If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNBC)   More and more Americans are opting for an early retirement rather than hold out hope their 401Ks and pensions will be there in ten years   (cnbc.com) divider line 125
    More: Scary, public sector workers  
•       •       •

5703 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Oct 2013 at 5:36 AM (40 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



125 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-10-14 09:56:41 PM
Americans are getting older. That's why more are retiring. We've already talked about this for 20 years. THIS is the strain on the system. We ready?
 
2013-10-14 10:29:14 PM
...and now that they can get affordable health care without staying in a job they hate, they can spend their middle years doing something they may enjoy.

Terrible.
 
2013-10-14 10:30:23 PM
Why are Americans opting for early retirement? Let's see. Oh, we're talking about California public employees.

Well, that pretty much covers the whole USA then.

As for the 401k, save more, invest wisely and max out employer contributions. Remember that the markets are never a sure thing, but history shows long-term investing pays off.
 
2013-10-14 10:45:52 PM

what_now: ...and now that they can get affordable health care without staying in a job they hate, they can spend their middle years doing something they may enjoy.

Terrible.


Yeah, that's not assured. They have f*cked up this roll-out royally.
 
2013-10-14 11:58:15 PM

NewportBarGuy: what_now: ...and now that they can get affordable health care without staying in a job they hate, they can spend their middle years doing something they may enjoy.

Terrible.

Yeah, that's not assured. They have f*cked up this roll-out royally.


TFA is about California.  California's exchange is apparently working quite well... so... there's that.
 
2013-10-15 12:10:36 AM

what_now: ...and now that they can get affordable health care without staying in a job they hate, they can spend their middle years doing something they may enjoy.

Terrible.


My best friend's in-laws (who I know quite well) did this.  They are a few years away from collecting SS.  Not too long ago, the mother in-law had a serious illness which she overcame.  Their insurance dropped them like a blue-hot nuclear potato.  Now they can get insurance again.  They're both rabid teabaggers.  I'm anxious to see how it plays out with them..
 
2013-10-15 01:06:21 AM
"More and more Americans are opting for an early retirement rather than hold out hope their 401Ks and pensions will be there in ten years"
So um ... isnt this a GOOD thing?
More retiring people = more job opening = lower unemployment rate = better economy = less chance that things are screwed up in 10 years.

WHY are we raising the retirement age and not lowering it???
 
2013-10-15 01:06:22 AM
I don't think subby read the article (that's a shocker, I know). It has nothing to do with 401ks.
 
2013-10-15 01:07:58 AM

AirForceVet: As for the 401k, save more, invest wisely and max out employer contributions. Remember that the markets are never a sure thing, but history shows long-term investing pays off.


Except that the markets have always done well over the long term.
Pretty much always.

long term of course
short term = gambling and should be taxed as such
 
2013-10-15 02:12:41 AM
California state workers chose to retire during the recession more due to the fact that they were being furloughed and taking a 15% cut in pay at one point. Many of those that were reasonably close to retirement chose to just start collecting their pensions, since in many cases they'd be taking home as much or more than when they were working. It had little to do with "oh noes my pension is going away forever". CalPERS is rock solid, despite what some of the panic brigades would like people to believe.
 
2013-10-15 05:42:02 AM
good good. at last the baby boomers can end their days in a medicated, gentrified state until they choose to go soylent green and open up career opportunities, the ones that never knock
 
2013-10-15 05:45:59 AM

Krieghund: I don't think subby read the article (that's a shocker, I know). It has nothing to do with 401ks.


Came here to say this.

/Left satisfied, yet vaguely depressed.
 
2013-10-15 05:48:31 AM

namatad: "More and more Americans are opting for an early retirement rather than hold out hope their 401Ks and pensions will be there in ten years"
So um ... isnt this a GOOD thing?
More retiring people = more job opening = lower unemployment rate = better economy = less chance that things are screwed up in 10 years.

WHY are we raising the retirement age and not lowering it???


Maybe because the government has to pay more money to retirees than it does to unemployed people.

It's a myth that governments want to lower unemployment, their financial benefactors (big business) like high unemployment because that is how companies can really screw workers. If they're grateful just to have a job, they will work for the little money and under awful conditions. What governments want is to have the voters think they want to lower unemployment, while not actually doing so at all.
 
2013-10-15 05:51:49 AM
The wife and I plan to retire by 50, so that leaves us 15 years. I don't think she'll ever fully retire, because she's a surgeon, but she'll probably end up teaching when we're older.

But at 50, it's all about traveling and relaxation.
 
2013-10-15 05:58:21 AM
Yeah they retire but instead of someone replacing them, their work will probably be divide up between a few people that wont get any extra money.

Dad just retired a few months ago and he is 70, but he still does odd jobs. If he ever retired he would die of boredom. He is pissed enough he has to take it easy because of his knee surgery
 
2013-10-15 06:00:35 AM

Nidiot: If they're grateful just to have a job, they will work for the little money and under awful conditions.


which actually just farks over the companies. Henry Ford understood this very well, it's a big part of why he paid his employees so well. Well eventually he did, at first he paid like everyone else, had the same problems as everyone else and decided that was no way to run a company.
 
2013-10-15 06:08:16 AM

groppet: Yeah they retire but instead of someone replacing them, their work will probably be divide up between a few people that wont get any extra money.

Dad just retired a few months ago and he is 70, but he still does odd jobs. If he ever retired he would die of boredom. He is pissed enough he has to take it easy because of his knee surgery


seems to be the way at so many companies. people are laid off off, fired, retire or move on to other things and are not replaced. year after year of this and you have employees that can barely function under the load. does not matter to those in charge, they only have interest in the bottom line. another penny's return to well heeled investors is all that counts.
 
2013-10-15 06:23:07 AM
Scary?  This is actually a good thing.  More people who retire, the more jobs that open up.  Since most retiring people are at the top of career, that also means it is good jobs becoming available, and that the younger generations can finally move up into something that doesn't pay a good wage in 1978, which their old fogey bosses, who just retired, thought was perfectly reasonable.
 
2013-10-15 06:25:26 AM
I'm going to retire at 51. I will have 30 years of service in my position.
It's time to enjoy life and let the young whippersnapper take over.
I fully intend to spoil my future grandchildren to the max.
 
2013-10-15 06:26:57 AM
This is because employers don't want to hire the olds.

/Plenty of unskilled jobs out there that pay 1974 wages.
 
2013-10-15 06:35:26 AM

namatad: "More and more Americans are opting for an early retirement rather than hold out hope their 401Ks and pensions will be there in ten years"
So um ... isnt this a GOOD thing?
More retiring people = more job opening = lower unemployment rate = better economy = less chance that things are screwed up in 10 years.

WHY are we raising the retirement age and not lowering it???


Wow. I don't even know where to start with this post. The percentage of Americans who are producing the goods and services that we all consume is dropping, and is going to continue to drop over the next 15 years, and then stay pretty low for the next 20 years. That's not a better economy. A 1% unemployment rate in a country with 60% of the population not in the job market is worse than a 10% unemployment rate in a country with only 30% of the population not in the job market.
 
2013-10-15 06:36:20 AM

AirForceVet: As for the 401k, save more, invest wisely and max out employer contributions. Remember that the markets are never a sure thing, but history shows long-term investing pays off.


THIS THIS THIS.

Save early, save consistently.  If you are 25 making the median wage and save 15% of your incomeat the historical return average, you will have over $1.5M in the bank by 55.

Why aren't kids taught this?
 
2013-10-15 06:51:36 AM

DrPainMD: namatad: "More and more Americans are opting for an early retirement rather than hold out hope their 401Ks and pensions will be there in ten years"
So um ... isnt this a GOOD thing?
More retiring people = more job opening = lower unemployment rate = better economy = less chance that things are screwed up in 10 years.

WHY are we raising the retirement age and not lowering it???

Wow. I don't even know where to start with this post. The percentage of Americans who are producing the goods and services that we all consume is dropping, and is going to continue to drop over the next 15 years, and then stay pretty low for the next 20 years. That's not a better economy. A 1% unemployment rate in a country with 60% of the population not in the job market is worse than a 10% unemployment rate in a country with only 30% of the population not in the job market.


Liberals think of economics as a zero-sum game; they don't realize that a 30 y.o. can't support a dozen pensioners for the last two decades of life.

Also, the reason state employee retirement benefits are at risk is that they were overly generous packages negotiated by state employee unions promising votes, primarily to Democrats.

If you want those kinds of benefits when you retire, put money in a 401K.
 
2013-10-15 06:52:15 AM
Oh Father Obama, please pass a gubmint law that will save us from this travesty.  Please let the program take a $1 in and return $0.10, oh wait, that's Social Security.  Never mind.
 
2013-10-15 06:53:02 AM

UberDave: My best friend's in-laws (who I know quite well) did this.  They are a few years away from collecting SS.  Not too long ago, the mother in-law had a serious illness which she overcame.  Their insurance dropped them like a blue-hot nuclear potato.  Now they can get insurance again.  They're both rabid teabaggers.  I'm anxious to see how it plays out with them..


You've just predicted what will happen yourself. They're teabaggers. They lack any ability to reason rationally, and can only spew talking points.

They will profit from the changes, and at the same time, will decry those very changes as the worst thing to happen to America, ever. And they will not be even slightly troubled by the paradox.

/You know I'm right.
 
2013-10-15 06:53:37 AM
Ummm.... what is the retirement age in the states?
Here it's 67.
 
2013-10-15 06:56:06 AM

Animatronik: DrPainMD: namatad: "More and more Americans are opting for an early retirement rather than hold out hope their 401Ks and pensions will be there in ten years"
So um ... isnt this a GOOD thing?
More retiring people = more job opening = lower unemployment rate = better economy = less chance that things are screwed up in 10 years.

WHY are we raising the retirement age and not lowering it???

Wow. I don't even know where to start with this post. The percentage of Americans who are producing the goods and services that we all consume is dropping, and is going to continue to drop over the next 15 years, and then stay pretty low for the next 20 years. That's not a better economy. A 1% unemployment rate in a country with 60% of the population not in the job market is worse than a 10% unemployment rate in a country with only 30% of the population not in the job market.

Liberals think of economics as a zero-sum game; they don't realize that a 30 y.o. can't support a dozen pensioners for the last two decades of life.

Also, the reason state employee retirement benefits are at risk is that they were overly generous packages negotiated by state employee unions promising votes, primarily to Democrats.

If you want those kinds of benefits when you retire, put money in a 401K.


Liberals were always told there would be no math.
 
2013-10-15 06:57:19 AM

Some Coke Drinking Guy: Scary?  This is actually a good thing.  More people who retire, the more jobs that open up.  Since most retiring people are at the top of career, that also means it is good jobs becoming available, and that the younger generations can finally move up into something that doesn't pay a good wage in 1978, which their old fogey bosses, who just retired, thought was perfectly reasonable.


The benefits that were negotiated for govt employees were based on shorter life expectancies and a younger population, and on top of that were ridiculous anyway, in many instances. We need people to retire later because we can't support them for 20-30 years, and in many cases we can't replace their skillsets. People who are counting on state govt pensions may be making a mistake...
 
2013-10-15 07:00:37 AM

Animatronik: Some Coke Drinking Guy: Scary?  This is actually a good thing.  More people who retire, the more jobs that open up.  Since most retiring people are at the top of career, that also means it is good jobs becoming available, and that the younger generations can finally move up into something that doesn't pay a good wage in 1978, which their old fogey bosses, who just retired, thought was perfectly reasonable.

The benefits that were negotiated for govt employees were based on shorter life expectancies and a younger population, and on top of that were ridiculous anyway, in many instances. We need people to retire later because we can't support them for 20-30 years, and in many cases we can't replace their skillsets. People who are counting on state govt pensions may be making a mistake...


We also need old people to die, and not consume their accumulated assets in their last few years trying to stay young and healthy.   As a nation we're eating our seed corn, who leaves houses and property and assets to their kids anymore?   If every generation has to start from scratch now, how do we accumulate wealth?
 
2013-10-15 07:09:52 AM
3.bp.blogspot.com
time yet?
 
2013-10-15 07:10:12 AM

MemeSlave: We also need old people to die, and not consume their accumulated assets in their last few years trying to stay young and healthy.   As a nation we're eating our seed corn, who leaves houses and property and assets to their kids anymore?   If every generation has to start from scratch now, how do we accumulate wealth?


The system is designed to extract end-of-life wealth by default.
If you have assets, they will be used up by the time you're at the end of your terminal illness, unless you go quick and unexpectedly and have arranged your legal instruments to prevent this theft.
 
2013-10-15 07:11:13 AM

MemeSlave: Animatronik: Some Coke Drinking Guy: Scary?  This is actually a good thing.  More people who retire, the more jobs that open up.  Since most retiring people are at the top of career, that also means it is good jobs becoming available, and that the younger generations can finally move up into something that doesn't pay a good wage in 1978, which their old fogey bosses, who just retired, thought was perfectly reasonable.

The benefits that were negotiated for govt employees were based on shorter life expectancies and a younger population, and on top of that were ridiculous anyway, in many instances. We need people to retire later because we can't support them for 20-30 years, and in many cases we can't replace their skillsets. People who are counting on state govt pensions may be making a mistake...

We also need old people to die, and not consume their accumulated assets in their last few years trying to stay young and healthy.   As a nation we're eating our seed corn, who leaves houses and property and assets to their kids anymore?   If every generation has to start from scratch now, how do we accumulate wealth?


Yet we constantly rally against all of the things that kill people off and open up jobs: guns, heArt disease, smoking, obesity, cancer, AIDS!

Clean gay guys usually have really sweet jobs, and wer're fightin AIDS?!

;)
 
2013-10-15 07:12:42 AM

Public Savant: Ummm.... what is the retirement age in the states?
Here it's 67.


It depends..
http://www.ssa.gov/retire2/retirechart.htm
 
2013-10-15 07:15:49 AM

namatad: "More and more Americans are opting for an early retirement rather than hold out hope their 401Ks and pensions will be there in ten years"
So um ... isnt this a GOOD thing?
More retiring people = more job opening = lower unemployment rate = better economy = less chance that things are screwed up in 10 years.

WHY are we raising the retirement age and not lowering it???


I don't know where the 'smart' tag is, but you certainly deserve it.
 
2013-10-15 07:20:43 AM

Animatronik: Some Coke Drinking Guy: Scary?  This is actually a good thing.  More people who retire, the more jobs that open up.  Since most retiring people are at the top of career, that also means it is good jobs becoming available, and that the younger generations can finally move up into something that doesn't pay a good wage in 1978, which their old fogey bosses, who just retired, thought was perfectly reasonable.

The benefits that were negotiated for govt employees were based on shorter life expectancies and a younger population, and on top of that were ridiculous anyway, in many instances. We need people to retire later because we can't support them for 20-30 years, and in many cases we can't replace their skillsets. People who are counting on state govt pensions may be making a mistake...


Yeah, I committed the sin of commenting before reading the article.  Didn't realize we were talking about state employees.  While a good deal of what I said holds true, with state employees, living off a pension as opposed to a 401k, there is a a question of having enough people in the workforce, to support those who have retired from it.  I get that.  On the other hand, a lot of people lost a lot of money out of their 401ks when the economy dropped, so we had an issue early on where folks were retiring later, and the youngsters were unable to move up.
 
2013-10-15 07:23:53 AM
Too bad their jobs are going with them. It used to be when the old man retired everybody moved up the ladder.
 
2013-10-15 07:24:00 AM

DrPainMD: namatad: "More and more Americans are opting for an early retirement rather than hold out hope their 401Ks and pensions will be there in ten years"
So um ... isnt this a GOOD thing?
More retiring people = more job opening = lower unemployment rate = better economy = less chance that things are screwed up in 10 years.

WHY are we raising the retirement age and not lowering it???

Wow. I don't even know where to start with this post. The percentage of Americans who are producing the goods and services that we all consume is dropping, and is going to continue to drop over the next 15 years, and then stay pretty low for the next 20 years. That's not a better economy. A 1% unemployment rate in a country with 60% of the population not in the job market is worse than a 10% unemployment rate in a country with only 30% of the population not in the job market.


Actually, I'd argue that the percentage isn't really to rise anytime, even after 20 years, particularly in production of goods...and it's not just an issue for the U.S.  China, for instance, is already losing manufacturing jobs to places like Vietnam...but the key point is, when country A loses 1000 jobs to country B, country B gets maybe 500 jobs...since the new factory is built with modern tech, and isn't fifty years old.

Repeat globally every few years.

We're eventually moving into a world where one guy can harvest all of Nebraska, mine an entire mountain range, or produce 10,000 cars, just by pushing a couple of buttons.  This is a good thing, since surplus food and goods are what civilization is built on, all the way back to the Neolithic.

However, all those jobs are NOT coming back, and we need to figure out what to do with all the people who used to do them.  Starting now would be a good move, but we'll probably wait until it's a real crisis..probably take another global depression, or something.

I'm guessing we go the bread and circuses route, personally.
 
2013-10-15 07:27:05 AM
Their 401Ks won't be there after Thursday.
 
2013-10-15 07:28:16 AM
MemeSlave:

We also need old people to die, and not consume their accumulated assets in their last few years trying to stay young and healthy.   As a nation we're eating our seed corn, who leaves houses and property and assets to their kids anymore?   If every generation has to start from scratch now, how do we accumulate wealth?

Fark YOU.  I've been working all my life and paid my fair share in taxes (actually more, since I am unmarried)  I am far from pushing daises,  but it is your stupid attitude that p*sses people off.  Who the fark are you that you wish people you don't even know to kick off?  Please tell us...
 
2013-10-15 07:28:24 AM

DrPainMD: namatad: "More and more Americans are opting for an early retirement rather than hold out hope their 401Ks and pensions will be there in ten years"
So um ... isnt this a GOOD thing?
More retiring people = more job opening = lower unemployment rate = better economy = less chance that things are screwed up in 10 years.

WHY are we raising the retirement age and not lowering it???

Wow. I don't even know where to start with this post. The percentage of Americans who are producing the goods and services that we all consume is dropping, and is going to continue to drop over the next 15 years, and then stay pretty low for the next 20 years. That's not a better economy. A 1% unemployment rate in a country with 60% of the population not in the job market is worse than a 10% unemployment rate in a country with only 30% of the population not in the job market.


This. What the fark? LOWER the retirement age.....seriously?!?
 
2013-10-15 07:29:28 AM

PunGent: all those jobs are NOT coming back, and we need to figure out what to do with all the people who used to do them


Tell corporations to get off their asses and start doing R&D again to find new stuff to do.
 
2013-10-15 07:29:55 AM

PunGent: DrPainMD: namatad: "More and more Americans are opting for an early retirement rather than hold out hope their 401Ks and pensions will be there in ten years"
So um ... isnt this a GOOD thing?
More retiring people = more job opening = lower unemployment rate = better economy = less chance that things are screwed up in 10 years.

WHY are we raising the retirement age and not lowering it???

Wow. I don't even know where to start with this post. The percentage of Americans who are producing the goods and services that we all consume is dropping, and is going to continue to drop over the next 15 years, and then stay pretty low for the next 20 years. That's not a better economy. A 1% unemployment rate in a country with 60% of the population not in the job market is worse than a 10% unemployment rate in a country with only 30% of the population not in the job market.

Actually, I'd argue that the percentage isn't really to rise anytime, even after 20 years, particularly in production of goods...and it's not just an issue for the U.S.  China, for instance, is already losing manufacturing jobs to places like Vietnam...but the key point is, when country A loses 1000 jobs to country B, country B gets maybe 500 jobs...since the new factory is built with modern tech, and isn't fifty years old.

Repeat globally every few years.

We're eventually moving into a world where one guy can harvest all of Nebraska, mine an entire mountain range, or produce 10,000 cars, just by pushing a couple of buttons.  This is a good thing, since surplus food and goods are what civilization is built on, all the way back to the Neolithic.

However, all those jobs are NOT coming back, and we need to figure out what to do with all the people who used to do them.  Starting now would be a good move, but we'll probably wait until it's a real crisis..probably take another global depression, or something.

I'm guessing we go the bread and circuses route, personally.


Soylent Poors. Most cans will be spicy, what, with all the brown meat.
 
2013-10-15 07:30:13 AM
My concern is that all of the money I have carefully saved up over the years will disappear the next time the sharks move in, and I will be told, "Oops, nobody's fault, you knew those were investments, you knew there were risks, everybody suffered, pay no attention to that guy upgrading his 200-foot yacht to a 500-foot yacht.  It's all Jimmy Carter's fault."
 
2013-10-15 07:33:24 AM

Kibbler: My concern is that all of the money I have carefully saved up over the years will disappear the next time the sharks move in, and I will be told, "Oops, nobody's fault, you knew those were investments, you knew there were risks, everybody suffered, pay no attention to that guy upgrading his 200-foot yacht to a 500-foot yacht.  It's all Jimmy Carter's fault."


Well...they are investments, and they are risks. If you've enough to invest, you have enough to move that money out of the country. I would suggest you do so.
 
2013-10-15 07:33:28 AM

robohobo: The wife and I plan to retire by 50, so that leaves us 15 years. I don't think she'll ever fully retire, because she's a surgeon, but she'll probably end up teaching when we're older.

But at 50, it's all about traveling and relaxation.


Cool Story, Bro.
 
2013-10-15 07:34:03 AM
Subby, older workers locking in extremely generous lifetime benefits starting at age 55 is not "scary".  It is a jackpot sweetheart of a deal for them.  The only scary part is for young taxpayers who have to finance it.


"Shires said it is possible that the time will come when the high costs of these commitments exceed both the public's willingness and ability to pay."

Hopefully that time comes very soon.
 
2013-10-15 07:42:01 AM

robohobo: Kibbler: My concern is that all of the money I have carefully saved up over the years will disappear the next time the sharks move in, and I will be told, "Oops, nobody's fault, you knew those were investments, you knew there were risks, everybody suffered, pay no attention to that guy upgrading his 200-foot yacht to a 500-foot yacht.  It's all Jimmy Carter's fault."

Well...they are investments, and they are risks. If you've enough to invest, you have enough to move that money out of the country. I would suggest you do so.


What would be the outcome if every middle class savings account was moved "out of the country"?

Also, what does that even mean?  And put it where?  Under a rock in Portugal?
 
2013-10-15 07:50:21 AM

Kibbler: robohobo: Kibbler: My concern is that all of the money I have carefully saved up over the years will disappear the next time the sharks move in, and I will be told, "Oops, nobody's fault, you knew those were investments, you knew there were risks, everybody suffered, pay no attention to that guy upgrading his 200-foot yacht to a 500-foot yacht.  It's all Jimmy Carter's fault."

Well...they are investments, and they are risks. If you've enough to invest, you have enough to move that money out of the country. I would suggest you do so.

What would be the outcome if every middle class savings account was moved "out of the country"?

Also, what does that even mean?  And put it where?  Under a rock in Portugal?


"Out of the country" for average people means "stuffed in your mattress".  I recommend converting to krugerrands and burying in a secret location. Make sure to make a map that cannot be deciphered by the revenuers.
 
2013-10-15 07:52:24 AM

Kibbler: Also, what does that even mean?  And put it where?  Under a rock in Portugal?


I have a fair amount of money invested in international T-bills and international stocks. While that's not quite "moved out of the country" (I'm gonna pay taxes on that income eventually), it keeps my investments diverse.
 
2013-10-15 07:56:00 AM

DrPainMD: namatad:

WHY are we raising the retirement age and not lowering it???

Wow. I don't even know where to start with this post. The percentage of Americans who are producing the goods and services that we all consume is dropping, and is going to continue to drop over the next 15 years, and then stay pretty low for the next 20 years. That's not a better economy. A 1% unemployment rate in a country with 60% of the population not in the job market is worse than a 10% unemployment rate in a country with only 30% of the population not in the job market.


Herbert Stein's Law:  "If something cannot go on forever, it will stop"
 
2013-10-15 07:57:22 AM

WhyteRaven74: PunGent: all those jobs are NOT coming back, and we need to figure out what to do with all the people who used to do them

Tell corporations to get off their asses and start doing R&D again to find new stuff to do.


Problem is, we in the U.S. have trained a full generation of MBAs who can't look past the next quarterly statement.
They won't even fund NON-speculative stuff, like employee training, let alone anything "speculative" like R&D.

So, anyone who can look further than three months down the road will eventually eat our lunch, in any given industry.

Oh, well...we had a good run the last sixty years or so.  Fun while it lasted.
Sorry, but you younger Farkers are probably, well, farked.
 
2013-10-15 07:57:52 AM

AirForceVet: Why are Americans opting for early retirement? Let's see. Oh, we're talking about California public employees.

Well, that pretty much covers the whole USA then.

As for the 401k, save more, invest wisely and max out employer contributions. Remember that the markets are never a sure thing, but history shows long-term investing pays off.


I don't know if you've noticed, but California's huge. It's a pretty good petri dish for the US.
 
2013-10-15 08:00:15 AM

ThrobblefootSpectre: Subby, older workers locking in extremely generous lifetime benefits starting at age 55 is not "scary".  It is a jackpot sweetheart of a deal for them.  The only scary part is for young taxpayers who have to finance it.


"Shires said it is possible that the time will come when the high costs of these commitments exceed both the public's willingness and ability to pay."

Hopefully that time comes very soon.


Well, I wouldn't say "hopefully", but otherwise I agree.  Look to more cities, towns, counties, states, all defaulting on or severly modifying their pension plans.  Worst case, they do bankruptcy, like Detroit.

Generous pensions are nice in theory, but eventually the math stops working out.
 
2013-10-15 08:02:26 AM

AngryDragon: AirForceVet: As for the 401k, save more, invest wisely and max out employer contributions. Remember that the markets are never a sure thing, but history shows long-term investing pays off.

THIS THIS THIS.

Save early, save consistently.  If you are 25 making the median wage and save 15% of your incomeat the historical return average, you will have over $1.5M in the bank by 55.

Why aren't kids taught this?


Kids won't listen. They think they are all special and unique and exceptional and above average and and and. I know. I was a kid once. Movies and fiction made me think that hard work and luck would get me somewhere.

Hah!

The truth, of course, is that hard work and luck MAY get you somewhere... or it may not.

So, the first problem is that the kids have a couple of decades of programming that need to be overcome first before they could understand the problem at anything more than an abstract level.

Another issue is... what is the average age of the person making the median income? I suspect it's considerably older than 25. i was 35 before I ever got a real good job. (25 to 35 was spent as a ronin database programmer, it was feast or famine, and that is no way to live or plan for the future). I've seen helpful articles online that talk about how a young person can retire wealthy... and their starting conditions are always a ridiculously high paying job compared to reality.

When you run those scenarios with realistic McJobs, the outlook isn't nearly so rosy. :(
 
2013-10-15 08:03:09 AM

PunGent: Generous pensions are nice in theory, but eventually the math stops working out.


I still have co-workers that are expecting a pension. It's a weird thought, because no job I have ever held has discussed a "pension". Us youngins get a "deferred contribution", which is basically the company saying, "look, instead of putting money into a pension fund, we'll just give you the money to invest how you see fit." I think I like that better.
 
2013-10-15 08:07:25 AM

Kibbler: robohobo: Kibbler: My concern is that all of the money I have carefully saved up over the years will disappear the next time the sharks move in, and I will be told, "Oops, nobody's fault, you knew those were investments, you knew there were risks, everybody suffered, pay no attention to that guy upgrading his 200-foot yacht to a 500-foot yacht.  It's all Jimmy Carter's fault."

Well...they are investments, and they are risks. If you've enough to invest, you have enough to move that money out of the country. I would suggest you do so.

What would be the outcome if every middle class savings account was moved "out of the country"?

Also, what does that even mean?  And put it where?  Under a rock in Portugal?


Bwahaha savings...what does that word mean?
 
2013-10-15 08:09:26 AM

verbaltoxin: AirForceVet: Why are Americans opting for early retirement? Let's see. Oh, we're talking about California public employees.

Well, that pretty much covers the whole USA then.

As for the 401k, save more, invest wisely and max out employer contributions. Remember that the markets are never a sure thing, but history shows long-term investing pays off.

I don't know if you've noticed, but California's huge. It's a pretty good petri dish for the US.


Yeah, but it's filled with icky liberals and stuff, not Real Americans.  Not to worry though.  God fearing Christians in America's Heartland will trust in Jesus just like they've been taught all their lives and all will be well.  You'll see.
 
2013-10-15 08:13:17 AM

PunGent: We're eventually moving into a world where one guy can harvest all of Nebraska, mine an entire mountain range, or produce 10,000 cars, just by pushing a couple of buttons.  This is a good thing, since surplus food and goods are what civilization is built on, all the way back to the Neolithic.

However, all those jobs are NOT coming back, and we need to figure out what to do with all the people who used to do them.  Starting now would be a good move, but we'll probably wait until it's a real crisis..probably take another global depression, or something.


We don't need to figure out anything. 200 years ago, 95% of American workers were involved in food production/distribution; today it's only 5% (at most). We don't have a 90% unemployment rate because food (in real terms) costs much less, giving people more money to spend on other things, which creates jobs.
 
KIA
2013-10-15 08:13:56 AM

AngryDragon: at the historical return average


Can *anyone* get a decent rate of return today on any relatively safe investments?
 
2013-10-15 08:14:16 AM

Some Coke Drinking Guy: Scary?  This is actually a good thing.  More people who retire, the more jobs that open up.  Since most retiring people are at the top of career, that also means it is good jobs becoming available, and that the younger generations can finally move up into something that doesn't pay a good wage in 1978, which their old fogey bosses, who just retired, thought was perfectly reasonable.


I have a boss like that. Luckily my pay was not set by him.
 
2013-10-15 08:17:28 AM

WhyteRaven74: PunGent: all those jobs are NOT coming back, and we need to figure out what to do with all the people who used to do them

Tell corporations to get off their asses and start doing R&D again to find new stuff to do.


Only corporations can come up with new and original ideas? Huh...
 
2013-10-15 08:19:43 AM

DrPainMD: PunGent: We're eventually moving into a world where one guy can harvest all of Nebraska, mine an entire mountain range, or produce 10,000 cars, just by pushing a couple of buttons.  This is a good thing, since surplus food and goods are what civilization is built on, all the way back to the Neolithic.

However, all those jobs are NOT coming back, and we need to figure out what to do with all the people who used to do them.  Starting now would be a good move, but we'll probably wait until it's a real crisis..probably take another global depression, or something.

We don't need to figure out anything. 200 years ago, 95% of American workers were involved in food production/distribution; today it's only 5% (at most). We don't have a 90% unemployment rate because food (in real terms) costs much less, giving people more money to spend on other things, which creates jobs.


Sure, things will settle out, one way or another.  By "figure out", I don't mean serious governmental social engineering...that usually ends in tears and tyranny.  I mean more like "adjust our expectations and perceptions."

The old "get a job at the plant, work there until I get my pension" days are LONG gone, but lots of folks don't seem to realize that yet.
 
2013-10-15 08:20:52 AM

KIA: AngryDragon: at the historical return average

Can *anyone* get a decent rate of return today on any relatively safe investments?


I've been running an energy-heavy stock portfolio since the Gulf War, it's been doing OK.
 
2013-10-15 08:21:30 AM
www.upl.co
 
2013-10-15 08:21:30 AM

AirForceVet: Why are Americans opting for early retirement? Let's see. Oh, we're talking about California public employees.

Well, that pretty much covers the whole USA then.

As for the 401k, save more, invest wisely and max out employer contributions. Remember that the markets are never a sure thing, but history shows long-term investing pays off.


This.  Even with the ups and downs we've averaged 15% return each year since 1998 on long stocks.  Even if you only can scrape together $50 or $100/month it is worth it.  We have a dude down in S.C. who is a financial superman and he shifts stuff in and out ahead of bad stuff happening.  Before that we were with Edward Jones and it was like throwing money into the fire.  They were taking payola and shifting our investments into dying companies they were shorting.

I also play with some limited stocks that I started with $1000 in an online trading account and when the balance goes over 5K I take 4K and put it in the IRA if my picks flatten out or start dropping.  If I have more left over I do some new picks.  I recently sold 2 stocks.  One gained 51%, another 69% since May, and the one I'm still holding has gained 392% over the last 12 years.  Went from $18 to $88.67.  I do have one that lost money though, but it is only $9 down in total value.  I took $1200 of the dough from the 2 that flattened and put it in to three new climbers (at least I hope they climb).  They've gained 1.5%, 3.45%, and 2.92% since Wed of last week.  All three have secured new business deals and broken new ground.  Electronic devices, pharma, and paper products.

And for anyone that thinks that if you invest that you must have money to burn they are wrong.  We invest instead of going out to eat or buying new cars.  Small percentage in high risk and most in long term winners.  Slow and steady wins the race.
 
2013-10-15 08:25:13 AM

sethen320: WhyteRaven74: PunGent: all those jobs are NOT coming back, and we need to figure out what to do with all the people who used to do them

Tell corporations to get off their asses and start doing R&D again to find new stuff to do.

Only corporations can come up with new and original ideas? Huh...


Certainly not.  But look at ferrofluids...invented in a US university, first commercial applications came out of...China.

Richest woman in China?  Self-made, no business degree, made her billion dollars shipping recycled American cardboard across the Pacific...in a field our own MBAs thought was "unprofitable" WITHOUT trans-Pac shipping costs.
 
2013-10-15 08:32:03 AM

Mcavity: Public Savant: Ummm.... what is the retirement age in the states?
Here it's 67.

It depends..
http://www.ssa.gov/retire2/retirechart.htm


Thanks - it's pretty much like what I'm used to. Just got confused by all the dreamers who plan to basically skip working in their 50'es.
 
2013-10-15 08:32:40 AM

ImmaHoopyFrood: AirForceVet: Why are Americans opting for early retirement? Let's see. Oh, we're talking about California public employees.

Well, that pretty much covers the whole USA then.

As for the 401k, save more, invest wisely and max out employer contributions. Remember that the markets are never a sure thing, but history shows long-term investing pays off.

This.  Even with the ups and downs we've averaged 15% return each year since 1998 on long stocks.  Even if you only can scrape together $50 or $100/month it is worth it.  We have a dude down in S.C. who is a financial superman and he shifts stuff in and out ahead of bad stuff happening.  Before that we were with Edward Jones and it was like throwing money into the fire.  They were taking payola and shifting our investments into dying companies they were shorting.

I also play with some limited stocks that I started with $1000 in an online trading account and when the balance goes over 5K I take 4K and put it in the IRA if my picks flatten out or start dropping.  If I have more left over I do some new picks.  I recently sold 2 stocks.  One gained 51%, another 69% since May, and the one I'm still holding has gained 392% over the last 12 years.  Went from $18 to $88.67.  I do have one that lost money though, but it is only $9 down in total value.  I took $1200 of the dough from the 2 that flattened and put it in to three new climbers (at least I hope they climb).  They've gained 1.5%, 3.45%, and 2.92% since Wed of last week.  All three have secured new business deals and broken new ground.  Electronic devices, pharma, and paper products.

And for anyone that thinks that if you invest that you must have money to burn they are wrong.  We invest instead of going out to eat or buying new cars.  Small percentage in high risk and most in long term winners.  Slow and steady wins the race.


I eat out a lot, it's one of my main indulgences, but I buy my cars used.
Thank god for frugal parents...you don't need all the bling, save your cash for what's important.

Besides, driving a nice car in Boston is like taking a Monet to a soccer riot...
 
2013-10-15 08:33:01 AM

t3knomanser: PunGent: Generous pensions are nice in theory, but eventually the math stops working out.

I still have co-workers that are expecting a pension. It's a weird thought, because no job I have ever held has discussed a "pension". Us youngins get a "deferred contribution", which is basically the company saying, "look, instead of putting money into a pension fund, we'll just give you the money to invest how you see fit." I think I like that better.


I have mixed feelings on it.  On paper it seems like a smart idea in that it eliminates massive amounts of red ink from company balance sheets.  Theoretically this should free up tons of capital for investment but in practice it's just getting funneled to wealthy stockholders for short term gains.  In addition, the whole point of pension plans, including Social Security, and also things like weekly withholding taxes is that people in general are really lousy at planning for the future, even short term.  "Well, that's their own fault.  Screw 'em!" sounds fair but what do you think will happen if tens of millions of Americans suddenly find themselves at or near retirement with nothing to live on?  You really think they'll just sit back quietly, take all the blame themselves and accept their fate?

I've said it before and I'll say it again.  The reason we have welfare and social safety nets is to protect the assets of rich.  A poor person with no prospects for a better life is far more likely to resort to thievery, not because they are bad but just in order to survive.  When you have millions of poor people in a dire straights, you get France in 1789 or Russia in 1917.  All your philosophical arguments about natural rights, capitalism, socialism, property and whatnot mean nothing to a starving desperate man.
 
2013-10-15 08:37:18 AM

PunGent: KIA: AngryDragon: at the historical return average

Can *anyone* get a decent rate of return today on any relatively safe investments?

I've been running an energy-heavy stock portfolio since the Gulf War, it's been doing OK.


This.  Always get what people must have to survive, medicine/food/utilities and you will do O.K.  Look at the holdings of the companies your 401k "advisor" wants you to invest in, and choose these.  Or ignore your advisor and choose these anyway.
 
2013-10-15 08:39:41 AM

Persnickety: The reason we have welfare and social safety nets is to protect the assets of rich. A poor person with no prospects for a better life is far more likely to resort to thievery, not because they are bad but just in order to survive. When you have millions of poor people in a dire straights, you get France in 1789 or Russia in 1917.


I'm having a hard time deciding whether or not you're advocating here.
 
2013-10-15 08:47:34 AM

Persnickety: Theoretically this should free up tons of capital for investment but in practice it's just getting funneled to wealthy stockholders for short term gains


It doesn't really save the corporation any money in the short term- they're still putting money aside for you, they're just not responsible for managing the investment. That frees them of the legacy costs- if the market tanks, they're not on the hook. I'm perfectly comfortable accepting that kind of risk, in part because I'm  not relying on my DC or my 401(K) for retirement. Those are "bonus money". I'm investing a lot of post-tax dollars into accounts where I can withdraw the money without penalty. I'll be hitting my "fark you" money target in 2020, even accepting some market downs between then and now.
 
2013-10-15 08:47:57 AM
More workers retiring later - conservatives' fault because they can't afford to retire.
More workers retiring earlier - conservatives' fault because they are unsure of future returns on investments.

But no matter what, Obama is a complete boss on the economy.  Just fantastic.
 
2013-10-15 08:50:52 AM

Goodluckfox: Another issue is... what is the average age of the person making the median income? I suspect it's considerably older than 25. i was 35 before I ever got a real good job. (25 to 35 was spent as a ronin database programmer, it was feast or famine, and that is no way to live or plan for the future). I've seen helpful articles online that talk about how a young person can retire wealthy... and their starting conditions are always a ridiculously high paying job compared to reality.

When you run those scenarios with realistic McJobs, the outlook isn't nearly so rosy. :(


Time is the secret not the amount.

Even if you save $200 a month starting at 25.  By 65 you will have amassed over $750,000.  You don't have to be socking away thousands, you just have to start early and do it consistently.  It's the miracle of compound interest.
 
2013-10-15 08:51:11 AM
Why do we need social security again? companies obviously are taking good care of their employees, amirite?
 
2013-10-15 08:54:21 AM

KIA: AngryDragon: at the historical return average

Can *anyone* get a decent rate of return today on any relatively safe investments?


Index funds.  Low cost, decent return.  I have a straight index fund portfolio and do nothing but add money to it  For this year it's up 16%.  Brokers and bankers just like to make the process sound intimidating so you give them your money.

Investing should be core curriculum in high schools.
 
2013-10-15 08:55:00 AM

PunGent: sethen320: WhyteRaven74: PunGent: all those jobs are NOT coming back, and we need to figure out what to do with all the people who used to do them

Tell corporations to get off their asses and start doing R&D again to find new stuff to do.

Only corporations can come up with new and original ideas? Huh...

Certainly not.  But look at ferrofluids...invented in a US university, first commercial applications came out of...China.

Richest woman in China?  Self-made, no business degree, made her billion dollars shipping recycled American cardboard across the Pacific...in a field our own MBAs thought was "unprofitable" WITHOUT trans-Pac shipping costs.


Exactly. Its the attitude like the original post I was addressing. I hate hearing things similar to "they should do something". My response is always "you do something".

There are literally unlimited niches to be filled when it comes to delivering a better product or service. Yes, sime come with high cost to entry, but not all.

Unfortunately a large majority of us would rather demand that corporations invent new stuff than even attempt to do it on their own. That's why we are a society of consumers. Consumers are fine, we need them. But we have too many right now.

We are capable of producing more, we have the technology and the education for it. I feel like part of the problem is that our kids are unintentionally brainwashed into never thinking outside of the box, therefore no new ideas.

I used to be one of those R & D people at a company. I realized pretty quickly that you can do some of it yourself. You have to have the drive for it though.
 
2013-10-15 08:56:19 AM
once the boomers die off, who will vote republican???
 
2013-10-15 08:57:09 AM

AngryDragon: Investing should be core curriculum in high schools.


Let's start small, like personal budgeting and how not to fark up your life with credit cards.
 
2013-10-15 08:58:33 AM

Persnickety: t3knomanser: PunGent: Generous pensions are nice in theory, but eventually the math stops working out.

I still have co-workers that are expecting a pension. It's a weird thought, because no job I have ever held has discussed a "pension". Us youngins get a "deferred contribution", which is basically the company saying, "look, instead of putting money into a pension fund, we'll just give you the money to invest how you see fit." I think I like that better.

I have mixed feelings on it.  On paper it seems like a smart idea in that it eliminates massive amounts of red ink from company balance sheets.  Theoretically this should free up tons of capital for investment but in practice it's just getting funneled to wealthy stockholders for short term gains.  In addition, the whole point of pension plans, including Social Security, and also things like weekly withholding taxes is that people in general are really lousy at planning for the future, even short term.  "Well, that's their own fault.  Screw 'em!" sounds fair but what do you think will happen if tens of millions of Americans suddenly find themselves at or near retirement with nothing to live on?  You really think they'll just sit back quietly, take all the blame themselves and accept their fate?

I've said it before and I'll say it again.  The reason we have welfare and social safety nets is to protect the assets of rich.  A poor person with no prospects for a better life is far more likely to resort to thievery, not because they are bad but just in order to survive.  When you have millions of poor people in a dire straights, you get France in 1789 or Russia in 1917.  All your philosophical arguments about natural rights, capitalism, socialism, property and whatnot mean nothing to a starving desperate man.


Oh, yes...I'm a firm believer in "guillotine insurance" myself.  My only point there was about municipal pensions that eventually bankrupt the town...I look at Central Falls, Rhode Island.  Yes, you want to treat people fairly, but you can't screw your future tax base while doing so.

And, ya, we need things like Social Security.  Sure, I'm OK managing my own investments, but I've got relatives who'd sink everything into Beanie Babies and emu farms if they could...and I'm not alone in that.

I don't want to see them starving in the streets, and I'm willing to take a small hit of my own in kicking in to Social Security to help that not happen.
 
2013-10-15 09:00:05 AM
As long as we're sort of straying off the article topic, I like this guy's ideas a lot:
http://www.coffeehouseinvestor.com/">http://www.coffeehouseinvestor. com/

My investments aren't even as complicated as the coffeehouse portfolio, I now stick with mostly S&P ETF, equal weight S&P ETF, BND (and BOND since it came out last year), VTI and VEU.  And I think I'm only about 10% in VEU total, which is probably a little low, but maybe my tolerance for risk is not as great as it should be given that I'm still pretty young.

And my external rate of return is like 11% since I started investing in '05 (maybe high 10s).  And that's net rate, after expenses.

I don't keep much in cash.  I hate losing money to inflation, but I've got a CD ladder to cover about 6 months of living expenses.
 
2013-10-15 09:00:14 AM

AngryDragon: KIA: AngryDragon: at the historical return average

Can *anyone* get a decent rate of return today on any relatively safe investments?

Index funds.  Low cost, decent return.  I have a straight index fund portfolio and do nothing but add money to it  For this year it's up 16%.  Brokers and bankers just like to make the process sound intimidating so you give them your money.


Investing should be core curriculum in high schools.

This, times two.  Both solid points.
 
2013-10-15 09:00:28 AM

AngryDragon: Even if you save $200 a month starting at 25. By 65 you will have amassed over $750,000. You don't have to be socking away thousands, you just have to start early and do it consistently. It's the miracle of compound interest.


Man, I wish I was making enough when I was 25 to have $200 to invest a month
 
2013-10-15 09:01:30 AM

baufan2005: Bwahaha savings...what does that word mean?


It means robohobo married a surgeon.  Let the poor people eat cake.
 
2013-10-15 09:03:31 AM

PunGent: Besides, driving a nice car in Boston is like taking a Monet to a soccer riot...


The only times I've actually felt uncomfortable driving was in Boston and Chicago.  Kind of like there was a new set of rules and I missed the memo.  I've done D.C. and L.A. and they weren't that bad in comparison, just slow.
 
2013-10-15 09:03:46 AM

FLMountainMan: More workers retiring later - conservatives' fault because they can't afford to retire.
More workers retiring earlier - conservatives' fault because they are unsure of future returns on investments.

But no matter what, Obama is a complete boss on the economy.  Just fantastic.


Any President has a very limited degree of control over the economy, and has a much greater ability to screw things up, rather than make them better.

Given the bag of shiat Bush handed him, Obama is doing OK.  Not great, but OK.  We're lucky we're not in a full-bore depression right now.
 
2013-10-15 09:04:56 AM
There's also other calculous involved - far simpler too.

I remember back when my mother retired and they said something in the order of "You can retire now and get X a month as part of your pension (something they'd save money on the short run with). Or stay on another (I think it was 3-4 years) and Get X + whatever a month."

She did the math, considering and I think rightly so, that retirement was good at that point and that the money made from it for the gap was the issue. So she compared how many years it would take her to make that with the difference. In her words, while she'd love to live to 108 years old, she was dubious of the actual chance. So she just retired early.

For many though, they just don't see it that way. And in certain professions "pensions" and "retirement" are just not part of the culture. I know in legal circles you work until you die at work, or until you lose your faculties. Some lawyers I know have "retired" in the sense they became ALJs or something like that. Something, that for anyone else looking at that as a career goal would consider a job and not retirement. But there it is.

I'm just saying that... when discussing some of these really major economic things - for whatever reason, economics, political spin, or the yearning for genuine comprehension - it generally doesn't boil down to 1 or 2 simple axioms. It's not like older Americans are en mass in a mass fugue screaming "Ehermergerd, Erbamaz killin sercial sercurity!"

/except the general understanding that the population is getting older, so yes, more Americans will be retiring..... boomers, etc.
 
2013-10-15 09:06:42 AM

Headso: Why do we need social security again? companies obviously are taking good care of their employees, amirite?


Both of those points are why everyone should be saving for themselves.
 
2013-10-15 09:12:37 AM

ltdanman44: once the boomers die off, who will vote republican???


Poor, white folks south of the mason-dixon line?
 
2013-10-15 09:12:43 AM

PhDemented: AngryDragon: Even if you save $200 a month starting at 25. By 65 you will have amassed over $750,000. You don't have to be socking away thousands, you just have to start early and do it consistently. It's the miracle of compound interest.

Man, I wish I was making enough when I was 25 to have $200 to invest a month


The term is invest, but it's really saving for your future.

Again, time is the key not the amount.  Even $100 a month, $25 a week, nets you over a quarter million dollars in retirement.  Even at minimum wage, never getting a promotion, raise, and staying at the same job for 40 years that's something.

You won't be weekending in Paris, but you won't be eating cat food either.  Bonus is that as you do get into a career it just goes up.  This is how people get wealthy, even those of modest means.
 
2013-10-15 09:16:23 AM

AngryDragon: Headso: Why do we need social security again? companies obviously are taking good care of their employees, amirite?

Both of those points are why everyone should be saving for themselves.


That's nice to say but obviously it's not a realistic possibility.
 
2013-10-15 09:16:23 AM

AngryDragon: Even if you save $200 a month starting at 25.


Aaaaaand that's how I know you haven't been 25 in quite  while.
 
2013-10-15 09:19:43 AM

ThatGuyFromTheInternet: AngryDragon: Even if you save $200 a month starting at 25.

Aaaaaand that's how I know you haven't been 25 in quite  while.


My step-son is not even 23, goes to school, works two jobs, and saves at least that much.  It's not impossible.
 
2013-10-15 09:21:14 AM
Too many retirees from the public sector putting a drain on your society?  Stop letting them retire after 20 years.  Several people I know put in their 20 years working for the government, retired in their early forties to collect that sweet pension, and went on to get another well-paying job so they get two full incomes while working just one job until they retire.  Many live on the pension and invest everything from the other job so when they DO fully retire, they're sitting mighty pretty.  I want to be mad at them but when the system is set up like that, I can't blame them.  But if you want to reduce the burden of all these retirees' pensions, either make them work until retirement age like most of us in the private workforce, or withhold their pension until "normal" retirement age.  It's ridiculous that they can work 20 years and get a pension for 40.
 
2013-10-15 09:43:01 AM

UberDave: what_now: ...and now that they can get affordable health care without staying in a job they hate, they can spend their middle years doing something they may enjoy.

Terrible.

My best friend's in-laws (who I know quite well) did this.  They are a few years away from collecting SS.  Not too long ago, the mother in-law had a serious illness which she overcame.  Their insurance dropped them like a blue-hot nuclear potato.  Now they can get insurance again.  They're both rabid teabaggers.  I'm anxious to see how it plays out with them..



This is an easy one.  They will gladly take the insurance because they "earned it" through all their years of hard work.  It's all the people now getting insurance for free that they abhor and will keep them solidly in the teabagger camp.  Cognitive dissonance, it really works!
 
2013-10-15 09:45:37 AM

AngryDragon: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: AngryDragon: Even if you save $200 a month starting at 25.

Aaaaaand that's how I know you haven't been 25 in quite  while.

My step-son is not even 23, goes to school, works two jobs, and saves at least that much.  It's not impossible.


My friend does to but he has never had a gf and lives at home with parents with all bills paid.
 
2013-10-15 09:51:07 AM

baufan2005: AngryDragon: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: AngryDragon: Even if you save $200 a month starting at 25.

Aaaaaand that's how I know you haven't been 25 in quite  while.

My step-son is not even 23, goes to school, works two jobs, and saves at least that much.  It's not impossible.

My friend does to but he has never had a gf and lives at home with parents with all bills paid.


I know a guy who is 18 has 37 jobs goes to medical school full time is a classical musician who plays in the BSO and dates 4 super models depending on what city he happens to be in at the time. If he can do it anyone can.
 
2013-10-15 09:53:35 AM
I don't know why no one is addressing the true blight on this society, and sure sign of the coming apocalypse: autoplay videos on websites.
 
2013-10-15 09:57:29 AM

Headso: baufan2005: AngryDragon: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: AngryDragon: Even if you save $200 a month starting at 25.

Aaaaaand that's how I know you haven't been 25 in quite  while.

My step-son is not even 23, goes to school, works two jobs, and saves at least that much.  It's not impossible.

My friend does to but he has never had a gf and lives at home with parents with all bills paid.

I know a guy who is 18 has 37 jobs goes to medical school full time is a classical musician who plays in the BSO and dates 4 super models depending on what city he happens to be in at the time. If he can do it anyone can.


I didn't say anyone could, I said it's not impossible.  It all comes down to you being confident in a pension/social security and having faith that the government is going to take care of you in 40 years.  If the cost of one night at the bar a weekend insures that you won't be living in a box when you're older, you may want to consider it.

Your choice.
 
2013-10-15 10:03:02 AM

PhDemented: AngryDragon: Even if you save $200 a month starting at 25. By 65 you will have amassed over $750,000. You don't have to be socking away thousands, you just have to start early and do it consistently. It's the miracle of compound interest.

Man, I wish I was making enough when I was 25 to have $200 to invest a month


Were you making below minimum wage or wasting too much?
 
2013-10-15 10:14:07 AM

AngryDragon: Headso: baufan2005: AngryDragon: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: AngryDragon: Even if you save $200 a month starting at 25.

Aaaaaand that's how I know you haven't been 25 in quite  while.

My step-son is not even 23, goes to school, works two jobs, and saves at least that much.  It's not impossible.

My friend does to but he has never had a gf and lives at home with parents with all bills paid.

I know a guy who is 18 has 37 jobs goes to medical school full time is a classical musician who plays in the BSO and dates 4 super models depending on what city he happens to be in at the time. If he can do it anyone can.

I didn't say anyone could, I said it's not impossible.  It all comes down to you being confident in a pension/social security and having faith that the government is going to take care of you in 40 years.  If the cost of one night at the bar a weekend insures that you won't be living in a box when you're older, you may want to consider it.

Your choice.


When you're young in this day and age in America your money could be easily taken at any time if you suffer a medical problem, so you have to weigh that short term fun not just with your future as an old person but the decent chance you are just saving to pay a small portion of medical costs before you file for bankruptcy. Not even mentioning the people who really have no capacity to save even those that do have some calculations to make that we as young people never did, the idea of saving money for the future is not really as attractive as it once was.

Bankruptcies resulting from unpaid medical bills will affect nearly 2 million people this year-making health care the No. 1 cause of such filings

...

Even outside of bankruptcy, about 56 million adults-more than 20 percent of the population between the ages of 19 and 64-will still struggle with health-care-related bills this year, according to NerdWallet Health.
 
2013-10-15 10:19:43 AM

badhatharry: Too bad their jobs are going with them. It used to be when the old man retired everybody moved up the ladder.


Is the U.S. ready for an economy where there is simply no traditional employment for over half the population? Profoundly no.

People work more hours, for less money, and take less vacation. There are fewer jobs out there; fewer workers are needed. We're approaching the golden age of automation that the futurists talked about in the first half of the 20th century.

The economic disruption is just starting.
 
2013-10-15 10:21:26 AM

OnlyM3: [www.upl.co image 660x513]


Do Republicans ever create any humor that are not derivative of the work of liberals?
 
2013-10-15 10:28:39 AM

The Irresponsible Captain: People work more hours, for less money, and take less vacation. There are fewer jobs out there; fewer workers are needed.


Wait, I thought the complaint was that hours were being cut back so employers don't have to give benefits?  You people need to get your whine consistent at least.
 
2013-10-15 10:29:35 AM

Headso: AngryDragon: Headso: baufan2005: AngryDragon: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: AngryDragon: Even if you save $200 a month starting at 25.

Aaaaaand that's how I know you haven't been 25 in quite  while.

My step-son is not even 23, goes to school, works two jobs, and saves at least that much.  It's not impossible.

My friend does to but he has never had a gf and lives at home with parents with all bills paid.

I know a guy who is 18 has 37 jobs goes to medical school full time is a classical musician who plays in the BSO and dates 4 super models depending on what city he happens to be in at the time. If he can do it anyone can.

I didn't say anyone could, I said it's not impossible.  It all comes down to you being confident in a pension/social security and having faith that the government is going to take care of you in 40 years.  If the cost of one night at the bar a weekend insures that you won't be living in a box when you're older, you may want to consider it.

Your choice.

When you're young in this day and age in America your money could be easily taken at any time if you suffer a medical problem, so you have to weigh that short term fun not just with your future as an old person but the decent chance you are just saving to pay a small portion of medical costs before you file for bankruptcy. Not even mentioning the people who really have no capacity to save even those that do have some calculations to make that we as young people never did, the idea of saving money for the future is not really as attractive as it once was.

Bankruptcies resulting from unpaid medical bills will affect nearly 2 million people this year-making health care the No. 1 cause of such filings

...

Even outside of bankruptcy, about 56 million adults-more than 20 percent of the population between the ages of 19 and 64-will still struggle with health-care-related bills this year, according to NerdWallet Health.



20%?  That's a lot of people.

And I'll bet a large portion continue to have cable, netflix, hulu, and unlimited data plans.  Keep in mind that a lot of the health-care-related bills they'll be struggling won't be high enough to file bankruptcy over, just lower on the priority list.  Yes, it sucks when you receive a bill for $500, $1000, or even $10,000, but it can be paid eventually.  A lot of people (I didn't say all, so calm down) choose not to because what's the worst that happens?  Bill collectors can't take away your health.

Though part of the problem is also the providers.  The billing practices are ridiculous in some cases.  I have seen providers that send a seperate bill for every single line item from a single visit to a doctors office.  They can't be terribly surprised when people are overwhelmed and eventually forget to pay for something.  Hospital billing is worse.  Standardized billing practices would definitely help alleviate some of this problem.
 
2013-10-15 10:30:00 AM

trappedspirit: PhDemented: AngryDragon: Even if you save $200 a month starting at 25. By 65 you will have amassed over $750,000. You don't have to be socking away thousands, you just have to start early and do it consistently. It's the miracle of compound interest.

Man, I wish I was making enough when I was 25 to have $200 to invest a month

Were you making below minimum wage or wasting too much?

 
2013-10-15 10:30:33 AM

Headso: When you're young in this day and age in America your money could be easily taken at any time if you suffer a medical problem, so you have to weigh that short term fun not just with your future as an old person but the decent chance you are just saving to pay a small portion of medical costs before you file for bankruptcy. Not even mentioning the people who really have no capacity to save even those that do have some calculations to make that we as young people never did, the idea of saving money for the future is not really as attractive as it once was


I empathize with this statement absolutely.  My ex-wife had serious medical issues and the cost ran into the tens of thousands of dollars.  401K and IRA dollars are considered protected in a bankruptcy filing though.  No matter what financial hardship you fall on, those dollars are yours when you retire if you leave them alone.

Again, anything is better than nothing and the earlier you start the more it will be.
 
2013-10-15 10:44:00 AM

trappedspirit: PhDemented: AngryDragon: Even if you save $200 a month starting at 25. By 65 you will have amassed over $750,000. You don't have to be socking away thousands, you just have to start early and do it consistently. It's the miracle of compound interest.

Man, I wish I was making enough when I was 25 to have $200 to invest a month

Were you making below minimum wage or wasting too much?


Monthly Expenditures:

Filling up at the gas pump once a week - $50
Healthcare Insurance - $250
Car Insurance - $150
Car Payment - $200
Food - $300
Rent (Assuming Roommate) - $300

Just the bare minimums are covered with minimum wage. How exactly do you afford any sort of savings here? This doesn't take into account student loans, clothing, personal hygiene, etc. The only way kids can afford that out of college is to have a legitimate job, or multiple jobs, or with their parents helping pay for things like insurance (or the kids living at home).
 
2013-10-15 10:57:33 AM
$200/mo can be pretty steep when first starting out. The problem is saving for a rainy day - you'll have a lot of rainy days over your lifetime.

I'm 50 and the biggest worry I have is medical care. When Obamacare happens it shouldn't affect us too much, but if I retire early I'll end up paying more with less benefit.  I've stayed pretty healthy over my lifetime and he total cost of medical care I've received, (not out of pocket or co-pay, but total), is about 5 grand. I've paid close to $80K for health insurance, probably over $200K if my employers share is factored in. Not sure why I can insure my house for $35/mo, but for health I'm looking at over $500 with $1500 deduct plus 10% - and that's the cheap plan hoping we can retire and get part time jobs to bring in $30K/yr max. Fortunately, in our case the house is paid off and the kids are gone, but for a young family?

I think health care cost too much. Go to your average hospital and view the opulent surroundings - what is the true cost of health care? No wonder there are so many expats.
 
2013-10-15 11:14:19 AM
Just ask Detroit retirees how their pension and benefits are treating them.  Once the municipality goes bankrupt the pension and bennies you have been getting for 10 years is now gone or greatly reduced.

So, retiring early is no guarantee that you've locked anything in.
 
2013-10-15 11:18:10 AM

the money is in the banana stand: trappedspirit: PhDemented: AngryDragon: Even if you save $200 a month starting at 25. By 65 you will have amassed over $750,000. You don't have to be socking away thousands, you just have to start early and do it consistently. It's the miracle of compound interest.

Man, I wish I was making enough when I was 25 to have $200 to invest a month

Were you making below minimum wage or wasting too much?

Monthly Expenditures:

Filling up at the gas pump once a week - $50
Healthcare Insurance - $250
Car Insurance - $150
Car Payment - $200
Food - $300
Rent (Assuming Roommate) - $300

Just the bare minimums are covered with minimum wage. How exactly do you afford any sort of savings here? This doesn't take into account student loans, clothing, personal hygiene, etc. The only way kids can afford that out of college is to have a legitimate job, or multiple jobs, or with their parents helping pay for things like insurance (or the kids living at home).


So maybe everyone can't start when they are 23.  The point is still valid.  You don't need to bring home a fortune to create a decent (not extravagant) retirement for yourself.  You need the discipline to save early and maybe a little creativity on how to find some extra cash to put away.

But, strangely, it seems you want to convince the world (or maybe just fark) that it's impossible for anyone to fund a retirement on their own.
 
2013-10-15 11:19:35 AM

Ficoce: I think health care cost too much


Hmm, I wonder why.

"The CEO of Aetna Inc., Mark T. Bertolini, had a 2012 pay package that more than tripled - nearly quadrupled - his compensation the year before, according to documents filed Friday with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Bertolini was compensated a total of $36.36 million last year, not including $11.1 million in stock awards which vest later and are based on the company's performance."
http://articles.courant.com/2013-04-08/business/hc-aetna-ceo-bertoli ni -pay-20130408_1_aetna-ceo-magellan-health-services-inc-aetna-inc

Or maybe I don't.
 
2013-10-15 11:51:55 AM
Scary in some ways, good in others.
 
2013-10-15 11:57:40 AM

MemeSlave: Animatronik: Some Coke Drinking Guy: Scary?  This is actually a good thing.  More people who retire, the more jobs that open up.  Since most retiring people are at the top of career, that also means it is good jobs becoming available, and that the younger generations can finally move up into something that doesn't pay a good wage in 1978, which their old fogey bosses, who just retired, thought was perfectly reasonable.

The benefits that were negotiated for govt employees were based on shorter life expectancies and a younger population, and on top of that were ridiculous anyway, in many instances. We need people to retire later because we can't support them for 20-30 years, and in many cases we can't replace their skillsets. People who are counting on state govt pensions may be making a mistake...

We also need old people to die, and not consume their accumulated assets in their last few years trying to stay young and healthy.   As a nation we're eating our seed corn, who leaves houses and property and assets to their kids anymore?   If every generation has to start from scratch now, how do we accumulate wealth?


Starting from scratch is the best way to accumulate wealth.

Never buy a new car and never get rid of a good car with less than 130k miles. Never lease a car.

Save at least 25% of after tax income.

Do not overextended yourself to buy anything, especially a house.

Always pay off credit cards every month.

If you are staying in a shiat job just to live with hipsters in the city, don't complain that you have 50 bucks in your bank account.

Get rid of the iPhone if you aren't saving any money.
 
2013-10-15 12:03:54 PM

TheStag: the money is in the banana stand: trappedspirit: PhDemented: AngryDragon: Even if you save $200 a month starting at 25. By 65 you will have amassed over $750,000. You don't have to be socking away thousands, you just have to start early and do it consistently. It's the miracle of compound interest.

Man, I wish I was making enough when I was 25 to have $200 to invest a month

Were you making below minimum wage or wasting too much?

Monthly Expenditures:

Filling up at the gas pump once a week - $50
Healthcare Insurance - $250
Car Insurance - $150
Car Payment - $200
Food - $300
Rent (Assuming Roommate) - $300

Just the bare minimums are covered with minimum wage. How exactly do you afford any sort of savings here? This doesn't take into account student loans, clothing, personal hygiene, etc. The only way kids can afford that out of college is to have a legitimate job, or multiple jobs, or with their parents helping pay for things like insurance (or the kids living at home).

So maybe everyone can't start when they are 23.  The point is still valid.  You don't need to bring home a fortune to create a decent (not extravagant) retirement for yourself.  You need the discipline to save early and maybe a little creativity on how to find some extra cash to put away.

But, strangely, it seems you want to convince the world (or maybe just fark) that it's impossible for anyone to fund a retirement on their own.


This myth about investing is actually not supported by recent rates of investment return.

If you save $2400 a year, after 40 years you might have more like 200 to 300k, not 750 k. You would have to increase the amount you save as you get older.
 
2013-10-15 12:04:15 PM

Animatronik: Starting from scratch is the best way to accumulate wealth.

Never buy a new car and never get rid of a good car with less than 130k miles. Never lease a car.

Save at least 25% of after tax income.

Do not overextended yourself to buy anything, especially a house.

Always pay off credit cards every month.

If you are staying in a shiat job just to live with hipsters in the city, don't complain that you have 50 bucks in your bank account.

Get rid of the iPhone if you aren't saving any money.


Better if it's pretax income or if after tax into a Roth IRA.
 
2013-10-15 12:08:00 PM

what_now: ...and now that they can get affordable health care without staying in a job they hate, they can spend their middle years doing something they may enjoy.

Terrible.


You're new here, aren't you?

/don't worry
//your Statement is in the mail
 
2013-10-15 12:42:00 PM

Animatronik: This myth about investing is actually not supported by recent rates of investment return.

If you save $2400 a year, after 40 years you might have more like 200 to 300k, not 750 k. You would have to increase the amount you save as you get older.


http://cgi.money.cnn.com/tools/savingscalc/savingscalc.html

2400 tax advantaged
40 years
0 starting balance.

Try it.

And it's not a myth.  You just have to be consistent.
 
2013-10-15 01:17:54 PM
I bought back my military time so at 41 I already have 18 years towards retirement
also get $ from the VA
retiring early is so much better under the current system
I could work for 30 years and not make much more than if I retire sooner.
the question is, avoiding use of the 401k system until it's worth so much more
I don't have the luxury of assuming social security will be there to help me at retirement age
 
2013-10-15 06:14:18 PM
Shoot, they might start their own business like they always dreamed and become real job creators.

/since our other job creators arn't
 
2013-10-15 06:43:19 PM

ImmaHoopyFrood: PunGent: Besides, driving a nice car in Boston is like taking a Monet to a soccer riot...

The only times I've actually felt uncomfortable driving was in Boston and Chicago.  Kind of like there was a new set of rules and I missed the memo.  I've done D.C. and L.A. and they weren't that bad in comparison, just slow.


Just remember:  turn signals are for confusing the opposition.   PROPER use of signals is a sign of weakness, or, worse, that you're not from around here.

/Been rear-ended twice, resulting in two totalled cars, both in crystal-clear visibility, in five years.
//hit by one driver of each gender, so yay, equality, I guess...
 
2013-10-15 06:58:25 PM
1) So what is the average percentage of money spent on pensions?  Because Vallejo was at 14 percent of the city budget in 2011 and is up to 18 percent as of 2013 (hence why they're about to go bankrupt again).  But what those stories always lack is context.  Is that high or low in the context of California?  Is that high or low outside of the context of California?  What are other cities doing when 1 in 6 (and pretty soon 1 in 4) of their tax dollars is getting dumped into a black hole (to fulfill promised benefits for which people took lower salaries in exchange for stability, yes, I've heard it)?   Since Europe tends to be a useful data point for seeing what California's going to do, what's Europe doing?  And how are they doing it?

2) So at what point do the cities say "Fark Calpers"?  Because while Calpers is technically funded, it's technically funded on the backs of 18 percent of a city's budget and an additional 50% increase over the next decade.  Once 1 in 4 dollars is flowing into pensions, who will riot first?  At what point will people decide that spending those billions on doing the massive (and necessary.  Transit-Oriented Development only takes you so far (especially when thePeninsula is just too wide to get appropriately served by Caltrain and the buses run at 5 MPH) so you will need extra lanes/roads, the mass transit sucks to begin with and needs BILLIONS of dollars in improvements, upgrades and new routes even if you don't do those necessary road upgrades, and it takes 3 hours to get from SJ to Vallejo by mass transit vs. 1 by car anyways, so transit's NEVER going to happen for that use case) infrastructure upgrades that California needs is better than dumping them into pensions?
 
2013-10-15 07:03:49 PM

PunGent: ImmaHoopyFrood: PunGent: Besides, driving a nice car in Boston is like taking a Monet to a soccer riot...

The only times I've actually felt uncomfortable driving was in Boston and Chicago.  Kind of like there was a new set of rules and I missed the memo.  I've done D.C. and L.A. and they weren't that bad in comparison, just slow.

Just remember:  turn signals are for confusing the opposition.   PROPER use of signals is a sign of weakness, or, worse, that you're not from around here.

/Been rear-ended twice, resulting in two totalled cars, both in crystal-clear visibility, in five years.
//hit by one driver of each gender, so yay, equality, I guess...


Yeah, in both towns I noticed you could be doing some city driving on one-way streets that were 3 lanes that suddenly went to 2 or 1 and everyone riding bumpers.  Locals of course knew what was coming for them and it was a race to the pole position.  At least it was always in company rentals.  Didn't have any accidents but they were day trips.  Doubt my luck would have held out for a full week.
 
2013-10-15 08:48:49 PM

AngryDragon: Headso: When you're young in this day and age in America your money could be easily taken at any time if you suffer a medical problem, so you have to weigh that short term fun not just with your future as an old person but the decent chance you are just saving to pay a small portion of medical costs before you file for bankruptcy. Not even mentioning the people who really have no capacity to save even those that do have some calculations to make that we as young people never did, the idea of saving money for the future is not really as attractive as it once was

I empathize with this statement absolutely.  My ex-wife had serious medical issues and the cost ran into the tens of thousands of dollars.  401K and IRA dollars are considered protected in a bankruptcy filing though.  No matter what financial hardship you fall on, those dollars are yours when you retire if you leave them alone.



Currently.  Ask the folks in Hungary what happens when the government really, really needs money...and all those private pension funds are just SITTING there...

I bet we'll see a teensy little rider slipped into a Congressional bill, midnight on Decemeber 31st, about ten years from now...taxing future IRA and 401Ks a teensy little 1 percent.

And that'll be the thin end of the wedge.

Just saying...nothing is permanent except death and taxes.
 
2013-10-15 09:50:54 PM

PunGent: Currently.  Ask the folks in Hungary what happens when the government really, really needs money...and all those private pension funds are just SITTING there...

I bet we'll see a teensy little rider slipped into a Congressional bill, midnight on Decemeber 31st, about ten years from now...taxing future IRA and 401Ks a teensy little 1 percent.

And that'll be the thin end of the wedge.

Just saying...nothing is permanent except death and taxes.


Then get something other than a 401K where you can invest in the stock market and withdraw money at any time.  Doesn't mean that you won't get boned, but at least you'll be obscure.  Besides, if they do it like they did in Cyprus, you'll have enough warning to jump up to Canada, pull out all your money through an ATM over the weekend, and then run.

The only thing magical about your 401K is that pulling out early costs you money (and the delayed taxes).

/So yes, we promised people a bunch of money.
//But no, there's no farking way we can ever pay it, mostly because we never planned to pay it, and partly because the demographics have changed.
///So we'll continue screwing the young and sacrificing our infrastructure to support the old.
 
Displayed 125 of 125 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report