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.
Haven't there been uncertainty of some sort in all generations? My folks faced WWI and recovery from the great depression. Home prices excalating isn't new. In the mid-70's housing prices had doubled in 18 months....and we were recipeints of that boom.
I think there have been huge economic changes in the past 25 years, but still in all change isn't new. Prices are higher, but so are incomes. Expections, however, are much higher. I think we expect more..more of everything. And many of us aren't prepared for the harsh reality that "more" and "everything" isn't going to happen. But retirement can still be a richly rewarding period of life if your not measuring wealth in $$.
Many of us may have to continue working in "retirement"...but hey, we redefined the workplace in our life, who is to say we can't redefine "retirement"?
Yes we have through the uncertainties you mentioned including the cold war and oh yes the Cuban missile crisis.
However many Americans haven't and with technology it gets experienced everyday almost first hand.
Kathleen, 'we' haven't done anything to anybody's generation that multiple congresses haven't taken us through. Our only failures are to have elected the pathetic congressmen/women who have spent this nations' wealth into oblivion. There are none to blame but congress. Not only the congress of Speaker Pelosi, not only the congress of Speaker Gingrich, not only the congresses that have taken advantage of their privileges today, but any and all congresses that have transgressed our constitution. I do not know of any one congress person who will not die in disrepute for the actions of congress.
All of them.
Our 'only' failures were pretty big ones. It was up to us to elect responsible representatives (easier said than done, I know) or to boot out those with less-than-stellar records. We did neither.
It's just starting to happen. Baby Boomers will be retiring by the millions within the next few years.
I am wondering if some cities or states will be minus a lot of population in the near future. Will there be lots of retired people moving south?
There is the work place issue as well. With millions retiring will we have enough workers?
What is your vision of the USA in about 10 or 15 years?
good post. The way people are treated as disposable by American business, we will see how well banks and larger firms are doing when people ages 45-60 mass retire. What goes around comes around.
Last edited by dreamofmonterey; 11-04-2007 at 11:10 AM..
Reason: add
Our 'only' failures were pretty big ones. It was up to us to elect responsible representatives (easier said than done, I know) or to boot out those with less-than-stellar records. We did neither.
I understand that. I think that to a large extent, the voter goes on faith by believing a congressrep will support the best interests of the citizen. That becomes less true with each succeeding congress. My only recourse is that I never vote for an incumbent.
My only recourse is that I never vote for an incumbent.
Great strategy. I wish it was more widely practiced. I have rarely ever voted for an incumbent, unless I felt that they truly represented we the people instead of Americorporation. In the 2008 election, I can think of only a few members of congress that I'd like to see re-elected. Most of them should go. Get rid of the experience. Expereince has gotten us into a big mess. Elect people who can & will work together. Democrats, republicans, independents...I don't care. Let's get rid of the divisive labels, respect our differences, and find ways to come up with viable solutions.
Sadly I think that once they are voted into office they are more concerned about their own wealth building. I am from Nancy Pelosi land and she is one pampered Queen. They are all dismal and within the entire lot running for the Oval Office, I do not see a light at the end of our tunnel.
..... Social Security is really a good and necessary program that has helped millions of senior citizens who otherwise would have been completely destitute and out on the street. The 'powers-that-be', i.e., corporate interests, are playing every trick they can on the public in an attempt to privatize it. Fortunately for our country, Bush made a mess of carrying the corporate message to the people but there will be others, in years to come, who will harp on this same thing and no doubt, far more eloquently than Bush was capable of doing (that goes without saying, doesn't it? ). I hope the working public does not fall for it. It would be the worse thing for our country--to do away with Social Security.
It doesn't matter if you are a Democrat or a Republican, this is an economic policy issue. If we don't move to FIX Social Security we will lose it entirely, and one mechanism to fix it is to utilize investments in capital markets. The reason we are in danger of losing it in the first place is that it has been government run, with gross inefficiency, and return on investment yields less than inflation. Without reviewing all the caveats, i.e. don't trade government control for corporate control, limit peoples choices so they can't "Enron" their entire nest egg, a percentage of what we pay in could be judiciously invested in the private market to reap better returns.
Performance wise, ALL my investments in stocks, REITS, and mutual funds have done better that the paltry Social Security return I will get from the mis-managed government efforts. In addition, philosophically, I want some control in the decision-making process of what THEY do with MY money,
under the hypocritical guise of THEY know what's better for MY retirement than I do.
PS I agree with your benevolent goals, but as always, "the devil is in the details" of implementation.
If congress hadn't consistently raided the SS fund, there would be no crisis. Once again, it was never meant to be a retirement fund, it was meant to keep the elderly and disabled from destitution and off the streets. Without the application to the whole population, the whole thing falls apart and that is what privatization would do. I still think there is no way it will be let to go. The country simply can't afford now to do without it. A way will be found to keep it going. The health coverage is a much bigger problem looming the near and distant future.
Pension plans, 401k and their ilk, IRAs, stocks, bonds, other savings, etc are meant to be the bulk of retirement funding. SS is for those who can't get onto that bandwagon so they don't end up on the streets. It has been a hugely successful program with a good return for its intended purpose.
We should send representatives to Washington just like we make juries. Draw names out of the hat: "Elberta Fudgecycle" you are hereby directed to report to the Senate of the United States for a six year tour of duty."
Could we do worse really than what we have now?
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.
). I hope the working public does not fall for it. It would be the worse thing for our country--to do away with Social Security. 
