U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
 [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 06-07-2014, 10:12 PM
 
Location: Forests of Maine
30,719 posts, read 49,520,236 times
Reputation: 19157

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Petunia 100 View Post
This was a very interesting thread.

I make a bit more than $20 an hour, though not a whole lot more. And, it's only been the last 3 years or so that has been true.

I've been saving/investing slowly but steadily for about 16 years now. It does add up.

My retirement plans include downsizing to a condo, hopefully without a mortgage, but that is not a given. I expect to have about 2k per month from my nest egg and 1k per month in SS benefits.

So, it won't be luxurious, but it will be enough.
Depending on your Cost-Of-Living; that might not be nearly enough. Or that might be very generous.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-07-2014, 10:17 PM
 
8,874 posts, read 5,156,823 times
Reputation: 10171
Agreed. I expect it will be enough for me. It's pretty much what I live on now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2014, 02:24 PM
 
Location: Exeter, NH
5,302 posts, read 4,410,637 times
Reputation: 5709
Quote:
Originally Posted by John7777 View Post
Just out of curiosity, what were they supposed to do with the money? Save it in big boxes?
How about ANYTHING other than SPENDING IT (TWICE OVER--the initial SS taxes plus the SS Trust Fund) and then demanding more money to pay for all the retirement promises?

Of course we all know federal government is far to crooked to be trusted with simple SAVINGS ACCOUNTS, which would be incredibly safe if the financials sector wasn't encouraged by Washington to speculate on derivatives of derivatives of derivatives that eventually crash the entire economy and put the working class taxpayer on the hook for any losses the ultra-rich might have suffered.

Dare I mention the solution that would have solved ALL our problems: letting working class taxpayers set aside 13% of their income in our OWN RETIREMENT SAVINGS ACCOUNTS, which would have meant the Baby Boom's retirement would now be paid for several times over, plus we get to keep the interest AND THE PRINCIPLE and leave the remainder to our heirs?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-01-2015, 11:14 PM
 
1,244 posts, read 712,381 times
Reputation: 1201
Quote:
Originally Posted by s1alker View Post
I'm talking about someone who has made less than 20 bucks an hour their entire life for whatever reason. Places that pay that low generally do not have a 401k or pension plan. A low wage worker will have very little (if any) money to save after living expenses are paid.
Dude, if you're making 19 bucks/hour and you don't have any kids, you're doing fine. Plus, you live in a small town and COL is likely low. I remember when I was making 15 an hour, I was feeling like a king.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-02-2015, 01:17 AM
 
Location: Los Angeles area
14,018 posts, read 17,769,401 times
Reputation: 32309
Quote:
Originally Posted by NHartphotog View Post
How about ANYTHING other than SPENDING IT (TWICE OVER--the initial SS taxes plus the SS Trust Fund) and then demanding more money to pay for all the retirement promises?

Of course we all know federal government is far to crooked to be trusted with simple SAVINGS ACCOUNTS, which would be incredibly safe if the financials sector wasn't encouraged by Washington to speculate on derivatives of derivatives of derivatives that eventually crash the entire economy and put the working class taxpayer on the hook for any losses the ultra-rich might have suffered.

Dare I mention the solution that would have solved ALL our problems: letting working class taxpayers set aside 13% of their income in our OWN RETIREMENT SAVINGS ACCOUNTS, which would have meant the Baby Boom's retirement would now be paid for several times over, plus we get to keep the interest AND THE PRINCIPLE and leave the remainder to our heirs?
Each paragraph contains an inaccuracy. First, the federal government did not spend our FICA taxes "twice over". A fairly large chunk was spent providing retirement benefits to those already retired. It was only the surplus which went into the SS Trust Fund.

Second, the taxpayers did not ultimately pay for the bailouts of the "too big to fail" banks. Are you even aware that those loans have been paid back with interest, thus reaping a profit for the taxpayers?

Third, 13% of our income plus the interest on it would not be enough to pay for our retirement "several times over". It would pay for an adequate retirement, not at all lavish, once over, especially if we are talking about the "working class".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-02-2015, 06:21 AM
 
1,706 posts, read 1,232,008 times
Reputation: 4829
Quote:
Originally Posted by oregonbirder View Post
Funny, that's exactly what I'm looking for in retirement, plainer yet dignified. Many around me think that's crazy but I want to garden, bake, can and sew, watch the birds and the weather. I don't want to travel or constantly be doing something.
Quote:
Originally Posted by newenglandgirl View Post
I just got back from traveling, and as I get older, it's clearly not for me, notwithstanding the draw of the destination.
Agree with both of you. I still have two trips in mind before retiring in 5 years, but then it will be gardening, doing fun things with the dogs, a stack of books, lazy mornings, watching the squirrels and birds, maybe the occasional day trip

OP, many people make less than $20 hour and still manage to save for retirement. They do it by prioritizing saving for retirement over i-phones, new clothes, eating out, 150+ television stations, etc. They live frugally, don't try to keep up with the Jones, take in a roommate, and do whatever they need to do to be able to save.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-02-2015, 07:46 AM
 
5,400 posts, read 6,552,332 times
Reputation: 10477
and they don't typically move around chasing the job moving up housewise/school district wise.

Their houses are often mortgage free by retirement and their frugal lives continue as they were.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-03-2015, 08:48 AM
 
Location: Loudon, TN
5,817 posts, read 4,862,439 times
Reputation: 19543
Reading over this thread, I am struck by the total dichotomy of the responses. The two schools of thought are apparently...low wage workers will never be able to retire, they're doomed to work forever, but they're going to die early anyway...or...low wage workers who are diligent about saving and living frugally will be fine. Well I think it will be both! The savers (ants) will be fine living on their savings/portfolios/rental properties/SS/etc, and the non-savers (grasshoppers) will work, spend 100% of what they have, and complain about their lot until they are laid off "for no reason" at 65 with no savings, and will live on SS and charity until they croak. I know people in both camps right now, and I see a lot of my friends and family and know who will end up in each group.

For myself, fear of ending up like an old, broke, cranky grasshopper (cursing the "unfairness" of life and shaking my cane) made me into an ant. Now I can party (frugally, of course) with the other ants. I worked for far less than $20/hr for the first 18 years or so of my working life. It is possible to climb the ladder of success, but you have to be willing to claw your way up and, in the meantime, don't be a grasshopper and fiddle away all of what you do earn.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-03-2015, 09:00 AM
 
491 posts, read 599,234 times
Reputation: 2095
Well said, The Shadow. It wouldn't let me rep you again.

I was an ant also.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-03-2015, 12:04 PM
 
33,046 posts, read 22,111,252 times
Reputation: 8970
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gandalara View Post
Then the living expenses are too high. Expenses can always be lowered.

No matter what your hourly wage is, you should be saving 10%.
Whether it's $1.25 an hour or $50 an hour.

??? I live in the range between poverty level and minimum wage. Rent for one room in a house of 8 consumed more than half my income. Saving 10% of my income is not realistic.
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
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

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 > Retirement
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

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