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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-23-2015, 08:43 PM
 
2,421 posts, read 3,724,705 times
Reputation: 3455

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Escort Rider View Post
Probably about as good a statement as can be reasonably made about this topic. (Although I'm still chuckling about those druggies in the attic!)

One minor side note I would add concerns looking at the dissension and contentiousness from the other side of the coin. While condescension and generalized blame can be irritating, some of the responses to that in your thread (which this one parallels) were over the top with extreme nastiness and ad hominem attacks. It's just one of those sensitive topics. Certain topics are dangerous by their very nature: race relations, religion, the male-female divide, and this one!
Well yes, I do agree the druggies in the attic is funny. A case of spell check gone wild I guess. As to your accusation of my nastiness and ad hominem attacks, I must admit I do not see where in this post it applies. I know you were miffed at me in a response to you in another thread, and reading over that post, I can see your point to a degree. I certainly could have worded it better and more thoughtfully.

But I don't feel I was attacking anyone personally on this thread. Pointing out differences in the way people perceive things or may not have considered before is not a personal attack. I thought I did try to bring facts supporting the argument into the equation.

Yes, I will admit to sometimes being too quick to respond when someone says something "irritating", and not choosing my words more carefully. You are very good at that on the other hand. (that was a complement - not a snide remark ) And yes there is political spill over in this discussion. I don't see how it can be avoided, when how we think is sometimes defined (though I wish it weren't) by the political party we support.

Last edited by modhatter; 03-23-2015 at 09:45 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-23-2015, 09:09 PM
 
Location: Wisconsin
21,539 posts, read 44,010,725 times
Reputation: 15140
Quote:
Originally Posted by TuborgP View Post
And that to me is the crux of the issue. How to differentiate in policy is the challenge. I think what is making it worse is the attack on wealth and affluence by those of a particular political persuasion creating the backlash that is becoming obvious.
It's coming from both sides.

R-wing attacks - on govt workers because their deals are "too cushy." Aren't you glad you and DW made it through?? Those fortunate enough to have retired from govt today - be glad you are not working under the GOP of today especially if you are a state worker. Previously, you could choose a govt job, keep it for 30 years or more, have a spouse who also had a govt job, you have dual pensions, dual SS, dual retirement funds. Everything was swell on retirement. I know you are part of that group.

Those govt jobs are now under attack - and by "those of a particular r-wing political persuasion." The GOP - which hates government and would love to starve/defund that beast (and SS and Medicare) into oblivion and thinks tax-cuts for the rich and free-market capitalism are the answer to everything. And, by all means, let's bust the unions - even when a company wants a union - let's fight so they don't get it - think TN and Volkswagen and the gov and Bob Corker - and further defund what's left of the 'middle class.'

L-wing attacks: I'm not hearing nearly as much on 'rich' retirees as I am on the income inequality/wealth gap of the uber-rich relative to those currently working and with whom I very much sympathize. The opportunities for a life better than one's parents IS greatly diminished for many people. These are the people, working for stagnant wages, funding today's Social Security benefits for you and me. Their purchasing is driving today's economy - they are doing it on an income lower than ours - thus the $70 billion SS shortfall. It IS a problem. It is a HUGE problem. Highly profitable corporations off-shoring jobs, $25/hr people here training their $12/hr foreign replacement, CEOs earning tens of millions. The list is long. Attacks on the uber rich and the income/wealth gap disparity are far from meritless. I don't see this as an attack on 'rich' retirees. I do see this as an attack on the predatory nature of capitalism these days, and bought-and-paid-for politicians who keep the money flowing up to the top.

We on this board are all retired better than many of our children can probably hope to be - unless they are well-paid professionals or entrepreneurs, able to save, and maybe even get a pension.

And, then there is the issue of responsibility - establish careers and save money and then get married and then have children. Most of us, back in the day, at least did not have children until AFTER we were married. It was a moral issue, then. Who really, at that time, considered the long-term social ramifications of the huge numbers of present-day unwed mothers, single-parent families from day one - growing exponentially so that now we have disastrous social problems - costing society billions.

I had it good compared to the opportunities available to young people in a similar place today. Most of those in their late 50's and up on this board have had it good. Plentiful, well-paying job opportunities in private industry and government not requiring twelve years of college. Plenty of companies offering defined benefit pension (mine was one of them, and then wasn't, cutting my projected retirement benefit 75%). I had enough financial savvy to adjust for this calamity, although not enough time to fully overcome it.

Financial literacy is another issue, not taught in schools. And, the most important, wage stagnation makes it harder and harder for people to save, not to mention they haven't a clue on what to do with that money.

The only reason there are 'attacks' - is because those who should now be starting life with much hope are scared - and rightly so.

Moderator cut: personal remarks

Last edited by Marka; 03-26-2015 at 02:33 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2015, 09:38 PM
 
10,817 posts, read 8,063,256 times
Reputation: 17029
Quote:
Originally Posted by in_newengland View Post
Most people who retired without enough money did so due to unfortunate circumstances.
That's my observation, I know a number of people (some in my extended family) who are struggling financially in retirement and not one of them due to poor decision-making, lifestyle, or lack of planning.

On the other hand DH & I are doing very well and we credit that to luck as much as anything. Sure we saved for many years but what put us over the top is that we both worked many years for employers who provided job security and advancement, profit-sharing, 50% matches on 401K, and great health and other benefits. The "luck" part is that we came of age in a time when companies like that existed. They didn't exist for our parents' generation (job security was good but pensions were meager and there were no IRAs or 401Ks). They darn sure don't exist for our children's generation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariadne22 View Post
I had it good compared to the opportunities available to young people in a similar place today. Most of those in their late 50's and up on this board have had it good. Plentiful, well-paying job opportunities in private industry and government not requiring twelve years of college. Plenty of companies offering defined benefit pension (mine was one of them, and then wasn't, cutting my projected retirement benefit 75%). I had enough financial savvy to adjust for this calamity, although not enough time to fully overcome it.
You said it better than I did.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2015, 10:23 PM
 
2,421 posts, read 3,724,705 times
Reputation: 3455
Quote:
Originally Posted by TuborgP View Post
And that to me is the crux of the issue. How to differentiate in policy is the challenge. I think what is making it worse is the attack on wealth and affluence by those of a particular political persuasion creating the backlash that is becoming obvious.
I don't see it as an attack on wealth and affluence. I don't think left leaning people begrudge successful people. I think what they are upset about is the stagnant wages of workers today compared to the profits of corporations and the huge ever escalating pay gaps between it's CEO's and their employees. Corporations are no longer sharing in the good fortune with their workers. They are instead squeezing them at every turn today. It is becoming increasingly more difficult for young people today. Pensions are being eliminated, unions eliminated, corporate and personal off shore tax heavens, health insurance cut, meager 401k matches, threatened cuts to social security, cuts to medicare pending. All while corporation are making record profits. (gov't to blame for SS and Medicare, not corporations of course)

So it is not the wealth that we object to, nor do we think CEO's shouldn't be compensated well when they do a good job. We just want to see employees share in the good fortune as well. We as a society admire success. It is not only the size of the gap and the means of achieving the wealth that is objected to, but it is the singularity of the success that is in question. That is my take on it anyway.

The pay gap between CEOs and workers is much worse than you realize - The Washington Post

Last edited by modhatter; 03-23-2015 at 10:56 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2015, 10:53 PM
 
10,817 posts, read 8,063,256 times
Reputation: 17029
Quote:
Originally Posted by modhatter View Post
I don't see it as an attack on wealth and affluence. I don't think left leaning people begrudge successful people. I think what they are upset about is the stagnant wages of workers today compared to the profits of corporations and the huge ever escalating pay gaps between it's CEO's and their employees.
I'm an affluent left-leaner, you nailed it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-24-2015, 01:53 AM
 
Location: Los Angeles area
14,018 posts, read 17,737,509 times
Reputation: 32304
Default Whoa! Hold the presses!

Quote:
Originally Posted by modhatter View Post
Well yes, I do agree the druggies in the attic is funny. A case of spell check gone wild I guess. As to your accusation of my nastiness and ad hominem attacks, I must admit I do not see where in this post it applies. I know you were miffed at me in a response to you in another thread, and reading over that post, I can see your point to a degree. I certainly could have worded it better and more thoughtfully.

But I don't feel I was attacking anyone personally on this thread. Pointing out differences in the way people perceive things or may not have considered before is not a personal attack. I thought I did try to bring facts supporting the argument into the equation.

Yes, I will admit to sometimes being too quick to respond when someone says something "irritating", and not choosing my words more carefully. You are very good at that on the other hand. (that was a complement - not a snide remark ) And yes there is political spill over in this discussion. I don't see how it can be avoided, when how we think is sometimes defined (though I wish it weren't) by the political party we support.
I was not talking about YOUR nastiness and ad hominem attacks, of which I do not recall any because I do not think you are nasty and I do not think it is at all characteristic of you to make ad hominem attacks, but about those of other posters in the thread you started! Lesson for self: We can't be too careful about making our meaning clear.

As far as my having been "miffed" about one of your responses to me, that's possible but I don't even remember it, as your successful thread grew very long very quickly with many back-and-forth posts among many different posters. What I am saying is I must not have been all that miffed if I don't remember it, although I am too lazy to go back and look for it in a thread that long.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-24-2015, 02:19 AM
 
2,421 posts, read 3,724,705 times
Reputation: 3455
Quote:
Originally Posted by Escort Rider View Post
Probably about as good a statement as can be reasonably made about this topic. (Although I'm still chuckling about those druggies in the attic!)

One minor side note I would add concerns looking at the dissension and contentiousness from the other side of the coin. While condescension and generalized blame can be irritating, some of the responses to that in your thread (which this one parallels) were over the top with extreme nastiness and ad hominem attacks. It's just one of those sensitive topics. Certain topics are dangerous by their very nature: race relations, religion, the male-female divide, and this one!
You know what. I finally figured out what you were referencing. You really had me thinking what I might have said that was so bad. Now I understand you were referencing my "Where are the people who don't have enough to retire?" thread. At least I think that is what you were referencing.

You must have been writing at the same time I was when I finally figured it out. Actually, I really didn't say anything bad to you on the other post. It was the one where you were saying you didn't really see the point or agree with senior discounts and I said that maybe it was because you didn't need them because of your income but to others on limited income they may be welcome (that post). Glad we got that straightened out. What are you doing up and posting with me at 1:34 AM in the morning. We need to get a life !!!

At least I was happy you got a chuckle out of my druggies in the attic!. I think we should let them out now!! LOL

Last edited by modhatter; 03-24-2015 at 02:54 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-24-2015, 06:00 AM
 
29,782 posts, read 34,867,277 times
Reputation: 11705
Quote:
Originally Posted by modhatter View Post
I don't see it as an attack on wealth and affluence. I don't think left leaning people begrudge successful people. I think what they are upset about is the stagnant wages of workers today compared to the profits of corporations and the huge ever escalating pay gaps between it's CEO's and their employees. Corporations are no longer sharing in the good fortune with their workers. They are instead squeezing them at every turn today. It is becoming increasingly more difficult for young people today. Pensions are being eliminated, unions eliminated, corporate and personal off shore tax heavens, health insurance cut, meager 401k matches, threatened cuts to social security, cuts to medicare pending. All while corporation are making record profits. (gov't to blame for SS and Medicare, not corporations of course)

So it is not the wealth that we object to, nor do we think CEO's shouldn't be compensated well when they do a good job. We just want to see employees share in the good fortune as well. We as a society admire success. It is not only the size of the gap and the means of achieving the wealth that is objected to, but it is the singularity of the success that is in question. That is my take on it anyway.

The pay gap between CEOs and workers is much worse than you realize - The Washington Post

I don't necessarily disagree with anything you say. I think there is a counter balance and that is the risk of capital involved in making money and growing a business and how so much is not only made in the process but also lost. Also consider that perhaps just perhaps employee salaries have stagnated but employee compensation is about the same. The increases are in health care and other employee benefits and not as much as salaries. Just providing maternity leave is good but also a employee expense that transfers compensation from salaries to another benefit. Profits rise and fall with the economy yet salaries are difficult to cut during hard times so companies have to layoff which also involves cost. It was only six years ago that just about everyone was losing money. The reality is that the nature of the workforce is changing and in many cases the value of human labor is decreasing. There is a break even point where technology and robotics become cost effective and the need for humans decreases. We have been seeing that over the last decade and as employee cost begin to rise again expect to see more especially in fast foods etc. That is part of the discussion that needs to be had. There are and will not be enough jobs to support the population unless something changes in the long term. Skilled and valuable employees may be starting to be in short supply but human bodies not so much. We talk about 401k matches but remember that corporate profits translates in to 401k profits for those holding them. Share holder profits translates into profits for millions of American citizens , PENSION FUNDS and is sustaining many a retirement now and moving forward. Yes those investments by millions of individuals in stocks and mutual funds involved a risk of capital and we all need only think back a few years and realize how individual capital is at risk being invested. So yes employees share in the wealth but perhaps most importantly shareholders. Shareholders who at personal financial risk provided the capital to grow that company and without that risk of capital how many jobs would there be? So my response to you would be that the success is not as singular as claimed by some but much more broad as experienced by many especially those working to secure that retirement. Unfortunately that part of the story isn't presented in some circles and perhaps if they did more of their supporters would join the wealth creation process.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-24-2015, 06:27 AM
 
15,734 posts, read 9,251,350 times
Reputation: 14217
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt View Post
Explain how a slumlord is a productive member of society.
Of course, to some, every landlord is a slumlord.

But to answer your question, they, like other business owners, inject money into the economy and provide a service to folks.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-24-2015, 06:29 AM
 
Location: Florida
2,291 posts, read 4,946,814 times
Reputation: 5236
Quote:
Originally Posted by cdelena View Post
I was really taken recently when reading about billionaires worldwide and saw the common thread with all the self-made individuals... constant effort, hard work, dedication to building for the future. Some came from the most destitute beginnings to build a fortune.

When I look at my family the trends are exactly the same (but no billionaires), the 30% of us that have or will retire with adequate assets are the ones that worked, planned, and put more effort into providing for ourselves and family as compared to the ones that focused on their current lifestyle.

I know that life throws all of us difficult challenges but hard work and capitalizing on the little dumb luck that all see at times can result in a productive life including adequate late life resources. I get very tired of hearing about income inequality when it is primarily brought on themselves.

So yeah, people make up their own reality.
I so agree with this, the majority of "self made" people failed over and over again, they picked themselves up, and, kept trying, they didn't sit in the corner boo hooing, and talking about the inequities in life.
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