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.
Articles like this make me realize once again how lucky my wife and I are to have been able to retire at a relatively young age (55), with relatively good (knock-on-wood) health, and with very decent (knock-on-wood ... louder) pensions. We made some good decisions early on, we did our best to live within our means, and yes, we had a fair amount of luck as well.
very scary article 1 in 5 employers have a pension plan. only 10% of employees are union which means they might have a penion plan.
there is no retirement just death. very scary. but wait a minute 50 years ago we took care of the old people our parents what happened?
very scary article 1 in 5 employers have a pension plan. only 10% of employees are union which means they might have a penion plan.
there is no retirement just death. very scary. but wait a minute 50 years ago we took care of the old people our parents what happened?
I wouldn't count on a pension plan because most of them are severely underfunded.
It was in the early 1980's when a friend of mine retired from his life long union job expecting a pension of $900/mo which was pretty decent given the early 80's. That and SS and he was set.
The union pension plan was severely underfunded and three years into his pension his was cut from $900 to $250/mo. Just because someone made a promise doesn't mean they will keep it.
Just what everyone wants to read about in this forum but Pension Tsunami
What happened? We handed the job of charitable giving over to government is what happened and when we did we were given clearance to wash our hands of any personal responsibility.
In the 60's food stamps didn't exist except for the poorest of the poor. At least nobody got any that I knew of.
Welfare was what? And we didn't have Section 8 housing either. You either worked or you starved to death.
Once government charity came along and established food stamps for the middle class and companies like Wal Mart calculated they could pay less because food was coming from the government. Same argument can be made for housing and medicaid... if you weren't paid enough money corporate citizens didn't feel the social sting because they could always point to food stamps, housing allowance and free medical care.
So Wally World can pay 15 cents above minimum wage without benefits and they will get people to work for them because these same people get half their living allowance from government. Meanwhile, due to lower wages, corporate investors realizing every increasing profits contributing to the income disparity we see developing.
It isn't unlike me if I decided to collect SS at 66 and continue working. What would I work for? Well, if government gives me the equivalent of $25/hr and I am used to earning $40/hr seems to me I can enjoy the same standard of living earning $15/hr which nobody with a family can compete with. Hey, $15/hr beats $0/hr and it's just spending money anyway so why not?
People blame corporate greed for the rising income disparity but it isn't corporate greed it's government.
When I was growing up if I didn't pay my apartment rent, I remember it being $90.00/month, I would be homeless and I knew it. For me in the 60's there wasn't any other sources of income and I simply could not work a job I couldn't get paid enough live on. To just exist.
Same can be said for medical insurance. Most, if not all, states now have some sort of mechanism for child coverage if the parents don't make enough to pay their own medical or the company didn't provide.
Back in the 50's and 60's medical insurance for the family was pretty well standard on near any job or at least it was in the area I grew up in.
I believe one of the reasons we have for a lessening of our standard of living is government providing in the areas of free food,free housing and free medical at least for children. Why should a company provide anything beyond spending pocket change if they knew you could get it free from government?
If government didn't provide anything; no housing help, no food stamps and no medical, do you think Wally World would have people lined up for jobs paying 15 cents above minimum wage?
This article is silly. Yes, I'm sure that there are people like this, but several admitted they just want to keep working because they wouldn't know what else to do for themselves. Clearly many are ready for retirement and do retire. The average age today is 63. Govt. employees typically have guaranteed pension and lifetime health care. Many private sector workers also have pensions, and retire quite comfortably. Yes there are folks like those who have bounced from job to job over the years, but I don't know many people like this, and I've been in the private sector my whole life.
There are a lot of people who either will not be able to retire at the traditional 65 or will cut back sharply on their lifestyle if they do...but mainly because of decades of over-consumption. If you lived in a 1950's size house and had either zero or one cars and got by with three TV stations and one land-line phone and skipped all the modern conveniences, sure you could retire just like people did back in the good old days.
If I work past 62 it will be because I am having too much fun at it.
This article is silly. Yes, I'm sure that there are people like this, but several admitted they just want to keep working because they wouldn't know what else to do for themselves.
The article is not silly; its point is that there are so many more people "like this" than there used to be. Just because you and I may not fit the profile, we cannot deny that there has been a real paradigm shift.
Clearly many are ready for retirement and do retire. The average age today is 63. Govt. employees typically have guaranteed pension and lifetime health care.
The average age of taking Social Security may be 63 (at least I assume that's what you meant), but that doesn't mean all those people are retiring comfortably at 63. A fair number have lost jobs not because of any fault or irresponsibility but because of off-shoring and down-sizing by companies, and they are taking their Social Security "early" as a desparation measure just to survive (i.e. just to have some cash coming in).
Many private sector workers also have pensions, and retire quite comfortably. Yes there are folks like those who have bounced from job to job over the years, but I don't know many people like this, and I've been in the private sector my whole life.
Well, it's glib to talk about "many" private sector workers still having pensions when the fact is that fewer and fewer do (one in five private employers still offering them as of 2005 according to the article and it's probably less than that now, in 2012). Those who have "bounced from job to job" have often done so by necessity, not by irresponsibility or by choice. It's not always accurate to reason from the people we know personally and what we experience personally.
In one sense, you basic point is correct - that not everyone fits the profile of the shifted paradigm, that plenty of Boomers can and will still retire comfortably - so I agree to that extent. But just because you still have a private sector employer who provides a pension, isn't it too easy for you to ignore how rare that has become? Personally, I am comfortably retired, but the article is correct that the expectations which I grew up with (I am 67) just can no longer be shared by society at large. While I worked hard, saved, and lived within my means, I just count my lucky stars to have a decent and secure pension.
I plan on going to work until they roll me out. I am single, broke, have nothing, and just need to keep paddling as fast as I can...maybe eventually I can turn this pitcher of cream into butter and crawl out. Probably not. At some point I will have two pensions, in addition to whatever Social Security I get, and my 401K. The good news, with our screwed up tax laws, I am better off to save 20% of my pre-tax income, because if I had the money, it would just go to taxes anyway, and put me in a higher bracket. So, I am just biting the bullet and putting the money in the 401k.
If I may be permitted to look on your bright side (perhaps all too easy for me as I am not broke and I have a paid-off townhouse at age 67), you do really have something - your 401k and your two pensions and the years you have paid into Social Security. These three things are real assets, even if they are not the same as money in your checking account right now, and because of them it is my hope (realistic, I think) that down the road you will be much better off than you are right now and that you will not have to go to work until they roll you out! Sounds like you are doing the right things.
This article is silly. Yes, I'm sure that there are people like this, but several admitted they just want to keep working because they wouldn't know what else to do for themselves. Clearly many are ready for retirement and do retire. The average age today is 63. Govt. employees typically have guaranteed pension and lifetime health care. Many private sector workers also have pensions, and retire quite comfortably. Yes there are folks like those who have bounced from job to job over the years, but I don't know many people like this, and I've been in the private sector my whole life.
With all due respect, you probably live in a pretty isolated bubble in the private sector. The U.S. is a vast nation full of millions of retirees who are not all receiving good private or gov't pensions, far from it. And it doesn't take "bouncing from job to job over the years" to make an insecure retirement. Many (especially women and homemakers) worked hard and consistently at jobs that never had a pension carrot on the end of any string.
Actually, I myself have bounced around quite a bit. I had three different jobs in 14 years as an industrial salesman in the midwest. I went back to school for 3 years. Since then I've had three churches that I served, a 4 yr stretch in Dallas working for Geico, Countrywide, Lucent Technologies, Kohls Dept. Store, Comp USA, and a few other jobs. So I've bounced more than most. We're on address number 14, so don't tell me I don't know the world pretty good. We've lived in Wisconsin, Illinois for 8 years and got to know lots of Caterpillar workers, Indiana, NC, and now Texas. I've visited and gotten to know people in the Steel business, foundries, forge shops, power plants, cement plants, and lots of other businesses. So I think I've gotten a pretty good handle on life in the USA.
And the reality is, that a lot if people are looking at retirement with no savings, no investments to fall back on, then its their own fault. They are not victims. And if they have to keep on working, well then that's the way it goes. Everyone knows retirements coming. There is tons of advice out there, pay off your house, put money in a 401K. We've had 401K's for what, 30 years. So I'm not going to feel sorry for people.
I also know of quite a few people that simply live pay check to pay check, spend money as fast as they get their hands on it. That is to say, simply wasting their money on junk, running up credit card debt, and now as they face retirement, they still don't cut back on savings, they just sit there and complain. Sorry. I don't have a lot of people who have had the benefit of living in the most prosperous times our country has known.
I should add that part of my experience at Countrywide was that I worked collections. Daily I would go over a customers finances, and it was incredible to see how irresponsible these people were. Number one rule for most people. Make your mortgage payment first. People would skip their house payment because they spent the money going on vacation or Christmas shopping. You wouldn't believe the excuses we heard. I've talked to car and motorcycle salesmen. I've heard over and over again of people coming in with bad credit, no credit and still trying to buy a new car or motorcycle. Simply irresponsible and foolish.
That is not to say there are not people who have been the victim of circumstances, but that is not the vast majority of the baby boomers who are currently approaching retirement age.
Last edited by augiedogie; 02-21-2012 at 07:02 AM..
Reason: Added something.
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.
