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.
If you accept the premise that the majority of the last of the Boomers have no wealth and no pension, why would any of them move to a red state with no services or safety net? I think you’d want to live in a place with subsidized senior housing, good public transportation, and the whole list of senior-oriented services.
You retire to a red state if you have limited wealth & income and want to stretch your buying power. That’s not the bottom 1/3 to 1/2 of the last of the Boomers. They have a modest Social Security check and savings that won’t last w.
I think some of you are projecting - stats say that early and late boomers have about the same net worth and are saving at about same rate. And while most stay put in retirement, those that do move tend to relocate to much the same areas as previous boomers for much the same reasons, warm weather and costs.
I think some of you are projecting - stats say that early and late boomers have about the same net worth and are saving at about same rate. And while most stay put in retirement, those that do move tend to relocate to much the same areas as previous boomers for much the same reasons, warm weather and costs.
The difference is that very few of the late Boomers have pensions. Only 13% of non-union private sector employees have pensions. Late-Boomers also have an age 67 full retirement age so their Social Security check is smaller. The math is totally different. As a late Boomer, you need much greater wealth to sustain the same standard of living compared to the first Boomers with the pension and the bigger Social Security check.
Only 13% of non-union private sector employees have pensions.
Why exclude those most likely to have pensions - union workers and government employees. Also if making case, should provide early and late boomer stats, not just late and imply it is worse. It should be what percent of all early Boomers have pensions in relation to late Boomers and not just non-union private sector subset. I bet the overall percentages are not much different.
Quote:
Late-Boomers also have an age 67 full retirement age so their Social Security check is smaller.
Late boomers do not have smaller SS amount at FRA if have same work history, they just need to wait (a year or less) longer to claim the same benefit. If claim early, it will be slightly smaller but not enough to have a significant impact. The actual dollar amount differences are pretty small.
Also simply looking at savings as total wealth, without looking at home equity, and then excluding the major portion of people with pensions (public or private...approx 30% of retired family units in 2010 have at least one pension) shows a slanted view of the situation. I think this article gives a more complete view for boomers by looking at the whole picture and not just savings, and not excluding public and union workers who are most likely to have pensions. The article gets bogged down a bit in the explanation of the methods used, but is far more realistic, in my opinion.
Why exclude those most likely to have pensions - union workers and government employees. Also if making case, should provide early and late boomer stats, not just late and imply it is worse. It should be what percent of all early Boomers have pensions in relation to late Boomers and not just non-union private sector subset. I bet the overall percentages are not much different.
Those jobs, especially unionized jobs in the private sector and jobs in the private sector which provided pensions, have greatly waned over the years.
The Silents were probably the best off generation in terms of pensions. Older Boomers were able to ride that wave. My parents were born in 1957. If they had stayed at one place, at least my dad would have had a pension, but as people changed jobs, places were far less likely to offer pensions to new employees.
The Silents were probably the best off generation in terms of pensions. Older Boomers were able to ride that wave. My parents were born in 1957. If they had stayed at one place, at least my dad would have had a pension, but as people changed jobs, places were far less likely to offer pensions to new employees.
That's a good point. Not to turn this into a flippant generational-warfare diatribe, but it was really the Silent Generation that benefited from the fruits of modernity, before the system became too strained and was no longer able to deliver. They entered the workforce just as the post-WW2 world was stabilizing, and exited the workforce in the 1990s stock-market boom. Earlier generations had to contend with more privations in their youth, while later ones came of age when the pension-boom was already waning.
Today, when we behold with fond dewy-eyed fascination the mythical bygone days, what we really mean is the cohort that was too young to fight in WW2, too old to get drafted in Vietnam, and timed things perfectly to enjoy the mass-prosperity that the 20th century had to offer. But, I'm biased, because that was my parents' generation, and if I'm going to give myself extra-credit for living a steadfast and honorable life, naturally I have to assign to my parents all sorts of unearned advantages. It's only fair, right?
The NC Triad is the Greensboro/Winston Salem/High Point area of NC. The COL is pretty low, great hospital and doctors, and some areas are walkable, but most aren’t. The weather is 4 seasons - it gets hot in the summer, but winters are pretty mild. Not sure about availability is good paying part time jobs. They may be out there, but I’m not sure. I’ve lived in the area for 25 years.
The NC Triad is the Greensboro/Winston Salem/High Point area of NC. The COL is pretty low, great hospital and doctors, and some areas are walkable, but most aren’t. The weather is 4 seasons - it gets hot in the summer, but winters are pretty mild. Not sure about availability is good paying part time jobs. They may be out there, but I’m not sure. I’ve lived in the area for 25 years.
Part-time jobs paying in the $10-$15/hr are basically everywhere now if you have any skills or get up and go at all. Those type of jobs are easily available here. With two people at a Greensboro cost of living, it's livable, though not fancy.
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.
