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 06-17-2008, 09:41 AM
 
13,318 posts, read 25,550,246 times
Reputation: 20500

Advertisements

It concerns me how people say "I'll have to work forever" or something like that. There is no saying there will be a job for older people, or that they will have the health or strength to do that job. It's not all up to the aging worker... an awful lot of people "are retired" by circumstance and health.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-17-2008, 09:54 AM
 
1,861 posts, read 3,024,083 times
Reputation: 559
Quote:
Originally Posted by brightdoglover View Post
It concerns me how people say "I'll have to work forever" or something like that. There is no saying there will be a job for older people, or that they will have the health or strength to do that job. It's not all up to the aging worker... an awful lot of people "are retired" by circumstance and health.
Well, as we've said, if we have to work "forever", we'll just drop dead on the job or starve on the streets. Many do not have a choice.

And, by the way, we'll have plenty of jobs - haven't you heard? Employers will need us desperately, because there are not enough workers to replace us, AND we have better experience and education, not to mention work ethics! Things are changing for us Baby Boomers, and as I've always said, we ain't going down easy! We're not going to stand for someone saying we're too old for ANYTHING.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-17-2008, 12:07 PM
 
Location: Forests of Maine
30,679 posts, read 49,430,310 times
Reputation: 19129
Quote:
Originally Posted by cousinsal View Post
Couldn't have said it better myself. Brilliant plan, eh?

I was born in 1950, and in order to get the highest benefits of social security, I have to work until I'm 70. Now - imagine
The current math-model of SS uses a 35 year average gross income.

If you worked from 21 years of age until you turned 56; then your SS insurance policy is maxxed out. You would get your 'highest' level of benefit.

The old math-model used the most recent 40 quarters.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-17-2008, 01:52 PM
 
1,861 posts, read 3,024,083 times
Reputation: 559
Quote:
Originally Posted by forest beekeeper View Post
The current math-model of SS uses a 35 year average gross income.

If you worked from 21 years of age until you turned 56; then your SS insurance policy is maxxed out. You would get your 'highest' level of benefit.

The old math-model used the most recent 40 quarters.
That sucks, doesn't it? Obviously, you make more as you move "up the ladder", so an "average" of 35 years could be extremely low. I made like $4,000/year when I got out of college.

Is that another one of their ideas to make sure they can spend the social security fund, and still be able to pay us something?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-17-2008, 02:10 PM
 
Location: Forests of Maine
30,679 posts, read 49,430,310 times
Reputation: 19129
Quote:
Originally Posted by cousinsal View Post
That sucks, doesn't it? Obviously, you make more as you move "up the ladder", so an "average" of 35 years could be extremely low. I made like $4,000/year when I got out of college.

Is that another one of their ideas to make sure they can spend the social security fund, and still be able to pay us something?

Under the old model; a 'housewife' could do off-and-on part-time employment out of the home while her family is raising children. Then when she enters the workforce fulltime at 55 years old, she could be fully vested and max her pension when she turns 65.

Now even with 40 quarters to become fully vested, they average out your highest earning 35 year span. So if you had a ten year period with no income, or your income was sporatic, then it will average very low.

The 'ideal' is to earn more money with each passing year. I think that in reality that rarely happens.

Some folks have a salary that is tied to the minimum wage.

While others will have periods of unemployment.

We must keep in mind that SS was never intended to be anyone's sole source of retirement income.

It is a back-up plan, an insurance policy. If your primary plan fails, if your secondary plan fails, if your tertiary plans fail; than you have SS to fall back onto.

And as an insurance policy it was later used to support the blind, and the disabled, and widows, and orphans, and, and, and, ...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2008, 07:56 AM
 
1,861 posts, read 3,024,083 times
Reputation: 559
Quote:
Originally Posted by forest beekeeper View Post
Under the old model; a 'housewife' could do off-and-on part-time employment out of the home while her family is raising children. Then when she enters the workforce fulltime at 55 years old, she could be fully vested and max her pension when she turns 65.

Now even with 40 quarters to become fully vested, they average out your highest earning 35 year span. So if you had a ten year period with no income, or your income was sporatic, then it will average very low.

The 'ideal' is to earn more money with each passing year. I think that in reality that rarely happens.

Some folks have a salary that is tied to the minimum wage.

While others will have periods of unemployment.

We must keep in mind that SS was never intended to be anyone's sole source of retirement income.

It is a back-up plan, an insurance policy. If your primary plan fails, if your secondary plan fails, if your tertiary plans fail; than you have SS to fall back onto.

And as an insurance policy it was later used to support the blind, and the disabled, and widows, and orphans, and, and, and, ...
Social security in the beginning was so that people would at least not starve in retirement.

There's supposed to be a 3-legged stool (SS, pension, savings), but that's turned into a 4-legged stool, which includes a job.

And, many ONLY have social security - not enough money to save during their working lives, and no pension. So, a JOB is the fourth leg - or the 2nd leg for some.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2008, 09:05 AM
 
Location: Forests of Maine
30,679 posts, read 49,430,310 times
Reputation: 19129
Quote:
Originally Posted by cousinsal View Post
Social security in the beginning was so that people would at least not starve in retirement.

There's supposed to be a 3-legged stool (SS, pension, savings), but that's turned into a 4-legged stool, which includes a job.

And, many ONLY have social security - not enough money to save during their working lives, and no pension. So, a JOB is the fourth leg - or the 2nd leg for some.
I do not know that SS had any connection to the idea of starving.

Before the Depression none of my relatives had any pensions. Then a decade went by, and with WWII came factory jobs with pensions.

Today we may assume that 'everyone' had pensions before SS. But from the experience of my relatives it was the other way around.

Before the Depression a much larger portion of our culture was agriculture. Every state had it's own farm production, every city was surrounded by farms. Per acre they produced much less than today, the masses were much closer connected to their food sources. I am not sure that starving was truly at the fore of their minds.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2008, 12:11 PM
 
1,861 posts, read 3,024,083 times
Reputation: 559
Quote:
Originally Posted by forest beekeeper View Post
I do not know that SS had any connection to the idea of starving.

Before the Depression none of my relatives had any pensions. Then a decade went by, and with WWII came factory jobs with pensions.

Today we may assume that 'everyone' had pensions before SS. But from the experience of my relatives it was the other way around.

Before the Depression a much larger portion of our culture was agriculture. Every state had it's own farm production, every city was surrounded by farms. Per acre they produced much less than today, the masses were much closer connected to their food sources. I am not sure that starving was truly at the fore of their minds.

So, what was it for, then? Wasn't it for people who did not have an income after working all their lives and not being able to work any longer? That is - for food, for housing, etc?

(I didn't think anyone had pensions back then.)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2008, 02:51 PM
 
Location: Forests of Maine
30,679 posts, read 49,430,310 times
Reputation: 19129
Quote:
Originally Posted by cousinsal View Post
So, what was it for, then? Wasn't it for people who did not have an income after working all their lives and not being able to work any longer? That is - for food, for housing, etc?

(I didn't think anyone had pensions back then.)
Cousinsal - please do not take offense at what I am about to say. I am merely thinking out loud. If I step on your beliefs, or insult anyone's ideals, I do apologize. I am merely voicing a theory.



In that culture, churches had a much greater role in housing, feeding and treating the infirm. Which today has faded to non-existence.

Near our property in Ct [four blocks away] is a site of an old poor man's cemetery. I can't think of the name of the cemetery right now. The plague says that it was used from the early 1800's until 1940s. Neighborhood churches each housed and fed the indigent, and their bodies went into a mass un-marked grave.

We know that many things have changed in our society in the last century.

From my understanding of what life was like pre-Depression; few had pensions, most families were large extended families who tried to take care of their own elderly, and the churches took in those who had no families.

Then the idea that SS was supposed to be a 3-legged stool between it, pension, and savings; is shot down.

SS was to help encourage your extended family to house, feed, and cloth you. As your 'savings' was used in the family business.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2008, 05:02 PM
 
Location: Jacksonville, Fl
1,280 posts, read 1,435,527 times
Reputation: 2495
$12,000 a year is a fantasy. I don't see how it is possible unless you choose to live under a bridge in a cardboard box! Taxes, energy, insurance, food, add up to more then $12,000 anually alone in most all places.
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