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 anyone really needs to they can find TWO jobs in a month in this economy. Anyone presentable, for that matter. Certainly not much more than 10$ an hour but something.
In one thread we have people complaining about making ends meet grossing $100K and then in another people are claiming one can live on $15K gross.
Some serious disconnects here.
Anyone wallowing in '70's nostalgia should know well that with the two MASSIVE recessions of that decade, making do was more brutal than any time since the 1930's. I hope we never again see the likes of the 1970's (but I know we will.)
ahhh my dear kefir. your wrong, if you want to look at those living on fixed incomes the worst time frame ever was the period starting in 1966 and going out for 30 years taking in the 1970's. markets were declared dead by business week magazine, businesses were dropping like flies ,and then double digit inflation appeared out of left field like icing on the cake and whacked the heck out of everyone..
folks saw their yearly expenditures jump from 4% withdrawals to over 10% just to pay the same bills in just a few short years . it was devastating.
in fact the time frame left retirees dead in the water . it was one of 2 time frames in 146 years where retirees would have gone broke well before they should have following the safe withdrawal rate rule of 4%..
data from shiller says in fact there were historically 2 time frames the last 146 years where a retiree who tried to adhere to the ole 4% spending rule would have failed and gone broke and the worst was the 1966 time frame where everything that could have gone wrong did .
one of the best ever was actually the 30 year time frame starting in 1921 and that actually included the great depression period.
the trinity study found the same time frame to be the worst but they only went back to 1926 and looked forward at every 30 year time frame in rolling year by year periods.
judging what is a bad time frame takes at least 15 years and most accurate is 30 years.
in fact 99% of the time how a retiree survives is determined in the first 15 years according to dr wade pfau ,one of my favorite current day researchers.
actually if things don't get better only those who retireed specifically in the year 2000 are on track to do worse then those in 1966 but it is to early to comment yet as there is not enough history yet to reach a conclusion as to whether or not that time frame will be worse.
modern retirement planning uses the 1966 30 year period as the model for worst case scenerio's for planning around.
kefir, i take great interest in this stuff because im intending to work as a financial planner in retirement specializing in helping baby boomers .
if you have an interest in any of this stuff i can hook you up with some very interesting reading on the subject as to what constitutes worse case scenerios. unless you have an interest though it is kind of dry reading.
Last edited by mathjak107; 01-01-2013 at 10:35 AM..
Anyone collecting ANY benefit should be fingerprinted and have to prove they are a US citizen or Green Card holder--and those who can't prove they are here legally should get picked up by INS and shipped back to where they came from. Also people convicted of felonies and on parole or probation shouldn't be allowed to collect any benefit except social security if they've paid into it.
but what do you propose for those adults who are not U.S. citizens, however, their minor children who have been born on U.S. soil ARE legal citizens and entitled to public assistance if their single parent household is unemployed or underemployed? Their parent (s) are their legal guardians and must apply for benefits (food, shelter, healthcare, education, etc., etc., etc.) on these children's behalf and thus secure inadvertently food, shelter, and healthcare (in the case of pregnant mothers) for themselves as well.
A completely different kettle of fish when it comes to children who are in need and entitled to benefits.
but what do you propose for those adults who are not U.S. citizens, however, their minor children who have been born on U.S. soil ARE legal citizens and entitled to public assistance if their single parent household is unemployed or underemployed? Their parent (s) are their legal guardians and must apply for benefits (food, shelter, healthcare, education, etc., etc., etc.) on these children's behalf and thus secure inadvertently food, shelter, and healthcare (in the case of pregnant mothers) for themselves as well.
A completely different kettle of fish when it comes to children who are in need and entitled to benefits.
Best regards, sincerely
HomeIsWhere...
How about everyone pays their own way? What?!?!
Personal responsibility?!? What?
I find it interesting that you said "entitled to public assistance..."
I have sympathy for children as much an anybody, but its time parents start doing the right thing. get a second job like a lot of hardworking immigrants I see. if you cannot affordmto feed 6 children than don't have so many. It' irresponsible!
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.
Nice try...
