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 see a fallacy in your statement. They don't see the value now. What makes you think they'll see it in the future? The majority of Americans are clueless when it comes to investing or saving. It's like they expect some miracle to happen that will hand them money when they get old. And I don't mean the poverty level SS they get now.
You are correct. I know and see it. I also see more people thinking about it. Yes us Americans seem to live in the moment. We forget 10 minutes into the next news cycle. But we also are spirited. Our business leaders tackle problems. They come up with solutions. It is never perfect. There is always something more they could do but we strive forward. Many of today's leaders now coming out of the military that are going into business use lesson's learned. It is drilled into us. We live it. We rehash it and come up with better ways of doing it. I guess I could be whisling passed the grave here and going out on a limb but I believe in the American Spirit. I believe that this country is more than it is now and has not reached it best.
Of course the concept of retirement--as we know it right now--will change. The concept of how people retire has changed with each generation throughout history, why should we be different? How the concept will change in years to come remains to be see, but people will continue to reach a point where they stop working, because that's a practical reality.
except before the start of social security things have really not changed all that much. you either had a pension or you didn't.
while the numbers of folks with with pensions changed ,how folks funded their retirement without them is still unchanged. while there were no 401k's early on folks still managed to save on their own to pull it off.
in fact even the same exact investment mixes have worked every rolling 30 year period since 1926 .
what has changed is life expectancy. we are living longer and need more. both in terms of money and medical care.
Last edited by mathjak107; 04-27-2013 at 06:37 AM..
that number for 401k balances couldn't be more meaningless.
it is diluted by the fact you are taking those that max out or even contribute 1/2 the max , and mixing it with those who barely contribute and arriving at some figure in that middle.
how about the millions of folks who switched jobs like i did and pulled out 6 figure 401k's and rolled them to ira's?
how about those who structure things correctly and keep only their income generating stuff in the 401k's since that is taxed at regular rates anyway. a good structure has the equities in your taxable account .
how about those who invested in real estate?
others have pensions and annuities they bought.
that number thrown out is hog wash.
want a better number?
fidelity says those over age 55 who contributed from 1/2 to max for the 10 years over just the LOST decade have average balances of almost 300k and that is only the last decade.
only 1/3 was gains from the market. 2/3's were contributions from the employee and employer. it would have been way higher had we had more normal markets and rates.
the media loves to always take the sky is falling path.
americans love to see numbers that say see it isn't just you that screwed up. everyone else screwed up too.
the truth is retirees who acted to save and invest did so and many have balances far far greater than these stupid statistics portray. .
it was like the frontline show we discussed in the other thread.
they did not have one winner on that show, every single person failed at savings that they had on. if i did not know better i came away from that show thinking everyone in america has a crappy 401k and little savings.
since a real financial census does not exist that measures all of us why would anyone care or assume that any data thrown out there really is correct for all or even matters .
the only numbers that are complete or even matter are your own.
in regards to there rediculious guesses as to what people have ,here is another set of numbers from an article forbes did last month.
"With the average 401(k) balance for 65 year olds estimated at $25,000 by independent experts – $100,000 if you believe the retirement planning industry - the decades many elders will spend in forced or elected “retirement” will be grim. (Update: In response to readers’ questions about the lower number, Teresa Ghilarducci, a professor of economics at the New School for Social Research, estimates that 75% of Americans nearing retirement in 2010 had less than $30,000 in their retirement accounts:"
as you can see every one just guesses ,no one knows yet all we keep seeing is numbers all over the place.
except before the start of social security things have really not changed all that much. you either had a pension or you didn't.
while the numbers of folks with with pensions changed ,how folks funded their retirement without them is still unchanged. while there were no 401k's early on folks still managed to save on their own to pull it off.
in fact even the same exact investment mixes have worked every rolling 30 year period since 1926 .
what has changed is life expectancy. we are living longer and need more. both in terms of money and medical care.
My understanding is that the life expectany hasn't changed all that much, what changed was more children make if past the age of 5.
I look at the generation behind me. My nieces and nephews in their mid to late 30's and early 40's.
They graduated college with huge debt. Money that could go into a mortgage but didn't. Alot of them do not own homes. And they are having problems getting their careers started because of the crappy economy. Some of them own houses and are starting their families - very very late. One niece and her husband had a long distance marriage for the first 5 years - she had a good job in the Bay Area - and he was finishing his PhD - looking for a job - in Arizona. They will still have young kids or kids headed to college - when they are in their 60's.
I wonder how much they are invested in their retirement.
I still voted no. "Life" as we knew it - kicked us in the butt and we didn't start really saving until our mid to late 40's. But it's been a struggle to do so.
If you are smart enough to start saving in your 20's - and you don't raid the cookie jar and live above your means - you will retire.
Didn't I read that if you contribute 14K a year starting in your 20's you can retire with a million?
Not that a million is alot - but it's solidly 40K a year.
I said no, because of lifespan and the obvious that fact that many people do not have jobs until death or health to work them.
I do think the Money Magazine image of silver-haired foxes (who look suspiciously under 50 to me...) has only ever applied to a very few people, and will apply to fewer more. First of all, a dramatic number of people over 65 or 60 or whatever age one wants to consider will *not* be in couples-a huge financial difference. A dramatic and increasing number will not have had children, by circumstance or choice. This could have a couple of ramifications- those people might have more money for not having supported and raised children, or they might have no one to help them out, if adult children are presumed to be able to do so. (I am in the former category).
Overall, the concept of retirement as a time of relative luxury will be gone, if it ever really existed. I think of retirement as simply not working, not necessarily as a time to specifically live a different way or do different things.
A friend of mine is retiring after 19 years in a school system- she's 61, with much arthritis. She happened to marry an much older man who is quite well off, otherwise, she'd be living hand-to-mouth in a crummy rental apartment in her high COL city (or moving back to the mainland in search of a cheaper life). I think a lot of people will have to move or adopt a much cheaper life than they've had. I thought of it for myself, and so far, have decided if need be, I will live in a trailer park in my current town, rather than move somewhere else for cheaper housing. But then, I'm not someone who seeks warm weather. If I had to, financially, yes, I'd move down South somewhere and venerate my a/c most of the year.
I think the image of retirement as fun and games was always false. The image of not going to a job at some point is a reality, whether chosen or foisted upon people.
I think the days of true pensions like our parents probably knew are about to end. In fact many companies no longer offer anything but 401Ks etc. That is fine if you pay attention to what you are doing and realize it is up to you to control your future, to some degree. Will we be working more years and more of us, after age 70 having part time jobs? Probably, but our life expectancy is so much longer than it was 20, 30 or 50 years ago, this is ok. Many people we know still work 20 or so hours a week and are in their 70s and even early 80s. It gives them a little extra spending money, sometimes help pay the bills and makes them feel wanted and needed. My hubby happens to be one of them. He has a small pet sitting business. We have the freedom to travel when we want because his hours are flexible and it gives us a few bucks for our vacations or even that occasional bill we didn't expect. He only makes about $500 a month, average, but it does help. I just finally hung it up in Dec. I was a part time travel agent for ages. Again, it gave me enough money to pay for a vacation each year and kept my mind sharp or sharper than otherwise.
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.
