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 11-14-2016, 02:32 PM
 
Location: VT; previously MD & NJ
2,186 posts, read 1,340,059 times
Reputation: 6292

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by wombleywomberly View Post
Very balanced and thoughtful. However, do you think the elderly will be able to perform the kind of work that illegals tend to do - and that's if enough of them leave, voluntarily or otherwise ?

Also, ageism is already an issue in hiring. I don't expect a great deal of support for labor discrimination cases from a Trump administration.

Thanks!
No, the elderly won't be cleaning hotels, mowing lawns and picking fruit. Our younger citizens will be doing that, freeing up less strenuous retail jobs for the older folks. Ageism in hiring will also change because as the boomers retire there will be fewer workers to fill current jobs - so older workers should start becoming desirable again.

 
Old 11-14-2016, 03:51 PM
 
13,874 posts, read 7,386,288 times
Reputation: 25356
Quote:
Originally Posted by ansible90 View Post
No, the elderly won't be cleaning hotels, mowing lawns and picking fruit. Our younger citizens will be doing that, freeing up less strenuous retail jobs for the older folks. Ageism in hiring will also change because as the boomers retire there will be fewer workers to fill current jobs - so older workers should start becoming desirable again.
Look at the data for the late Boomers. Most are going to work until they can't work and then live in near poverty with little net worth and nothing coming in but a social security check. 70th percentile household net worth for that group is about $350k with much of that home equity. There are the lucky few with public sector and union jobs with pensions but way more than half of the late Boomers are really going to struggle.

I'm 58. I'm in better shape than that but I'm looking at working pretty much to my full retirement age to make the math work. Like most of us, I have no pension. My Social Security check will be a major chunk of my cash flow. I kind of need to defer collecting it until I turn 70 or I risk running out of money and struggle with the smaller check.
 
Old 11-14-2016, 04:55 PM
 
Location: University City, Philadelphia
22,592 posts, read 12,330,169 times
Reputation: 15493
Quote:
Originally Posted by lenora View Post
That's true. He has repeatedly stated that he intends to pay for the programs by greatly growing the economy such that there will be no need to cut Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid benefits. And yes, he did include Medicaid in his promise. But that's o.k. because he will create the greatest growth of the economy this country has ever seen.
That statement is SARCASM ... right???!!!
 
Old 11-14-2016, 04:59 PM
 
Location: Edina, MN, USA
6,954 posts, read 7,388,974 times
Reputation: 16278
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clark Park View Post
That statement is SARCASM ... right???!!!
I assumed it was complete sarcasm - it was, wasn't Lenora? LENORA!!!!! Don't make me come to Baltimore
 
Old 11-14-2016, 05:09 PM
 
26,085 posts, read 28,478,940 times
Reputation: 24788
Quote:
Originally Posted by FiveLoaves View Post
I'm not sure which part of any of your points you think was made.

Health Care Costs are rising. Here's one reason why --a list of the highest paid CEO's in the Health Care field....

1. Leonard S. Schleifer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals (Tarrytown, N.Y.) — $47.46 million
2. Jeffrey M. Leiden, Vertex Pharmaceuticals (Boston) — $28.09 million
3. Larry J. Merlo, CVS Health (Woonsocket, R.I.) — $22.86 million
4. Robert J. Hugin, Celgene (Summit, N.J.) — $22.47 million
5. Alex Gorsky, Johnson & Johnson (New Brunswick, N.J.) — $21.13 million
6. Michael F. Neidorff, Centene (St. Louis) — $20.76 million
7. Alan B. Miller, Universal Health Services (King of Prussia, Pa.) — $20.43 million
8. Kenneth C. Frazier, Merck & Co. (Kenilworth, N.J.) — $19.89 million
9. Miles D. White, Abbott Laboratories (Chicago) — $19.41 million
10. John C. Martin, Gilead Sciences (Foster City, Calif.) — $18.76
11. Richard A. Gonzalez, AbbVie (North Chicago, Ill.) — $18.53 million
12. Heather Bresch, Mylan (Canonsburg, Pa.) — $18.16 million
13. David M. Cordani, Cigna (Bloomfield, Conn.) — $17.31 million
14. Mark T. Bertolini, Aetna (Hartford, Conn.) — $17.26
15. George A. Scangos, Biogen (Cambridge, Mass.) — $16.87 million
16. Robert L. Parkinson, Baxter International (Deerfield, Ill.) — $16.65 million
17. John C. Lechleiter, Eli Lilly & Co. (Indianapolis) — $16.56 million
18. Marc N. Casper, Thermo Fisher Scientific (Waltham, Mass.) — $16.31 million
19. Robert A. Bradway, Amgen (Thousand Oaks, Calif.) — $16.09 million
20. George Paz, Express Scripts Holding (St. Louis) — $14.84 million
Those salaries are nothing compared to the $1 Trillion (yes, trillion with a T) we spend on health care for largely preventable diseases. The biggest reason health care costs are rising is US. 70% of health care costs are driven by lifestyle decisions. We'll never get a handle on health care costs until we confront that simple fact.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waGHi6aMzh8
 
Old 11-14-2016, 05:19 PM
 
210 posts, read 150,564 times
Reputation: 628
One can move society to a new norm of better life styles, but, for now, the greatest cost comes from the oldest people who, if they led a unhealthy life, are unlikely to be even helped by living a healthier life. The cost is pretty well already a done deal for the currently retired. Or, well, you might have carousel nights when people turn 65 and reach for their Medicare cards.
 
Old 11-14-2016, 05:26 PM
 
Location: NC Piedmont
3,911 posts, read 2,876,213 times
Reputation: 6291
Quote:
Originally Posted by Serious Conversation View Post
I've had to pare this post down, but much of what you're concerning cuts at least two ways, potentially more. This low inflation/low interest rate environment has been a problem to seniors looking for safer investment opportunities than equities or for people looking to park money in CDs, money market accounts, or simple savings accounts. Many seniors I know are extremely conservative investors after a certain age. Whether that's the best choice or not can be reasonably debated - what can't be debated is that these strategies are virtually useless with interest rates at or near zero.

If anything, Trump was among the most antiwar candidates in the field, except for Rand Paul and perhaps Bernie Sanders. I would be much more concerned about Hillary getting us involved in another war than Trump.

The "stands for nothing" that you're describing could lead to pragmatic flexibility. Trump has some liberal beliefs on raising the minimum wage, looking like he's going to keep parts of the ACA, etc. Like him or not, when was the last time we had a president who openly took both liberal and conservative positions? I think he is going to be a lot more pragmatic and reasonable than most people realize. We have had gridlock for many years and I think Trump has a good chance of getting through a lot of this.

I don't know how many people can or can't save 12% of their income, but go to any personal finance board and that's probably a baseline estimate for retirement. Many planners would reasonably say most people need to save more.



Definitely and Ryan and Trump have not gotten along well. I think they'll work together, but if Ryan and crew get something together that Trump doesn't like, I don't see Trump rolling over for it.
It's still early to conclude what Trump will do. He and/or his staff has admitted some statements were to get him elected. Now there is some suspicion that he is trying to calm the opposition (disclaimer - that would be me) by floating the ideas concerning staying the course on parts of Obamacare and marriage equality; maybe not bothering with investigating Hillary further and backing off on his immigrations stances a bit. Yet he is surrounding himself with advocates for hard line positions on these issues. Not sure how that will play out.

I do believe that Hillary is more likely to plan to engage in brinksmanship with no intention of backing down and get us in some conflicts, but I am not sure that Trump is less likely to end up in one. Bernie was my candidate, but I did back Hillary because I think Trump is far too unpredictable and his record is anything but spotless.
 
Old 11-14-2016, 05:27 PM
 
Location: Denver, CO
9,267 posts, read 5,488,464 times
Reputation: 4046
Default What are the chances a Republican President and Congress fix this?

Quote:
Prescription drug companies aren’t putting a lot of resources toward new, groundbreaking medication, according to a recent report in BMJ, a medical journal based in London. Instead, it’s more profitable for them to simply to create a bunch of products that are only slightly different from drugs already on the market, the reports authors said.



“[P]harmaceutical research and development turns out mostly minor variations on existing drugs,” the authors write. “Sales from these drugs generate steady profits throughout the ups and downs of blockbusters coming off patents.”



The authors go on to say that for every dollar pharmaceutical companies spend on “basic research,” $19 goes toward promotion and marketing.



And apparently it’s been working. Drug company revenues climbed more than $200 billion in the years between 1995 and 2010, according to the website MinnPost. Meanwhile, in recent years, more than one in five Americans age 50 and up have had to cut down on their dosages or switch to cheaper generic drugs because the cost of medication is so high.
I'm one of those retired Americans cutting some drug prescription in half to save money. Some elderly are resorting to selling pain medication in order to afford more--a few have been locked up where their medications are free and you get to pay for it.

So most of your pharmaceutical bucks after administrative expenses go to the ads that need a thirty second after commercial to tell you how they might incapacitate or kill you.

Capitalism at its best.
 
Old 11-14-2016, 05:45 PM
 
Location: NC Piedmont
3,911 posts, read 2,876,213 times
Reputation: 6291
Quote:
Originally Posted by mysticaltyger View Post
Those salaries are nothing compared to the $1 Trillion (yes, trillion with a T) we spend on health care for largely preventable diseases. The biggest reason health care costs are rising is US. 70% of health care costs are driven by lifestyle decisions. We'll never get a handle on health care costs until we confront that simple fact.
Are you sure your figures are right? The US population in 2014 was pegged at 318.9 million, so that trillion dollar figure works out to $3.14 per person per year.

Also, do you have a source for your 70% claim? Choices can increase the odds of various ailments, sometimes a little and sometimes a lot. But just because being overweight increases the odds of a heart attack, not every overweight person who has one would have dodged it by not being overweight. I agree we should eat better, exercise and kick unhealthy habits like smoking and frequent excessive drinking to the curb but that 70% figure seems high.
 
Old 11-14-2016, 05:56 PM
 
Location: La Mesa Aka The Table
7,483 posts, read 8,027,895 times
Reputation: 8512
Quote:
Originally Posted by mysticaltyger View Post
Those salaries are nothing compared to the $1 Trillion (yes, trillion with a T) we spend on health care for largely preventable diseases. The biggest reason health care costs are rising is US. 70% of health care costs are driven by lifestyle decisions. We'll never get a handle on health care costs until we confront that simple fact.
This
But our government is also partly responsible for this with the backwards food pyramid they showed us so many years.
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.


Closed Thread

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