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.
Serious Conversation, you are young and you are you. While you are clearly erudite and eloquent, you are in no position (nor are any of us) to decide what "Dave" should have realized in his life. We can only decide what we can realize in our own lives.
Would you like to re-visit this topic in 40 years so we can rear view mirror, second guess the choices you made regarding retirement?
I will also add that 40 (1975) or 50 years ago (1965), when a lot of people who are now ready for retirement were making decisions about their futures, the economic landscape was very different from what it is today. If you luckily chose Door A rather than Door B decades ago, your life is much easier today than it would have been had you chosen otherwise. However, it might have appeared at the time, and maybe for a considerable length of time, that it wasn't the best decision.
When I was growing up in the 1960s in predominantly rural Upstate NY, just about every little town had at least one factory that employed 50-100 people, and some prosperous towns, like my home town, had thousands of jobs (a state mental hospital, a state facility for the mentally retarded, a large tannery, a large glue factory, at least several other manufacturers plus supermarkets, department stores, furniture stores, etc.) and was the commercial center for parts of three counties. You graduated from HS and went to work "in town" unless you wanted to be a farmer ... and there were a lot more of those as well. In NYC, there were thousands of garment factories all over the city, but mostly concentrated in "the Garment District". There were tens of thousands of people working in the steel mills, chemical factories, and auto plants in and around Buffalo, Syracuse, and numerous other Upstate cities. Kodak, Xerox, and Bausch and Lomb dominated Rochester. Corning Glass was synonymous with the little Southern Tier city of Corning. Most firetrucks in the US were manufactured in Elmira, NY by American LaFrance.
And this economic scenario wasn't just unique to New York, but was common all over New England, the Mid Atlantic and into the Midwest, too. Even parts of the South had its textile and furniture factories and paper mills in small towns and modestly sized cities.
Life in the 1960s was like living in another world compared to today ... and guess what? What we take for granted today about the world we live in will seem incredibly crude, backward, and unfathomable to the people living 40 or 50 years in the future. Who's to say that decisions young people make today about their retirements will hold up in any way, shape or form?
I hate to say it, but if your ceiling is low wage work, you need to find somewhere that's cheaper than NYC. Dave should have realized the cost of living would be prohibitive to a solvent old age ahead of time and moved somewhere where his low wage, low ceiling career would have been more affordable.
If everyone who is working poor leaves NYC, who will be left to serve the Saudi Arabian princes, the Eurotrash, and the Trumps and their ilk who congregate there in the multi-million dollar condos and town houses? Manhattan needs its janitors, waitresses, and delivery people and isn't any more willing to pay them a living wage than most other places in the land of the free. And if they all go to Tennessee and Arizona and all the other so-called "right to work" states where the lower wage jobs have been moved, what will happen to the working poor who already live in THOSE states?
One thing that would help people is better education and a reasonable minimum wage, but in case you haven't noticed, concurrent with the desire to destroy unions is the well-on-its-way effort to destroy public education in this country, brought to us by the same people. For decades now there has been a well-funded organization intent on making life hard for those who are of limited means to increase their share of the collective wealth. May I point out that it might come back to bite them when it turns out the practical nurse who's giving their old mother her medication can't read.
I will also add that 40 (1975) or 50 years ago (1965), when a lot of people who are now ready for retirement were making decisions about their futures, the economic landscape was very different from what it is today. If you luckily chose Door A rather than Door B decades ago, your life is much easier today than it would have been had you chosen otherwise. However, it might have appeared at the time, and maybe for a considerable length of time, that it wasn't the best decision....
Wisely and eloquently said! The future is inscrutable, and quite often, today's wisdom is tomorrow's stupidity.
Nevertheless, a few considerations are so basic, as to almost be immutable postulates. Doomsday-prepper fascinations notwithstanding, it's unlikely that even in the next 50 years the US Dollar will collapse, or that America will come to resemble Somalia. Present market gyrations notwithstanding, it is overwhelmingly likely that in 50 years, the S&P 500 will be many tens of times higher than it presently is. It is unlikely that our 401K-plans will be confiscated and applied towards the federal public debt. It is however likely that Social Security will become means-tested, whence retirees who earn above some threshold might see zero SS benefits.
The theoretical upshot of all of this is exhortation towards the old standbys of thrift, savings, investment and eschewal of instant gratification. That would not have helped Dave, as he DID live within his means; he just had no discretionary funds to go towards savings/investment. But the other implication is that those of us who have the good fortune to afford a comfortable lifestyle in the present, ought to throttle back and constrict ourselves and voluntarily accept a diminished standard of living in the present, to facilitate a better standard of living in the future.
That at least is the theoretical upshot. The practical annoyance, that irritates so many on this Board, is that the story of Dave suggests that those who denied themselves throughout their working years seemingly reap no reward. The moral hazard therefore is that we should spend every penny in enjoyment of the moment, not worrying about old-age or retirement, as we're guaranteed a floor beneath us.
Did you happen to read beyond that line you quoted? A lot of medical expenses had to be paid for with the credit card. Surgeries, medications, copays. What should I have done about that? I did not have the money to pay for those necessary expenses. I wasn't out taking big trips, buying tons of stuff I didn't need, etc. There are times when using the credit card cannot be avoided. '
Should I have gone without the medical that I needed? Gone blind so I would meet with your approval?
I find your line of thinking to be quite narrow..... therefore I don't think a lot of your idea.
And, haven't you ever let yourself wish for something? No matter how ridiculous it may be? Just a fleeting thought that might make your life a bit easier? I don't think it is immoral or illegal to have dreams/wishes that you know full well will not happen. I didn't know I could not say them out loud.
It's not about you and your particular circumstances, though. Setting a policy such as the one you suggested would have the effect of encouraging people to rack up debt in order to receive larger rent subsidies. Personally, I do not feel it is a good idea.
Here's how I figured it. Total money coming in is 1159.00. That is SS, pension, and food stamps. Minus $495 rent = $664.00. Minus $35 for cable = $629.00. Minus $40 for transportation(10 24 hour passes) and sundries= $589. I just rounded it up to $600.
If you add the food from the pantries to his food stamps, he has all he needs. He usually doesn't spend all his stamps every month and some rolls over to the next month. He thinks of it as an emergency food savings account. He tries to save a few bucks every month.
Glasses and dental are in his health plan, costs him nothing. He wears size 15 shoes and those aren't cheap. He usually buys New Balance and he has 4 or 5 pairs he hasn't even worn yet that he found on sale. He should be good for 5 years or so but when all those wear out he will end up spending about $150 for a new pair. Probably once a year. Clothes here are cheap. We don't need a lot of Winter gear, just a medium weight jacket, and no boots or rain gear. Most of the year he wears shorts but he has jeans for the Winter months. He has lots of jeans and shorts but when those wear out, he will probably spend about $50 per year buying replacements. Shirts can be purchased at the thrift stores for about $3 each. He can get 50% off if he goes on Senior Day so maybe another $20 per year. Underwear and socks have to be replaced and he has to buy those. He gets t-shirts for free because all the casinos give them away as promos.
One thing I did forget is laundry. Costs him $2 a week, $8 per month. This is very doable and he says he is getting along very well.
You added his food stamps as income, but did not subtract the cost of groceries as an expense. So that $600 includes his food stamps, which are not available to spend on anything but food.
If everyone who is working poor leaves NYC, who will be left to serve the Saudi Arabian princes, the Eurotrash, and the Trumps and their ilk who congregate there in the multi-million dollar condos and town houses? Manhattan needs its janitors, waitresses, and delivery people and isn't any more willing to pay them a living wage than most other places in the land of the free. And if they all go to Tennessee and Arizona and all the other so-called "right to work" states where the lower wage jobs have been moved, what will happen to the working poor who already live in THOSE states?
One thing that would help people is better education and a reasonable minimum wage, but in case you haven't noticed, concurrent with the desire to destroy unions is the well-on-its-way effort to destroy public education in this country, brought to us by the same people. For decades now there has been a well-funded organization intent on making life hard for those who are of limited means to increase their share of the collective wealth. May I point out that it might come back to bite them when it turns out the practical nurse who's giving their old mother her medication can't read.
When I read posts like your especially with reference to "a living wage" I wonder, did you concern yourself with "a living wage" when you were first starting out (i.e. plan for future) or did you think everything was a white picket fence without effort and planning by you?
Never will you hear a politician say they want you to keep more of your money.
I hate that phrase, living wage, you're parroting politicians who want more of your money. Why not demand lower taxes which is better than a raise. Of course politicians want you to get a raise, they'll get more of your money. Government really has you brainwashed to think it's right to take more of our money.
Never will you hear a politician say they want you to keep more of your money.
Never will you hear a politician say they want you to keep more of your money.
I hate that phrase, living wage, you're parroting politicians who want more of your money. Why not demand lower taxes which is better than a raise. ...
Actually, I've heard this phrase from politicians quite often. Whether their actions comport with their statements is of course another matter entirely.
As to the term "living wage", this is a sop to menial workers who 50 years ago could indeed have supported themselves doing unskilled labor, but who given the modern economic reality can no longer do this.
The mid-20th century witnessed a remarkable compression of effective wages in the West, from lowest to highest. I'm not going to assign a moral judgment to this – to whether such compression stifles economic activity or unleashes it, whether it curbs investment or promotes it, whether it is paternalistic cosseting and throttling or a wise amelioration of social tensions. But I will say that in 1900, unlike in 1950, persons doing menial labor could expect only the most threadbare living, with minimal access to life's staples, let alone luxuries. Perhaps we're inexorably returning to similar conditions today.
The flip-side is that professionals and "knowledge workers" arguably have better opportunities today, than 50 or 100 years ago. They can and do earn good salaries, and those who so choose, can save money (whether they earn good returns on their investments is of course another matter entirely!). The point on which this thread is predicated, evidently, is that these earners-and-savers would have to really be good at earning-and-saving, to equal on their own with their own resources the apparent largesse to which the hero of this thread has access.
The upshot, then, seems to be: earn what you can, spend all of it, and don't worry about retirement.
To Petch's point, suppose that our friend Dave did earn higher wages, by "bettering himself" and getting a better job; and suppose, further, that he paid fewer taxes, and saved more money, and invested it, and so forth. Would his standard of living have been better in retirement?
I hate that phrase, living wage, you're parroting politicians who want more of your money. Why not demand lower taxes which is better than a raise.
You mean I would be parroting different politicians than you. I am sorry you hate the phrase that means no one starves. I really am, in more ways than one. It isn't just that you vote different; it bothers me that you and others like you can be convinced you are voting in your best interest.
Yep, I say you're only poor if you want more than you have!
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.
