31% Of Americans Have No Retirement Savings At All (Reno, Toronto, financial)
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.
No one has said anything about not giving people the freedom to make their own mistakes. And, no, it is not principled to regard people who make mistakes like human garbage and callously throw them into the trash heap. Such offensively callous perspectives are crafted from selfishness and egoistic avarice.
Bull. If that were true, the excuses posted elsewhere in your post would be unnecessary. There are myriad examples of people arguing against the social safety net with lame rationalization grounded in trying to marginalize the effect on people they couldn't care less about. Heck, roughly half of all domestic political arguments fit into this category you claim doesn't exist.
Some perceptions of offensiveness are based on universal ethics espoused by Jesus and Gandhi. Some perceptions of offensiveness are based on corrupt, self-centered "ethics" espoused by Ayn Rand.
Precisely the kind of perspective that some use to insulate themselves from the moral imperatives of living in society with others.
bUU, When I say "society is ME," I mean that I am the one responsible for taking care of those who need help. Not some nameless, faceless entity called "society" or "government" which you would hold responsible. Society is me, society is you. How am I "throwing a human on a trash heap" by taking her into my home and caring for her daily, not doing the things I'd prefer to be doing? How does that fit with the image you would portray of me?
Of course one can be compassionate, and I have said that of course we must care for these people regardless of how they came to the situation. My point is that your vehement claims that the "system" must do so can lead only to the collapse of that system. People like you call for others to be compassionate, for others to take care of the needy. You think "Society" is an idea. Society is real, actual people who have to work to support themselves AND take care of other people. When I say society is ME, how on earth do you take that as a selfish statement? I am taking on the weight of what you have suggested "Society" (to you, someone else, never yourself) must do.
My question to you (based wholly in the teachings of Ghandi and Jesus, btw, if you want to put it there) is WHAT ARE YOU DOING? WHAT AM I DOING? Stop blathering on about others being callous and selfish. What I am telling you is that YES, you're right, these people need to be cared for. By me. By you. Do it and stop throwing big words around, accusing everyone else of nastiness. It is you who is responsible. It is me. Not some vague idea of a rich taxpayer you've never met.
I ask you what you are doing for a motherless child? I ask you what you are doing for one such elderly person who has failed to plan and has no one else to pick up the pieces. And you don't answer that, but still accuse me of selfishness and not caring about others. Don't worry about what I'm doing; I assure you I'm trying my best to live a principled, caring life. You'll just have to take my word for it. Don't worry about it. Get out there and do what you need to do to make one person's life better today. I think that's what Jesus and Ghandi talked about, isn't it? Not the responsibility of nameless faceless entities where you can deposit all your vitriol all day long. Not the self-indulgent rants that make you feel morally superior to others. You. Me. "Whatsoever you do for the least of these..." Correct? I'm not sure sitting around being angry at rich people was what he meant. I don't think voting for the right party in an election and feeling that by doing so you had done your part to help the poor was what he meant.
Your assumptions about me and what I believe are so off base that I'm a little embarrassed for you, and can't even get my back up to be offended at this point. I am getting a little worried about your reading skills, though. It doesn't seem like you are even trying to understand what I've written.
Last edited by Montanama; 08-30-2014 at 08:00 AM..
we give to the causes we feel are truely worthy and to the folks we feel are truely needy.
but the rest are not my problem , they may be my concern but they are not my problem.
my focus is my family and friends and the rest of my efforts are in making sure we don't end up part of the problem. as they say charity begins at home.
both by making sure you are financially responsible for your own well being and having a plan if things are not shapping up that way before you reach the failure point..
what do i mean? just watch an eposide of suzie ormanns financial misfits and you will understand.
Last edited by mathjak107; 08-30-2014 at 08:28 AM..
Is it or are there limitations to our tax resources that are already starting to play out. Isn't that the debate begging to be heard?
I think the USG has already hit their limitations and are branching out to get even more revenue.
You just have to look beyond the Federal Income Tax meme to see how they are nickel and diming to get more money.
There will be no public debate on this by our government. It's in their best interest to not debate it and just quietly raise fees/taxes on other goods/services. Stealth taxes that you don't know about until you have to pay them.
Here's an example of the nickel and diming going on.
The State Dept just increased the fee to renounce your citizenship by 422%.
The fee went from $450 to $2350.
The US Consulate in Toronto is booked solid until 1/2015 with applications to renounce US citizenship.
we give to the causes we feel are truely worthy and to the folks we feel are truely needy.
but the rest are not my problem , they may be my concern but they are not my problem.
my focus is my family and friends and the rest of my efforts are in making sure we don't end up part of the problem. as they say charity begins at home.
both by making sure you are financially responsible for your own well being and having a plan if things are not shapping up that way before you reach the failure point..
what do i mean? just watch an eposide of suzie ormanns financial misfits and you will understand.
True, everyone draws a line somewhere. I know some people are actually indifferent to the suffering of others, but I think they are the exception. We all do the best we can, I believe that.
I get worried, though, when people pat themselves on the back for the simple act of being angry at the "rich" (which automatically means evil and selfish) and indignant on behalf of the "poor" (which automatically means helpless but honorable). That isn't actually DOING something to help others, but they seem to think it is. It hurts my heart AND my brain!
ther truth is how you end up financially is usually a product of either your own control or lack of taking control.
while the trifecta from hell gets many in life , illness-divorce and job loss it is usually not the events themselves that ruin people.
it is usually poor choices,poor planning and bad decisions both early on leading up to those events and after those events that left them in that shape.
while paying for a family of i-phones perhaps not beefing up emergency savings instead was a poor choice.
this is why in any similiar situation you will always have those that still thrive and those that fail.
I disagree! Life happens and some things swirl out of control despite good and proper planning. Your post assumes that everyone has the means during their working years to completely insulate themselves from any contingencies that may arise and that is patently false. You also assume that falling on hard times might universally be a result of poor choices, out-of-control spending and instant gratification. That, too, is false and also demeaning.
By now I think we're all aware that you're very comfortable financially as you tout it often. Good for you and for your sake I hope you never have to face a bank-busting event or even (especially) several. But should that occur some time in the future, by your own words, it would be safe for us to assume you were a wastrel, planned poorly and/or indulged yourself. Sitting on a high horse keeps you from looking at others eye-to-eye and can presage a painful fall.
I understand your feelings about this, and I do agree to some extent, but the vitriolic nature of the comments against those who aren't positioned as well as others for retirement is an age-old thing on these boards. The original article about 31% having no retirement savings is dismaying, to say the least (if that research is accurate).
What happens when one of these kinds of articles gets posted though is that there is a predictable group of folks who will jump up and, based on an equally dismaying stock set of assumptions, polarize themselves from the "less well to do" camp with the vitriolic blame.
Look, I see many many folks in certain areas hanging out on street corners, doing crack or just smoking and drinking, having babies they cannot afford, collecting this that and the other thing from the gov't, demanding their entitlements, etc etc. That is ONE tier of the folks who are never going to get anywhere because they don't want to or their brains are so fried they simply can't. That's one clearly defined tier you can blame.
Then I see one tier up, the folks who are only mildly motivated and had chances they could have taken but didn't, they were a bit "lazy." That's another tier you can blame, but there are some complex factors in this group.
The next one up starts to get more complicated—that's the one in which folks honestly wanted to be solidly in the middle class and work(ed) their butts off trying to make it happen. They may have done a very natural human thing (oh no!) and started a family, and with their spouses worked hard to get into housing and provide education for their kids and still they struggle. They may have limited or no resources for higher education, may not be trained (and socially networked) for the highest paying jobs, and so their economic condition stagnates or deteriorates depending on the greater economy. This is a tier that you love to glump in with the lower two tiers, and here is where your fondest assumptions about humanity break down.
The next tier up is the successful tier—successful through some combination of education, hard work, and social confidence and networking. Sure some of these folks share the rags to riches story, but they for unknown reasons (and it's not the hard work theory) managed to rise above the previous tier in their success. Those in this group are the ones most likely to point fingers and play the blame game (if I did it anyone can do it). Some in this group may be at times perilously close to dropping down a tier or two, depending on the success in holding their jobs, getting promotions, and increasing their investments. Those in this group who are successful can well afford to lend a hand up to those in the lower tiers who honestly want to do better. Some do.
The top tier is old money, those on trust funds, those whose wealth is due in part to inheritances, etc. Sure they may work but they do that on top of the foundation of complete security. Strangely enough, I've seen people in this category who are actually more understanding of and caring for the bottom tiers. These are the philanthropists and humanists who are likely to start foundations and other enterprises to actually help others. I rarely see a finger-pointer among the people I have known and worked with in this category, they seem genuinely interested in the human condition and betterment, even for those in jail.
It's a broad spectrum of individuals and situations in our society, and truly wanting to understand the socioeconomic conditions of elders requires a bit more than summarily dismissing a huge swath of the population based on shallow assumptions.
What a wonderful post - thank you NEG - certainly more nuanced than the black and white positions taken by many.
Reading all these posts, I am struck by the thought that many of us view this through the prism of our own backgrounds - I know I grew up in a family that valued education, that taught me a strong work ethic, etc. I think we look at these problems from the viewpoint of our own backgrounds.
One thing that bothers me in these discussions is the assumption that everyone has the intelligence level to navigate through these changing times. I think the "working class" is the hardest hit in all this - you know, the people who maybe worked in a factory. As these jobs disappeared, I think many just didn't have the knowledge or intellect to figure out how to navigate the brave new world they found themselves in. They aren't going back to school to become engineers, doctors, etc. Many are struggling now - they are hard working, but are never going to achieve the "American dream". They are living week to week trying to put food on the table and pay their rent. It's hard to plan or even think about retirement when all your energy is spent making enough to pay the bills.
The other problem is the many children who come from horrible backgrounds. My sister lives in a Midwest state and deals with severely traumatized kids. These are children who have suffered from abuse - physical and/or sexual - and they have unbelievable problems. I've gotten quite an education hearing her stories. What is shocking is how many of them there are. I think of them as "throwaway children". Many live in state homes because they cannot live at home - their situations are too dire. There is not enough money or counseling to deal with these children. These kids in most cases are not going to grow up and be productive members of society.
My other sister, a retired teacher, mentors a young woman from this kind of background. The challenges are immense. She was repeatedly abused, both physically and sexually, for years. She can't keep a job, because she suffers from severe depression and is periodically hospitalized for it.
What do we do with people like this - and there are far too many of them. They did not grow up in circumstances that make it likely that they will be productive members of society.
I don't pretend to have the answers, but surely we must recognize that not everyone grew up from the same background that we did.
No one has said anything about not giving people the freedom to make their own mistakes. And, no, it is not principled to regard people who make mistakes like human garbage and callously throw them into the trash heap. Such offensively callous perspectives are crafted from selfishness and egoistic avarice.
But we are responsible for mistakes. It's not about treating them like human garbage, but about forcing others to clean up after them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU
Bull. If that were true, the excuses posted elsewhere in your post would be unnecessary. There are myriad examples of people arguing against the social safety net with lame rationalization grounded in trying to marginalize the effect on people they couldn't care less about.
[quote=bUU;36295790]
Some perceptions of offensiveness are based on universal ethics espoused by Jesus and Gandhi. Some perceptions of offensiveness are based on corrupt, self-centered "ethics" espoused by Ayn Rand.
No different than the corrupt, self-centered "ethics" espoused by liberals and socialists. I mean, it's corrupt and self-centered to have babies you can't afford, to do drugs and then want others to take care of you, want a $50,000 salary because you work in an unskilled job at a fast food joint that requires no education, training, and sacrifices. We're all self-centered. We have a country and culture of entitlements, not incentives.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU
Precisely the kind of perspective that some use to insulate themselves from the moral imperatives of living in society with others.
Your moral imperatives, not others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by newenglandgirl
The top tier is old money, those on trust funds, those whose wealth is due in part to inheritances, etc. Sure they may work but they do that on top of the foundation of complete security. Strangely enough, I've seen people in this category who are actually more understanding of and caring for the bottom tiers. These are the philanthropists and humanists who are likely to start foundations and other enterprises to actually help others. I rarely see a finger-pointer among the people I have known and worked with in this category, they seem genuinely interested in the human condition and betterment, even for those in jail.
I actually disagree with the old money crowd that is "more" understanding and caring for the bottom tier. Old money crowd tends to be pretentious and disconnected, and gets upset that the "new" money is more aggressive and outshines them. The new money just doesn't throw money around or do fancy galas at Palm Beach, but I would argue they are more generous and focus on the results of where their generosity goes. They apply the skills, knowledge, and work ethic to their philanthropic efforts. Bill Gates, Michael Bloomberg, and others offer a good insight.
I think for the most part, new money looks at the return on their social giving and efforts and how to best allocate their resources with much more scrutiny, where old money doesn't seem to have this same approach.
I disagree! Life happens and some things swirl out of control despite good and proper planning. Your post assumes that everyone has the means during their working years to completely insulate themselves from any contingencies that may arise and that is patently false. You also assume that falling on hard times might universally be a result of poor choices, out-of-control spending and instant gratification. That, too, is false and also demeaning.
By now I think we're all aware that you're very comfortable financially as you tout it often. Good for you and for your sake I hope you never have to face a bank-busting event or even (especially) several. But should that occur some time in the future, by your own words, it would be safe for us to assume you were a wastrel, planned poorly and/or indulged yourself. Sitting on a high horse keeps you from looking at others eye-to-eye and can presage a painful fall.
never said everyone , i said most! most are where they are by poor choices and decisions which could have turned out different if other choices were made.
it can never apply to everyone.
i could just have easily let my own life drift and stayed in that nyc housing project.. but i always had a back up plan and did shift gears when i had to.
others in my situation did not take control and drifted from one dead end job to another. in fact i still hear from some old friends from my project days. most of whom are still there.
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.
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.
