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.
THAT 12K savings number does not include billions in annuity products seniors hold. it doesn't include collectables or insurance cash values, rental and investment properties ,home equity . in fact we don't really know what they did include
Or other forms of "income" such as family members paying their bills, and under the table type work like babysitting.
just to many variables in my opinion to mean a thing and pretty off from the way things may be . After all the baby boomers were called the wealthiest group yet.
just to many variables in my opinion to mean a thing and pretty off from the way things may be . After all the baby boomers were called the wealthiest group yet.
Being in the wealthiest group doesn't help the individual
but these numbers are not talking about an individual. they are talking about overall as a group.
the median numbers are where the biggest part of the group falls out.
there is a big difference between the assets a retirement age person has at his disposal between the two statistics and what they examine and the message they convey.
the first article has doom and gloom as the message. the census data shows overall the median part of the group is doing far better.
Last edited by mathjak107; 01-17-2014 at 06:40 AM..
but these numbers are not talking about an individual. they are talking about overall as a group.
the median numbers are where the biggest part of the group falls out.
there is a big difference between the assets a retirement age person has at his disposal between the two statistics and what they examine and the message they convey.
the first article has doom and gloom as the message. the census data shows overall the median part of the group is doing far better.
i'd love to see better data, but everything i've seen collectively over time points to boomers being fairly ok. also, i'm sure "savings" data doesn't count the value of pensions that many of that generation will be getting as income, right?
i'd love to see better data, but everything i've seen collectively over time points to boomers being fairly ok. also, i'm sure "savings" data doesn't count the value of pensions that many of that generation will be getting as income, right?
Generally the beginning to middle of the baby boomers get pensions. The tale end of the baby boomers not so. A lot of people in the late boomer generation don't get pensions.
Generally the beginning to middle of the baby boomers get pensions. The tale end of the baby boomers not so. A lot of people in the late boomer generation don't get pensions.
I've read a few articles that suggest the boomers be broken up into two cohorts because of the large span of ages.
1957 is the midpoint and they won't be 66-67 for another 10 years.
Generally the beginning to middle of the baby boomers get pensions. The tale end of the baby boomers not so. A lot of people in the late boomer generation don't get pensions.
Yeah I was about to post the same thing. I also have to question just how many have annuities and is that figure high enough throw out the figures we have been discussing as worthless? I"m not so sure about that.
THAT 12K savings number does not include billions in annuity products seniors hold.
What makes you assume that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107
it doesn't include collectables
That's probably true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107
or insurance cash values,
Probably true as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107
rental and investment properties
Probably true as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107
home equity
Surely true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107
in fact we don't really know what they did include
But we can make a pretty good guess. And you already did, so your comment here is contradictory. Regardless, you were probably right about 4 out of 5 of the guesses you made. It doesn't really change the message though. So you're basically just trying to distract attention from the article - you've got a trees instead of forest kind of thing going on.
You're making an assumption that you can't make. Someone might retire with a large pension plan like my brother. He didn't really need a big saving account. He was making the same after retirement as before, and had a pretty good job. I know others, who have farms or businesses. They've been hiding income/assets for years. On paper they maybe don't look like they have much. Like a farmer. On paper, based on typical criteria, he might look poor. But add up the value of his land and equipment, and he's doing quite well.
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.
