Fiscal trouble ahead for most future retirees

blackascoal

The Force is With Me
For the first time since the New Deal, a majority of Americans are headed toward a retirement in which they will be financially worse off than their parents, jeopardizing a long era of improved living standards for the nation’s elderly, according to a growing consensus of new research.

The Great Recession and the weak recovery darkened the retirement picture for significant numbers of Americans. And the full extent of the damage is only now being grasped by experts and policymakers.

There was already mounting concern for the long-term security of the country’s rapidly graying population. Then the downturn destroyed 40 percent of Americans’ personal wealth, while creating a long period of high unemployment and an environment in which savings accounts pay almost no interest. Although the surging stock market is approaching record highs, most of these gains are flowing to well-off Americans who already are in relatively good shape for retirement.

Liberal and conservative economists worry that the decline in retirement prospects marks a historic shift in a country that previously has fostered generations of improvement in the lives of the elderly. It is likely to have far-reaching implications, as an increasing number of retirees may be forced to double up with younger relatives or turn to social-service programs for support.

“This is the first time that Americans are going to be relatively worse off than their parents or grandparents in old age,” said Teresa Ghilarducci, director of the Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis at the New School for Social Research.

Advocates for older Americans are calling on the federal government to bolster Social Security benefits or to create a new layer of retirement help for future retirees. Others want employers and the government to do more to encourage retirement savings and to discourage workers from using the money for non-retirement purposes.

But those calls have been overwhelmed by concern about the nation’s fast-growing long-term debt, which has left many policy*makers focused on ways to trim Social Security and other retirement benefits rather than increase them.

The economic downturn exacerbated long-term factors that were already eroding the financial standing of aging Americans: an inexorable rise in health-care costs, growing debt among older Americans and a shift in responsibility from employers to workers to plan for retirement.

The consequence is that the nation is facing a huge retirement savings deficit — as much as $6.6 trillion, or about $57,000 per household, according to a U.S. Senate report.

Using data on household finances collected by the Federal Reserve, the Center for Retirement Research estimates that 53 percent of American workers 30 and older are on a path that will leave them unprepared for retirement. That marks a sharp deterioration since 2001, when 38 percent of Americans were at risk of declining living standards in old age. In 1989, 30 percent faced that risk.

The center’s findings are similar to those recently uncovered by researchers at the New School, the Heritage Foundation and the Senate’s Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...905-11e2-88d0-c4cf65c3ad15_story.html?hpid=z1

Let's HOPE America's seniors have a bit of CHANGE .. because they'll get neither in the upcoming budget talks.

They have no champion.
 
Well I think that Gen X was the first generation not to do better than their parents, is that right?

It's inevitable that the generations not doing as well as their parents are going to carry that over into their senior years. But this isn't Obama, this is America. Let's face it, the so-called greatest generation, and the baby boomers, did quite well. Each doing better than their parents. We can delve into the history of social policy to figure out why right? Obama has not changed course, but he didn't set this course. IMO. Who is to blame? Sometimes I feel it is the American people. Look how they have swallowed and regurgitated the demonization of unions. The fall of unions has played a huge role in this.
 
Well I think that Gen X was the first generation not to do better than their parents, is that right?

It's inevitable that the generations not doing as well as their parents are going to carry that over into their senior years. But this isn't Obama, this is America. Let's face it, the so-called greatest generation, and the baby boomers, did quite well. Each doing better than their parents. We can delve into the history of social policy to figure out why right? Obama has not changed course, but he didn't set this course. IMO. Who is to blame? Sometimes I feel it is the American people. Look how they have swallowed and regurgitated the demonization of unions. The fall of unions has played a huge role in this.

I completely agree with that.

I grew up in Detroit .. i know how unions played a HUGE role in wage equity for black people. Like most African-Americans, my family migrated/ran from the south to cities like Detroit where the promise of work and a brighter future were being realized. Unions played a HUGE role in the advancement of non-white people in this country .. just as they played a HUGE role if the protection of seniors..
 
I completely agree with that.

I grew up in Detroit .. i know how unions played a HUGE role in wage equity for black people. Like most African-Americans, my family migrated/ran from the south to cities like Detroit where the promise of work and a brighter future were being realized. Unions played a HUGE role in the advancement of non-white people in this country .. just as they played a HUGE role if the protection of seniors..

Yet when given a choice people don't join them. I guess just more folks who don't know what is good for them. Luckily people like you know what is good for them are are willing to sacrifice your time to tell them.

Blessed art thou
 
I completely agree with that.

I grew up in Detroit .. i know how unions played a HUGE role in wage equity for black people. Like most African-Americans, my family migrated/ran from the south to cities like Detroit where the promise of work and a brighter future were being realized. Unions played a HUGE role in the advancement of non-white people in this country .. just as they played a HUGE role if the protection of seniors..

That's why the selfish racist conservatards are trying so hard to destroy the unions.
 
I'm not trying to be confrontational here, but one of the biggest arguments I always here against privatization is what happens to savings when there is a big crash.

People who are retiring tomorrow have been through 2 very large market crashes. Still, the market is close to 14K today. Can anyone tell me where the market was when these people started working, and what their ROI would be if they had been investing in a private fund to this point, instead of into SS as it is today?
 
I'm not trying to be confrontational here, but one of the biggest arguments I always here against privatization is what happens to savings when there is a big crash.

People who are retiring tomorrow have been through 2 very large market crashes. Still, the market is close to 14K today. Can anyone tell me where the market was when these people started working, and what their ROI would be if they had been investing in a private fund to this point, instead of into SS as it is today?

I don't see that as confrontational at all brother .. nut had Bush been able to accomplish what you seek, seniors today would be living off the streets.
 
I don't see that as confrontational at all brother .. nut had Bush been able to accomplish what you seek, seniors today would be living off the streets.

Not if there was a gradual transition to a privatized plan. The idea would be to ensure that those closest to retirement would not be effected by those kinds of fluctuations in the market, with the ultimate goal of having those who are decades from retirement be on an almost fully privatized system by the time they retired.

If people who are retiring tomorrow had been on a a privatized system since they started working, their retirement would be much more comfortable & secure. There really is no disputing that.
 
Not if there was a gradual transition to a privatized plan. The idea would be to ensure that those closest to retirement would not be effected by those kinds of fluctuations in the market, with the ultimate goal of having those who are decades from retirement be on an almost fully privatized system by the time they retired.

If people who are retiring tomorrow had been on a a privatized system since they started working, their retirement would be much more comfortable & secure. There really is no disputing that.

If Granny had diversified between Enron, Global Crossings and Madoff, how well would she be eating?
 
Not if there was a gradual transition to a privatized plan. The idea would be to ensure that those closest to retirement would not be effected by those kinds of fluctuations in the market, with the ultimate goal of having those who are decades from retirement be on an almost fully privatized system by the time they retired.

If people who are retiring tomorrow had been on a a privatized system since they started working, their retirement would be much more comfortable & secure. There really is no disputing that.

No .. there is no guarantee of that.

Most people don't even know how to magage a portfolio .. and many of those who get paid to do it often don't fare much better.

SS is intended as a safety-net, not a profit-maker.

Nothing prevents anyone from playing the stock market or diversifying now.
 
Not if there was a gradual transition to a privatized plan. The idea would be to ensure that those closest to retirement would not be effected by those kinds of fluctuations in the market, with the ultimate goal of having those who are decades from retirement be on an almost fully privatized system by the time they retired.

If people who are retiring tomorrow had been on a a privatized system since they started working, their retirement would be much more comfortable & secure. There really is no disputing that.

Ohh yes there is disputing that.
Do all investors in the market make money?
Is it guaranteed?
Or do some lose their ass?

If the market is go great why does nayone work?
Just play the market and produce nothing.
 
You guys are talking about speculative investing - not genuinely diversified, conservative portfolios.

The ROI is basically guaranteed over the kinds of timeframes we're talking about - unless the country genuinely collapses, in which case SS won't be there regardless.
 
even with a diversified portfolio how would it have been to retire in 2009?

Or with a privatized system are there multi year periods where no one should retire?
 
even with a diversified portfolio how would it have been to retire in 2009?

Or with a privatized system are there multi year periods where no one should retire?

You're acting as if one would empty their entire account the year they retire when that would not be the case. If you retired in 2009 and you started your portfolio back in the '70's where would your portfolio be?
 
even with a diversified portfolio how would it have been to retire in 2009?

Or with a privatized system are there multi year periods where no one should retire?

Even if someone had to pull out every penny that year (which they wouldn't), it still would be an enormous rate of return from the time they started contributing.

Too much fearmongering about market crashes & things like Enron. One day, people will realize that privatizing is the progressive position on SS - it's not the conservative position.
 
I'd like an opt out. Anyone 30 or younger can either stay in SS or cash out now with the caveat that they cannot get back in. I'm already saving for retirement, I don't need the government to do it for me at a shittier rate.
 
Ohh yes there is disputing that.
Do all investors in the market make money?
Is it guaranteed?
Or do some lose their ass?

If the market is go great why does nayone work?
Just play the market and produce nothing.

Therein lies the crux of liberalism. No risk. No chances and people must be protected from themselves by whom? You kindly liberals who never fuck anything up
 
Back
Top