assist the middle class. Biden is now working against the middle class by importing illegals and exporting tax money.

I worked at a very small nonprofit right out of college and for the next 10 years. They got a 401(k) after five or six years of my time there, and they didn't match anything. I was only able to save around $8k by the time I got a new job at age 30.

I've been at that job for the past 15 years. I am much better compensated, although it's still a nonprofit and I am comfortable but not wealthy by any measure.

This job offers TIAA retirement. I contribute 5% of my salary and they contribute 10%—so, a 200% match, which is pretty incredible.

After 14 years, I had about $360k in this retirement account. As of today, I have $328k.

It has been really painful to watch the bottom fall out. At one point last year, the balance dropped to $300k.

I understand that markets go up and down but I do harbor resentment that American people are so fucked over, and literally gambling our savings is the only possible way to support ourselves once we are too old to be employable. It's savage and such a crazy way to force people to live. Gambling.

And just like gambling at a casino, the house always wins. Stockbrokers and finance execs all become millionaires for sitting on other people's money, and they skim and skim and skim and we just accept that this is the way it has to be and have zero control over how much of the money we earn is taken away. It doesn't evaporate when markets are volatile; it is ultimately transferred to rich people. It's sickening.

And still, just last night I implored a 30 year-old work friend to take advantage of the retirement plan. We are vested at my org on day one and he has been here for three years and has no retirement. He says he knows he should save, but he is paying off medical debt and student loan debt for both undergrad and grad school and he doesn't make a lot of money, so he feels he needs to pay down debt before saving for his future. It's a sad thing.

The democrats can't because they are stymied by republicans.

Savings are also increasingly wrapped up in other factors that are also sadly overlooked or ignored by most people.

1) Real estate and housing costs. Retirees used to pride themselves on fully owning a home by retirement, which removes a huge mortgage payment from their expenses, and gives a sense of psychological and financial security. But aging homes are expensive to repair, and in many cases, situated in places that aren't optimal for aging in place. Most retirees reside in suburbia, and have to drive themselves in daily life. Is that healthy, wise, or safe? Maybe not, but what's their alternative? We're not set up for suburban transit, and there's precious little affordable housing for older adults that IS transit-ready.

2) Health. Americans are generally living longer, but the upcoming generations tend to be fatter and carry more chronic conditions as they enter retirement age. What does being 70+ look like if you weigh 300 pounds and have sleep apnea and ADHD? Living into your 90s is different from having a good quality of life in your 90s. It's not enough to simply grow old, if being that old will be unpleasant.

I agree with the poster who is a proponent of financial education from an early age. There is almost no such thing for any school age. Financial and investing basics are really not that complicated. Mention these things and people freak out like you're talking about advanced calculus. It is almost willful ignorance.

Yes to both, R27.

I am about to turn 45 and I 'bought' my first condo one year ago. My hope is to live here into old age, if I live to old age, and only have to pay an HOA fee. Assuming I remain gainfully employed at my current level, I think I can do it in 20 or 25 years instead of 30.

I "should" have bought at a younger age but the reality is that I have worked in a volatile workplace with very high staff turnover for 15 years and have never been offered another job, and so the prospect of buying, losing my job and not being able to find a new one before defaulting on the mortgage has always worried me. Yet another huge gamble. Defaulting on a mortgage loan can fuck you financially for a decade.

And I just paid off my grad school student loan last year.

AND, yes, health is the bigger one.

I had a serious MS-like neurological condition throughout my 30s and spent years and tens of thousands of dollars first trying to identify it and then treating it. It turned out to be Lyme disease that had been in my system for a long time and got into my central nervous system. That demanded my time and money before anything else. I didn't know if I would even live to age 40.

And now, part of the aftermath is that I have an immunological disorder called mast cell activation syndrome that requires I take four allergy medications daily, use an albuterol inhaler, and see an allergist monthly to get two injections of a biologic medication that without health insurance would cost $30-60k per year. It's insane.

Both of these are circumstances specific to my strange life, but so many people have so much student loan debt and so many chronic illnesses to manage now.

And we can't compare people today to people before the 80s. They got pensions; we have to slice off a chunk of our salaries for retirement savings. They bought one phone, maybe two, per lifetime. We buy a new $1,000 phone every year or two. New computers every few years. These are all necessary, not optional. People used to pay for a newspaper subscription; today, everything is a subscription service that slowly drains our coffers.

And then there are totally optional lifestyle choices that are so common now middle-class people are programmed to think they're not luxuries—weird things like expensive cosmetic dentistry, throwing $10 down the toilet for every cup of coffee, etc.

We live in a country that can only survive when everyone spends, spends, spends, and all businesses, including even NONPROFIT higher education and NONPROFIT healthcare are governed and administered to prioritize growth, growth, growth over all else—if the business isn't always growing, the people who run it are failing and replaced with greedier people. We're a very stupid country through and through.

R22 It's super easy to do. When you want to take away safety nets and destabilize a country start race-baiting. Homophobia and xenophobia works too.

Putinista at R41, selective memory and all, forgets the billions upon billions wasted on Iraq, much of which went into the pockets of crony government contractors. Your dog don't hunt here, go troll elsewhere.

So the latest trend I've seen amongst people I know is to move abroad for retirement. The American friends are moving to Europe, Canada and South America. Portugal really seems to be the hot spot right now. When I ask them about it, they say their money goes further there and they can enjoy a good quality of life. Anyone else notice this?

I want to retire to Austria. I already speak the language, and meet the requirements for a retirement visa.

I just hope middle-class Americans don't discover it once Portugal and Malta become oversaturated.

In 1961 the average American spent 14% of their disposable income on food. In 2021 it was 7%. So we’re spending half what our grandparents spent on a basic necessity.

What has changed since then? Content. Paying for content didn’t exist then, and now people are spending insane amounts of money every month on: Internet, phones, apps, Spotify, Sirius XM for the cars, etc.,etc. etc.

That TV may have been more expensive calculated for inflation in 1961, but after you brought it home and plugged it in the only expense was the electricity to keep it on. Now you buy a good smart TV for $1,500, and have a $400 cable and Internet bill per month.

My new car is an EV and all the software makes OTA updates possible. The car company will be able to increase range and horsepower via an OTA update. The ‘subscription’ fee for this new tech will be $1,200 per year.

It goes on and on, and every business is trying to figure out how to charge for ephemeral services.

I’m going to see Sweeney Todd on Broadway next month. When the original was on Broadway in 1979, the top ticket price was $15. Adjusted for inflation that would be $60. Well my tickets cost $390 each. And not from scalpers.

All of this is to say that we are now spending extraordinary amounts of our income on what we perceive to be necessities, or activities that we value, that only recently began putting a serious dent in an average persons net income.

In essence, saving is much harder because we are all paying for things that weren’t even monetized 50 years ago. And these aren’t capital expenses. They’re every month or one and done.

Thank god my husband has two union pensions coming to him plus healthcare for us.

I’m 51 and only have about 400k in investments. I work in a very ageist industry and the high-paying consulting gigs I used to get are far and few between. It’s only a matter of time before I end up in shitty retail.

Yet still, I’m way better off than a lot of people. Which is scary because life still feels so precarious.

R41's literal avoidance of any blame for Republicans, not even naming the 16 years of Republican presidents we endured in the same timeframe, makes his entire post too laughable to take seriously.

The right wing indoctrination and general nuttery around here is just breathtaking sometimes. Bizarrolounge.

R14 But that's good and not an uncommon situation. So you WILL have some money. This is one reason people talk about generational "wealth".

Wealth doesn't need to mean BIG MONEY. Working class folks from the 20th century often managed to own homes. So that property is a safety net for the next generation.

R54 Don't forget the cost of retirement savings itself. People have been paying into SS for nearly a century, but many workers used to have their pensions funded by their employer. It's a recent development to shift to defined-contribution plans, where the workers themselves have to pay their retirement out of their own pocket.

One thing that sucks is being old and sick and not dealing with one's property. My mom did this. Depleted several hundred thousand in annuities and then her middle class house sold rather than transferred when it should have been transferred to one of her children or even grandchildren. The annuities paid for a several years of homecare because it was her choice not to enter an elder care facility. Now the house profits will be depleted by that hospital, until its all gone. FINALLY only at that moment will public assistance kick in and she can stay in that place, without assets.

Its not easy R54 - but make sure that house is transferred to the next generation before health care will get their greedy hands on it.

R55 you are golden. This topic is people who have no safety net.

[quote]All of this is to say that we are now spending extraordinary amounts of our income on what we perceive to be necessities, or activities that we value, that only recently began putting a serious dent in an average persons net income.

We're also spending a lot more on necessities -- like healthcare, housing and energy.

I was thinking today about retirement. What would stop someone from becoming a monk or nun at a contemplative monastery somewhere nice? I have a family member who is a nun in one of the most expensive zip codes in the US, she teaches Catholic school and goes hiking and wine tasting on the weekends. She has a dog too. She seems very content. Why not, I ask myself? Maybe that could be me someday

R62, they have no interest in taking in useless, old people. That's what nursing homes are for, not convents and monasteries.

R62 Better to commit a low-risk crime, and be sent away to a minimum-security prison in a nicer Western country.

Only the very grandest aristocratic women enter the convent later in life. Are you an important princess? Duchess?

[quote] This can hardly be blamed on Reagan. The crap economy lies squarely with the Democratic Party. If the Democrats were at all interested in the middle class, they would have done something about it by now. The billions being sent to the Ukraine could be used at home instead.

The GOP only supports the rich and tried to stop all support for the middle class. The GOP Tax law was shamefully tilted towards the rich. Hilariously, it was marketed by the GOP as as big tax cuts for everyone. But when Trump ran for a second term, he talked about a new tax cut law but for the middle class. Huh?

The GOP continuously goes against the middle class--focusing on cutting SS and Medicare; it pushed the replacement of pensions by the inferior 401k; it's trying to block new funding for the IRS to get taxes from the rich; it's keeping the minimum wage down

Under Obama, he got some tax concessions from the wealthy and that led to a booming middle class economy, which Trump promptly took credit for and then proceeded to destroy.

It's the GOP that keeps charging up the debt (Trump's administration is responsible for 25% of ALL the debt we have, from the beginning of the country). The middle class will have to pay it off.

I’ve made it a rule over the last few years that we don’t increase our standard of living. It really works even if you are not making six figures. Just increase your 401k. I’m at 22% now and want to get to 25%. It’s doable but you have to sacrifice the new car, fancy clothes, expensive things. I know that figure sounds high but I’m in my early 40s and didn’t save much up until a few years ago so I need to catch up. Also, don’t look at your 401k balance if you are 20 plus years from retiring. Right now my index fund is down but that just means my dollars buy more shares. I do wish we still had pensions though.

[quote] This is Reagan’s America.

It is. He and the GOP convinced America that money will trickle down and decades of tax cuts followed. We gave up pensions, good affordable education, affordable healthcare--all of it so the rich can keep grubbing up money

[quote] The root of all of this is Americans don't get much, if any, financial educational at all. It should be mandatory in high school.

This X 100. I got absolutely no financial education from my parents or school. When it finally occurred to me to take a personal finance course it was frankly, life changing. There is real skill to budgeting, forecasting and so much more that a person needs to be taught. I has always thought, oh, I know how to budget I just lack the discipline to do so. I was so wrong. You do need discipline when it comes to money, but there was SO much I did not know.

My husband’s sister never bothered to have a job that aid into retirement—that would have interfered with her “free spirit.” Now at 72, she wrote my husband a letter telling him to designate 1/3 of his 2M IRA for her and 1/3 for their equally loathsome brother (who would have enough money if she didn’t drain him too). She wrote the letter when he was beginning to exhibit symptoms of mild dementia. I have power of attorney and am medical proxy, and our lawyer and our financial manager are well aware of the situation. I am the sole beneficiary and will see his adult child and grandchild are prepared for (the daughter and grandson are making no claims). Sister (72) and brother (81) can figure out their own money. BTW, I worked 40 years and have a comfortable IRA myself, so I’m no gold-digger. But he’s 84 (I’m 65) and in good physical health —we may need the money for his care for some time. And u’m well aware that I am unlikely to have anyone to provide care for me down the line, should I outlive him. It’s true—wills and inheritances reveal the worst sides of people. I already knew the siblings were entitled arrogant assholes—I just never realized how greedy. I’d rather give his money to charities he believes in (Planned Parenthood, the local chamber orchestra, his Alma mater) than give them the money—and it’s never enough.

This map doesn't lie. Holland is far and away the best. The dutch fuckers I know are all headed for early retirement.

R70 That sounds like the juicy DL topic our elderly audience needs to hear.

It's no longer "Why haven't Chad and Terry called me since Fire Island?" It's now "My pre-Boomer husband is alive and well, but his awful relatives are scheming to take his retirement before he hits the Medicaid look-back window. And we need that money for Lipitor and a new Subaru. And what the hell is that smell?!?!"

America's biggest problem was it let the GOP kill unions.

R70 Having said that, your in-laws sound like serious pieces of bitch trash. I'm glad you've got legal paperwork in place to keep them out in the cold where they belong.

yes absolutely, try to get your money from loved ones before they die. You will see new sides of people when it comes to dealing with wills and estates. my own mother stole my inheritance. she was the executor of my dad's estate. she willy nilly gave money the way she saw fit, to her own kids (with previous husband) etc etc. I was not her fav child so I got zip.

r70 If she's 70 then she's at the age of little to no employment prospects. She and her brother's SS might be very little. I consider you to be a spiteful boomer and family-wrecker

r76, hits a little too close to home for ya?

R76 I'm sure you'd throw your wine in his face, but your glass is already empty, isn't it?

Does the state step in in the US to support those who have no income in retirement, i.e. can you live on social security? And are there supplementary benefits?

I’m in the UK and have been paying into a pension for 20 years. I put in 5%of salary for 10 years then upped it to 9%, and my employer puts in 5%, but the forecast returns are pitiful. I’ve got another 20 years to save, and I have started squirreling away as much as I can in Index funds too.

I’m certain I will be reliant on my state pension too though (currently £146 per week). It’s not much, after paying tax for 40 years.

Speaking of pensions, my father made his third wife the sole beneficiary. When they got divorced he wanted to change it to benefit his kids instead. They (the pension plan people) said he couldn't. That doesn't make sense to me.

R79 Only in extreme cases.

All American elders are eligible for a program called Medicare, which provides cheap (but not free!) coverage for medications and doctors. It can also pay a portion of care-home expenses. You're expected to pay the difference yourself.

For the poor elderly, they can double up and also sign up for Medicaid, which provides care that's essentially free. This can fill the gap in what Medicare won't cover on its own. But it's stretched thin, and you have to prove yourself to be broke-as-shit to qualify. They examine your finances very closely, and you have to prove you've been broke for several years before they'll let you take advantage of the benefit.

That said, the only care homes that accept Medicaid are utter death camps. Raisin ranches. Prisons that smell worse, and you just sit around waiting to die before you shit your pants again. If you're Medicare/Medicaid doubled-up, a care home might take you, but they will take your entire Social Security check (minus $20 for pocket money) to cover the bills. It doesn't come close to covering the actual operating costs for your care, so they operate at a loss.

For the young’uns on the thread, just FYI that money paid into non-Roth type retirement funds like 403bs is not-taxable at the time of saving, so if say you are in a 20% tax bracket and you save 10% of your income then it’ll only feel like a loss of 8%.

Also something I learned on DL and plan to use closer to 65, what you pay for Medicare is dependent on your income for the two years prior to taking it. So try to save enough in a savings type account to live on for the 2 or years prior to Medicare age. Alternately you could work for six months, live on savings for 18 months while paying for COBRA health insurance coverage for that time and you won’t have to worry about finding a suitable health insurance policy for the gap while still minimizing income.

If your employer offers a cheap long term care insurance policy to you in your twenties, take it and prioritize not letting it lapse.

No it isn't r22. It's been pushed on us.

R83 But be careful with those. Long-term care insurance can be full of holes, and ultimately be an expensive scam.

R36 spelled Biden wrong.

R79, do you have an ISA? You might also consider a SIPP for your pension.

Another thing to consider, as the interest rate isn't too bad at the moment, is fixed-term savings accounts or National Savings and Investments bonds, if you can lock some money up for a year or two.

The fact that people spend money on jet skis, Playstations, $1000 phones and tablets (every year), and other expensive lifestyle luxury goods, so don't have any savings is a separate issue from wealth accumulated by the 1%.

Also, the 1% is not a fixed and finite group of people. Google did their IPO in 2004. 25 years ago, Brin and Larry Page were not billionaires or members of the 1%. It is misleading to suggest that a group of people have amassed wealth when that group has both expanded and changed composition, as well as added many, many tens of thousands of people to their ranks and lost tens of thousands of them.

I'd like to believe there is someplace to put money away where it can safely grow that is not the stock market, which is rigged to plunge every decade or so, to the point where you lose so damned much that you might as well have stuffed your mattress with that cash. It's a Ponzi scheme.

Indeed, r88, and it's also not as though there is this fixed sum of money in existence and "the 1%" have somehow grabbed more of it.

r77 r78 sass all you want, the fact is that it's sick boomer greed, even sicker when you imagine r70 rimming their geriatric partner.. puke

This is what comes of letting Republicans run local, state and federal government. In bed with their mistress, Corporate America, they eliminated pensions and all previously existing private industry responsibility for taking care of the workers it didn't kill when they retire.

[quote][R55] you are golden.

I think R55 is correct to feel their position remains precarious, even with their advantages. The workers who get blindsided the most in economic downturns are often those 50 and older. Pensions can be slashed, markets can crash and ageism is a serious consideration in many fields. This caused a lot of devastation circa 2007-2008 and will inevitably happen again. It's one of many reasons that we need stronger social safety nets.

The stock market isn't "rigged" to crash, r89, and it isn't a Ponzi scheme. It does go in cycles, however, partly because everyone is piling into certain hot stocks at the same time, to the point that they get overvalued and then there is a correction. A tip, however: buy the dip. If the market sinks, take advantage of it. Another important tip: start early and leave your money invested for as long as possible. Over a working/investing life, there could well be 3-4 downturns, but that will all even out over the years, while whatever is invested in the downturns will grow more when things pick up again.

[quote] I've been hearing this for 30 years.

Well, now you'll see it, Nancy. The biggest surge in the homeless population is in the over-59 1/2 co-hort.

R88 nails it. Many people live their whole lives in squalor, but plenty of Americans piss away their money on wasteful spending.

[quote] This can hardly be blamed on Reagan. The crap economy lies squarely with the Democratic Party. If the Democrats were at all interested in the middle class, they would have done something about it by now. The billions being sent to the Ukraine could be used at home instead.

This is ALL Reagan's fault. He purposely and cruelly shifted public sentiment away from the Post-war idea that government is responsible for the safety and security of its TAXPAYING citizens. All of the sudden these racist tropes of the "welfare queen" were introduced so the government could eliminate social programs so that it could cut corporate taxes.

R78 Social Security income is far below poverty level. It's a small supplement. They siphon off a lot of our incomes throughout our lifetimes and then pay back a token amount in retirement.

I'm almost 45. My projected social security check if I take it at....

Age 62: $1,979/month

Age 67: $2,888/month

Age 70: $3,604/month.

Which doesn't sound like nothing exactly, but when you project how inflation will devalue it...it's close to nothing.

It certainly won't pay mortgage or rent bills or cover significant living expenses.

[quote]This is ALL Reagan's fault. He purposely and cruelly shifted public sentiment away from the Post-war idea that government is responsible for the safety and security of its TAXPAYING citizens. All of the sudden these racist tropes of the "welfare queen" were introduced so the government could eliminate social programs so that it could cut corporate taxes.

You can lay blame on Reagan for the racist propaganda, but ultimately it was the 1978 introduction of the IRS code section 401K that fundamentally changed the retirement landscape and shifted the onus of responsibility for saving for retirement onto the individual. Additionally, this shift of billions into the stock markets led to the massive market growth of the 80s, then later both internet bubbles, and 2008 financial crisis as hot money needed for find places to invest.

Pray that Social Security is NEVER privatized. It will result in even fewer people with retirement funds, more excessively wealthy people, and greater market volatility.

R98 don’t they quote those figures in present values?

There's a guy named Caleb Hammer who started a Youtube channel where he interviews people on their finances. He will check through their checking account, credit cards, student loans, rent, food, car, etc. and give free advice on how they can better handle their money. I've watched a bunch and it is clear that 80% of young people are financially ignorant, and selfishly immature about handling money. Many haven't even thought about retirement and are only worried about paying their current bills.

Caleb is a firm believer that everyone needs to start saving for retirement in their 20's so they'll be secure by retirement age, but it's sad how many Gen XYZers don't get the concept. Sadder still, is the people in their 40'-50's who have nothing in the bank. One guy in his 50's spent all his money trying to get his son big in car racing, and has no savings left. Now he's trying to build his crumbled finances back up by joining an MLM that is pushing some bogus supplements. Ouch.

Caleb has to listen to them whining about being broke while pointing out the overwhelming amount of money spent for Amazon crap, Uber Eats, dining out, coffee runs, etc. It is irritating how many fight back when their wasteful spending is pointed out. Make sure to take your blood pressure meds if you check out the videos - it's alarming and sad to see how poorly educated most folks are on managing money.

[quote] Under Obama, he got some tax concessions from the wealthy and that led to a booming middle class economy, which Trump promptly took credit for and then proceeded to destroy.

It's the GOP that keeps charging up the debt (Trump's administration is responsible for 25% of ALL the debt we have, from the beginning of the country). The middle class will have to pay it off.

Thank you, r66. It is rare to see the truth at Datalounge.

Damn you, delicious avocado toast

The average new car payment in the US is now $700/month. No one NEEDS that.

As a millennial, I put the minimum into my 401k. I’m expecting the market to collapse and/or for the government to raid retirement accounts long before I’m eligible to retire.

That's not true r81. It's relatively easy to get both Medicare and Medicaid if you're low income. You don't need to be broke several years. You just need to be broke.

r98 - I thought the same thing. By the time you actually draw that money 20 years from now, it will have at least been adjusted by the annual inflation adjustments given to retirees. My mother's social security payment increased 8% this year after the rough inflation from last year.

Also, if you own a home stop refinancing it. Get a thirty year mortgage and make 30 years' of payments and payoff the house.

My elderly parents paid off their house decades ago in a zip code whose average home price is $1.5mm. The housing costs are essentially maintenance and property taxes. In California, property taxes are essentially 1.25% of purchase price. If you don't keep buying a new house and "upgrading" or refinancing, it's much easier.

[quote] If your employer offers a cheap long term care insurance policy to you in your twenties, take it and prioritize not letting it lapse.

R83, please write this as often as you can. If you've had to care for aging parents, relatives or friends you know how incredibly difficult it is to find a decent senior living situation outside the home. Most senior living homes are abominable. The ones that are decent are just decent, nothing fancy, but incredibly expensive.

What is the solution for the USA?

[quote] what you pay for Medicare is dependent on your income for the two years prior to taking it

Thanks, R82. That's useful info.

[quote] This is ALL Reagan's fault. He purposely and cruelly shifted public sentiment away from the Post-war idea that government is responsible for the safety and security of its TAXPAYING citizens.

The government wasn’t doing such a hot job of it. Social Security is a Ponzi scheme that relies on future generations having plenty of children to pay into it and companies not leaving the US and keeping US citizens employed.

Plus, before Reagan, Social Security was paying all types of benefits to children with a deceased parent. Survivor benefits for children weren’t accounted for under Social Security and should have been shifted over to state welfare benefits.

Jesus Fucking Christ, OP... Bernie is not a 'system change' and he is NOT what is needed. Bernie is a lazy unaccomplished old grifting fraud that scammed a younger generation out of its $27 to fund his own retirement and four houses. He's a hypocrite, a whiner, a gadfly, and a lazy-ass appropriating loser. He loves trying to take credit for shit he had little or nothing to do with. Including "M4A" (which is a Democratic idea put forth by a Democrat that he stole and then ruined).

STOP FALLING FOR BERNIE'S CON. He's not actually a Progressive. He's a LEFT-POPULIST, which makes him nothing more or less than the flip side of Trump (who is a Right-Populist... two sides of the same damn populist coin). Populism is BAD. It NEVER ends well for democracy, or for minorities like us.

STOP WORSHIPING THAT FRAUD. He's not the answer to any problem we have right now, and in fact, is the indirect cause of a great many problems we have (including having suffered through four years of Trump).

[quote]"Social Security is a Ponzi scheme ..."

Yeah, you can stop right there. The moment that lie comes out of your mouth, we know you're an idiot, a fraud, and a moron whose opinions are never to be given any credibility at all. Only stupid right-wing sheep mindlessly parrot that idiotic phrase. NO. WRONG. BAD. NO BISCUIT FOR YOU.

I think many countries now have IRA systems.

No crisis on DL, everyone seems to have a nest egg and three rental properties.

[quote]What is the solution for the USA?

Round up Boomers and involuntarily place them in state-run homes, then confiscate their wealth and material assets and redistribute back into the economy.

"This is all Reagan's fault!! Blagghhhh!"

"This is all Clinton's fault!!!! Arrrrgh!"

"This is all Obama's fault!!! Blaaaaahhhh!"

"THANKS, JOE BIDEN!" "FUCK TRUMP!"

OK. Now that everyone has gotten the blame game out of their systems, which is perhaps cathartic but *entirely counterproductive* when pointing fingers at who did what decades ago—what can be done to make it better?

Agree that younger people don’t get any education about finances. My dad was the one who told me to start saving in a 401K when I got my first job.

I’ve been putting money aside since then. I wanted to retire early this year and get a part time job closer to home.

When I went though the budgeting paperwork my financial advisor gave me, I was horrified to see on paper and in my FACE that my credit card payments were as much as my house payment per month!

That was a shock since I’d been making 3 extra payments a month and not using them. So we sold some stock and I paid them off, cut them up and buried them in the backyard.

I don’t think a lot of people realize that the interest rate on those things is almost 20% now and that’s WAY more than your stocks are making.

Sadly, credit cards are many people’s emergency funds.

USA needs a massive building programme. Should be building many sturdy pleasant yet humble low and medium density buildings. Apartments, millions of apartments. New schools and community centres. Real community centres run by the communities. And also sommunity homes for the mentally ill. Homes for the destitute. very lightly assisted buildings for old folks who don't need much care. They should be able to rent 500 dollar a month well constructed well maintained 2 room apartments.

R119 Sounds bleak. People will think they are entitled to an oceanfront mansion and turn up their noses at humble buildings.

[quote] what you pay for Medicare is dependent on your income for the two years prior to taking it

To be clear, in retirement your Medicare premium is recalculated EACH YEAR based on the income from the two year prior income tax return. So you could have the lowest Medicare premium at age 65 because you minimized income before retirement, but if your income goes up substantially from investment sales or pension withdrawals, that will increase your Medicare premium 2 years later. And then if you income goes way down again after that, then your future premium will be reduce again for the following year.

Here's a table that shows you your Medicare premium based on your income. It's recalculated each year based on your income during retirement. (This is just for regular Medicare, and does not include the cost of supplement Medicare or Advantage Plans.)

[quote] [R79], do you have an ISA? You might also consider a SIPP for your pension.

Yes, r87, I have an ISA, both a cash ISA (not much in it, but enough to pay my expenses for a few months if I am out of work) and a Stocks and Shares ISA. I’m just depressed by how few savings/pension I have accumulated over 20 years.

I concentrated on paying off my mortgage on my (fairly modest) home, but now (aged 45) I am facing decisions on whether to buy a better home, or keep trying to save. I’m sure the sensible thing is to invest, but it seems like a gamble which may or may not pay off in a few decades, whereas the same money spent on a new house might not be a good financial investment, but at least I would enjoy it!

R117, one thing that can make it better is to stop voting on “feelings” and “perceptions”. Those can get sold to the highest bidder who knows how to make propaganda. People need to be able to sit in a room together and present evidence and really talk.

“Media, and how the Reagans manipulated it, forms the central part of this story,” Tyrnauer explains. “As the academic Jason Johnson says in the series, Reagan gave the press the televised presidency they had been waiting for. That’s irrefutably true, and there are other aspects of the Reagan legacy more attuned to the American psyche. Voters vote on perception and feeling, which the Reagans knew how to tap into.”

I also think there should be public televised debates on multiple subjects, not just in presidential years but on a routine basis. And people should have the ability to vote in more detail, not just Republican/Democrat but on specific policy issues. Even if it wasn’t official, having policy issues as part of ballots could avoid someone believing they have a mandate or bring attention to significant differences of opinion that exist within a political party.

I also think it would help if people left out the buzzwords. It’s not “socialism” to help the poor any more than it’s “monarchism” to help the rich. People are allowed to help themselves. That’s the whole point of a democracy.

[quote] The billions being sent to the Ukraine could be used at home instead.

Ukraine isn't getting crates of American dollars. It's getting military equipment, each of which has a value attached to it.

Are you saying we should defund the military to help average Americans? If so, I'm all for it. On the other hand, the military is a government stimulus program that supports a big segment of the middle class. The people I know in the military aren't actually doing much but they bring in a nice income.

R126 Ignore that Boris plant.

Virtually all of the shit being shipped to Ukraine was just sitting around DoD warehouses waiting for the next war. We had already made it, bought it, and catalogued it.

It would also help if companies could not buy people’s silence. Like if you’re wronged by a pharmaceutical company, you should be able to speak publicly without repercussions. If you’re wronged by an employer, they should not be able to hold severance over you to silence you. I think major complaints against powerful organizations should also be the subject of very public, evidence based debate in which no propaganda or emotionally charged language or appeal to stereotypes or buzzwords is allowed.

[quote] The point being that Democrats have had enough time to implement policy to assist the middle class. Biden is now working against the middle class by importing illegals and exporting tax money.

Dems rarely have had enough power to unilaterally do anything, let alone implements tons of policies to help the middle class. It's tried alot like tax changes, paid family leave ,etc, but the GOP fights every incremental step.

Where exactly is Biden importing illegals and exporting tax money? We have the lowest employment and deficit in decades. Our economy is outpacing Europe's.

R91. You lost any sympathy with your ugly ageist image of rimming an 84 year old as the most disgusting thing in the world. There’s also something called loving and being with someone for close to thirty years—something you probably wouldn’t have any inkling about.

We're not a democracy r125. We're a constitutional republic.

I wasn’t worried until the huge loss in the market during the Biden administration. It doesn’t matter if a future president can fix the problems that Biden caused and the market goes back to the level it was. It was will still be lost years for my 401k to be where I wanted it to be. I’m targeting $2 million by the time I retire, but Biden’s successor is going to have to do a lot to boost stock prices for me to get there.

R129, there are still major problems with the economy; it’s not just official unemployment but people who have stopped officially looking for work, who are doing things like Uber and Door Dash and certainly not making enough for retirement. I think the talking along partisan lines needs to stop. People have to stop thinking about being Republicans or being Democrats and actually really listening to each other in Congress. Every single point needs to be evidence based and a free vote for every person. No pressure to vote in any particular way just because of your party affiliation. No mud slinging, death threats, etc. Polite facts and separation of church and state.

I think it's hard to find reasonable rates for long-term care insurance (LTCI), now. I started buying from a while ago.

[quote] You can lay blame on Reagan for the racist propaganda, but ultimately it was the 1978 introduction of the IRS code section 401K that fundamentally changed the retirement landscape and shifted the onus of responsibility for saving for retirement onto the individual. Additionally, this shift of billions into the stock markets led to the massive market growth of the 80s, then later both internet bubbles, and 2008 financial crisis as hot money needed for find places to invest.

401k of the Tax code was a giveaway for rich people who could squirrel away some money to reduce their tax liability. It was never intended as the primary retirement savings vehicle for the general population. That fucker Reagan began dismantling social programs before 401ks were even widely utilized

You're dead wrong r127.

[quote] I wasn’t worried until the huge loss in the market during the Biden administration. It doesn’t matter if a future president can fix the problems that Biden caused and the market goes back to the level it was. It was will still be lost years for my 401k to be where I wanted it to be. I’m targeting $2 million by the time I retire, but Biden’s successor is going to have to do a lot to boost stock prices for me to get there.

Biden caused? Another DLer that would benefit from financial literacy

Oh, and if we spend all his money making life as good for him as possible and I end up living on my own IRA, I’ll consider the money well-spent. As opposed to his brother, who actually said, “Mother and Father would be sad that Sister isn’t being taken care of,” trying to manipulate a sibling in the early throes of dementia. Yes, sterling folj—maybe you have 1.6M you’d like to give them, R91–they have as much legal and moral entitlement to yours as to his. If Sister had disabilities that had made work impossible, I might feel differently, but selling plants at the local farmer’s market, while running through the money her parents left her doesn’t seem a compelling case. BTW, both siblings are gay, but chose never to be in long-term relationships (which is fine), so they don’t seem to have any solidarity with their gay married comrades or to understand that providing for a spouse and for adult children and grandchildren might take priority over their wants.

Just wait until we have the Debt Ceiling debate.

If the GOP refuses to pay America's bills, America's credit will take a nose dive. All that money you have in your 401k will suddenly lose lots of value, overnight.

Amazing that Americans are so ignorant about finances that they don't realize the ramifications of not increasing the debt ceiling.

[quote] As a millennial, I put the minimum into my 401k. I’m expecting the market to collapse and/or for the government to raid retirement accounts long before I’m eligible to retire.

Remind me, how old are millennials?! Because I was sure the world would end when Bush stole the 2000 election but now here I am 22+ years later facing the reality that the world didn't end and I would like to stop working before I die.

Yes, Portugal is the new place every I know is focusing on. It has a rather lenient immigration policy. If you invest $500k in a house, you can become a legal immigrant and have access to all the EU

[quote] Amazing that Americans are so ignorant about finances that they don't realize the ramifications of not increasing the debt ceiling.

Or who the villains are! Only the Republicans want to keep 90% poor enough to remain in the workforce until they drop dead -- the sooner the better because heaven forbid taxpayers should have platinum healthcare and pensions like the greedy, thieving louses in Congress.

[quote] If the GOP refuses to pay America's bills, America's credit will take a nose dive.

That would be bad, but at least the silver lining would be that the bandage will be ripped off and it won’t matter after that if the debt ceiling is used to block the federal government from spending more money than it has.

Yes, Biden caused r137. He has utterly destroyed the economy. As we predicted he would.

"Be sure your house and car are paid off prior to retiring." This is hilarious. As if we all can afford a house. Please. I will never be able to afford a house.

I'm 53. I've worked for some companies who didn't even offer a 401k. I have about 100 grand saved in my current retirement fund. I had a nice savings account in addition to my 401k...until I got cancer last year and had to pay enormous amounts to my health insurance. My retirement plan is to die.

[quote] And people should have the ability to vote in more detail, not just Republican/Democrat but on specific policy issues.

That’s what the Senate and the House of Representatives is for. You elect people to represent you on national policy decisions.

[quote] The point being that Democrats have had enough time to implement policy to assist the middle class. Biden is now working against the middle class by importing illegals and exporting tax money.

More MAGA mythology.

[quote] Yes, Biden caused [R137]. He has utterly destroyed the economy. As we predicted he would.

Except the part that the economy is thriving. Spending is up. Unemployment at record lows.

It's estimated that a couple will have to spend $350,000 on health care, over and above Medicare, after retirement.

Good luck with that

[quote] until I got cancer last year and had to pay enormous amounts to my health insurance.

I think you got hoodwinked. The insurance company is what pays when get cancer.

[quote] It's estimated that a couple will have to spend $350,000 on health care, over and above Medicare, after retirement.

That’s why I dread going on Medicare. I’m going to keep my job and the inexpensive employer provided health insurance for as long as possible.

[quote] Also something I learned on DL and plan to use closer to 65, what you pay for Medicare is dependent on your income for the two years prior to taking it.

I HAVE TO PAY FOR MEDICARE ???!!!!!! I've spent 30 years paying Medicare payroll tax!

I always thought Medicare pays for pretty much everything.

My dad pays a lot for a Blue Cross 'supplement,' which not cheap, and he found out the hard way that Medicare will not even pay for a physical exam.

Medicare only pays for 'wellness checks.' They are less intensive and not geared toward disease prevention, on the basis that old people can't prevent disease or something crazy.

He has to specify to his doctor that he wants a wellness check and not a physical or else they will bill Medicare for a physical and Medicare will pass along the bill to him.

Not when you have a $8,500 out of pocket, r150

My husband was plannng on the sake of his parents home for retirement. Guess what? His mom is nearing age 100. She ain’t going nowhere. And her house is worth the same as it was worth 20 years ago. How, you ask, can it not have gone up in value? Because ut was wildly overpriced 20 years ago. It’s in a desirable neighborhood that Asians love. They demolish the home and build a gigantic compound on the land. But it costs a lot more to demolish a home and build a new one than it did 20 years ago. So the price of the home has not increased. But 20 years ago, the money was worth a lot more than it does today.

If you sold a house for $750k twenty years ago you could’ve bought a nice townhouse just a few miles away for @$400k. Today, a nice townhouse is $650k. By the time you pay the realtor, pay closing costs (sellers have to pay NYC taxes upon sale of house, btw), you’re losing money if you buy a townhouse.

Same is true if my house. I’m in a very expensive area. A few years ago Zillow claimed my house was worth $1.7M. I probavly could’ve got $1.3M for it. I would be er be able to buy another house in my area. My house is a tear down in this area. But now Zillow says it’s worth $1.3M and I’d probably get 990k for it. Then pay closing costs. I could buy a two bedroom in a very downscale condo complex about 40 miles west for about $450k.

It’s strange that other places the prices have gone so far up but in the expensive area where I live and where my MIL lives prices have stayed the same or gone down. They’re building an $8.5M house on my block but it won’t increase my home price because I have less than an acre, I’m on a flag lot which means I have neighbors adjoining all 4 sides, my house doesn’t have “farm views” or “water views” and the people ho bought the house next door put a fucking bar/patio with loud stereo system right up against the side of my house (after cutting down the trees that gave privacy) despite having a huge back yard which they left empty.

Neither one of us has a pension. I was planning to get a pension but got disabled instead. I get $1800/month Soc Sec. My husband gets @ $3400. We’re screwed. My house needs repairs. I have $300k mortgage. My husband is self employed and pays rent on an office. He used to share the rent with another guy but the other guy retired.

I’m ridiculously lucky; I taught in New Jersey for 10 years after college, then moved to Florida. Because of my age it was suggested I just cash out my pension at that point and start fresh when I got to Florida. I paid the 25% tax and moved to Florida in January 1995; bought a house with 20% down and 20 year mortgage. I have a state pension of 3,200 and whatever I get from social security. Additionally, Florida retirement system has a savings plan you enter the last 5 years you’re employed and I will get around $40,000 and put that into an Roth IRA. I sold my house in 2019, November, for $200,000 more than I bought it for, so in addition to the Roth I have that savings. My current house will be paid off 2035 and I will retire then. Most likely back up North somewhere as I despise Florida, even before DeSantis.

Except the part that the economy is thriving. Spending is up. Unemployment at record lows.

"Unemployment at record lows" only refers to the number of individuals looking for work. those who are still filing weekly updates to state unemployment.

It says NOTHING about the number of people who dropped out of the workforce. It's a real distinction.

I've been wondering, how many people are we going to start hearing about in news reports who quit and have discovered they cannot afford retirement, but no one will hire them.

I didn’t realize that nuance R121. Thanks!

R152 you can thank Reagan for making us pay for Medicare. It’s cheaper to keep my wife on my work insurance then it is for her to take Part B and the coverage with my insurance is much, much better than Medicare.

As for LTCI, I lucked out and got a policy through work for less than $150 a year when I was in my mid-twenties. Gay marriage was barely a twinkle in a Hawaiian’s eye at the time so I couldn’t get coverage for my wife and my mother had health issues that made her uninsurable, but I also got the policy for my father at only $350 per year. Meanwhile we pay $1,600/year for my wife’s plan and it is only marginally better than mine. It’s not a platinum plan by any means, it only provides coverage if you have difficulty with two activities of daily living for at least six months, but between the daily coverage amount, annuity income and social security it should keep me out of the worst of the worst nursing homes.

Meanwhile stocks are a bargain right now and bonds are a good investment for the first time in forever. Unless you are looking to retire immediately now is pretty good time to be saving for retirement.

R158 that’s right, stocks are “cheap” now. I don’t get why people cannot grasp that. If anything, you should up your contributions in these times (if you can).

It must be nice to be expecting a windfall when your parents die. I will get nothing. And I won’t have kids to assist me. My plan is to die when my money runs out.

R159 I am contributing the maximum amount to both my 403b and 457 right now in addition to my employer’s contribution to the 403b. I also put in the maximum $10,000 into I-Bonds in both December 2022 and January 2023.

I love my parents, but I expect debt and work as my inheritance.

Well......I invented a simple solution to this problem 300 years ago

[quote] A few years ago Zillow claimed my house was worth $1.7M.

I feel your pain.

r116 co-signing this.

I was doing all right until the housing market shot up like crazy. I would have needed to be clairvoyant to know my investments and pension wouldn't be able to sustain me.

Actually, even if I knew there is nothing I could have done unless I got a second job to do instead of sleeping.

My mother didn't save. dime for retirement and she worked her whole life. If not for my Dad they would be screwed. I just don't know what she was thinking.

She is still pissed about Medicare. She thought that everything would be covered 100%. It was a genuine shock to her when I explained that:

Yes, you have to pay premiums

Medicare only fairly recently started covering drugs. Her mother had to pay cash for medications (she had no idea)

No things are not covered 100%

A real case of head stuck in the sand.

R138, your sister could have taken care of herself just working at the farmer’s market- and you yourself would be in a better position to take care of your family and parents - if not for the developments of the last 45 years. Everything has been sucked up, not trickled down. Even the 10 percent still making it work in what’s left of the meritocracy are stressing the heck out of themselves to do it.

“For example, are you a typical Black man earning $35,000 a year? You are being paid at least $26,000 a year less than you would have had income distributions held constant. Are you a college-educated, prime-aged, full-time worker earning $72,000? Depending on the inflation index used (PCE or CPI, respectively), rising inequality is costing you between $48,000 and $63,000 a year. But whatever your race, gender, educational attainment, urbanicity, or income, the data show, if you earn below the 90th percentile, the relentlessly upward redistribution of income since 1975 is coming out of your pocket.“

R116

Trumper of you and your friend at r164

I am insanely conservative with my savings to the point that it veers toward financial malpractice. I might as well keep it in a coffee can. While I have a 401k and brokerage accounts, I keep way too much just sitting in a savings account. It’s a mental block for me. I own my home and it’ll be paid off when I’m 65, but still. This haunts me.

R169 What's way too much in savings?

Not R169, but anything over 6 months salary should really be invested, even if the investment are government bonds/CDs.

If you can get yourself invite, Am Ex has a savings account with interest rates similar to CDs that are nonetheless FDIC ensured and unlike a CD don’t have a penalty for early withdrawal.

As a former poor I am always amazed at how people give me money for things that I used to have to pay for, such as banking. We live in a deeply unfair society.

[quote] If you can get yourself invite, Am Ex has a savings account with interest rates similar to CDs

What do you mean an "invite"?

R157: There are still lots of places that need employees.

I mean I got an invitation, but I just googled and it does look like people can apply.

It's not necessarily unfair that a company offers more stuff to customers who will spend more, r172.

But I am not spending more. I pay them nothing for the account and there is no minimum balance.

R36, nothing you say is true from what I'm experiencing myself. And I'm on track to where I want to be. It's not nearly as dire, if you've been assiduously been investing and putting into a 401k. If.

It's a slow,steady accumulation.

I'm sure someone has already said it, but shut up, R41, you stupid cunt. The economy was great under Clinton, put into the toilet by Bush and his war, then flourished again with Obama. Then the national debt went throuh the roof with Trump.

But what can annyone expect from some Ukaine-bashing, MAGAt Putin supporter.

[quote]"Unemployment at record lows" only refers to the number of individuals looking for work. those who are still filing weekly updates to state unemployment. It says NOTHING about the number of people who dropped out of the workforce.

If they've dropped out of the workforce at a time when millions of jobs are going unfilled, it's probably safe to say they don't belong in the workforce and shouldn't be counted.

I have 3 million saved and I'm 40

I have 40 million saved and I'm 3

[quote]Speaking of pensions, my father made his third wife the sole beneficiary. When they got divorced he wanted to change it to benefit his kids instead. They (the pension plan people) said he couldn't. That doesn't make sense to me.

Pensions ( the old school, defined benefit kind) don't have "beneficiaries" (except for any unrecovered employee contributions.) Pensions are annuities that end when the annuitant dies. The only option is to have a "joint and survivor" annuity with one's spouse which provides that the surviving spouse receives a percentage of the amount the original annuitant received (in exchange for the annuitant receiving a lesser amount during his/her lifetime.) You cannot have a joint and survivor annuity with a child or any person other than a spouse.

Never count on pensions. If I had, I'd be broke. I bought a house 25 years ago for $600,000. Sold it for $1.7 million when I retired. Only trust real estate.

"Everyone outlives their money."

I am 50 and getting phased out of work. I have 250k saved and rent in a HCOL area. I am single. I have severe depression and anxiety. I am totally fucked.

I love you, R182.

R181 is an asshole, and also, probably a liar.

[quote]I am 50 and getting phased out of work.

If you become more costly for a company as you grow older, then you need to become more valuable to them in turn. Some older workers rest on their laurels, or plateau waiting for retirement. I'm kept by my company because I provide a lot of value and am constantly acquiring new skills and undertaking new endeavors.

R188, I'm sorry, but it sounds a little desperate that you eagerly play into their ageism, like an old dog learning new tricks. Do you dye your hair black, too? Is any job worth it?

Maybe get a new job in a different industry.

R170- north of $700k. Come at me.

R169/R190, are you also pathologically cheap?

R191- I don’t have crazy expensive taste, but I buy what I want, when I want. I’ve amassed nice savings because I live beneath my means but I wouldn’t call myself cheap at all.

So you'll buy higher quality even if it costs more, R192? Do you take friends out to dinner occasionally? Pick up a tab?

R193 - yes to high quality. I don’t take friends out to dinner as we all are in the same income strata and there’s no expectation that any one of us picks up a tab. (Birthdays aside) Any other questions?

You should take some politicians with you before you go, R160.

R194, I was just trying to determine the depths of what you call "financial malpractice" and "insanely conservative" with your savings. That usually brings to mind money hoarders who know the $$$ value of their bank account but understand the value of nothing else.

Fuck Reagan, Fuck Conservatives, Fuck Republicans, this is all their fault.

[quote] In 1961 the average American spent 14% of their disposable income on food. In 2021 it was 7%. So we’re spending half what our grandparents spent on a basic necessity.

[quote]What has changed since then? Content. Paying for content didn’t exist then

Fucking ridiculous. The cost of utilities and housing has gone up exponentially since 1961, and you want to blame streaming content? Yours was just a stupid, long-winded post that was once again trying to make it sound like the real problem is that people spend too much on fun stuff.

[quote]His mom is nearing age 100. She ain’t going nowhere.

Surely you realize that she is, in fact, "going somewhere" and probably very soon?

You as an individual may not spend more, r177, but the clients targeted with that offer may do and the other appeal for Amex is that clients park more of their money with them. And, as you later noted, it's not "invite only" and anyone in the US can apply.

R198 I didn't write that post, but I'll jump in and defend a facet of it: Subscription services and technology add up a hell of a lot over time, especially for young people who are conditioned to believe it's not really an option to opt out.

I don't like the term 'content,' but entertainment, news and Internet services are straightforwardly expensive or else they appear inexpensive and add up over time.

Many decades ago, a person would buy one radio, one TV and one telephone, one typewriter, and those would last decades. Other than long-distance calls, which people were generally not cavalier about making, the services were free. If they were news readers, they would pay a modest amount to subscribe to one newspaper generally and maybe a few magazines.

Today, it's absolutely required that a person who works pay thousands every two or three years for computer and phone equipment. Neither can be used without paying monthly fees, either. To be employable, one needs Internet and a cell phone, and together, these probably cost most people $200-$300 per month. A computer isn't much use without software, and now Microsoft and Adobe products are subscription services that require monthly payments for perpetuity. A slow drain. These are requirements, not options.

Then there's entertainment. Decades ago, most people may have had cable and most people occasionally went to the movies. Cable is not cheap.

Streaming services are pretty inexpensive, except that they add up. Netflix alone, Hulu alone, won't break the bank. But almost everyone slowly accumulates one subscription service after the next until they're paying probably close to what they'd pay for cable. If you're a reader, it's Audible. If you're a news junkie, it's the news sites and accessing cable news. If you're a TV and movies person, it's multiple streaming services to get a full array. If you're a gamer...I have no idea, but video games are a thriving multibillion-dollar industry and I'm sure people pay fortunes.

And some young guy I worked with a while ago told me that no one has used iTunes for decades—oops. I do. I still download music to my phone. He was shocked. He said everyone his age subscribes to Spotify and sometimes other streaming services that charge a monthly fee. He was complaining about how expensive it is to listen to music and musing about back when people could just hear songs on a radio.

Want the news today? It's conveniently available online! Oh, what's that? A paywall? Yes, a person has to subscribe to the Washington Post and New York Times and L.A. Times etc. to read their articles, and the subscriptions are more costly than old newspaper deliveries because fewer people subscribe and the costs are diffused among fewer people.

--

The end result is that overall, people spend many hundreds of dollars more per month than they used to — accounting for inflation, even — and it makes it much more challenging to save money because 1) computers and phones are the most expensive and not optional; 2) basic, needed software is a perpetual fee now that costs a hell of a lot more over time than the old one-time purchase used to; and 3) entertainment is technically optional but it's also ubiquitous and nearly everyone subscribes to these services.

Not to mention, as discussed above, the INSANE burden of student loan debt so many young people now carry, and medical expenses for many.

It is just absolutely false to suggest that buying a home, buying a car, and saving money either for vacation or for retirement, isn't significantly more of a challenge now than it was before the 1980s.

R201 is bang on. I will note that one area of cost savings in 2023 is music. Spotify premium is $9.99 a month, and when I think about the money I used to spend on CDs… I am definitely coming out ahead there. Having said that and staying on music- concerts are now completely insane. I have become so much more judicious about shows I’ll attend because I can’t justify the greed of it all.

R122, if you are 45 and have already paid your mortgage and own your house outright then that's already a great achievement and probably explains why you don't have more saved up.

I'm in a similar position to you and have been doing a lot of research into investing and saving for retirement. At this age you still have at least another 20 years of working life ahead of you. So, enough time for long-term investing, which will give you greater returns.

With the caveat that this is not financial advice, everything I've read points out the importance of diversification. So, yes to a workplace pension and to a stocks and shares ISA, but consider bonds and high interest savings accounts too. If you have index funds, maybe diversify those, so you have the standard US exposure but also Europe, China, emerging markets, the rest of the world. There are even "whole world" index funds. You might want to consider ETFs as well as mutual funds. Basically, you want a diversification of investment types (share, bonds, savings), geographical and thematic diversification of stocks and shares (US and Europe, pharma as well as tech), and a mixture of risk (conservative and aggressive).

Whatever you do, always consider the tax and commissions implications.

Everything looks grim right now, but that also makes this a good time to invest. Bond yields are increasing, there are higher interest rates on savings accounts, if the market dips then you can buy more shares for less and benefit once it rises again.

Australia just announced that those with $3 million or more in their pension funds will pay a higher rate of tax on any further contributions from 2035. That only amounts to around 80,000 people in that country, but it will bring in an addition $2 billion a year for the Government. (Predictably, the Murdoch press went apeshit, and did 'pity stories', including about one couple who recently sold a $7 million apartment with pool.) Imagine if America instituted a similar tax, and the billions it bring in that could be put to social welfare! However, as America has always looked up to the rich, it's difficult to imagine it getting through, unless a really hard recession hit, and suffering escalated.

R202, I also used to spend hundreds (if not thousands) of pounds a year on books, CDs and DVDs. Now, it's just a few pounds/dollars/euros a month for Spotify, low-price Kindle books and Amazon Prime (which you don't need to subscribe to all the time). News is free everywhere and you can still buy a print copy of a newspaper if there's something you really want to read. Alternatively, use one of those sites that gets around paywalls. Going on holiday is probably also cheaper now than it used to be.

I'm not a financial expert by any means but I suspect paying off a house in most places by age 45 is as good a savings plan in the long run as any 401k investment. It's a safer investment for sure. And just like any retirement plan whose interests compounds, the value of most real estate continues to grow without interruption, and over time it adds up bigtime. It seems that nearly all wealthy people choose real estate as their primary investments.

Unless someone is supporting us or someone gave us our homes, we all have to pay either mortgage or rent forever, and it's the greatest expense in life for most people. Cutting that out frees up a hell of a lot of money to save.

I have wondered about situations like that person's who paid off their home at 45. It is a little late to begin investing in a retirement fund and to get as much out of compounded interest as they would have at an earlier age. I wonder if it might be more lucrative to sell the house for cash and use all of it against a more expensive house with a 15-year mortage, given that that more expensive house almost certainly will have an even greater return on the investment over time than what they've already paid off.

Is it wise to leverage the value of a paid-off house to buy a more expensive one and expect a proportionally larger return in time, or is that shortsighted?

As in the all-eggs-in-one-basket truism, it's best to do both. Because due to the magic of compound interest, even small sums invested build dramatically over time. If your parents invested $1,000 on the day you were born in an index fund, theoretically you wouldn't need to do another damn thing to afford a comfortable retirement 50 years on, because the critical factor in investment is TIME. Sadly, as we all know, middle and working class parents never do. And so consign their kids to years of worry over funding their retirment.

[quote]I'll jump in and defend a facet of it: Subscription services and technology add up a hell of a lot over time, especially for young people who are conditioned to believe it's not really an option to opt out.

[quote]The end result is that overall, people spend many hundreds of dollars more per month than they used to

The claim that online content is why we as a society cannot afford the things in 2023 that families could afford in 1961 is ridiculous.

People have been paying for "content" for years. Movies and magazines for over a century. Cable starting in the 1970s, computers starting in the 1980s, the internet starting in the 1990s. Home video starting in the 1980s.

If you want to seriously claim that content in 2023 costs significantly enough more than it did in, say, 1993, and that it is causing people to be unable to pay for retirement, housing, decent food, and medical bills, then you're going to have to prove it.

You're also going to have to show why this alleged increased price for "content" is somehow more detrimental to personal finances than the increase in housing, medical, and utility costs.

This is almost stupid enough that I have to believe you're trolling. I cannot imagine a grown, functional, adult human being saying that the increase in the cost of living across the board doesn't mean anything, the true problem is that WaPo requires a subscription, that's why people can't afford their medications.

R201 that’s a great list!

I’ll add antivirus software which is now also a subscription and if you have a PC is a must.

A lot of us also got paid personal Zoom accounts during the pandemic and haven’t cut the cord yet.

And then depending on your job/hobbies you might also be paying for things like Dropbox or WeTransfer.

R208 You conveniently cut out all of the other expenses that were discussed, including hardware, software and other necessary expenses that didn't exist decades ago. To quote you, "I have to believe you're trolling." You're really crafting not only responses but edited versions of posts for the sake of arguing and calling people childish names.

[quote]Today, it's absolutely required that a person who works pay thousands every two or three years for computer and phone equipment. Neither can be used without paying monthly fees, either. To be employable, one needs Internet and a cell phone, and together, these probably cost most people $200-$300 per month.

I work from home. My computer cost $350 new from Staples in 2021 during the November sales. My T-Mobile home internet costs $50 a month and my T-Mobile Connect prepaid phone costs $10 a month. I have the non-subscription version of Microsoft Office.

I know though that there are people who make very stupid spending choices who I'm sure pay more.

I make payments into a pension directly via my salary each month, but it's linked to the stockmarket so it's up and down like a yo yo.

They send me letters every year telling me how much it might be worth when I retire and, even with optimistic investment returns, I'm not sure it'll be enough. I do have other savings, though, so hopefully those combined with my pension will mean I can retire at a decent age, but who knows?

"Is it wise to leverage the value of a paid-off house to buy a more expensive one and expect a proportionally larger return in time, or is that shortsighted?" - Don't go putting ideas into his head, r206!

It's not a bad idea if you get it right, but it's also risky. This kind of strategy makes sense for rich people with other assets and income streams, but if your house is pretty much your only asset and you will reduce your savings/investment potential for the next 20+ years because all your spare cash is going on a mortgage then it's a fairly big risk. You would really have to make sure you have all the figures worked out right. You'd also have to consider what you'd actually do with a big lump sum at the age of 65 or 70, as it will be much harder to make it "work" for you at that age.

Another potential for increasing income is letting out a spare room, although I understand that not everybody wants to or can do that. Another possibility is remortgaging to buy a second property to let, but there are also risks with that too.

Half of you on here sound like you have charmed lives with perfect jobs and generational wealth. Oblivious to how other people struggle. Both of my parents worked growing up, both went to college but their field of work was just average pay. They were not doctors, lawyers or in finance. At age 55 my father had a quadruple bypass. Company insurance was not enough to cover it. They had to sell the house and drain their bank accounts to pay for it. Rented for the rest of their lives. My mother died in a car accident, since she didn't own the house, there was nothing to inherit except bills. There was no extra money for life insurance.

I went to college, paid off my student loans, looked like I have a bright future but then surprise, my very first partner tested positive and gave me HIV. He was cheating all the time apparently without protection. It was the late 80s so HIV was a death sentence at that point. My professional job use a self-funding insurance plan where HIV care was completely excluded from coverage. It was legal back then. I worked for architectural firms but one after another would go out of business. Constant turn over and NONE of them ever offered a pension to their employees. That was like a unicorn concept in that field. 401K? Forget about it, some of them has long waiting periods of a year or two before they would let you join. Even then, none of them offered matching deposit.

So here I am in my mid 50's working gig to gig with nothing saved. The problem is you work for 3 months, put it away but then have to live off it until your next job which can be months away. Like an extreme form of paycheck to paycheck. No one hires people over 50, it's the HR unofficial cutoff unless you are top management. They assume you are too slow, will have health problems and milk them for retirement. They wont say it to your face of course. And yet, I am not technology illiterate, I build a computer from scratch last year just to expand my knowledge. I have extensive background in 3D modeling and rendering but guess what, so to thousands of people in India on Fiverr. I cant survive competing for jobs with 3rd world pay scales.

At least I can say I have my health, without that you have nothing. But as far as just failing to save money or wasting it on the latest 1K phones as the reason I have no money saved for retirement is complete bullshit. Not everyone has the same opportunities in life no matter how hard they work.

Being risk averse is in my DNA—literally.

Ancestry DNA sent me an email one day that said "You are risk averse," eplaining I have some gene strongly correlated with a risk-averse nature. And it's true. I save 15% of my gross salary in a 401k but I also have a large savings and even some thousands in cash in a safe.

[quote]I work from home. My computer cost $350 new from Staples in 2021 during the November sales.

It's not always that simple. People who do video editing, scientific modeling or 3D animation need very robust computers that can handle that kind of data. In an office you could be looking at a 10,000 per seat. But even working from home, bare bones might still set you back 3,000 or more. And then maybe another 1,500 a year of subscription software like Autodesk or Adobe. You cant grift off the free versions as simple as Microsoft.

Fucking Adobe bills you $50 a month to use their software, and I’m sure the price will keep rising. You’re a renter for life, and just like a house renter, subject to the whim of a landlord.

R216, surely someone who needs all that and works from home could get it written off as a business expense, if a freelancer, or get their employer to pay for most if not all of it if employed?

Many of the people posting here are single. I know it's an issue that affects gay people more than straights. Paying a mortgage or rent, saving for a property, buying and maintaining a car, even paying for some subscriptions, are cheaper and more manageable if you do it as part of a couple.

Of course, they can also be more expensive if one partner doesn't earn so much and the other has to pay for them.

Not if you free-lance r218. Write off maybe but most companies are not going to pay for your equipment unless you are fully employed by them. That's the whole point of being a consultant or freelance. They simply pay you to do the work, ready to go on day one, not finance your lifestyle. that's why outside gig workers usually charge more, they need to factor in the cost of equipment.

Plus a tax write off is not really that much at the end of the day. Not paying tax on 3,000 is not the same have having cough up 3,000 out of your own pocket.

R214 I'm a first-generation college student who had no college savings, and I chose to go to a community college and then transfer to a public state university because of cost rather than opting for GWU, AU or maybe Georgetown, which were insanely expensive to me.

I have worked with community colleges for about 15 years, and of course I've lived through our country's growing wealth divide.

I've noticed a couple of things related to your post.

One is that people who have what is now simply called 'privilege' (I dislike the use of this word in this way because I grew up hearing of privilege with positive connotations.) are generally oblivious to real-world hardships faced by others. Here on DL and elsewhere among Democrats, a lot of people assume that this is a Republican-/conservative-specific phenomenon but it absolutely is not.

People who have been given or who have had easy access to/no life-related barriers (health, etc.) to cruising along evenly in life generally do not grasp the reality of hardships.

Most people are self-referential, and if they did it, then you can do it, and if you don't do it, then you are just lazy or stupid.

Most people do not realize that even though they worked hard to get what they have, X, Y and Z hardships did not apply to them and so, yes, they have had an easier life than some others and most people who are not 'at their level' are not lazy idiots; they are people whose lives have been challenging.

So there is that overall.

The harder thing for many of us to grasp is that even when we understand and accept it, we still act according to this for the most part. If your first inclination is "no, I don't," you likely still do.

Here in DC, there's a species of ultra-"privileged" people who I call Bethesda Liberals. They are very far left philosophically, they lead government agencies, news organizations, nonprofits and medical practices, and their hearts are charitable and caring. They feel at one with the common family and they want to help. Always from a patronizing perspective, though. They look down from on high and want to help and they believe they believe all people are equal except they certainly are superior. And I have learned that one shallow layer beneath that, they do judge people who are in their views less accomplished and believe in this idea of a meritocracy and think everyone is equal and therefore the really good ones are the ones like them—charitable, highly educated, rich people in neighborhoods like Bethesda and McLean and Potomac.

There is a real blind spot that I think everyone develops among people as they gain whatever kind of status and they become, even when sympathetic or piteous, unempathetic, unable to relate. We apply our own life's circumstances to everyone else's, and we empathize when we have experienced similar harships and do not empathize when someone has faced an unfamiliar one, even if we feel sympathy.

I have learned this with my health. I had a real health crisis throughout my 30s. I realized while going through it that I never registered how challenged just getting along in life and keeping a job can be when one is seriously ill, and how variable symapthy is. If someone has breast cancer, the world has been trained to lavish them with sympathy (if not actual help). If one has a rare illness, people question whether it is real and show only superficial sympathy with a weird passive aggressive resentment that is acutely felt.

Given that we're mostly self-referential and selfish, capitalism is a set up for "privileged" people to ascend smoothly and only look down on those who are trampled. They cannot relate. Nothing can make them relate except losing it all.

Thanks, r221. That’s very astute, especially for those of us who live in the DC area.

However, hard as it is, you can detach from their game if you see it for what it is. The Bethesda Liberals and their ilk often have a need for validation that is unconscious and endless. You can note that and step away, and you can play their game by giving them validation. Or you can get caught up judging them, which I can’t recommend.

The best thing that can be done for anyone without retirement savings, who were able-bodied, functional adults, is to examine their situation and explain to them the bad choices they made, Also, their situations should be shown to young people to teach the young people not to make the same mistakes.

R223, that sounds more punitive than effective. Young people rarely respond the way old people think they should.

Sure Orman just published a new book on retirement. She points out in the intro that retirement has changed since the 70s and 80s when she started doing financial planning . It used to be something people look forward. Most people had pensions and Social Security and didn’t have to set aside vast sums to gamble in the stock market.

This was not an announced policy change - it was capitalism in motion. Shaming people for not understanding the implications of his political and economic elites put their interests ahead of the vast majority? That’s really shorty.

[quote]Shaming people for not understanding the implications of his political and economic elites put their interests ahead of the vast majority? That’s really shorty.

Unfortunately, many people got exactly what they voted for. Their hope was that the consequences of those votes would hurt others more than it hurt them.

It depends on how you view it, r220. If you're a freelancer and you need special equipment to do your job, then you should view that special equipment as overheads and the money you have to spend on it as a business expense, not your personal income. It shouldn't be seen as "out of pocket" to procure the tools you need to do your job.

R224 Always delighted when Boozy Suze puts out another potboiler!

People need to take personal responsibility for their future. They need to take it seriously, and they need to start young. It probably means making sacrifices along the way to retirement.

That garbage-dick plutocrat FDR bought off a generation of voters with Social Security, but in typical American fashion, people misunderstood the idea and fucked it all up. Social Security wasn't meant to be the SOLE source of retirement. It was meant to be a basic lifeline amongst many other sources of income. But Americans don't like to save. They don't like to think ahead. They like to fuck up their lives, cradle to grave, and stick their hand out to say "IT'S MINE! GIMME IT!!!"

"Young people rarely respond the way old people think they should." - R224, young people need to be taught that they should take responsibility for their actions and their future and that these aren't things that only old people should care about.

This thread just turned into a scene from Mary Poppins.

[quote]young people need to be taught that they should take responsibility for their actions

Good luck with that.

" Social Security wasn't meant to be the SOLE source of retirement. "

No shit, dickhead. But late stage capitalism kinda turned it into that for a lot of people.

"young people need to be taught that they should take responsibility for their actions"

Maybe Ron Desantis can make that a part of his state sanctioned curriculum. Whatcha think?

R230 The pricks will be back when they're middle-aged and broke, demanding a bailout in typical American fashion.

"Why bail out Ukraine and Wells Fargo, and not me? Where's my piece of borrowed money? I'm voting for the fascist. He'll make me rich AND he won't ever tell me I'm wrong!"

R231 Yes, yes. It's always someone else's fault.

I'm not talking about Americans who were born broke or ill, or had their life swindled from them by a spouse or drunk driver or a school shooter. Those people never had a chance. I'm talking about the millions of working-age Americans who CAN save, but choose not to. These people are materialists. They buy margarita machines, and houses with sprinkler systems for the lawn, and SUVs with air-conditioned third-row seats. They take their shithead kids to Disney World every summer. They throw lavish birthday parties for their dogs. They always have the latest phone, the biggest TV, and the loudest inflatable snowman for their Christmas lawn decor. They don't save. They can, but they don't. Where's the gratification in that? You can't make your neighbors jealous with that!

These people are fucking worthless, and they bring it all on themselves. I actively WANT to see these people hit a financial cliff. It'll scare some sense into their dumb asses, and it'll be so satisfying to watch.

The people with margarita machines at their dog’s birthday parties are unlikely to be the people suffering, r233. It’s the people who never made much money at all.

What a weird, untethered rant.

"What a weird, untethered rant."

I read that as "what a weird, retarded rant" and guess what? It still applies to our resident, masturbatory scold.

R234 My aging suburb is transitioning to fresh immigrants and their first-generation kids, and their productivity is astounding. The ones who come from Latin America typically come here with nothing. The ones from Southeast Asia maybe come with a little bit of money. They immediately get to work doing whatever they can - landscaping, tailoring, making donuts, washing cars, etc. They work their asses off, day and night, usually to start their own business. They live in places others won't live, do jobs others won't do, you get the point. And what happens to them over time? They thrive! They grind and sweat their way into economic stability, and by the time their kids come along, they have enough money to keep their kids in awful colognes and obnoxious cars. The change is so steep that the asshole kids have no understanding for all that their parents endured to reach that point.

But people who've been here for ten generations? They don't work that hard. They were born here, and thus lack the hunger to "make it" in this country.

Be like your immigrant neighbors. Don't be like your white trash cousins.

That’s true, R227.

Social Security was conceived as a safety net to ensure that those who lived past 65 (mostly women, since back then, 65 was the median life expectancy for men) would have “something” to keep them above abject poverty. For most people, retirement expenses were covered by savings, part time work, a modest company pension, a paid off mortgage and/or the kindness of their children.

Today, for many, there are no pensions, no paid off homes, no family tradition of saving, no financial education, and for most folks on this site, no kids. Social Security is almost all.

The safety net has become the tightrope.

R237 To have the greatest impact, a person has to start saving as young as possible.

But young people tend to be broke and can't afford savings. And even if they can, no one really does much to educate them that they should be saving. The only thing aimed at young people is commercial marketing - BUY MORE SHIT!!!!!

Ditto R5, know of quite a few 55 and older that have zilch, zip, nada saved for retirement. All basically are living paycheck to paycheck with little to nil left over each month after all bills are paid.

Overlaying this crisis is fact large numbers of these older to seniors are single without children. That is not a very good place for many females and even males as they age.

As it related to DL many gays, lesbians and trans are entering retirement age in very poor financial position.

These would be Boomers and bit of Generation X that for various reasons (including high amounts of discrimination in employment) never earned much during their working careers, thus are facing retirement with small social security payments. It was all most could do to keep themselves out of poverty when young so saving much of anything wasn't always possible.

Gays, lesbians and trans are also more likely to be self-employed or business owners (one way to get around discrimination), but that doesn't always mean they were able to sock away tons of money for retirement.

Finally consider Boomers and bit of Generation X often couldn't catch a break due to economic forces that just kept happening. Two or three major stock market crashes, several economic recessions (some severe), job losses as "Lean" and other such things caused places to dramatically scale down number of employees. This and or simply companies merged or went out of business all together.

Don't forget rampant age discrimination in this country. If you are or were over say 45 and got the chop due to downsizing, recession or whatever good luck finding a new job that paid same or better than what you had previously.

This is the insane bipolar reality of the US - NO ONE has “enough” saved to support themselves for retirement. Maybe 5-7% of people. Yet - there are constant, perpetual reminders we all should have $2 million+ if we want any hope of not being broke in old age. Reality= almost no one does. So - basically almost everyone lives in this state of denial / anxiety.

BUT in reality, I also don’t see masses of homeless, starving old people. So the truth is MOST people will get by. I’ve known a lot of people who died with money left. Very few have been left destitute. I think most of us will worry until the grave that we will run out of money - it is the nature of the new capitalism post-1980s. No pension, little safety net via SS and Medicare. Be prudent - but also don’t let the worry define your life. It will almost always be there.

Let's all Be The Golden Girls' Retirement Plan!

Four half-broke seniors move in together and share expenses, insults, and oddly-small ice cream cartons.

[quote]That garbage-dick plutocrat FDR

I truly believe that Republicans have had no political platform since the 1930s, other than "fuck everything the Democrats ever did."

R242 Tribalism is the nature of partisan politics. The in-group is always beyond criticism, and the outsiders are always irredeemable assholes.

I'm a lifelong Democrat, and I'm willing to call out FDR on his philandering, his policy flaws, and the downside of the New Deal.

[quote]it's absolutely required that a person who works pay thousands every two or three years for computer and phone equipment. Neither can be used without paying monthly fees, either

There are a lot of people who use phones without a service, you just need a wifi connection to do most things, and there are a lot of free wifi spots these days. Also I don't think I know anyone except gamers who buy PCs, if anyone needs a computer they get a laptop. My last one was $250 and the one before that $500 but it was pretty spiffy at the time. My internet service is less than cable ever was.

I just don't think these computer/content costs some of you are talking about are really the problem you claim they are, I think someone said it was a problem, and now people are doubling down to prove it's true, instead of maybe just letting it go because it wasn't a well-thought-out idea in the first place.

"Let's all Be The Golden Girls' Retirement Plan"

People have been predicting for some time now a rise in "Golden Girls" type of living arrangements. That is two or more unrelated or related persons setting up house together in order to share expenses and other reasons.

[quote]I'm a lifelong Democrat, and I'm willing to call out FDR on his philandering, his policy flaws, and the downside of the New Deal.

Yes, your "garbage-dick plutocrat" comment is just the sort of objective, complex, insightful analysis America needs.

You can't cut your way out of a hole this deep, either. Cutting out Netflix and Starbucks won't make up for the fact that wages are stagnant, housing and medical care have skyrocketed, and if the industrial-related cancers don't kill you, then student loan debt will.

My previous rants about saving are indeed helpful for people who can afford it, but they're a drop in the bucket of a very broken economic system.

[quote]I’ll add antivirus software which is now also a subscription and if you have a PC is a must.

Oh gosh no, no no no, if you have a Windows PC use the antivirus that comes with it. Subscription antivirus software like Norton is terrible these days and unnecessary.

No one should be paying for Dropbox or WeTransfer or Adobe unless you absolutely need it for work, and if you do, then it's probably tax deductible. But seriously guys, sign up for multiple Dropbox accounts with multiple emails and get the space you need for free. Buy a cheap external hard drive for storage. Why can't you use Adobe Digital Editions, which is free?

A lot of you could sit down and do a little investigating and save yourselves tons of money, it seems. Instead I guess you're on here claiming everyone else in the world spends huge unnecessary amounts on computer stuff like you do?

R246 But FDR most certainly WAS a garbage dick. The man had more floozy mistresses (including more than one blood/marriage relative) than the Trumps. Granted, he wasn't as big a user of women as the Kennedy boys, and he never drowned a broad in his car and then fled the scene, but he was all over women who weren't his wife.

And plutocrat? That shoe fits, too. The Hyde Park Roosevelts were old money, with a long tradition of "social activism" that in prior years took the form of society wives like Sara Roosevelt venturing into slums to tell poor immigrants how to live differently.

The New Deal created the American Middle Class, and FDR's moral leadership sustained our country during the Depression and the War. But the man is not above criticism. And if he were alive today, he never would've made it to the presidency. Not only because we're in a visual era, but because his sexual proclivities and stature as a rich guy who boasts about his love of the poors would be creepy and disqualifying among voters. He was a creature of his time, and certainly not perfect.

R17, I am skipping ahead to say that I am shocked at how little Madame Alexander dolls sell for now. When I was younger I always thought they were "fancy" dolls. I guess there are a few that are worth money, but not very many.

Philandering, creepy, rich New Yorker who claims to love the poors unable to become president in modern times R249???

R251 I bet FDR grabbed a few pussies in his day.

But how would he have phrased it in a Radiola interview?

Yeah I doubt he was assaulting women from his wheel chair, but keep flogging that bothsiderism.

[quote] I'm a lifelong Democrat, and I'm willing to call out FDR on his philandering, his policy flaws, and the downside of the New Deal.

Mary, R243! FDR is the sole president whose policies (that of the New Deal) are with us today and that most all Americans depend on. But do carp about them 80 years after the fact, by all means.

[quote] My husband is self employed and pays rent on an office. He used to share the rent with another guy but the other guy retired.

R155, if you're still around, can he work from home?

[quote] The man had more floozy mistresses (including more than one blood/marriage relative) than the Trumps.

Complete lie, R249.

[quote] And if he were alive today, he never would've made it to the presidency.

Really, Nostardamus? What bullshit you spout.

So are any of these retirement gurus talking about how to plan for the upcoming collapse in the global food chain?

*Nostradamus

The global food chain has been collapsing since before I was born.

[quote] It depends on how you view it, [R220]. If you're a freelancer and you need special equipment to do your job, then you should view that special equipment as overheads and the money you have to spend on it as a business expense, not your personal income. It shouldn't be seen as "out of pocket" to procure the tools you need to do your job.

Not R220, but am self-employed. Yes, you can tax-deduct special equipment, but if you have a very small business, then it does feel like it's coming from your personal income.

[quote]The global food chain has been collapsing since before I was born.

One of these times the catastrophists are bound to be right!

Just ask those preachers who keep moving the date of the Apocalypse.

R257 R259

Your chain had food on it? Mine just tastes like metal and beatings!

Grow your own, r257.

R261, but the catastrophists have been right. World War II, only 80 years ago, no time on a historical scale. WWI, only 30 years before that. When people fight in a partisan way, is it really logical to say, no way, catastrophes never happen?

[quote]If you're a freelancer and you need special equipment to do your job, then you should view that special equipment as overheads and the money you have to spend on it as a business expense, not your personal income. It shouldn't be seen as "out of pocket" to procure the tools you need to do your job.

Oh for fucks sake. Most people who freelance dont make a tone of money where they can simply classify 3,000 dollars out of pocket as POOF! It's a business expense. You sound like you make so much money you have forgotten or never knew what it was like to struggle near the bottom pay-scale in which many profession only pay slightly more than minimum wage.

[quote]No one should be paying for Dropbox or WeTransfer or Adobe unless you absolutely need it for work. But seriously guys, sign up for multiple Dropbox accounts with multiple emails and get the space you need for free. Buy a cheap external hard drive for storage. Why can't you use Adobe Digital Editions, which is free?

Bad advice. Signing up for multiple accounts just makes a mess out of organizing files. Plus those free places can randomly change there plans like Google did with unlimited for life photo storage now only 25gb. External hard drives are cheap but they can fail and they dont help with transferring or projects through the internet.

Adobe Digital Edition? You must be joking. Even the minimum account with just Photoshop and Lightroom is $20 a month. The suite is $50 a month. That's a drop in the bucket compared to Autodesk which I need for 3D and floorplans. It is $225 a month or $1,785 a year! They will not let you buy it outright so you can stick with it for a few years without updating. Subscription only. And it's the only game in town. Clients expect that exact format and software.

Then revolt en masse with others in your industry, R266. What we need is a revolution.

Perhaps they should consider getting another job then, r265. If they can't make enough to purchase their tools, cover their running costs and give themselves a decent income then perhaps they're not that good at what they do. Or maybe they are good but don't have the networking skills to build up a client base or the entrepreneurial skills needed to run a small business efficiently. Or perhaps there simply isn't enough demand for the particular service they offer, in which case they should diversify into other services.

Being a freelancer means you are running a small business and should approach it that way.

"Clients expect that exact format and software." - Then your clients should also expect that the rates you charge cover essential subscriptions for the exact format and software they require.

What the heck are you talking about, r267? If you expect people to pay you for providing them with a service, then you make sure you give them the service they want. Would you really want to hire an architect or designer who doesn't have the essential design software? Clients should expect that the fee they are paying contributes to the purchase of said software and other essentials.

If there's to be a protest, then it should be against the software developers. But they will just say that they are developing very specialised, niche software and need to pay their staff competitive salaries.

R270, revolt against the price and the fact that its a subscription instead of a one time purchase. And, if your solution of putting the cost into the price of the projects works, what's the problem?

My husbear has over 3 million in his 401k and is still working (he’s 60). Our oldest adopted son is in college and we have more than enough for our other two. When they’re out of college my husbear will retire and we’ll basically live on cruises! I’m a housebottom now since I retired from my job (cubicle shit, don’t miss it).

R272 is one of the most DL-ey of all DL comments so far in this thread.

I'm self-made.

[...]

[quote] Those people never had a chance. I'm talking about the millions of working-age Americans who CAN save, but choose not to. These people are materialists. They buy margarita machines, and houses with sprinkler systems for the lawn, and SUVs with air-conditioned third-row seats. They take their shithead kids to Disney World every summer. [...] These people are fucking worthless, and they bring it all on themselves. I actively WANT to see these people hit a financial cliff. It'll scare some sense into their dumb asses, and it'll be so satisfying to watch.

There's some truth in this, for sure.

And I also believe it's not really the fault of many people who do this.

Again, it comes down to how we are raised and educated and acculturated.

I was brought up in a working-class family, and my parents' parents worked in farming, military and service industries. Their parents were coal miners and teachers. So our generational legacies were coming out of poverty and making sound financial decisions to secure stability. As a child in the 80s, I got a used Atari video game system from a garage sale right after Nintendo was released. My best friend's mother bought him the brand-new video game system and all the games that came with it and she was a poorly paid USPS worker who even as a child I knew didn't have a lot of respect for money.

My family did nothing extravagant at all, ever. My best friend's family pursued entertainment at theme parks and water parks and beaches etc. and didn't save money.

We were brought up differently and I'm sure that my childhood best friend lives as he was raised and I certainly do, as well, although I have more disposable income and so I indulge a bit more—well under my income level, though—and save a good amount.

My parents did not go to college, but my grandmother was a bank manager and she educated my mom and my mom in turn educated my sister and me throughout our lives about money. We were trained to respect money, even to the point of always organizing cash in our wallets in order, with all bills facing the same way—ensuring we always pay attention to what we have. When I was in my late teens, my mom got me a credit card and made me buy small items and pay them off to build credit, and she explained the pitfalls of credit card companies giving away 'free money.' Meanwhile, most of my friends in college took those offers from salespeople who were then allowed to hawk cards with high interest rates on college campuses and they had to learn the hard way. I could never understand how they were so naive/dumb but they were never educated AT ALL about money.

Likewise, I paid for my own college and had no college savings. My friends in college had some college savings but also had to take loans, and everyone I knew took the maximum loan disbursement and regarded it as free money. It was absolutely insane to me and I constantly told them it's not free money; they will have to pay it back. But (this was around y2k) all of them had been brought up to believe that getting an undergraduate college degree was a golden ticket that guaranteed a high income and they'd land lucrative jobs right out of college.

Everything about their lifestyles was contrary to what I was taught.

It is absolutely part of American culture to indulge and to buy, buy, buy. I can't blame people for not understanding that this is not virtuous or wise because we never hear that it's not.

Cont. below...

Continued...

Think about what presidents of the US talk about. All of them, regardless of party.

They talk about spending. They NEVER encourage saving at all.

They talk about getting 'the American taxpayer' (not citizen) more money so that they can buy more, not save more.

They talk about social security as an entitlement-based means to have more money and never, ever suggest that people should be putting money in savings accounts. And that is intentional because our entire economic wellbeing as a nation has been set up to be dependent on frivolous spending.

We are not only indoctrinated to do it; we depend on it.

Think about it. On an individual level, it's foolish to spend $8-12 on a cup of coffee. (It's crazy in my view.) But on an economic level—which is what we always hear about—all those independent and franchise coffee shops on every corner depend on people doing this on a daily basis.

And we are always being sold the newest coffee shop's virtues and being told to go there, and I don't know about where you live, but here in DC, people are absolutely brainwashed to believe that this is an important cultural attribute. Endless conversations about what cafe has the best coffee, let's try this one, let's try that one. Or bar or restaurant. These establishments open, are swarmed, and then regularly fail within a year. It's our culture, and what the culture boils down to is simply spending hugely inflated amounts of money, albeit small amounts of money per purchase, daily so that there is a slow, constant transfer of personal resources into circulation.

And people think of this not as luxurious spending, which it is, but as a primary aspect of their American culture to which they are entitled and which it is cruel and unusual to deprive them of.

And it really is not individuals' faults as far as I am concerned. It's a screwy national value taught to us throughout our entire lives from people in the highest offices and modeled by people we end up emulating *unless* we happen to have parents or teachers along the way who make us wise to the foolishness of it all.

R214 I suppose it depends what sort of profession you're in. I've been employed for the last 23 years without a break. I don't have any children and I earn a decent salary. Therefore, I can pay money into savings most months, including a retirement fund.

I'm not boasting or saying I'm rich, but I think it's a bit unfair to paint me as some kind of privileged guy who's out of touch.

Here's one of the great ironies of a capitalist society. It DEPENDS on everyone spending money That's why politicians don't encourage people to save money with any real enthusiasm. All the stocks we're talking about investing in? They depend on people spending money. (Consumers). One of the reasons that China has had an imbalanced financial situation for decades is that there is a strong tradition there of people saving money, not spending it. So China builds products for EXPORT, not for domestic consumption.

Budget. I doubt that one person in a thousand has taken the time to sit down, and go through monthly household expenses, one by one, to see what the minimum amount he or she needs to live on. Rent or mortgage. Electricity, Gas. Phone. Internet. Car payment (unless car is paid off). Gasoline. Food - both food that is shopped for an prepared at home, and meals cooked by someone else. Utilities (water, sewer). Entertainment (films, concerts, TV (cable), theater, dance). Donations to charities. Replacement of worn clothing. Items to clean the house with and do laundry. Replacement of worn furniture. Subscriptions. Insurance on vehicles and property. Medical insurance. Out-of-pocket expenses for drugs or medical supplies. Travel and/or vacations. Taxes (property taxes if a person owns a home), sales tax on large purchases. Money for home and/or car maintenance.

Not all of the above are necessary expenses - but if a person pays them as part of his or her lifestyle , they should be included in a budget. That is the basic financial literacy that most Americans are not taught. Putting together a budget enables a person to plan how much money he will need to accumulate each month during a retirement. For many, putting together a budget will finally force them to confront that they will have a rather drastic change in lifestyle after retirement. For people who have lived frugally their entire lives, retirement will not be a big change. For people who have been high-flyers their entire lives, without a habit of saving, retirement will feel like imprisonment at a maximum security prison.

I'm a naturally frugal person. In my early working life, I had no choice. I earned a very low salary, I was a student living in an expensive city. I had zero financial support from my family. So I learned to cook for myself, shop for bargains at stores, to make do with less. When I had more money at my disposal, I could not imagine just throwing it away. For a long time I was single and earning a decent living. But then around 40 I had to return to my home town to care for my aging parents. My employment opportunities were not lucrative, particularly as I could only really work part time. Still, I have accumulated property and other forms of savings and I'm not worried about financial difficulties during retirement, which is fast approaching for me - mostly because I know how to live frugally, and have the skills to live even more frugally if I had to. By the metrics being thrown around in this discussion, and money/resources saved for retirement, I would be considered well-off. And yet, I never once earned more than $50,000/year in my entire life.

[quote]Finding Suze Orman's show was a saving grace. It was when I was first earning a good income. I had no idea what I was supposed to do with the money.

This is the problem, first you need to earn enough to save. Most people never earn a "good income" because of corporate greed. So here we are. And if you are under 40 you will likely be working until you are 70 because of the inevitable changes in Social Security.

How can we vacuum more money 💰 up to the top 10%?

[quote]Most people never earn a "good income" because of corporate greed.

This conversation keeps going in that direction because a handful of posters are very adamant that wealth inequality is 100% of the problem here. And wealth inequality is a huge problem and we do need to make sweeping societal changes (particularly with healthcare, education and childcare), funded by our wealthiest tax payers, who are now billionaires, to address that.

But we're ignoring human nature if we pretend that putting everyone on equal ground will keep them comfortably retired. Redirecting the discussion whenever posters mention their real-life experiences, to bring it back to a sweeping "No one stands a chance!" is something I'd expect to see more of on Twitter than here, where plenty of posters have watched friends, siblings, coworkers and in-laws earn more than they themselves could ever dream of, fritter it all away, and subsequently blame society or Democrats.

Is it that easy to find another job and somewhere to go?

“On top of the stress of the job search, Erickson faced tight finances and a health issue. He was on unemployment and needed to take out a personal loan to pay the bills while his wife, Wendy, who retired as a public-school teacher in June and has a modest pension, trained to become a hair stylist.“

r282, there are people like that who earn and piss it away, but the majority are not like that.

R282, it is because of this wealth crisis that Obama was in office for 2 terms. The problem has been there for a long time at this point. Democrats have Bernie just like Republicans have Trump. Candidates run this way for a reason, which is that the crisis is real.

[quote]there are people like that who earn and piss it away, but the majority are not like that.

I keep reading that, and I admire the earnestness and tenderheartedness of that position, but it doesn't completely square with my understanding and experience of human nature.

Again, I passionately agree that wealth inequality must be addressed and that financial literacy in this country must be improved. But our approach to that needs to be informed by the acceptance that money decisions, like decisions about food, are so emotionally influenced on an individual level that no one-size fits all approach will result in a financial utopia where we all do what's in our best interest.

Injustice requires distractions from the actual scoreboard. Focus on young people buying avocado toast so people forget about Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk paying single digits in taxes. Get people riled up about immigrants and welfare recipients so they don’t get bothered that the average CEO makes 670 times as much as the median worker.

The tech labour market is currently going through a downturn of sorts, r284, when for the past 20-25 years it had been the huge growth sector so many people piled into it.

In the meantime, the construction industry in the US has a shortage of over 500,000 workers.

Not only in the crisis real, it has spread to every country that adopted a similar Reagan type economic model. Several countries in Europe and Asia have a hidden unemployment crisis.

R223, no, because you’re ignoring that opportunity was not there and that wealth was sucked to the top over the course of decades. You can’t preach to people while ignoring that. You have to find a way to pay it back.

What do you suggest, r290?

There’s be less of a retirement crisis if the social security contribution cap were lifted. (The first time I’d gone over it, I was so confused I called to find out if I’d gotten a raise. When the cap was explained to me I was quite amazed on how the rich just get perk after perk)

Also middle class and lower income people should get a tax credit, not just a deduction for saving for retirement.

And the disgusting loophole where part time state employees can be exempted from SS because of state pensions while not eligible for a pension because part time should be closed.

OP's news article is actually this video. The 66-year-old woman in it is quite interesting, I wouldn't be surprised if she's a DL elder lesbian. She admits she had too much of a "live for today" attitude when younger and would advise young women today to think about the future. She's pretty entrepreneurial, though, and sold her house to buy a more affordable house with two other women and seems to have started a women's travel company.

“In 2022, at least 19 people died while experiencing homelessness in Central Oregon, according to state data. Coyner is, almost certainly, among the first this year to add to that grim total.“

R294, I agree with her. I’ve been living in a studio apartment with a roommate since 2015, no car since 2016, and I walk to work. It’s not a bad life, except that my roommate, who is 16 years older than me, is unemployed and constantly depressed and on the verge of a mental health crisis.

R292, I suggest covering - writing about, making public knowledge - a lot of the things big corporations have been getting away with, just because they have money. And expose the way they tend to buy other companies up. Just allow people to know about facts and restrict the legal ability of companies to buy silence. People are afraid to be whistle blowers or talk about corporate crime. Pass substantial whistleblower protections to override where people’s silence was bought. And let specific issues like the long term effect of fracking in Pennsylvania come to public light.

Also, in cases where politicians have come to power and made money based on repeating economic theories that have been factually disproven for decades, make them pay a fine for defrauding the public.

“A federal jury has awarded $1.37 million in damages to a former Pfizer scientist who claimed she was sickened by a genetically engineered virus at a company laboratory and then fired for raising safety concerns.“

That was in 2010; it’s a matter of fact. It doesn’t just apply to Pfizer; the article said it was a regularly accepted practice to keep genetically modified viruses as trade secrets.

Get rid of your car and learn to take the bus. No single item -- except children -- drains your money faster in America. Just add up the savings over 40 years.

A whole lot of Americans would first have to move to an area that has bus service, R299.

R299, I got rid of my car seven years ago; I take the bus and walk. My roommate who is unemployed also doesn’t have a car. Could we be more austere than we are? Sure. But that doesn’t mean people haven’t been robbed by a bad system for years.

There are a lot of older employees, people over 50, who are losing their jobs and unable to get new ones.

Yes

[quote] No crisis on DL, everyone seems to have a nest egg and three rental properties.

That is only about 5% of Datalounge.

The reason everyone who is set up for retirement seems rich is because of the wealth divide.

I feel like where I am should be fairly average, maybe a little bit below the norm, for a middle-class person. I am almost 45, I have $325k in my 401(k), only about $40k of home equity because I just bought my first condo (this is why I think I am behind), and I have no student loan, car or other debt, and about 8 months of pay in the bank. I had more but I just made a large purchase.

But it seems most people are either wealthy with millions of dollars of assets invested somewhere, have some retirement and home equity but it is offset with loan debt, or else have little savings and a lot of debt. There don't seem to be a hell of a lot of people anymore who fall solidly in the middle and have just-OK retirement savings and are not living month to month.

When I started my first big job at 23, the HR person who did my orientation explained 401K to me very well. She told me that if I just saved 10% of my salary that year and never put in another penny when I retired I would have close to a million dollars. Then she showed me that, because it was pre-tax and with company match, I was actually not missing that much of my paycheck. That stuck with me throughout my whole career. I have always maxed out my 401k no matter where I worked or my salary. Turns out she was right. Now that I hit 50, I have about 2 million in 401k and I didn't have to do anything other than save money pre-tax and pick funds that followed the S&P index.

[quote] I'm not a financial expert by any means but I suspect paying off a house in most places by age 45 is as good a savings plan in the long run as any 401k investment. It's a safer investment for sure. And just like any retirement plan whose interests compounds, the value of most real estate continues to grow without interruption, and over time it adds up bigtime. It seems that nearly all wealthy people choose real estate as their primary investments.

It's not. Paying off a mortgage is generally not a good savings plan unless you expect astronomical appreciation in a coastal city. Even then all of your money is in your home and if you want it you must tap into your home equity or sell it. If you sell it you must find a new place to live. Borrowing against equity is not always available, especially when you need it most (i.e. unemployment).

Your money works harder in a savings vehicle where you can take advantage of compound interest. Additionally, there are tax advantages to having a mortgage on your residence, the interest on a purchase-money mortgage is tax deductible. Borrowing against home equity is NOT tax deductible unless the loan proceeds are used for home improvement (not repair or maintenance). Critically important since the GOP monsters instituted a SALT cap which greatly limits your ability to deduct state taxes. Middle class (not wealthy) homeowners in NJ pay more in property taxes than the 10,000 annual SALT cap, so they are unable to deduct any of their state income taxes.

Investing in real estate is boom or bust. It has to be done right or you could lose all your money. Doing it right requires a lot of hard work. If your employer offers a 401k with matching contributions that should be your first priority. If not, you should invest some savings in an IRA that will reduce your annual taxable income. Paying off the mortgage on your residence should be your last priority.

How many of these broke people had to spend their life savings supporting their adult children or their children's spawn?

[quote] She told me that if I just saved 10% of my salary that year and never put in another penny when I retired I would have close to a million dollars.

Was your salary that year $550,000, R305? Because her math doesn't make sense otherwise.

You're 50, so you were 23 in 1996, when the S&P index was at 650. That index is now at 4,035, an average increase of 15% per year. If it grows at the same rate in the next 10 years, when you retire at, let's say, age 60, the index will be at 12,000 (optimistic view). That means at least $55K would have to be invested in 1996 to equal one million in 2023, if you "never put in another penny in". $55K is 10% of a $550K salary.

r305 most people in their 40s don't even have 8 months of emergency funds, let alone 6 figures in their 401k and home equity. Are you people kidding me?

I meant that for R306.

-- R309

[quote] Ancestry DNA sent me an email one day that said "You are risk averse," eplaining I have some gene strongly correlated with a risk-averse nature. And it's true. I save 15% of my gross salary in a 401k but I also have a large savings and even some thousands in cash in a safe.

R215, if you can save 15% of your gross salary in a 401k that means your 2022 salary was at least $136,000 annually and possibly as much as $180,000.

In other words, shut up.

R309, there was also a limit on 401k contributions around $10k in the mid-90s.

The math never quite works out the way HR tells you. They are distracting you from blaming the company for not offering a pension.

R313, I don't live in the US so don't 100% understand the system there, but isn't your employer offering matching contributions to your 401k effectively the same as them funding your pension?

Who TF spends $8 on coffee? I don't know anyone who does

Not at all. They help you with contributions to an investment account. The contributions are tax free (you can opt otherwise) but you pay in gains in retirement. There is no guarantee of income or that your value will grow.

[quote]Your money works harder in a savings vehicle where you can take advantage of compound interest. Additionally, there are tax advantages to having a mortgage on your residence, the interest on a purchase-money mortgage is tax deductible. Borrowing against home equity is NOT tax deductible unless the loan proceeds are used for home improvement (not repair or maintenance). Critically important since the GOP monsters instituted a SALT cap which greatly limits your ability to deduct state taxes. Middle class (not wealthy) homeowners in NJ pay more in property taxes than the 10,000 annual SALT cap, so they are unable to deduct any of their state income taxes.

Since those changes that Trump made in 2017, fewer than 10% of taxpayers itemize their deductions. So unless you have substantial unreimbursed medical expenses or charitable contributions, or you have a huge mortgage, you won't be deducting that interest. People are still buying into that "I need to become a homeowner for the tax savings" myth that disappeared six years ago.

It's a defined contribution pension though, isn't it, r316. What you think of as a pension is a defined benefit pension - which are also funded through investing in the stock market, bonds, etc., although it's not you but your employer, or the pension scheme that they belong to, that does the investing.

The difference between the defined contribution "pension" and a defined benefit pension is who bears the risk of a bad market. With a defined contribution plan, the employee bears all the risk. If the market crashes the day after you retire (like happened, say, in 1929) and you have nothing to live on other than social security, too bad, so sad, don't look to your former employer for anything.

The crash of 1929 has not been repeated nor will it be.

And in 1928, they said a crash like 1929 would never happen.

Has it happened since, R321? Huh, Debbie Doom Cloud?

Has anyone used a nuke since August 1945? No. But that doesn't mean no one will ever do so. As the ads say, "past performance is not indicative of future results."

R323=she who never gets laid.

I keep waiting for the recession they say is bound to happen this year. I'm sure R323 eagerly awaits it.

What if your employer was an independent bookshop or a small start-up or, if like many people today, you have several employers throughout your life, r319? Not every employer is a large company, public sector organisation or government agency that has the ability to run a defined benefit system and few people these days spend their entire working lives at the same company.

If the market crashes the day after you retire then your defined benefit pension will also be fucked. Market risk is in fact why you shouldn't put all your eggs in one basket - only a nut would have all their savings invested in the stock market, and in just one geographical region. Even if I had a defined benefit pension scheme, I would still do some DIY investing to ensure I had a more resilient portfolio. Besides, if it looks like there is going to be a crash, then start shorting.

In addition, there are checks in place to ensure that 1929 crashes can't happen again (e.g. suspending sales of shares, stricter rules on margin trading).

[quote] In addition, there are checks in place to ensure that 1929 crashes can't happen again (e.g. suspending sales of shares, stricter rules on margin trading).

Exactly. Hear that, know-it-all R321?

[quote]If the market crashes the day after you retire then your defined benefit pension will also be fucked.

Not true. Defined benefit plans for most employers are protected by the PBGC (Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp.), a government agency similar to the FDIC. You may not get 100% of your promised benefit -- especially if you're a high earner-- but you won't be "fucked."

Pensions also have a broader pool to mitigate risk than your own personal account. If the market crashes, a larger pool can wait for it to recover because it is receiving contributions from people nowhere near retirement.

Very few Americans have access to that kind of post-retirement income. I have no need to leave anything behind, but I save aggressively so I don’t outlive my wealth. This is a really stupid, almost sadistic way for a society to work.

You need to invest and not just save, r329.

Can you spell PEDANTIC

I have to say one trope that always bothers me is the wide-sweeping "buying fancy cars and expensive clothes" accusation or the "welfare queens." Few people do that. As indicated above, there are many costs and huge jumps in inflation that didn't exist before.

I work in fundraising and it really boils down to assets not being taxed and income is. And that's where generational wealth grows and grows.

I worked as a consultant during COVID and my contract was cut 25%. I was lucky I had income as I live alone. I owe the IRS $7,500 from having to use the entirety of my income, which I'm paying back. People with assets don't have that kind of tax burden. I don't object to paying taxes; I object to enormously wealthy people, companies, and universities not paying them and then workers and students are castigated for their "Starbucks coffees and cell phones."

The tax break for the top 2% and continued tax dodges for assets and companies has blown up the deficit, not food stamp fraud. The fact that Amazon employees are entitled to food stamps and that non tax paying corporation doesn't pay taxes is appalling. The fact that Philadelphia allows homeowners of multi-million dollar homes not pay taxes for the schools for 10 years making a whole population of permanent low wage earners -- the same who are blamed for having low wage jobs because they're allegedly not working hard enough -- is disgusting.

TL;DR, rich people and large corporations should pay taxes that affects income earners disproportionately, especially in education and income.

[quote]isn't your employer offering matching contributions to your 401k effectively the same as them funding your pension?

No, it's them returning a portion of the interest they make on your money before it goes into the fund.

And in the UK you can get compensation from the FSCS if your defined contribution pension goes awry. There are also numerous authorised life insurance and pension providers you can build a pension with and get a lump sum or annuity at the end - it's not simply a . Not to mention the fact that a 1929-style market crash is completely unlikely.

Still wondering where people who don't work for large companies or don't stick with the same employer for 30 years are going to get a defined benefits pension from.

"What if your employer was an independent bookshop or a small start-up or, if like many people today, you have several employers throughout your life, [R319]?"

I wasn't talking about tiny employers such as independent bookshops, which likely don't offer EITHER defined benefit or defined contribution plans. I was just describing why most large employers in the U.S. have moved from defined benefit plans to defined contribution plans - so that they employees bear the risk of market losses rather than the company.

Surely company pension funds are completely separate from the company's overall budget, r335?

Yeah, you might not be talking about tiny employers, but the thread is about the retirement savings crisis that is afflicting many Americans and many others in other countries. I suspect it's not the people who work for companies that offer a defined contributions pension who are suffering, but those who work for employers that don't offer any pension at all.

r309 they said a million when I retired so there would 15 more years of compound interest and s&p growth on that. But I never actually did that math and contributed ever since so I am good, I was just using it as an example that made sense to 23 year old me.

Worked for a company that had a good, defined benefit pension plan plus a decent 401(k) defined contribution plan. 2/3s way through my stay, they “froze” their defined benefit pension plan and instead beefed up their 401(k): 1 for 1 match of whatever amount an employee contributed.

They did it because even for a mid-sized company (150 employees), trying to put aside enough money to ensure every participating employee would have the promised defined benefit pension amount come retirement in a gyrating stock market was too difficult to manage.

The company was willing to invest millions of dollars to fund their employees’ pensions, but was not willing to invest the sometimes million additional dollars the accountants insisted the plan needed to compensate for occasional market downturns. That was money the owners had planned to use to grow the business.

Consequently they froze the defined benefit pension program and used the maintenance cash to fund the enhanced match 401(k) match.

But it raises a basic question.: If a 150 person business with financial advisers couldn’t comfortably manage the vagaries of the stock market; how are mostly clueless individual employees suppose to do it???

I met with my FA yesterday for my annual review and my net worth today at 46 is $2.2MM. And even with that… I still run out of money at 84 if I retire at 60. It’s fucking rough out there. I save like a motherfucker and make about 450k a year. I should feel so much better given I’ve done all the right things. So now I get to hope to die at 84. I mean… maybe not the worst thing?

What index fund would the smart people on this thread recommend for someone in their early 40s who makes $120k a year? Fidelity?

Thank you for all this information. I appreciate it.

r339. Your situation makes no sense to me. Even if you had NO other sources of income (no social security, no dividends), dividing up 2.2 million dollars over 24 years (60 to 84) equals $92,000/year. If you earned even 6% simple interest a year on what you currently have saved, you'd have $4,400,000 dollars if you took no distributions. Even if you took out well in excess of $92,000/ year, you'd still be able to spread this out well beyond 24 years. Are you seriously telling the rest of us that you can't' possibly live on less than $92,000/year if you had to? Assuming that you'd have the maximum social security of about $40,000/year, that would mean that you'd actually have $132,000/year to live on between 67 and 84. Again, that's not even factoring in interest or stock market gain. My apologies if I don't cry a river over that. I have to also assume that you have a house - and even if you have a mortgage, that will pay off at some point. So you might also have an asset worth, what? Another half million to one million or more?

I grant that if you have gotten used to a lifestyle that requires annual expenditures of over $150,000, you might feel you need to continue living that way. Do you? What sort of life do you think you'll be living in your 70s? 10 vacations a year to exotic locales, each one requiring $5000 per visit ? Live in house boy? Mooring your yacht at St. Tropez? Own several vacation homes in different locations? Would you have to give one of these up? These are not the sorts of issues that most of us at DL are prepared to weep about.

🤔 The problem with the Suze Ormans and Jean Chatskys of this world are their ignorant assumptions that we are all making a buttload of money, and we have little or no financial responsibility.

A 12-pk of ramen for the week is now $2.38.

Yeah, Suze Orman's advice seems geared toward people who are pretty well-off. I did like the "Can I Afford It?" segments, though.

It's hard to feel sorry for some of the posters in this thread. As usual, the well-off people respond in these types of threads. IMO, this thread has been the worst, as far as being tone deaf and grousing, while saying you own your house, you're married (cheaper for 2 to live than 1), you've got savings, your pay is 6 figures, etc.

I also question the advice above not to pay off your mortgage. First of all, paying down a mortgage is enforced savings, which is necessary for most people, who otherwise might find other uses for that money. Shelter is a necessary expense anyway, so buying a home is killing two birds with one stone.

For people who understand investing, paying down a mortgage prematurely is probably not as lucrative as investing the difference in the stock market. But most people are not savvy investors, and will rely on a stockbroker, along with the fees that they charge for their investment advice and for buying and selling stocks.

One thing that hasn't been addressed too much in this long thread is security in shelter. If you are a renter, you can't make the assumption that rents will only go up at the rate of inflation. In the past 3 years, rents in most parts of the country have exceeded the inflation rate by 10X. (People who were paying $1000/month are now paying $1600 - with no alteration in the basic conditions of their houses or their leases). Home ownership protects you from being evicted in old age from a place that you might have lived for 30 years or more. Finally, although houses are not a super liquid asset, we're in a situation where new housing has not been added at the same rate as population growth for several decades. So there is a need for additional housing. Under those circumstances, houses WILL sell, although not necessarily at the maximum that the seller hopes for. A house that is paid for offers another option - which is that you, the owner, now have the ability to rent it to others - either taking in a paying roommate, or move out to cheaper digs yourself, and rent it for whatever the market will bear. And a paid-off house also offers the possibility of a reverse mortgage, which is a reasonable option for someone who has no heirs. You get a guaranteed monthly income for life, and when you die the value of the house pays the loan off.

The biggest problem right now is coming down with a down payment for a house, and being approved for a loan. But if you are renting a home or you're living in an apartment building, perhaps subletting a condo, you could always inquire about a lease (or rent) -to-own option from the landlord. Or spend 1-2 years scrimping and being crazily frugal to try to save 10,,000 or so as a down payment. Certain kinds of FHA loans can be as low as 3.5% down payment for first time home buyers. However, if you live in a super expensive coastal city, home ownership might be forever out of reach unless you have a very high-paying job.

I think I’m one of the irresponsible Americans people here are bitching about. I spent my 20s, 30s & 40s traveling the world, enjoying life, and only took jobs to finance my adventures. I should’ve saved for retirement, but it always seemed so far off. I did land a good job in my early 50s, but only invested about $40k before my department was outsourced.

Then a good buddy died and left me all his stuff. I sold his collectibles, bought a house near the beach, and invested what was left. I work part-time from home now so when I’m in my late 60s I’ll apply for SS because I have no debt. I'm not rich, but I ain't poor either.

I’m quite content in my backyard with a lush garden and a big rescue mutt. I’ve become an urban gardener and grow a lot of my food. I bought antique windows from a salvage yard and built a small greenhouse to grow veggies in the off season. I don’t need expensive clothes for work anymore and I’m done traveling. Even though I can afford a nice car, I like driving a beater because I don’t have to worry about scratches, theft or expensive insurance. I don’t need a gym membership because I do my own landscaping and hike or kayak in my spare time.

I enjoy good health so I’ll probably live longer than average. If I run out of money I’ll sell the house (it’s worth twice what I paid for it six years ago). Maybe my niece will come take care of me and I’ll leave it to her. I’ll worry about that when the time comes and that’s always worked for me.

I made some good friends through the years and some of them haven’t been as lucky. Some cycle through and stay for extended periods. Two are good cooks so it’s a perfect trade off. I’ve also lost a lot of friends and my last great love died in 2016, so I truly appreciate the intangibles.

What I find so strange these days is my neighbors and other rich people I meet are chronically dissatisfied about their lives and are bitter about missed opportunities. It seems like everyone’s on antidepressants or anxiolytics. What I’ve learned is that you only need enough money to free yourself from survival mode because the rest is just superfluous bullshit. What’s the point of life if you don’t wake up excited to live another day?

[quote] It's hard to feel sorry for some of the posters in this thread. As usual, the well-off people respond in these types of threads. IMO, this thread has been the worst, as far as being tone deaf and grousing, while saying you own your house, you're married (cheaper for 2 to live than 1), you've got savings, your pay is 6 figures, etc.

Agreed. However, it's not just here. In the real world, my colleagues are the WORST. Comfortable families who live in the suburbs in huge houses, some worth over $1mm, with two luxury cars grouse about not being able to retire (!) Everyone always thinks they have it bad. Even some f*cking billionaires complain about having to pay taxes.

There are people who live beyond their means, but we also need to criticize people who fully live at their means. It’s those people who lament their lack of savings and having to live off of social security. People should be living like they make half as much as they do and then saving the rest.

I hope 339 does die. TONIGHT. Fuck off you motherfucker!!! Aww.. 2.2. million. Fuck off you piece of shit.

[quote]Comfortable families who live in the suburbs in huge houses, some worth over $1mm, with two luxury cars grouse about not being able to retire (!) Everyone always thinks they have it bad.

Status symbols reveal nothing about a person's net worth. The house might be underwater, the down payment gifted by in-laws. The cars could be leased or financed at usurious rates. Wealth is less about what we earn than what we spend, since that determines our true savings rate and how much flexibility we have in tough times or retirement.

r345 Paying off a mortgage makes more sense now as the GOP as crippled the benefits of home ownership. It all depends though,. If you have credit card debt pay that off first, but always pay yourself first. Even if you can just put in 10% in a 401k at work or a certain amount a month in a no load mutual fund that follows the s&p, or a roth ira or something.

My mom (and dad) bought a house back when houses were affordable (they paid under $100,000). Anyway, my dad died and, at some point, my mom just wanted to finish paying off the house & had the money to do it. She was happy paying off the house and I never heard her express regrets. Some people just feel better paying off a debt.

[quote]People should be living like they make half as much as they do and then saving the rest.

Bitch please. Most Americans make less than 60k a year. You go out and live on 30k a year until age 67 and report back to us, r348.

I made less than 60 k up until 6 years ago and I live in Los Angeles. I had a $400 student loan payment for 18 years until I paid that shit off. I lived in a tiny, run down 400 sq foot, illegal guest house for 700 per month. Prior to that, I rented rooms. I had a 401k from my employer (no match) that I had to cash out when I became unemployed. Got another job with a 401k (again, no match). Saved up about $100,000 grand with that. My current employer JUST started offering a 401k (again, no matching) last year. I have about 10 grand in that now. I never traveled, cooked most of my meals, had no cable, etc. I'm someone that has to have a state of the line computer for work (editing) so I'm looking at a $7000 purchase soon because my current pc is 7 years old.

I finally made a little money on crypto last year and was able to move into a better place and for the first time in my life, I have a separate bedroom. I'm 53. I make $80 grand now but my rent is $2000 so I'm not really able to save too much. I have four separate savings accounts...one for emergencies, one for Xmas gifts and another just for your basic savings and my checking. I was shocked that, at one point I finally had $50,000 saved and the bank increased my interest rates. Again, one of the ways people with money get breaks. I could have used that higher interest when I had less money but that's not how this works. Until you have money, you will not be able to make money or get those perks. Of course, then I got cancer and most of my savings dwindled away with that and my move (I had no furniture other than a bed and a 20 year old futon which I got rid of when I moved.

Moving was a great decision for me because even IF I had wanted to use that savings for a down payment on a house, it's LA and my house payment would have been somewhere around $6000 per month. I don't even bring that home. And if I had done that, then getting cancer would have put me right back into debt which I have been debt free for about 10 years now.

I'll never be able to retire here in the states. Maybe I'll look into Costa Rica or something but likely that isn't going to happen.

My sister and her wife both retired at 55 and both had government jobs. Between the two of them, they bring home $14 grand a month with health insurance for life.

I should have been a teacher (my sister's profession until she became a principal). They now own a huge house in Paso Robles almost paid off with the sale of their house her in SO CAL.

Retirement is a terrifying thought. Since I had cancer and survived, I do have a likely-hood it could return. Maybe that's my "retirement."

Costa Rica is affordable R354, but you'll need to leave the country every three months for at least a few day as a US citizen there. If you are by the Panamanian border, you can just vacation there cheaply.

I'd like to add to the mortgage issues already discussed.

In addition to the "will you actually take the deduction" caveat to canned language around mortgages, you also have to take into account the interest rate on your mortgage (I know that hasn't been a big issue in a while, but historically it has been and now it may be again.) Also are there other unnecessary expenses tied to the mortgage? For instance we live in a coastal area and very expensive flood insurance is required if you have a mortgage. Which is great and important if you own a home, but a useless expense that will provide you no protection if you own a condo (only covered from items interior to the dry wall) on a high floor.

Also let's assume most people will go through at least one year of financial trouble in their lives. You don't lose all of your existing retirement savings if you can't make new contributions for a year. But you can lose your home if you can't pay your mortgage for a year AND THEN you lose all of the equity in your house.

Finally, and this I feel very strongly about, if you get a lump sum like an inheritance, pay off your mortgage and then use the money you used for the mortgage to save for retirement on a monthly basis. Investments like the stock market smooth out over time to be good investments, but are wildly uneven and are more like gambling in short time frames. 401Ks and similar "work" because your original investment is spread out over different time periods and so you are investing in the market average. With a lump sum, you could accidentally invest everything at the top of the market and effectively lose a decade worth of interest.

I'd like to thank R214 and R354 for their heartfelt stories.

For those of us who've sailed through life with barely a care, they're a sharp reminder of what others face, and shouldn't have to face.

Your elderly parent’s broken hip nowadays will COMPLETELY WIPE OUT ANY INHERITANCE. They fall into the machinations of expensive elder care!

A lot of Gen Z ers are doing the zero taxes route. Essentially they get a job that pays 50K then put 20K in their 401K per year living on 30K a year so they can pay no taxes and retire at 55 with close to two million or if they wait til 65, 4 million.

r358 living on 30k a year is easy, when you are living with your parents until 30 years old like most of them do.

How do you avoid paying tax on an income of $50k?

r360 by putting as much as you can in a 401k to lower you income to a level that you do not pay income tax on the amount you earn. Only works when you make a certain amount as there is a limit to what you can put in your 401K per year. You can put in more post-tax, some companies allow up to 100%, but once you reach a certain income bracket it is impossible to do.

You can google it -

Thanks r361. I'm not American, so that sounded a little odd to me. That's not a bad way to go!

I’m actually moderately well off with a professional job, and have about $1.5MM set aside for retirement in about five and a half years. (Not humblebragging.)

That doesn’t count the value of my home, or a small business I’ve established on the side, which will keep me occupied and provide some income once I retire. (It provides income now as well, but right now I invest that 100% right back into the business, while I still can do that.)

Having said all that, I’m *still* worried about retirement. I don’t know how long I’ll live, how my health will be, how long social security and Medicare will still be available, what the worlds going to be like over the next 10-30 years, etc.

Can’t even begin to imagine being in my late 50s with no savings. That’s insane.

R339 I also don't understand your post. If you are scared to outlive your money and don't have children to leave funds to then just annuatize (sp) your money when the market is high and you've hit retirement age. If you don't have a spouse, a charitable gift annuity has significant tax advantages. If you have a spouse, then you can get a two-life regular annuity. And if you are worried about "wasting the money" if you die soon after taking the policy get a 20 year guaranteed policy. And if you are worried about the impact of inflation, get an inflation adjusted policy which starts at a lower percentage, but will keep your standard of living steady.

And yes, I know most people hate annuities and I am in the minority in recommending them, but I think they make sense for people without children, who don't want to worry about outliving their income (or the time necessary on avoiding that) and at significant risk of guardianship abuse. If they have large immediately available assets. (Also don't invest in a single annuity company. There is a small risk of insolvency.)

The best thing that ever happened to me was getting fired in my late 20s from a decent paying job and then having to take whatever job my depressed self-esteem would allow. I waited on tables for years and took roommates through my 30s. I learned to live on very little money and even found ways to put away some cash for vacations. Even a small inheritance ($40k) got locked up by me so I wouldn't touch it. (I used $6k towards a basic car.) When I landed a decent job paying less than $30k I was more than ready to start "living" again, but I held tight to my rules and saved what I could...denying myself some rewards. I used $24k for a down payment on a small house and little by little got raises through my 40s. It wasn't until I was almost 50 that I got a job that paid a lot for then $80k, yet I took the huge jump in salary and socked it away in index funds. Today I am 63, retired 4 months now, and have $1.2M ONLY because I learned (the hard way) how to live within my means. It wasn't always easy, but I never starved or went without health care. I fed my soul and mind, not my garage and closet.

R366, wow, good for you! Enjoy your retirement (wisely ;)

R366, you’ve conquered the one thing I’m still worried about — the transition away from having a full time salary. I’m not profligate but spend pretty much as I want to (while contributing a substantial amount into 401K and opening another CD every year).

I’m wondering about my discipline in reigning in my lifestyle once the salary is gone.

R366, with the cost of necessities (and I mean real necessities, not wants disguising themselves as necessities in so many people's minds), I don't think you could do what you did today. Wages have fallen so far behind the costs of housing and education and food, etc., that modest living no longer allows for saving like you did, let alone purchasing real estate or doing other things that give you long term financial stability. That financial stability is what allows for all the other things you've managed to do. You were lucky to be born when you were. Your story will not happen again without major changes in America's social structure.

My condo fee has gone up in increments over150 dollars a month, in four years. That's 150 dollars a month I can't save any more. I'm not making more money than I was 4 years ago. Food and other basics cost way more than they did four or five years ago.

Of course, medical bills and expenses continue to rise unabated. The thousand or two a year you might have to pay now for seeing specialists, having CT scans and so forth, the ER, etc. would have been saved in years past when if you were insured you had very low medical expenses and premiums.

"In fact, despite some ups and downs over the past several decades, today’s real average wage (that is, the wage after accounting for inflation) has about the same purchasing power it did 40 years ago. And what wage gains there have been have mostly flowed to the highest-paid tier of workers."

"Meanwhile, wage gains have gone largely to the highest earners. Since 2000, usual weekly wages have risen 3% (in real terms) among workers in the lowest tenth of the earnings distribution and 4.3% among the lowest quarter. But among people in the top tenth of the distribution, real wages have risen a cumulative 15.7%, to $2,112 a week – nearly five times the usual weekly earnings of the bottom tenth ($426)."

[quote]FDR is the sole president whose policies (that of the New Deal) are with us today and that most all Americans depend on. But do carp about them 80 years after the fact, by all means.

R254 Evere hear of LBJ and Medicare/Medicaid?

Learn to budget, r368. I recently started giving myself a monthly budget and it's helped me to understand how I spend and to keep it under control. I don't order as much delivery food, for a start, which has knock on effects of eating better, meal planning, a better structured day, wasting less time online and walking to the shops.

You can find people like R366 all over sites geared toward FIRE (financial independence, retire early). For every high earner determined to retire early, there are people with average or even low incomes honing plans that range from full retirement to 'Coast FIRE' or 'Barista FIRE,' terms you can Google if you're curious.

It's more difficult for low earners but it isn't impossible. People who want to retire at a normal age but came to investing late also frequent sites geared toward FIRE for help shoring up their savings. The frugality skills you sharpen as your knowledge of personal finance deepens will make it easier for you to navigate complications like inflation at any income level.

[quote] I also put in the maximum $10,000 into I-Bonds in both December 2022 and January 2023.

Elderlez, what are "I-Bonds"?

[quote] I met with my FA yesterday for my annual review and my net worth today at 46 is $2.2MM. And even with that… I still run out of money at 84 if I retire at 60. It’s fucking rough out there. I save like a motherfucker and make about 450k a year. I should feel so much better given I’ve done all the right things. So now I get to hope to die at 84. I mean… maybe not the worst thing?

R339, your situation sounds pretty good to those of us who don't need to budget for $20,000 a month for rentboys and cocaine.

R374 It's an inflation adjusted bond issued by the US government.

[quote]I met with my FA yesterday for my annual review and my net worth today at 46 is $2.2MM. And even with that… I still run out of money at 84 if I retire at 60

No. If you made 5% a year on the $2.2 million, you would live comfortably on the $110,000 a year and never reduce the principal.

[quote]I’m wondering about my discipline in reigning in my lifestyle once the salary is gone.

Oh, dear.

DO NOT depend on an inheritance- because there’s a 5 year clawback of funds if your parents wind up in a nursing home and laws are likely to continue clamping down even tighter on how to pay for their care. Instead, plan your own retirement as though you won’t receive a penny, that way if you do, you are pleasantly surprised rather than completely devastated.

NEVER assume, hire an attorney to navigate elder law as specific to where you live.

It's cute that you think people who are poor, who likely had poor parents, are depending on an "inheritance," r379. If my parents had any sense about money, they wouldn't have been poor either.

Poverty is a cycle that is really hard to break out of. I never had a dime of help from my parents after I turned 18 and they have nothing to leave their four kids when they die. Reverse mortgage on houses in areas that no one even wants to live in. The bank will take the house, their only asset when they die. Maybe if we sell their cars we'll be lucky to get a thousand each but that's it.

R380, My dad died broke, and my mom the family was was expecting several policies totaling $250K- one had lapsed six months before his death. My brother and I had to spend out of pocket to house, clothes and feed her for two years until he could collect social security. I had to put off my wedding and my brother put off buying a home. It was terrible and my mom was stubborn and didn’t want to downsize and fought us every step of the way…

She owned property and I vowed when I got married that 1. I wouldn’t ever mix my own income with hers caring for and maintaining it, and 2. Not to get into a financial hole ever again because of her staggeringly bad financial decisions. I hired an attorney and he created a solution that would arrange her situation to these specifics years ago. She’s in a nursing home now, but mixing your finances or living with family complicates the admission process. We preplanned her funeral because we were buying a home I cannot just suddenly “pull” that money out of thin air.

I agree with you, but most of the cycle has to do with poor planning, not wanting to spend money on a lawyer, or the family not all getting on board with the same decision-

if you don’t plan their elderly care or funerals, the government will do it FOR you or you will become indebted.

[quote]It's cute that you think people who are poor, who likely had poor parents, are depending on an "inheritance," [R379]

Where did R379 say that was advice for people who come from generational poverty? They're addressing a common scenario that plays out constantly, even if it does not apply to you personally.

Reverse mortgages are also taking away the one thing that even some poorer people could have counted on inheriting before banks invented them - the house.

I don't find Suze Orman's advice only for the rich. She speaks right to the middle class.

Certainly, since she was on the air, housing and food prices skyrocketed. That makes her "save 15%" harder to achieve. That said, she's absolutely right. If you want to have enough money for a comfortable retirement, save 15% in the stock market and stop buying things you can't afford.

If you're finding it impossible to save 15%, you know your retirement will be tough

There's no point in paying off your house unless you intend to stay in it forever.

If you intend to stay there forever, paying it off gives you great security. Sure, you could put that money in the stock market and hope things work out--but a owning your home outright is a better guarantee.

The financial industry keeps coming up with instruments that are really made to fleece you--so beware.

Universal/whole life

Reverse mortgages

Annuities.

If it's too complex for you to understand easily, it was purposely made that way to confuse you.

What's bad about annuities, r386? I'd like to learn more.

I’m only five years away from paying off my mortgage. It’s tempting to pay it off now. I would if interest rates weren’t so high, meaning I can invest the cash for more right now than I would save by paying off the mortgage.

[quote] What's bad about annuities

What I’ve seen is that people who profit off of you if you actively invest really hate annuities, because your money is then out of their reach and you don’t need frequent financial advice. The analysts and brokers want you to be an active investor so they can make money off of you doing that.

[quote]What's bad about annuities

Annuities are long-term contracts with penalties if cashed in too early.

Income annuities require you to lose control over your investment.

Some annuities earn little to no interest.

Guaranteed income can not keep up with inflation in certain types of annuities.

The annuity might not provide a death benefit to your beneficiaries.

Annuities offer regular but limited liquidity, sometimes none at all.

Fees can be high in investment-based annuities.

You have to wait until age 59.5 to withdraw from the annuity.

Very interesting thread, occasional derailments and all.

Currently, age 62, I'll be getting my first SS check this year. I opted to take it now for a variety of reasons, primarily so as to not leave anything on the table, in case I get smacked by a bus or train in a few months or year and because I'd rather not deplete my Vanguard account too much.

Getting to Vanguard followed high fees at both Merrill and Edward Jones.

I'm lucky to live in, to me, a pleasant college town with a low cost of living. Otherwise, I'd be sunk.

One of the realizations I had a few years ago, when I considered an early retirement, was all of the retirement articles were not meant for me because they ALL assumed you needed $1M or $2M. I didn't and don't have near that amount, and I think I'll get by comfortably enough because I am frugal, and have enough of my parents' survival skills ingrained in me. The articles and conventional wisdom often stated that in addition to a starting figure of $1M, that one was straight, had two or more kids, and had their college expenses to consider. Once I applied my specific situation to an AARP retirement calculator, it occurred to me that I could be OK on much less than $1M.

The Vanguard formula indicates I have an excellent chance of having funds once I'm age 100 based on their (Monte Carlo?) projections. That's nice, sure, if I get to that point, but the bigger worry to me is the GOP and their fucking around with SS and Medicare.

R390 I feel like your post is kind of selectively accurate and very misleading. For instance you have to wait until 59.5 to withdraw from a retirement annuity because it is a retirement account and non-457b retirement accounts have that age requirement whether or not they are structured as annuities, There are also immediate income annuities with no age threshold. I think most of your points have similar problems.

IMHO, people hate annuities because they are like reverse mortgages, but for your cash. You are buying future income for your own (or your own and one other person's) life. At most you can get a 20 year guarantee of some money left (for a lower income for life) to have something to leave heirs if you die soon, but otherwise once you die, the annuity company pockets anything left. The annuity company wins if you die young and they get to keep lots of your money. You win if you live to 100. Your heirs lose unless you live to to 100 AND you are so incredibly generous while you live that it's more than they would have inherited.

FWIW, I think universal/whole life insurance is the biggest scam ever.

There's never going to be a perfect way for people to ensure that they have adequate income for what could be 20-30 years of retirement. Unless you have tons of savings and great investments, there is always going to be a compromise. Then there is still the problem of having to work out the best arrangement so that your heirs don't lose out when you die.

Boozy Suze also tells people to get a car loan for 36 months.

Who the hell does that?

If you want to own a car, get a 60 month loan (slightly higher interest rate, [italic] much [/italic]lower monthly payments) and then pay the whole amount off within a year.

Ideally, you would save up in advance and just pay cash for the car; but that’s apparently become increasingly difficult for most people to manage. (Sometimes because the current car suddenly needs a shitload of repairs and they’ve not prepared for the cost of repairs or the replacement.)

Forcing yourself to pay off the loan early, at the expense of forgoing other pleasures (shows, vacations, dinners out) not only reduces the total interest paid for the loan; but knowing how much the 12 monthly payouts will be, strongly encourages you to consider a cheaper car (smart, since cars generally are a declining asset).

Taking the five year loan, means that if you temporarily lose your job, there’s a better chance you can cobble together the cash necessary to make any required lower monthly payments, until you find a new job and less likely your car will be repossessed.

Hmm...

The retirement savings crisis is a significant issue that affects many Americans. As you mentioned, data shows that a large percentage of individuals nearing retirement age have little to no savings, which can lead to financial struggles and a lack of security in later years. This issue is complex and can be caused by a variety of factors, including stagnant wages, rising healthcare costs, and a lack of access to retirement savings plans, among others.

Solutions to this crisis may involve a combination of policy changes, such as expanding access to retirement savings plans, increasing Social Security benefits, and implementing tax policies that encourage savings. It's also important for individuals to take an active role in planning for their retirement and seeking out resources and advice to help them navigate this complex issue.

Ultimately, addressing the retirement savings crisis will require a commitment to systemic change and a willingness to work towards solutions that benefit all Americans, not just a privileged few.

Thanks ChatGPT troll R397

Hmm...wonder who wrote that, R396.

The story of the ant and the grasshopper should literally be required reading for all Americans.

Oh, that's already happening R1.

But anyway - I'm 53 and I am very worried. Everything seems to be out of control and these higher prices won't be coming back down in the future. I don't own my own home anymore and I'm very worried about where I'm going to be able to afford to live.

Maybe euthanasia will be the norm by the time many of us are too old to work and we can just call it a life.

The GPT Troll is infesting several threads now with anodyne pointless posts. It's a one-note ha-ha-funny joke. Enough, twat.

[quote]Maybe euthanasia will be the norm by the time many of us are too old to work and we can just call it a life.

Euthanasia is a sin to the GOP. However, if old people die prematurely because they can't afford health care or food, well, that's just God's plan.

R404, they are OK with the olds dying from inability to afford health care or food because it's painful. It's the painless deaths that are a sin.

[quote] What's bad about annuities

First, there are dozens of different types, each with their own rules. That's the first sign that the financial industry is trying to screw you.

Second, there are fees fees fees fees and fees. This is how the industry makes its money--fees! Many of which they waive away as being unimportant and negligible. When you are ready to collect, suddenly all these fees appear.

Third, they're a big gamble. Sure you'll get money on a regular basis, but the second you die, the rest is all theirs.

R401 You say you don’t own your home anymore. Did you sell it to convert it into liquid assets? Asking because I may do that eventually.

Stressed about it forever. I took the plunge at 55. I’m not dying without retiring - like my father and brother and cousin. I’ll risk being broke at 85 to enjoy life now. The terror of running out of money keeps us all on the capitalist treadmill. Learning to live with less is the only answer I’ve found. And trying not to obsess about worry.

Great advice, r408... not.

Thanks for the answers about annuities. I can see why for some people they can be useful but, if you're able to manage your own investments and savings, they are best avoided.