Retirement: A third have less than $1,000 put away

[kpete]

Source: USA Today

Retirement: A third have less than $1,000 put away
Nanci Hellmich, USA TODAY 1 p.m. EDT March 18, 2014
Most people aren't trying to figure out how much they'll need in their golden years.


Most people have very little tucked away for retirement, and many aren't even trying to figure out how much they'll need later in life, a new national survey reveals.

About 36% of workers have less than $1,000 in savings and investments that could be used for retirement, not counting their primary residence or defined benefits plans such as traditional pensions, and 60% of workers have less than $25,000, according to a telephone survey of 1,000 workers and 501 retirees from the non-profit Employee Benefit Research Institute and Greenwald and Associates.

Only 44% say they or their spouses have tried to calculate how much money they'll need to save by the time they retire so that they can live comfortably in their golden years, the survey shows. Workers who have done calculations on what they need to save tend to have higher levels of savings than those who haven't crunched the numbers.

"There's an incredible difference between those lucky enough to have a retirement plan and those who don't," says Jack VanDerhei, the institute's research director and co-author of the 2014 Retirement Confidence Survey. "What's really striking is that 73% of those without a retirement plan, such as an IRA, 401(k) or 403(b), have less than $1,000 in savings and investments."


Read more: http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2014/03/18/retirement-confidence-survey-savings/6432241/

[yuiyoshida]

1. I wish I had a Thousand dollars to put away...

Are you kidding? In this time, one has to use every bit for what they need.. in 30 years you may have more people homeless and starving if some programs are not put into place.

[Sunlei]

100. maybe not a thousand at once. what about $5 a week?

Even if a person owns their home, there are some home costs that go on forever.

We really need the Federal minimum wage to rise, so states are forced to at least match the Federal minimum wage. I wish Dems running this year would make the federal minimum wage a HUGE issue in their campaigns. Use kiss for the general public information. Many republicans have stated they want to do away with the minimum wage.

[Marrah_G]

114. That 5 dollars a week gets eaten up when there is an emergency

pretty quickly.

[Sunlei]

115. yes I know, had some of my $5 a week 'nestegg' spent on emergency. A tiny nestegg was there &

I didn't have to hand over my car title for one of those 25% interest rate payday loans.

[jtuck004]

2. K&R n/t

[Mika]

3. Ahhhh, yes. The success of that good ol' 'Murican rugged individualism ...

... and, trickle down "economics".

USA USA USA USA

[Warpy]

4. I love some of these financial planner guys right out of school

who go around blaming Boomers for not socking away $2000/year from the time they were 20, utterly clueless about what inflation was running during the last 50 years or so and ignorant of the fact that when we started out, all we were paid was $2000/year and it went a hell of a lot farther than ten times as much does now!

I'm not a bit surprised by how few have enough to eke out social security benefits so they can live decently. This is what wage suppression plus the inflation it was supposed to cure but didn't have done to a whole generation.

Doing calculations to find out what you need to save once the kids leave home won't do you a damned bit of good if you're not getting paid enough to save a thing.

There is no pit in hell deep enough for the fiscal conservatives of the past 50 years. Not only did they lie about what caused the runaway inflation in the 70s and early 80s, they completely missed what wage suppression was going to do to this economy, forestalling it only by opening up unlimited credit. Now we're not only poorly paid, we're too deeply in debt ever to get out of it, so forget investing for retirement. People who didn't do it couldn't do it, thanks to the job sucking and wage depressing policies of conservatives in both parties.

And we all know that trickle down money only trickled as far as the corporate top brass.

[daleanime]

16. Amen....

which is why we have to rebuild social security.

[llmart]

85. Great post.

Most of us boomers had no idea that the companies we worked for would find loopholes in filing bankruptcy, "reorganizing" so they could deny us the defined benefit pensions that would have given us some additional income for life after retirement. No, instead Ronnie Raygun told us how all of us would get rich with managing our own retirement money like we were supposed to become MBA financial planners while raising our families and holding down jobs. Then he set about busting unions so that we could all work for peanuts.

And now they want to chastise us for not having any money for retirement?

[Sunlei]

121. federal Poverty Line needs to be adjusted too. $11,490 (for one) is to low.

[Skittles]

5. it depresses people to "do the numbers"

especially when they see articles like WHY 1 MILLION MAY NOT BE ENOUGH TO RETIRE

[grasswire]

30. plus the daily bombardment of consumer advertising...

....showing seniors with their resort vacations and their financial planners and so on, plus the portrayal of the "golden years" that most Americans will never realize. That's depressing too.

[Skittles]

31. OH I hear you!

what do you want to do? Travel the world? OPEN A WINERY??? WTF.....I just want to be able to eat and pay my utility bills and go to the movies once in a while

[llmart]

87. What a joke!

I live in a mostly senior community and I don't see too many of use living the kind of life we see in those stupid ass commercials.

[llmart]

86. Also, why save when one illness can wipe it all out....

I live frugally but sometimes I think to myself, would I regret being cautious if I ended up having to blow my entire retirement savings for medical bills that aren't covered by insurance? Maybe I should just take a month's vacation in Tuscany and forget worrying about retirement savings.

[Skittles]

96. you are correct

anyone who HAS savings and is smart fears just that

[Walk away]

101. I blew my retirement plan taking care of my Grandmother.

That's the way it goes when people get sick and old. This isn't an easy country to get old in.

[llmart]

103. There are many examples like yours.

which is why I vacillate between enjoying my retirement savings or finding out one day that I saved for retirement only to have it blown away for medical bills or something else.

Now that I'm a senior citizen and most of my cohorts/siblings are too, I see too many instances where the people who did what they thought was right find out in the end that it was all for naught. Then they get angry at themselves for following the rules. I don't want to be one of those. However, there is no way of knowing the future, so I'm trying to find some balance. What I don't want to do is live the rest of my life, whether it be 30 years or 3, not doing some of the things I want before I die so that I can't leave money to my kids. My two grown children are very comfortable in their lives and don't need my money. But I also don't want them to have to use their money to take care of me in my old age, not that they wouldn't do it, but I just don't want that.

For me, I think I'd like to, if diagnosed with a serious illness, not pursue any lengthy treatments that make hospitals and doctors rich, and leave this life on my terms. Both of my parents did that.

But you are 100% correct when you say this isn't an easy country to get old in.

[Walk away]

108. But...like your kids...I was glad to have the $$$ to help. nt

[Skidmore]

124. I have similar thoughts about the future

and I have already survived cancer once. If it comes back, I will let it run its course. There is no need to burden any one else with keeping me alive particularly at great expense. What the Great Republican Society has taught me ocerthe pat 30 years is that your life only matters if you have wealth and no ethics or moral consciousness.

[llmart]

125. I hope you don't really believe that.

I refuse to let the negativity and materialism of Republicans make me into a different person than I've always been. I get great joy out of nature, my relationships, music, books, learning about the world around me. Most of these things cost me little to nothing. I was very fortunate to have been brought up in a time and by parents who taught me and my siblings from a very early age that things don't equate to happiness and that in fact, the less things you own the more free you truly are. I consider myself to be a very moral and ethical person and I hope I am until the day I die.

I recently watched a DVD by David Suzuki called "The Nature of Things". He's an inspiration and has always been pragmatic about death and dying.

[Skidmore]

128. I believe that I have accomplished

my most important tasks in life. It is not things I am concerned about. I came into the world to impoverishment. I will likely leave it with nothing. I have given much thought to the great lesson of my decades here and the ephemeral nature of possessions and life itself stand out. We get too caught up in the wants culture and the needs fade to background noise. I am electing not to pursue more than essentials.

[llmart]

132. I understand.

I, too, feel that if I left this earth today I would say I had a wonderful, fulfilling life with it's share of heartache and trouble, but overall I would feel I'd lived a good life. I raised two amazing children who gave me a lifetime of pleasure. I, too, grew up in poverty, so I know what that's like. I never got caught up in material possessions. I've moved three times in the past five years and it was amazingly simple because I don't own much! Still, I own more than my parents ever did in their lifetimes. My father's famous retort to us kids when we thought we needed more than one pair of dress shoes was "Why? You only have one pair of feet."

[marshall]

143. Better have children now and encourage them to have them

"it takes a village" works both ways. But it isn't sustainable without future generations.

[Walk away]

144. ooops to late!

That's OK. Not a snowballs chance in hell that I'll live to my eighties anyway!

[Sunlei]

104. That's the same fear all us 'savers' have. We save for security in our retirement years.

The fear/stress that even with the best 'gold' 'Obamacare insurance' ..some things like costly MS medications are not fully covered.

Or the knowledge that one has to forever pay property tax, neighborhood association fees and/or rent.

Take those vacations! you deserve to have some fun

[Exultant Democracy]

112. You could also be hit by a terrible driver tomorrow. Go to Tuscany.

When I have the chance to travel I do. In 30 year the around two years I spent internationally make up the brightest and best memories. However I'm a lucky sucker with a pension so my advice should be colored accordingly.

[Jgarrick]

118. Depending upon how well one saves, even a catastrophic illness may not wipe one out financially.

Case in point: 2 years ago I was diagnosed with kidney cancer. I missed 7 months of work, and when I did go back to work, it was only part time for a couple of months. I had accumulated 3 months of sick leave, and when that ran out I had to rely on savings. While it did put a major dent in my savings, I estimate that I could have gone at least another year without income had I needed to do so.

I don't know how typical my case is; I have excellent insurance, and I've been saving a substantial portion of my income for the last 15 years.

[llmart]

122. Most people don't have your level of benefits.

Most people who work, especially those of us who are piecing together a "living" by working part time jobs do not get benefits and until the ACA took effect, buying a good health insurance policy was out of reach. I have been a saver for the past 35 years and have considerably more than $1,000 in retirement accounts, but I do not fool myself that I'm in any way confident that I can live a decent, middle class life if I live for another 30 years which is quite possible since I'm only 64.

So, you've been lucky (so far), but don't ever think that somehow you're morally superior just because you saved. I certainly don't think I am.

[Jgarrick]

123. Did I assert I was morally superior? As for being "lucky"...

I don't consider getting cancer at age 50 particulary fortuitous. Having substantial savings wasn't luck, it was a choice. Now, you could make the argument that being in a position to make such a choice was "lucky", although much of that was also because of the choices I've made throughout my life.

Most people who work, especially those of us who are piecing together a "living" by working part time jobs do not get benefits

I'm skeptical that over 50% of those currently working have no benefits whatsoever. Should you have data showing otherwise, I'm certainly open to looking at it.

but I do not fool myself that I'm in any way confident that I can live a decent, middle class life if I live for another 30 years which is quite possible since I'm only 64.

I am fairly confident that I will, given my current level of savings, be able to retire 4 years from now and live a decent middle class life for my remaining years. Bear in mind that I'm not saying that this is in any way the norm in today's America...but with a quarter million in assets, no debt, and a retirement pension of $35K/year, I'm in moderately good shape for someone in their early '50s.

[Skittles]

136. nice but

Most people do not ACCUMULATE SICK LEAVE, and most people, if they were gone for seven months, would NOT have a job to return to

[Jgarrick]

146. Do the majority of jobs in the United States not have accumulated sick leave?

I find that surprising. I know a large potion do not...but most of them? As for being gone 7 months and coming back, I agree...the security of my job at the post office was one of the primary reasons that I chose it 30 years ago.

[TBF]

148. Definitely not as good as Europe -

but I think the bigger problem for many at this point in time is that folks are afraid to take vacation even if they have it. Others are in part-time jobs (one or more) and have very few benefits such as sick days, health care, etc.

In the big picture I think we are looking at a shift from industrial to technology society. Coupled with that the world has become smaller - globalization. So there is a lot of pressure on certain demographics. I think this will all shake out over the next few decades, but it pains me to see billions of dollars being spent on "defense" while people struggle through this transition. I feel we should be using tax dollars to invest in education, jobs training for people who need skills, medical/senior care for the baby boom generation as they age.

I know there are some younger folks (I am smack in middle age myself - late 40s) who are adapting, have professions - maybe in technology sector, they've got their blogs going, they like to travel. These young people are more likely to come from higher income demographics but not always. These folks are adjusting to our new world and they, by and large, are going to be fine. I'm more concerned about those stuck in the cycle of poverty (whether inner city or rural poor) and being sort of left behind with all the changes.

[Skittles]

150. I have worked almost 40 years and have NEVER accumulated sick leave

[TBF]

142. I am sorry to hear about your health

difficulties, but happy that you have financial resources.

The thing is that many (the majority) of people in this country do not. I saw it first hand growing up in an area of rural poverty in the 1970s. And honestly when I look back we were fortunate that our dads at least had jobs in factories. High school grads, often Vets at that time (Viet Nam) would return to their small towns and work with unions in the factories. Most bought their own houses, new cars, some were able to save for a trip to Florida once a year.

Now with the service economy and dismal wages there is only a small subset of our economy that is able to do well enough in college and get into a field that pays decently enough to have the "middle class" lifestyle that used to be so coveted in this country.

Your success aside, and I do think your ability to save is wonderful (do you have a family and children? Parents to support?), most are not doing as well.

Here are some charts that illustrate this better than I can describe - that show in stark reality what kind of income inequality we are dealing with in this country:





Much more here: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph

[Jgarrick]

147. Thank you! The good news is that I've fully recovered.

Your success aside, and I do think your ability to save is wonderful (do you have a family and children? Parents to support?), most are not doing as well.

I've never been married and have no children. I'm very close to my parents, and moved back in with them 15 years ago. Not because I (or they) needed financial support, but simply because I was already spending a great deal of time with them, and it simply seemed more efficient! With each of them retired, we're in the same postion as a classic DINK (double income, no kids) family...which puts me in the position of having a good deal of disposable income. Even while saving a good deal of money, I can still enjoy moderately expensive hobbies, have two nice cars, and travel internationally each year. Just in the last 5 years, I've taken my father with me on an ecotrip to Costa Rica, a D-Day tour of France, and a photosafari in South Africa.

We're not a typical family (demographically or financially), I admit.

Here are some charts that illustrate this better than I can describe - that show in stark reality what kind of income inequality we are dealing with in this country:

Good info.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

126. The whole notion of 'retiring'

seems like a pipe dream. If I can find work again, I can't see letting go short of being pushed out.

[DCBob]

6. This doesnt surprise me at all.

Most people in this country are living paycheck to paycheck. Im a bit better off than that but its really really hard to save money in this economy even if you are working and making a decent salary. There is so much pressure to spend and so many companies out there who want to suck you dry of every red cent you have. American capitalism is hard-core cut-throat and we, the people, are the ones getting our throats cut.

[closeupready]

41. +1000. You really have summed it up well here.

Just yesterday, I realized that of the approximately 15 or 20 people I know who were laid off since the 2008 recession, only 1 has found an equally gainful job, and even THAT was one that he had to move to another state in order to get it. Everyone else either traded down for a crappier job, or else they are still unemployed.

[yeoman6987]

106. Such a shame

The problem is that all those 0's year after year is even going to affect their Social Security especially if they are close to getting it. It is a shame that unemployment affects everything for everybody.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

7. Even if you do have more than that (1000)

for everyone I know (including me), it's in the Stock Market (403 B) and as such, really not safe like a pension was safe...........

[HERVEPA]

19. Well. it's safe enough if you put the 403b money in something safe, like a stable value fund.

Pretty much every plan gives you that option. a 403B is not the stock market unless you want it to be.

[pangaia]

133. "...put the 403b money in something safe, like a stable value fund."

Safe?
Oh boy... and when the entire world economy collapses, then what? It IS coming. Who knows when but it is absolutely guaranteed...

All i can say is.. be careful..

[Adrahil]

42. Well...

given that pensions are subject to getting gutted at the whim of a bankruptcy court, I wouldn't call that "safe" by any means.

My wife is currently in the Indiana teachers retirement pension (she's a prof at a state university). But give who runs this state, and how they treat labor, we're getting out of the pension as soon as fucking possible. We'll transfer to the 401K-like plan and take our chances. It's better than waiting for the state to decide teachers are all leaches who deserve no pension.

[Divernan]

8. I had retired with a decent amount of savings, until 2008

when I involuntarily lost it in the crash - doing my humble bit to make the 1 percenters even richer.

[RebelOne]

11. Same here. I had a fair amount in my 401K

in my retirement account and every time I received a statement, the balance went down by a few thousand dollars. I finally pulled all the money out and put it in savings.

[HERVEPA]

20. Not smart. why didn't you move it to somethingin the 401k that wasn't risky.

They all have that option.

[RebelOne]

83. Nope, the way the market was failing,

I knew that at least I would still have that money.

[HERVEPA]

84. Sorry, I don't understand your response.

[dionysus]

152. uh, you're aware you can put your 401k into bonds or even cash, right?

[dreamstst]

117. Coulda, shoulda, woulda....

Unhelpful at this point, isn't it?

[olddad56]

82. you can thank GWB for stealing your savings in 2008.

[truedelphi]

138. Sorry to hear about yr

Situation.

Ain't unfettered capitalism grand?

[spinbaby]

9. We've crunched the numbers

And it was damned depressing.

[bvar22]

10. 3rd Way Free Trading MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!!!

65 percent of working families are living from paycheck to paycheck.
http://billmoyers.com/2014/01/10/why-conservatives-old-divide-and-conquer-strategy-%E2%80%94-setting-working-class-against-the-poor-%E2%80%94-is-backfiring/

"Obama Admin’s TPP Trade Officials Received Hefty Bonuses From Big Banks"
http://billmoyers.com/2014/02/20/obama-admin%E2%80%99s-tpp-trade-officials-received-hefty-bonuses-from-big-banks/

95 percent of the economy’s gains have gone to the top 1 percent
http://billmoyers.com/2014/01/10/why-conservatives-old-divide-and-conquer-strategy-%E2%80%94-setting-working-class-against-the-poor-%E2%80%94-is-backfiring/

Billionaire wealth doubles since financial crisis
http://www.upi.com/blog/2013/11/12/Billionaire-wealth-doubles-since-financial-crisis/5011384268135/?spt=hts&or=12

The Top .01 Percent Reach New Heights
http://www.demos.org/blog/9/13/13/top-01-percent-reach-new-heights

Rates of unemployment for families earning less than $20,000 - have topped 21 percent
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_JOBS_GAP_RICH_AND_POOR?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-09-16-08-11-23

Study: "Trade" Deal Would Mean a Pay Cut for 90% of U.S. Workers
http://citizen.typepad.com/eyesontrade/2013/09/the-verdict-is-in-the-trans-pacific-partnership-tpp-a-sweeping-free-trade-deal-under-negotiation-with-11-pacific-rim-coun.html


The Totally Unfair And Bitterly Uneven 'Recovery,' In 12 Charts – HuffPo
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023662029

Wall Street will get away with massive wave of criminality of 2008 - Statute of Limitations
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022516719
Income gap widest ever: 95 Percent of Recovery Income Gains Have Gone to the Top 1 Percent
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/09/10/one_percent_recovery_95_percent_of_gains_have_gone_to_the_top_one_percent.html


Older Workers:.Set Back by Recession, and Shut Out of Rebound
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/27/booming/for-laid-off-older-workers-age-bias-is-pervasive.html?smid=tw-share&_r=3&


Daily CEO Pay Now Exceeds the Average Worker's Annual Salary –
http://thecontributor.com/daily-ceo-pay-now-exceeds-us-workers-annual-salary

As the Economy Recovers, the Wealth Gap Widens
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/rick-newman/2013/03/11/as-the-economy-recovers-the-wealth-gap-widens

Top One Percent Captured 121 Percent Of All Income Gains
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/12/top-one-percent-income-gains_n_2670455.html

THIS ^ does NOT happen by accident.
It is the result of carefully planned and implemented Economic Policy.
It requires careful preparation, marketing, buying the right politicians, message control, courts packed with Conservative Corporate Rights Judges, and the marginalization and suppression of any opposition.

[daleanime]

17. +1

[fleabiscuit]

21. +1

We're not alone.

An old one to remind us we could have seen it coming.

4th World War

Argentina
36:34 All of the economic ministers from the dictatorship up to and including today, were neoliberals, with a framework for how countries should be organized: That states cannot continue responding to demands from society, and that society must make its demands to the market. Which is an academic way of saying that nation states must be destroyed, and people must survive in the market, Which is to say: ‘fuck them.’

[ReRe]

26. "The 401(k)"

"That same 1978 (the 95th) Congress tucked into the omnibus tax bill a small-print provision with enormous consequences for the overwhelming majority of American families. It was the antiseptically titled 401(k) subparagraph that eventually became a vehicle for many corporations to off-load hundreds of billions of dollars in pension expenditures onto their employees, a major step that increased company profits and CEO bonuses and left most of the middle class with the job of financing their own retirement.

"The 401(k) was originally introduced as a tax shelter for deferred compensation under profit-sharing plans at Xerox, Kodak, and a handful of New York banks by Representative Barber Conable of New York, the ranking Republican on the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee4, whose district housed both Kodak and Xerox. Then in 1981 the Reagan Treasury Department, under persistent lobbying from corporate tax consultants, decided that the 401(k) clause could also apply to the regular pay of all employees. Suddenly, visions of a vast new market attracted mutual fund managers and they rolled out the 401(k) red carpet at company after company, promoting the virtues of the new tax shelter to millions of middle-class Americans.

"The result was a financial upheaval that revamped most of the old corporate system of providing lifetime pensions to rank-and-file employees and left the middle and lower middle class constantly scrambling to scrape together enough savings for their supposedly golden years. Under the old lifetime pension system, companies guaranteed monthly retirement checks to employees for as long as they lived. Under the new 401(k) system, those monthly company checks were gone. It was now up to employees to provide for their own retirement savings and to manage their money for long-time security, a task beyond the capability of millions, as the record now shows."

And excerpt from Sedrick's Smith's Who Stole the American Dream?, pages 19-20, from the 2nd chapter entitled "The Pivotal Congress."

[CrispyQ]

130. +1. Great post.

It's a never ending battle, the haves vs. the have-nots.

[Roland99]

80. THIS ^ does NOT happen by accident.

damn straight!

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

127. Hmm, I just clicked on 'permalink' for that comment

assuming it meant that somehow I would have a list of comments I 'permalinked' so I could find them again later, but I don't see where I would go to come back to it later.

[truedelphi]

140. Oh bvar -

To think you have stooped to becoming another one of them "haters."

Are you totally forgetting Lily Ledbetter?

And if so, why??

I mean, this Administration is not perfect, but they have so far refused to go all out on this notion:

[Skeeter Barnes]

12. 401ks were meant to supplement traditional pensions. They were never supposed to be all of your

retirement. I think it will be a nationwide crisis when all these workers become too old to work and have nothing a but a few thousand in some piddly 401k. How are people supposed to survive on shit wages and tiny matching contributions from their greedy employers?

[madville]

43. Do what everyone did 100+ years ago?

Move in with family and die by age 60?

[elehhhhna]

62. pretty much yeah

[Marrah_G]

153. yes

[llmart]

88. How are people supposed to survive?

They're supposed to work for the 1%'ers mowing their lawns, trimming their shrubbery, cleaning their pools, etc. What? You don't want to do that when you're 70 years old? You lazy "taker".

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

129. Survive? Hah. Soylent Green time. nt

[bvar22]

141. 401Ks were meant to transfer wealth from the Working Class to Wall Street Bankers.

They have functioned perfectly as designed.

[progressoid]

13. Retirement? What's that?

I expect to have to work till I expire.

[snot]

14. I'm schiz re- this.

I don't have a lot of sympathy for those who never thought about it much. In my 20's, on a salary of $6,000 to $11,000 per year over 5 yrs., I managed to save $10,000.

At the same time, I did everything "right," but lost a quarter of my savings in 2008; and my spouse has been involuntarily unemployed for the last 2 yrs. . . . we had every right to expect a comfortable retirement, but at this point it looks more like barely surviving . . . .

[magical thyme]

23. I saved 10% of my income for a couple decades...

actually saved 50% of it for the last few good years. I was one of the small percentage that those stupid analysts said was saving enough.

Then came the high tech crash followed by 9/11...just as I was late 40s. I hit my corporate expiration date at 48. Lost my last decent paying job post-911. For 2 years there was NOTHING and by the time there was something I was the big 50.

I've been in and out of shit pay since, and spent the savings on day to day survival. Took out student loans to make myself employable, but now will be in debt until I die.

I do own my home outright, though. But savings? hah. paycheck to paycheck.

[marions ghost]

32. Totally relate

and then the crash of 2008. Nothing is guaranteed.

[magical thyme]

34. 1 guarantee: death. I'd include taxes, but not if you land in the 1%

just prior to the crash of 2008 is when I took out the first student loan. kept me hanging on by an unraveling thread.

[Marrah_G]

105. As a single mother there was never anything left to save

When I did manage to sock away a couple hundred dollars the car would break down or something in the house would break.. If I could go back and do things all over again I would start with going to college and never having children.

[Earth_First]

15. Saving 10% of paycheck to paycheck will do that...

There is going to be some massive upheaval in the future when this all begins to unfold.

[ReRe]

28. Massive for sure... n/t

[Darkhawk32]

18. I don't have jack squat put away.

I simply can't afford it with having to pay legalized extortion (25% of my NET income in child support) while having to support my children 50% of the time.

If it weren't for that, my children would have a much better living with me and I'd have tens of thousands of dollars stashed for my retirement.

[VanillaRhapsody]

27. Child support is "extortion" now?

[Darkhawk32]

54. Yes, it certain cases, it is.

When you take care of the children the same amount of time your ex-spouse does and still have to pay the other spouse to take care of them while they're with him or her, it's extortion.

When you're told that you can't have 50% custody of the kids unless you pay your ex money, it's fucking extortion. And God fucking damn those that defend that bullshit.

[VanillaRhapsody]

57. hmmmmm would love to hear the other side of this story...

AND even if it were true...broadbrush calling it extortion is beyond the pale. We are not talking about alimony here...we are talking child support. We do know that the court takes into consideration the salaries of both parents...sooooo....I don't just believe this story at face value.

the stands...

[Darkhawk32]

59. NO, what is beyond the pale is that you

believe that the only true value a man has is his wallet.

And btw, our salaries weren't that far apart. (maybe $2k per year)

So tell me, why does my ex deserve the money? Why can't I take care of the kids while they're with me and why can't she take care of the kids while they're with her?

Are women just incapable of raising children without money from an equally-parenting ex? Do you believe that women are inherently inferior to men and must have financial support where it is not warranted? Do you feel that, for a man to have children, it should be a punishment and for a woman, a financial windfall?

Is the feminist movement that shallow? Does the feminist movement want equality in all manners of society or just gains in the things that only disenfranchises them while turning a blind eye to the things that are unfairly in their favor?

Do women feel prideful at their extortion check every month? Do women not realize how they PROSTITUTE themselves and their children when they gleefully take that money that they did not earn and/or do not need? Do women not care that they only hurt the children when they financially cripple the father?

***I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT DEAD-BEAT, PIECE OF SHIT FATHERS. THEY CAN ROT IN HELL FOR ALL I CARE. I'M TALKING ABOUT THE FATHERS WHO SACRIFICE EVERYTHING FOR THEIR CHILDREN BUT ARE SHIT ON BY A SYSTEM AND A GENDER BIAS.***

[Roland99]

78. Yeah, it is. Many (most...all?) states have child support calculators that impose a fine!

At least to me it's the same as a fine. A fine for being a father!

Most states have tables whereby percentages are set based upon the amount of money earned by one parent vs the other parent. Say a father makes $60,000/yr and the mother makes $15,000/yr. In the state of Ky (my former state), that means the father has to pay $1,000/mo in child support for two children (considering no health insurance or daycare costs incurred by either party). $1,000/mo!

Now...what is the take-home pay for that father?

According to ADP: $1,866.55 twice a month

Figuring in rent/mortgage, groceries, electric/gas, water/sewage, trash, car payment, car insurance, gas, oil changes, tires once in a while, misc car repairs, phone/internet, clothes, car taxes, property taxes, dental costs, cleaning supplies, medicines, eye exams/eyewear, school fees, school supplies...there's barely anything left and some of the things listed above may have to be cut out or delayed (and that's not even considering any type of entertainment like taking kids to a movie, skating rink, birthday presents, Christmas presents, presents for other kids to whose party they're invited, etc.)

Now...that is for a non-custodial parent who has the kids 50% of the time. Guess what a non-custodial parent pays who has the kids maybe one weekend a month, if that?

THE SAME AMOUNT!

Now...who is more often than not ruled to be the non-custodial parent? The father!

Is there any valid reason for that other than courts bias towards mothers having the kids? None.

It should be a case-by-case basis. In my case, my daughters were definitely much better served had I been deemed the custodial parent. I'm not tooting my own horn, that's just the way it was. In the case of my wife now, her ex is a vile P.O.S. who hasn't spoken to his kids in nearly 3 1/2 years. Hasn't seen them in 4 years. We opted to get the bare minimum amount of child support from her ex in lieu for making him the responsible party for paying his way to see the kids (which we knew would never happen).

Sooo....should fathers all be lumped into my wife's ex's category? No. Should all fathers be lumped into my category? No.

Case-by-case basis. But that doesn't happen so more often than not, the father gets the shaft and has to greatly reduce his (and by association) his kids' standard of living in order to pay what the state demands.

ALSO, a father having 50-50 visitation should have child support payments reduced by half to account for caring for, feeding, clothing, housing, transporting, etc. the kids just as much as the mother. But the cards are stacked against the fathers.

[2banon]

71. I'm sorry, You consider your responsibility to the support of the children only 50% of their

lives? The other 50% of their childhood lives is not your responsibility? So like only when they're sleeping mostly?

Meals, clothing, shelter, other increasingly expensive basic necessities needed to provide for their needs, even when they're not with you physically, you don't recognize as your responsibility as well?

Did you think about this before you decided to have children?

[Darkhawk32]

73. So where's the mother in all this?

She doesn't have any responsibility? What a bunch of fucking bullshit you just spewed.

I'd have the children 100% of the time and have responsibility to them 100% of the time.

And your last question just makes me sick. S-I-C-K!

[2banon]

92. Your reaction is as alarming as it is disturbing. eom

[Roland99]

79. uh...wtf???

Guess the thought of 50/50 visitation never crossed your pessimistic mind?

Good grief!

[2banon]

91. since when did the term "visitation" equate to "responsibility"?

Visitation is just that. personal time with your children. Parental/guardian responsibility for their welfare/support does not end at the end of visitation.

It's 24/7 365 x 18. whether you're living under the same roof during that interim or not.

Which culture were you raised in?

[Roland99]

109. One that understands what Darkhawk was talking about, that's what kind

[Spitfire of ATJ]

22. I actually know a guy that's been saving since his first job...

For ten years he lived rent free with his mom too. He's got over a million set aside. It's really annoying the way he acts like EVERYONE should have been doing it and if they don't have a ton of money socked away he simply grimaces with disgust and says they made "bad decisions".

[deek]

111. gratitude

is lacking in a lot of people who are merely lucky

[Spitfire of ATJ]

113. I've often observed that those who got there easy assume anyone can.

[geek tragedy]

24. "not counting their primary residence or defined benefits plans such as traditional pensions"

that kind of skews the analysis, also an age breakdown would be more useful. 25 year olds aren't going to have much in savings.

[Gormy Cuss]

48. Yeah, not counting defined benefits plans not only skews it, it destroys the validity of the result.

Typically the value of a primary residence is excluded from such calculations but the value of pensions should ALWAYS be factored in. I suspect that it's a weakness of the survey design, that they didn't have a sufficient n of responses to discuss the amounts for persons with pension plans separately.

[geek tragedy]

50. ideally, all assets should be considered.

and age too--having $10,000 socked away at 25 is a lot better than having $30K socked away at 55.

but, as you said, retirement accounts being excluded skews the whole thing, especially since people aren't supposed to just hoard cash

[Gormy Cuss]

53. Age is certainly important because a 20 something has 40 years of future contributions.

Primary residence though is generally excluded for a variety of reasons (for one, people gotta live somewhere and the default plan for most is to stay in place.) Me, I'm ready and willing to sell my house to fund retirement if that's what it takes because I do see it as an investment.


If the owner has substantial equity that can be presumed to be available as an asset on the basis that in the long run the property won't lose value and the equity will increase but if the owner has little or no equity, trying to assess its value as a retirement asset is a bit complicated and would require a battery of questions as part of the survey.

[geek tragedy]

55. true true true.

for us, it'll be a question of whether we have the luxury of staying in our current home or whether we cash out and retire somewhere else. But that's 20 years away, hopefully we can save $$ between now and then,

that is, if I ever persuade my wife to retire . . .

[TwilightGardener]

25. The problem is, it can take years to amass sizable savings, but only takes

one bad event to drain it in a day. I know, it's happened to me a few times over. Then you SLOOOWWLY start building it back up...then it's gone again...rinse and repeat. Get knocked on your ass a few times in life, watch your hard-earned money go to pay contractors or lawyers or mechanics, you just stop caring beyond being able to meet the here-and-now obligations.

[truedelphi]

139. ^^^^^^^ n/t

[arikara]

29. I had my best earning years before I was 40

hurt myself on the job, paid for my retraining but couldn't find a job that paid anywhere near what I made previously in spite of that. Lost a fairly decent job in the downturn, found a good paying part-time job expecting to work it into full time but instead they started cutting hours. I'm now 58 and retraining myself yet again.

Retirement? For awhile I had money saved for my pension but between the retrainings and downturn came the crash and it didn't leave much. It used to be that every new job you went up in wages and benefits, they valued an employee with experience. Now its every job you go down and they prefer foreign "guest workers" because they can pay them less and treat them like crap.

[Recursion]

33. Why wouldn't you count primary residence or a defined-benefit plan?

Those are still what a lot of people intend to retire on. Maybe even a third.

[olddad56]

49. then where are they going to live.

Paying off my house is part of my retirement plan. I can retire in part because i don't have a house payment, or a car payment, or a bunch of credit card debt. But if I sold my house, I would be no better off. I'd have to either buy another house or rent a house. My plan involves no big monthly payments.

[SoCalNative]

81. Well, you could always downsize

and move to an apartment. At least then you won't be saddled with monthly homeowner's insurance premiums and annual property tax bills.

[llmart]

90. You still have renter's insurance.....

and you may not directly pay property taxes, but if the property taxes go up on the apartments you're living in, that cost is passed along to you as a renter anyway.

[SoCalNative]

110. Depends on where you live

If you're in a rent controlled area, they can only raise your rent so much.

I never had to carry "renter's insurance" when I lived in apartments.

[Octafish]

35. Well, when a loaf of bread is $3 and a gallon of gas goes for $4...

...a brake job goes for $300, so they're lucky to have that grand stashed away.



Complainers should have done what the rich do, been born that way.

[cbdo2007]

36. Yet they spend $70 per month on a cell phone plan. lol

and eat out 10 times per week, and have a 42" tv with cable costing $100 per month.

People aren't stupid, they know how saving works but that's not as fun as having the ability to check Facebook while they are sitting at a stoplight.

[Cal Carpenter]

37. Forget the sarcasm tag or something?

[leftyladyfrommo]

40. I have a cellphone plan for $60.

I don't have a computer or a TV. My house is 750 sq. feet. I burn about 2 lights and leave the rest off. I do my laundry in the bathtub. I still have trouble making it each month. Some months I do OK. I pet sit and house sit to make some extra money. Some months are very slow and I don't make much.

I still have trouble making it. It costs a lot just to live at a very simple level.

And, just as an aside, it's not cheap to cook for yourself. Fresh fruit and veggies are expensive. Sometimes it's cheaper to eat out.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

46. Disgusting comment.

Sounds like "welfare queen" type right wing bullshit.

[LanternWaste]

52. I used to pretend I had the relevant financial knowledge of other people too.

I used to pretend I had the relevant financial knowledge of other people too. In my case, the pretense was to help myself feel clever... what the rationale for your pretense?


"People aren't stupid..."
Except for those who pretend to have the the relevant financial knowledge of other people. (insert distinction without a difference here...)

[tazkcmo]

64. Show me

I'm from Misory (It's next to Kansas) and we have a saying that pretty much means "bullshit" and I'm using it here. Show me where all the folks that aren't saving for retirement are choosing to live the "good life" now instead.

I'm sure there are some folks like that but according to you its all of them. Just out of curiosity, what's your handle on FR?

My phone costs me 25 a month, I eat out on the day before payday (a 5 dollar sub at Subway I eat for lunch instead of the 2 sandwiches I normally make), have a FB account (free) which I rarely access and never from my phone much less in the car I don't have. On the other hand, I did buy a pair of jeans last week. The first new clothing besides socks in the last 5 years I've purchased.

Yup. Living high on the hog and living the American dream! I know, nobody likes a bragger.

[cbdo2007]

68. No, you're right...

all of the people who have a smart phone are all saving very responsibly for retirement *eye roll*.

I'm in the KC area also, and this is one of the easiest cities in the country to live in on a very tight budget. Good luck to you!

[Le Taz Hot]

89. I saved plenty for retirement.

Then my husband's business folded, then the economy crashed, then we were unemployed for 3-1/2 years. Saved for 30 years and in 5 years it was gone -- used it to live on, keep up the house payments, you know, frivolous shit like that. I have a smart phone because I use it everyday in my part-time job. I don't have a landline and haven't had TV service in over 2 years. I cook at home and cook from scratch. We NEVER go anywhere or do anything because of cost restrictions.

There but for the graces, bucko, there but for the graces. One more thing, Karma has a habit of coming up and biting us in the ass when we get too cocky. Just sayin'

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

131. I guess +1 is the standard around here for

I agree fully with this comment?

So much of what people snobbishly call 'good decisions' amount to having been born into a lucky spot, or getting lucky in knowing someone who 'hooks you up' with a good job. But luck is fickle, which is why we need a far stronger social safety compact.

[workinclasszero]

38. If I had a million in the bank

it wouldn't be enough. I'll work till the day I die or if I can't physically work anymore just starve to death under a bridge somewhere I guess.

I'm just so grateful for living in the most wonderful christian capitalist country in the world that rewards its hard working citizens and veterans with no healthcare, no jobs, no hope and is slowly and surely going to kill SS and medicaid/medicare to fund worldwide perpetual wars for the MIC.

But hey there are tons of 5000 dollar and up a month retirement homes I could go to...LOLOLOL!

[Marrah_G]

39. People used to have retirement plans

I am 43...

Right now it seems like a good chunk of the elderly are doing okay. I think the difference is going to be stunning 30 years from now when my generation hits retirement age. I don't ever see myself being able to retire.

[Demobrat]

44. The elderly are doing okay

because they have pensions. That won't be the case for the boomers or anybody younger than them.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

47. It will be worse for those after the boomers.

Since the boomers seem to be closing the door behind them.

[Gormy Cuss]

56. No, it will be worse because boomers had parents with defined benefit plans

and many boomers inherited some assets like the family house. Boomers are the first 401K generation and will struggle to pay for their own retirements thus their children aren't likely to see any inheritance.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

60. Many boomers supported Reagan.

The tea party is made up of mostly baby boomers. They also got us into Iraq and Afghanistan. They're leaving a complete mess for the younger generation. Don't cut their Medicare and social security though!

[Gormy Cuss]

61. The majority of boomers did not support Reagan.

Many Gen-Xers supported Reagan, maybe it's their fault.

Now who got us into Iraq and Afghanistan? A mix of pre-Boomers like Cheney, Boomers like W, and post-Boomers. Placing the blame solely on Boomers is idiotic.

[Arugula Latte]

63. I'm an "old" Gen-Xer (born mid-late 60s) and that segment of that generation in general

SUCKS. We have lots of Reagan Youth who never got the message it was all a big con game. *Hangs head in shame*

[Gormy Cuss]

67. Blaming whole generations, especially the biggest one in modern history, is just silly.

The oldest Boomers had it much better than the later Boomers in terms of education costs and jobs but the men also had Vietnam service as a reality. The late Boomers entered a crowded job market with a bigger stack of loans and the country in an inflationary period. It was no bed of roses. Then, 401Ks replaced defined benefit plans.

That each generation since has had it even worse is not the fault of the Boomers. It's the fault of all of the power brokers.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

70. Baby Boomers top supporters of war in Iraq.

Sixty-two percent of those in the Baby Boom group -- people born between 1946 and 1964 -- approve of Bush's handling of the situation in Iraq, according to polling this month by the Gallup organization.

That puts Boomers in first place as Bush's top cheerleaders -- three percentage points ahead of those between 18 and 39 and eight points ahead of those over 58.









http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Baby-Boomers-top-supporters-of-war-in-Iraq-2600135.php

[Gormy Cuss]

74. And that has nothing to do with your earlier statement that Boomers gave us Reagan. n/t

[ForgoTheConsequence]

95. No, but it has to do with my first statement.

That trillion dollar mistake cost this country big time.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

66. "61. The majority of boomers did not support Reagan."

Wrong.

http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/how_groups_voted/voted_80.html


Fewer baby boomers supported Carter than any other age group.

[Gormy Cuss]

72. Those numbers do not support your claim. They do support mine though.

The Baby Boomers are generally considered the generation born between 1946 and 1964
In 1980 the oldest Boomers were 34. The youngest, were 16 and not eligible to vote.

The Roper Center chart shows that the 18-29 year olds were equally split between Carter and Reagan and also voted heavily for Anderson. Thus, this portion of the Boomers clearly did not support Reagan but rather Carter and Anderson.

The remaining Boomers are a subset of the 30-44 year old category, which is the cohort where the balance shifted to Reagan. Lacking a further breakdown, one could assume that the oldest Boomers voted more like those older than them, but it's also likely that they voted more like the 22-29 year olds. The oldest Boomers were probably a little more than one third of that cohort if one assumes an even voting rate by age.

As a percent of vote, the oldest cohort of Boomers comprised about one third of all Boomer voters. Even if they voted more like older voters in their cohort rather than like their fellow Boomers (unlikely,) the combined totals for all Boomer voters shows that the majority of Boomer voters did not support Reagan. Period.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

69. Gen-X'ers couldn't vote in 1980.

And only a small percentage could vote in 1984 (the oldest gen-x'ers were still only 19).

[Gormy Cuss]

75. Yes, I know. In fact a number of Boomers couldn't vote in 1980.

But they're apparently responsible for Reagan nonetheless.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

94. The majority could.

And they all could in 84' and they went for Reagan by a landslide.

[Gormy Cuss]

107. Every age cohort went for Reagan in '84.

So again, blaming Boomers for Reagan is idiotic. Boomers ruining America has been a RW meme since the LBJ administration. Sad to see someone on the left picking up that banner.

[LiberalElite]

119. I'm a Boomer -

NEVER voted for Reagan or any Rethug for president. Ever.

[Gormy Cuss]

120. It's still your fault.

You and all the other boomers, including the 40+ percent who voted just like you. You people have been ruining American since you became teens.

[Marrah_G]

65. Yes, thats what I meant

[Skittles]

97. the divide actually starts between the older boomers and the "younger boomers"

there's a stark difference in the experiences between those two groups

[Fiendish Thingy]

98. No, it will be about 5-10 years from now as the boomers peak retirement wave hits n/t

[Arugula Latte]

45. It seems overwhelming to save for retirement when you're just trying to pay rent/mortgage,

feed the family, pay medical and other essential bills, etc. And saving for college? ... Oy vey.

[olddad56]

51. if the federal government had to pay it's debts, it wouldn't have a $1000 either.

[dembotoz]

76. had one--then i got laid off--work till i die

[TexasBushwhacker]

149. Me too

Laid off after age 50, then became disabled. If I ever work again, and I hope I do, I will work until I die. I'm also a renter.

[Ed Suspicious]

77. The shift to 401k has been a disaster.

Only the rich and financiers should be happy about where we've gone for people's retirement security.

[mackerel]

93. it's really hard if you don't work for a company that has

set up. I've been lucky three times I've had jobs where I could put into it so over the years I've saved a little bit.

[Sunlei]

99. I understand about living paycheck to paycheck, or in fear of losing that job.

still I wish people could or would save even a tiny bit, because $5 or $10 a week adds up.

[mackerel]

134. i totally agree but it is hard unless they take it from

My paycheck before i ever get it.

[Sunlei]

135. The first little bit saved is the hardest!

If you do consider starting to save a little, I recommend https://www.smartypig.com/ because they have no account fees and pay a 1% interest rate. 1% is not much but best I've found for a plain small savings account. I linked that savings account to my checking account & automatic transfer a little bit each paycheck.

[get the red out]

102. =

Last edited Mon Mar 24, 2014, 08:26 AM - Edit history (1)

[dreamstst]

116. I would compliment you on your TSA...

...but you seem to prefer that job yourself.

[get the red out]

145. What's your problem?

My message was pretty benign. I've removed it so you don't have to see it.

[Jesus Malverde]

137. How can they not include pensions, homes, or social security in this report.

Not counting their primary residence or defined benefits plans such as traditional pensions or social security.

It's obvious many see their homes as an investment that will be used for retirement.

The report is a bit misleading by not including the sources of income most commonly used in retirement.