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 would think that the largest demographic now on the scene, the Boomers, would be supplying the biggest demand in terms of goods (so much disposable income) and services (esp healthcare and leisure), and for such things like new kinds of housing for this stage of life. Doesn't that huge consumer wave account for something??
(thanks for the NYT-Friedman link)
This link is from 2001 but it was an interesting read then and we now have 10 years to see how useful it was in seeing what has and is happening. I have highlighted the intro which is very useful. The body of the link is about Kentucky and anyone living there now might have some great insight.
Demographers and budget analysts have been warning policymakers for years that the coming wave of retiring Baby Boomers will wash away projected budget surpluses and erode existing spending priorities. While expenditures for various entitlement programs are expected to increase dramatically, it is already estimated that over half of federal domestic spending outside of interest goes to people 65 and older.(1) Likewise, the revenue side of the ledger will be affected as an increasing percentage of the nation’s population reaches retirement age and becomes eligible for various tax breaks. While much has been written about this issue from a federal perspective, the impact at the state and local levels has not been studied as thoroughly.
It is clear, however, that state and local governments will be affected. For example, individuals over 65 years of age tend to spend less money in general and tend to concentrate more of their expenditures in nontaxed areas such as health care services. As a result, sales and use tax collections, which comprise around 33 percent of the state’s total general fund receipts, will be affected as the population ages.
Moreover, while many elderly will continue to work, they will get the bulk of their income from nontaxable (or virtually nontaxable) sources, like pensions and Social Security. This will affect future income and occupational tax collections, which comprise about 42 percent of the state’s general fund receipts and more than a quarter of local tax revenue, respectively.
Finally, the Homestead Exemption on real estate for the 2001 and 2002 tax years now exempts from taxation the first $26,800 of a property’s assessed value for property owners who are at least 65 years of age.(2) The property tax is the main source of local tax revenue in Kentucky, accounting for nearly 54 percent of local tax revenue in 1999. As the Homestead Exemption shields some property owners from taxation, it exposes others to potentially higher levels of taxation and under some circumstances could lower total property tax receipts.
In the sections that follow, we briefly examine the demographic data on Kentucky’s aging population and then discuss in detail how the income, occupational, sales, and property tax could be affected. We conclude with a discussion of how future expenditures might be impacted.
I won't mention the equity fund that had a leadership change but they said a few months ago they were monitoring the fund. Could be them. Also a short term fund also not to be mentioned has taken a hit since the down grade and the bond funds may be seeing some different recommendations.
we guessed wrong on both it was neither of those.... lol
Y Boomers are not investing in equities as we have discussed and efforts to get us back in the market have failed. For the last decade there has been a major question of what will happen when the boomers hit retirement and how will we behave financially. Would we sit on our money? Go very conservative with our money etc. The dot com bust and now the banking crisis along with this past week have probably chisled in behavior that 15 years ago would not have been projected. The 40 plus crowd has been hit hard by the recession and with home equity having crashed and folks burning their retirement funds to survive we are not the hope we once might have been.
As an alternative perspective to your take on 40-somethings...I see them as having more unshakeable faith in volatile investments, they are in for the long haul as well they need to be. If well-employed and invested, they are hence cavalier about investing and they generally perceive little need for a plan B at the moment--other than hold and reap--i.e., what they will do if they wind up in their own retirement with what the current Boomers have--a global economic mess; layoffs between the ages of 50 and 65 (it can happen, 40'sters); decimated savings due to medical care, divorce, and college tuition for kids....it should be interesting to see, in 10 or 12 years, what they will be experiencing.
Now the Boomers were taught to invest till retirement and then draw down...so why would you be surprised that Boomers are "not participating" and sitting on money?
im more optomistic about the emerging markets taking up the slack as baby boomers retire. you got wealth and money for investment being created now by millions of people who will be future investors and consumers.
there are now more millionaires in asia than europe.
im more optomistic about the emerging markets taking up the slack as baby boomers retire. you got wealth and money for investment being created now by millions of people who will be future investors and consumers.
there are now more millionaires in asia than europe.
This is indeed the bigger picture we have to get used to: a global economy, which some like you understand better than others. The global economy is organic, not static.
we guessed wrong on both it was neither of those.... lol
Yeah but the one was a dog and it is no longer a dog in my portfolio. The recommended buy was in my portfolio until about 3 months ago when I sold it to add to my recommended holdings. In the case of my wife I sold it to buy you know what.
As an alternative perspective to your take on 40-somethings...I see them as having more unshakeable faith in volatile investments, they are in for the long haul as well they need to be. If well-employed and invested, they are hence cavalier about investing and they generally perceive little need for a plan B at the moment--other than hold and reap--i.e., what they will do if they wind up in their own retirement with what the current Boomers have--a global economic mess; layoffs between the ages of 50 and 65 (it can happen, 40'sters); decimated savings due to medical care, divorce, and college tuition for kids....it should be interesting to see, in 10 or 12 years, what they will be experiencing.
Now the Boomers were taught to invest till retirement and then draw down...so why would you be surprised that Boomers are "not participating" and sitting on money?
No, not at all and back in the late 90's there were those economist warning that just such a thing would occur and capital would flow out of the market into bonds and fixed income funds. The concern was that the wind would come out of the market and stagnation would set in. Seniors can be a plus for the economics of local governments as they don't need roads to get to work in the same numbers and they don't need schools all of which cost a lot. However if you get a mix of old, young and poor you can get a fiscal inbalance. That takes us back to the beach conversation and bringing in folks who will require services with no guarantee they will pay anything to the local economy or government. One of the local beach towns has already said no.
No, not at all and back in the late 90's there were those economist warning that just such a thing would occur and capital would flow out of the market into bonds and fixed income funds. The concern was that the wind would come out of the market and stagnation would set in. Seniors can be a plus for the economics of local governments as they don't need roads to get to work in the same numbers and they don't need schools all of which cost a lot. However if you get a mix of old, young and poor you can get a fiscal inbalance. That takes us back to the beach conversation and bringing in folks who will require services with no guarantee they will pay anything to the local economy or government. One of the local beach towns has already said no.
Boomers are spending huge in leisure, retirement communities, healthcare and travel. They may not be buying their first fridge but they are still buying fridges. I do not get why their purchasing/demand is not figuring in big enough. Plus, even though boomers are not needing schools we sure are paying the hikes in property taxes to keep those schools open. I have not seen studies on it but I would like to see the percentage of the property tax burden that older retirees are carrying.
As for the beach conversation, if there are beach businesses that the bus takers use that is certainly a plus. Then you have social balances like, if the bus takers do not get to the beach what kinds of negative social things happen when there are few summer leisure opportunities available esp among young adults. Every economic issue has a balance point with at least one social issue.
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.
