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 had to look up fyigm :-). No, in other words, I got mine, and you get the same if you are ready to make the same sustained extreme effort for 37 years that I made, and forego the same things as I did. Do you want to train for very many years (on low trainee income) to perform extremely responsible work, with extreme working hours, where any mistake can be catastrophic for someone else AND end your career any minute? Do you want to do that for several decades? Do you want to live an extremely disciplined life, with of course no recreational drugs? Do you want to have no kids, and live very frugally, so you can save money (as I used to be able to save even when I was paid $560 a month, which is about $1,500 in today's money)? If you answer yes to all of that, then you'll surely get yours as well. But no, you want ME to do all of that, and then you get yours by taking mine from me :-).
I don't know what all the hoopla is about. I live on SS alone. I've worked my tail off since I was 17. I'm single so I only have one not very large SS check every month. I did save some, and had a 401K but not a large amount of money in it. That money is for emergencies and traveling a little if I want to do that.
I retired about 6 months before I was 62. My only focus is to enjoy life now. I don't ask for anything from anyone. I moved to a nice little town and bought a nice little inexpensive house, at least from my perspective. My cost of living is probably half of what it used to be when I was working. I've made some new friends, and stay as busy as I want to be.
I'm able to pay my bills, buy food, go out to eat once in a while only on my SS. Honestly, I was never this stress free or happy when I was working. What am I missing?
You're not missing a darn thing. Far as I can tell, you've got it all.
I'm not low-income BUT if I were, I would still live here because the city is so esthetically pleasing, bursting with scenic natural outdoor wonders to explore that bring me much joy and delight.
Yeah well, that is why so many people want to live there (I assume you are talking about San Francisco :-), but there is relatively little room to live there, which raises the competition for space, and therefore raises the cost of living. But (as I have certainly witnessed personally) even San Francisco can be converted into a very undesirable nightmare if you try to replace fair competition for it by corrupt ways of obtaining the privilege of living there.
There is no way of decreasing competition for, and therefore cost of, desirable things except by destroying those things. Ethically, just because I WANT something aesthetically pleasing, does that give me any right to demand that other people work to provide me with the aesthetically pleasing thing that I want? Does the fact that I WANT something give me any right to steal it? I find Keanu Reeves aesthetically pleasing - should I just kidnap him?
You're not missing a darn thing. Far as I can tell, you've got it all.
I think I've lived a well rounded life. As I've stated before my parents were Italian immigrants with very little and then my father died when I was 5. My mother worked in a sweat shop to keep a roof over our heads and buy some food. There was absolutely no government assistance involved, this was the mid 60s and my mother would never take a dime from anyone, not even free milk for me in school. I know what it's like to be poor.
I've lived in 4 states on both coasts and now live in middle America. I spent a good amount of time in Europe when i was younger and took a year off university to live in Italy for a year. I've been to an opera in Venice and attended concerts by the philharmonic orchestra in Los Angeles.
My very much younger half brother until recently had a large 5 bedroom house in Laguna Hills with a great view, swimming pool, the whole nine yards. He always told me if I wanted to, I could rent one of his extra bedrooms for very little and live in Orange County where I used to work, but that was never my style.
I've seen poor and I've seen wealthy. I'm neither, but somewhere in-between and quite satisfied with my life and what I have. I don't envy those who have more, nor look down on those who have less.
Last edited by marino760; 11-23-2023 at 06:53 AM..
But if a person wants more money, don't you think that person should be working, rather than expecting someone else to work to support them? Why is the expectation of a handout automatically warranted, and why do I "lack empathy" if I point out that one should work if one wants more money than what just covers the basics?
[/QUOTE]
I agree that a lifetime of poor planning could be (or is) the root cause, but an individual cannot qualify for SSI unless they are over 65, or blind, or disabled. All three qualifiers make obtaining employment effectively impossible.
My now deceased older Sister received SSI because of a lifetime of marginal employment, even with a Masters Degree in Accounting. My S-I-L is receiving SSI as result of a failed poisoning attempt by her ex-husband which resulted in substantial brain damage, and she is a constant financial and emotional drain on us - even with the Gov't programs.
I had to look up fyigm :-). No, in other words, I got mine, and you get the same if you are ready to make the same sustained extreme effort for 37 years that I made, and forego the same things as I did. Do you want to train for very many years (on low trainee income) to perform extremely responsible work, with extreme working hours, where any mistake can be catastrophic for someone else AND end your career any minute? Do you want to do that for several decades? Do you want to live an extremely disciplined life, with of course no recreational drugs? Do you want to have no kids, and live very frugally, so you can save money (as I used to be able to save even when I was paid $560 a month, which is about $1,500 in today's money)? If you answer yes to all of that, then you'll surely get yours as well. But no, you want ME to do all of that, and then you get yours by taking mine from me :-).
I "must" point out that one doesn't have to go to the extremes you did to have a good life. Re-read Marino's posts (#3 and the one above) or any of the other posts saying basically the same thing. C-D has probably at least a hundred stories from working class posters who have a very good retirement because they worked all their adult lives, did not do drugs, saved what they could, delayed having children until they could afford them, did not try to keep up with Joneses, etc., etc. Neither my husband nor I have a four-year degree, but before he retired, my husband had a six-figure income, we now own our own modest retirement 'dream home' , our expenses are less than our combined Social Security (plus we have savings in both a regular savings account and a 401K and I have a very small pension). YES, there is some luck involved when it comes to having a good life and a good retirement, but for most people, imo, it comes down to making good choices, or at least not stupid ones.
That being said -- HAPPY THANKSGIVING TO EVERYONE (and I hope everyone reading this has much to be thankful for).
I agree that a lifetime of poor planning could be (or is) the root cause, but an individual cannot qualify for SSI unless they are over 65, or blind, or disabled. All three qualifiers make obtaining employment effectively impossible.
But if you are under 65, not blind, and not disabled, then why do you need SSI instead of working?
I "must" point out that one doesn't have to go to the extremes you did to have a good life. Re-read Marino's posts or any of the other posts saying basically the same thing. C-D has probably at least a hundred stories from working class posters who have a very good retirement because they worked all their adult lives, did not do drugs, saved what they could, delayed having children until they could afford them, did not try to keep up with Joneses, etc., etc. Neither my husband nor I have a four-year degree, but before he retired, my husband had a six-figure income, we now own our own home in retirement, our expenses are less than our combined Social Security (plus we have savings in both a regular savings account in 401K and I have a very small pension). YES, there is some luck involved, but for most people, imo, it comes down to making good choices, or at least not stupid ones.
That being said -- HAPPY THANKSGIVING TO EVERYONE (and I hope everyone reading this has much to be thankful for).
I absolutely agree with you, and that is the whole reason why I started this thread! But I was responding to "fyigm" - I just explained how "igm", and how anyone who wants the same can do the same (rather than me telling anyone "fy" :-).
But of course, people do not have to do anything remotely close to what I did, and can still have a great retirement, because much less $ than I happened to earn (as a side effect of my extreme effort to simply stay alive in a bad war/immigration situation) is needed for a comfortable retirement. I think Marino has really hit the sweet spot, and it seems you have done it yourself too - which is NOT that difficult for anyone born in the US.
I already said happy Txg in the Txg thread (please also refer to it if interested in shooting your own turkey - you can get a hunting permit for that in Massachusetts).
But if a person wants more money, don't you think that person should be working, rather than expecting someone else to work to support them? Why is the expectation of a handout automatically warranted, and why do I "lack empathy" if I point out that one should work if one wants more money than what just covers the basics?
I completely agree with you. Government assistance should only be about ensuring basic needs (shelter, food, medical care) for those who cannot (not will not) attain those things for themselves, and I am more than happy to have my tax dollars go towards supporting these expenses. I've never understood those who object to work requirements for able-bodied recipients of gov't assistance. And my definition of able-bodied is much broader than our legislators'.
I completely agree with you. Government assistance should only be about ensuring basic needs (shelter, food, medical care) for those who cannot (not will not) attain those things for themselves, and I am more than happy to have my tax dollars go towards supporting these expenses. I've never understood those who object to work requirements for able-bodied recipients of gov't assistance. And my definition of able-bodied is much broader than our legislators'.
Obviously, yes. But the tax funds already allocated for basic support of truly disabled people should be FAR more than adequate for their basic support. There are 70 million people receiving welfare in the US - is every 5th person in the US really so crippled that they can't support themselves by working? Does a city with population of 808,437 really need about $1 billion in tax collections per year to provide basic support to its disabled residents?
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.
