U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 10-01-2018, 09:48 AM
 
8,376 posts, read 3,549,622 times
Reputation: 1615

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
that is not what he is saying . the point is there is always cheaper places to live. we all choose not to change our location and lifestyle to some of those places for all sorts of reasons ..
Many, not all. I made the move in 1980. Of course as a doc it was/is a whole lot easier.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-01-2018, 09:49 AM
 
8,376 posts, read 3,549,622 times
Reputation: 1615
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocnjgirl View Post
The post was about fixed income seniors. Not many lower ncome 80-year-olds can just choose to pick up and move. And then they would end up in a position where they have to hire people to replace the longtime neighbors friends and family who are currently helping them with things like transportation grocery shopping and even direct care. Was just a very out of touch response.
Many in that age group move closer to their children.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-01-2018, 09:54 AM
 
8,376 posts, read 3,549,622 times
Reputation: 1615
Quote:
Originally Posted by oceangaia View Post
You, like many others comparing US to EU, are deluded into thinking that if we only adopted UHC then we would be paying similar per capita healthcare costs as EU. If we're paying double now, we would be paying quadruple under UHC.



Everyone wants to argue about how to divvy up the costs but few are addressing the underlying costs. There was a recent post pointing out we distribute major medical care primarily through hospitals and EU does not. That is the sort of underlying infrastructural issues we need to address. Just shifting the costs of our current structure from being paid by individuals and private insurers to the government isn't going to change those costs.
In the US when this is done we get a lot of cherry picking. Where well insured private paying and less risky patients are funneled and/or accepted by the doc owned facilities for their treatments and surgeries. Then the local acute care hospital is left with all the higher risk, more complicated and expensive to treat patients. In a system where many hospitals bills are paid by diagnosis.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-10-2018, 11:59 AM
 
15 posts, read 4,523 times
Reputation: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eeko156 View Post
In the originally posted case, the main problem is her age. I can't imagine looking for work after 60. I started noticing ageism around 45.
Yes! My best friend is a recruiter for a large corporation and she was told NOT to even consider a person over 40 because the cost to have them as an employee is too expensive. Yet she said it ends up costing the company twice as much as it should because those younger employees 9 times out of 10, end up leaving the company within 3 years anyhow. Apparently, she needs to document interviewing a few older 'potential' employees but to 'find fault' and throw the resumes into the trash bin.

It's that outright!

I also know of an older man who was fired from his job (after only 2 years and he was the CMO!) and was told by the CEO that his job was going to a woman so the company would become a B corp company. I told him to sue the company, but he said he's not that kind of a guy and what good would it do it he doesn't have it on video? This guy is in his 50's and can't find a decent job with his experience and rank, and is considered too old for any job that would be in a lower position. My neighbor told me he's worked at some pretty fantastic companies and has never had a hard time finding a job *ever* until he hit 50. I think that says A LOT about our unemployment rates. He probably has a 6 month severance and is ineligible for unemployment at this time. Besides, if a person is making 200K a year, it's gonna be tough to fill that gap with a tiny unemployment check.

Being in South Florida, I keep seeing this. When I check my LinkedIn account, it floors me that so many of my connections are being laid off/fired/downsized/lied to when they hit 50. Sure these guys probably have a million or so in the bank, but bridging that money gap for 10-15 years before they receive their pension or SS is a tough go man.

I think being an unemployed 50-something year old is pretty much commonplace nowadays and people should prepare for that. To me, from where I sit, this is the 'new normal' for many unfortunate seniors. (Is 50 considered senior?)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-10-2018, 12:31 PM
 
15 posts, read 4,523 times
Reputation: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by mysticaltyger View Post
Pretty much everyone always says that.

You can now invest in the stock market with no minimums. You can buy Fidelity's new total stock market index fund with no minimum and a 0% expense ratio. Get your kids started.

How much money do people spend on these non-necessities?

Drugs
Alcohol
Tattoos
Pets
Kids (especially kids outside marriage).

Most people can. The problem is, they don't know it's possible. And when you tell them, they don't believe it, because they have it drummed into them by all the people around them that it's not possible, so they don't even try.
^^^THIS^^^^ Hand them a copy of Dave Ramsey's book, The Total Money Makeover (I think that's the one) and they will learn how to save for their future. People who didn't grow up in a functional, fairly well to do family probably has never even heard of investing at an early age. Teaching those who are new to this concept are very surprised (and the young ones are relieved) when they discover the compound effect works.

Start EARLY and keep saving. It is extremely important - especially in those early investment days.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-10-2018, 12:45 PM
 
24,929 posts, read 27,115,853 times
Reputation: 23070
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocnjgirl View Post
Getting in their heads doesnít mean itís achievable. I canít imagine what my mother could have done differently to be financially independent in her 50ís, nor my brother.
You want some kind of iron clad guarantees. I think you over-personalize what is said based on your life experience. But your life experience isn't everyone's. Just because it wouldn't have worked for you mom doesn't mean it couldn't work for a whole lot of other people.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-10-2018, 01:55 PM
 
17,860 posts, read 15,149,845 times
Reputation: 33692
Quote:
Originally Posted by mysticaltyger View Post
You want some kind of iron clad guarantees. I think you over-personalize what is said based on your life experience. But your life experience isn't everyone's. Just because it wouldn't have worked for you mom doesn't mean it couldn't work for a whole lot of other people.
M point was when people don't have money even to cover their bills each month, they certainly don't have money to invest.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2018, 10:28 AM
 
1,300 posts, read 653,698 times
Reputation: 1818
Quote:
Originally Posted by mysticaltyger View Post
As I've been saying on these CD boards forever, people need to get it in their heads that they need to be at least semi-financially independent by their mid 50s, if not sooner.
I agree. But that advice doesn't really come in handy for those that did not plan accordingly. It also has nothing to do with ageism in the workplace.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-06-2018, 03:05 PM
 
Location: Florida and New England
1,112 posts, read 1,322,915 times
Reputation: 1368
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
In the years after 1965, the perfect storm of retirement killing conditions took place. Inflation grew rapidly over the following decade, exceeding 10% in several years in the 1970ís and averaging 6% a year from 1965 to 1985. Interest rates rose rapidly, from ~4% in 1965 to ~8% in 1970, up to 15% in 1982, causing bond prices to plummet. The combo of fast rising high inflation and rising interest rates destroyed bonds.

Stocks also performed horribly. Adjusted for inflation, the stock market didnít rise above its 1965 value until 1992, 27 years later. Dividends moved sideways over 2 decades
Yep -- inflation is a killer for equities.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-06-2018, 03:09 PM
 
65,856 posts, read 67,167,185 times
Reputation: 44114
most think equities have a reputation as an inflation hedge but like real estate , that is wrong . they only soared after inflation was reversing . real estate was dying horribly with 18% mortgages .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top