Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Support MFO
Donate through PayPal
How To Use Social Security To Fix Retirement Inequality
FYI: Americans need bigger retirement nest eggs, there is no doubt about that. More than half of us have saved less than $25,000, according to the Employee Benefit Research Institute.
Wow, another “solution” for a problem largely of individuals’ own making/own choices.
I’ve saved every year of my working life – even when I worked 2 part-time jobs simultaneously while attending night college full time. People choose to save or to spend. Many (most?) people in our uber-consuming society choose to mortgage themselves to houses too big, or have tendencies to “need” a new car every 3-4 years, and/or shell out their income on the latest junk/gizmos.
This is a (ostensibly) a “free country”, so people are free to decide to spend all they earn (or more). Every choice to spend, is also a choice to not save.
Before taxing MY investment income, I’d favor ending govt retirement pensions for Sen. Harkin, along with all of our so-called “public servants”. Sen Harkin is free to subsidize any “poor” seniors he wishes to. But he, and his like-minded ilk, should keep their d@mn hands out of my pockets.
Edmund, I think you missed the point of the article. The talk here isn't to subsidize today's poor seniors by taxing you. It gives ideas that might improve the chances of unprepared workers who will definitely need a social security net in retirement.
The article talks about the greater and growing inequality for todays wage earners from top to bottom and how that has translated into that same inequality for retirement preparation. The point is the playing field for our kids and grandkids is not the same as it was for the bulk of my working years (and yours too maybe?). The article is talking about the inadequacies of savings for American lower and middle class wage earners in todays world. It offers ideas how to compensate for the rich getting richer, the middle and the poor getting poorer, not being able to save for retirement. Wider wage discrepancy in todays world is just a fact and now so is the ability to save. The article offers ways to adjust those discrepancies to head off a growing problem.
I'm curious, how would you fix this looming and growing problem for future retirees when wages are proportionately lower than the past? Don't buy cars and gizmos? I really don't think that is why the lower and middle class is struggling with savings.
Everyone acknowledges that jobs are lower paying today. Most will say the middle class is dwindling and having a hard time keeping afloat and that this class is mostly living pay check to pay check. Good manufacturing jobs have moved to emerging countries.
I did it so they should do it, but the evenness of the game has changed. I, like most, have reservations that anything can be fixed by politicians. But it sure needs to get fixed and the article tosses out ideas.
".....The point is the playing field for our kids and grandkids is not the same as it was for the bulk of my working years..... Wider wage discrepancy in todays world is just a fact and now so is the ability to save. .....I did it so they should do it, but the evenness of the game has changed...."
Spot-on.
Nevertheless, the disease of Consumerism has taken hold and is taken for granted. It's everywhere, "in the air." What EVERYONE, rich, middle, poor--- needs, is a healthy dose of awareness: the awareness that advertizing is The Big Lie. No, you DON'T need this. Or that. Or that other thing.
As Crash Davis would say: "Throw me that cheese again, and I'll take it downtown, Meat!" Glad to be back again, where I can satisfy my own baseball addiction.
Housing prices in Canada are indeed outrageous. While I was out there, north of the border, I remembered what an MFO-er had said about that. Correct! For a tiny house and postage-stamp lawn, prices are more than double than you'd find here in The States. Otherwise, it was a great trip. Sample scenery: http://www.bcadventure.com/adventure/explore/rockies/cities/kimberley_chamber/01_fisherpeak.jpg
I'm not connecting too well with Crash. But, MikeM is spot-on.
Left unchecked capitalism will run amuck. Henry Ford realized that if his workers didn't earn enough to be able to afford cars, the industry would falter. An over-simplification to be sure - but on point.
I won't climb up on my Communist-leaning stump here, but we are increasingly becoming a nation of "haves" and "have nots." I somehow don't think it's as simple as "get a job" or "get an education" or "get off your lazy butt."
(BTW: Have you checked the cost of 4-years tuition plus room & board today at even our state supported universities?)
"Tuition for ASU's online program is about $15,000 per year. The university offers 49 online bachelor's degree programs, in subjects ranging from business administration to art history."
Sorry if too off-topic. However, one way for people to accumulate those "bigger retirement nest eggs" Ted mentions is to improve their employability / job skills thru education.
Comments
I’ve saved every year of my working life – even when I worked 2 part-time jobs simultaneously while attending night college full time. People choose to save or to spend. Many (most?) people in our uber-consuming society choose to mortgage themselves to houses too big, or have tendencies to “need” a new car every 3-4 years, and/or shell out their income on the latest junk/gizmos.
This is a (ostensibly) a “free country”, so people are free to decide to spend all they earn (or more). Every choice to spend, is also a choice to not save.
Before taxing MY investment income, I’d favor ending govt retirement pensions for Sen. Harkin, along with all of our so-called “public servants”. Sen Harkin is free to subsidize any “poor” seniors he wishes to. But he, and his like-minded ilk, should keep their d@mn hands out of my pockets.
The article talks about the greater and growing inequality for todays wage earners from top to bottom and how that has translated into that same inequality for retirement preparation. The point is the playing field for our kids and grandkids is not the same as it was for the bulk of my working years (and yours too maybe?). The article is talking about the inadequacies of savings for American lower and middle class wage earners in todays world. It offers ideas how to compensate for the rich getting richer, the middle and the poor getting poorer, not being able to save for retirement. Wider wage discrepancy in todays world is just a fact and now so is the ability to save. The article offers ways to adjust those discrepancies to head off a growing problem.
I'm curious, how would you fix this looming and growing problem for future retirees when wages are proportionately lower than the past? Don't buy cars and gizmos? I really don't think that is why the lower and middle class is struggling with savings.
Everyone acknowledges that jobs are lower paying today. Most will say the middle class is dwindling and having a hard time keeping afloat and that this class is mostly living pay check to pay check. Good manufacturing jobs have moved to emerging countries.
I did it so they should do it, but the evenness of the game has changed. I, like most, have reservations that anything can be fixed by politicians. But it sure needs to get fixed and the article tosses out ideas.
Spot-on.
Nevertheless, the disease of Consumerism has taken hold and is taken for granted. It's everywhere, "in the air." What EVERYONE, rich, middle, poor--- needs, is a healthy dose of awareness: the awareness that advertizing is The Big Lie. No, you DON'T need this. Or that. Or that other thing.
As Crash Davis would say: "Throw me that cheese again, and I'll take it downtown, Meat!"
Glad to be back again, where I can satisfy my own baseball addiction.
Housing prices in Canada are indeed outrageous. While I was out there, north of the border, I remembered what an MFO-er had said about that. Correct! For a tiny house and postage-stamp lawn, prices are more than double than you'd find here in The States. Otherwise, it was a great trip. Sample scenery:
http://www.bcadventure.com/adventure/explore/rockies/cities/kimberley_chamber/01_fisherpeak.jpg
Left unchecked capitalism will run amuck. Henry Ford realized that if his workers didn't earn enough to be able to afford cars, the industry would falter. An over-simplification to be sure - but on point.
I won't climb up on my Communist-leaning stump here, but we are increasingly becoming a nation of "haves" and "have nots." I somehow don't think it's as simple as "get a job" or "get an education" or "get off your lazy butt."
(BTW: Have you checked the cost of 4-years tuition plus room & board today at even our state supported universities?)
Right. See that Cisco article.
http://money.cnn.com/2015/04/06/pf/college/starbucks-college-tuition-arizona-state/
"Tuition for ASU's online program is about $15,000 per year. The university offers 49 online bachelor's degree programs, in subjects ranging from business administration to art history."
Sorry if too off-topic. However, one way for people to accumulate those "bigger retirement nest eggs" Ted mentions is to improve their employability / job skills thru education.