"I will never be able to save enough to securely fund a private retirement"

[kpete]

MON JUL 25, 2011 AT 09:27 AM PDT
If I Work as Hard as I Can For the Rest of My Life
bybink

I will never be able to save enough to securely fund a private retirement.

And, most likely, neither will you.

That is all you need to know about my position with regard to Social Security.

Asking me to accept adjustments to Social Security is asking me to accept possible food and shelter insecurity when I am old and cannot work.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/07/25/998504/-If-I-Work-as-Hard-as-I-Can-For-the-Rest-of-My-Life?via=siderec

[nashville_brook]

1. me either.

[RKP5637]

2. Effective earning power of wages has been going down for most Americans over

several decades, IMO the quality of life has been decreasing and costs have been increasing. I can never understand it when I see an unhealthy looking teabagger, for example, clamoring about SS and Medicare. These sorry F'ers probably can't afford a bucket to piss in and look like they're about 3 more fat meals from a major heart attack. What a sorry bunch of losers.

[hamsterjill]

3. Same boat here, too.

And it all scares the hell outta me.

[wtbymark]

4. retirement for me?

when they pull the sheet over my face

[anarch]

15. me too...probably after I keel over at work

but hey, I'm "lucky I have a job".

[MedicalAdmin]

62. You'll be able to afford a sheet?

Holy crap - you ARE well off.

[CarmanK]

5. Only the wealthy can! the rest of us are condemned to poverty

if the repigs continue this drive to the bottom. Perhaps now those old ladies who were wearing those hats with TBAGS on them last summer, empowering the repugs and opposing health care reform will have some rethinking to do. Their SS is under assault as well as their medicare. The repigs will please the tbaggers, but they may well be losing all those right wing idiots who gave them power to begin with.

[quakerboy]

67. the wealthy and government employees

and the latter is becoming less and less assured.

[latebloomer]

81. Government employees no longer have such a great deal

Since the mid 80s any new employee was forced to accept a GREATLY reduced pension plan, along with a 401K type plan, and Social Security. Prior to that they weren't eligible for SS, but had a very good pension. As far as the Congresscritters, I think they have a much better retirement plan, but I don't know the details offhand.

on edit- I'm referring to Federal employees.

[swilton]

84. Furthermore, Federal Employees

in 'excepted service' (i.e., the intelligence fields) were not allowed to participate in unions...and the jobs in that field were not given 'status' - meaning if you were in that field you could not transfer to non-intelligence/non-defense related positions...

From personal experience I can say the spooky world was initially very exciting with all the secret hand-shakes, etc., etc. But once the newness wore off and you saw the big picture you were trapped by the golden hand-cuffs....For some who never see the big picture it's ok - for others who have some defective gene and couldn't be brain-washed it was golden hand-cuffs. If you critiqued the system or said no, you faced losing pension, retirement savings as well as salary....

This is what history/political science/ethnic studies majors now face - the only places for people to work it seems is the Federal Government - and you are given no opportunities for creative or critical thought.

[wishlist]

89. Repubs have already developed bills to end federal pensions

My Repub Senator Burr of NC supports a bill to end federal pensions for future hires so they will only have Social Security and thrift fund savings. Other proposals with bipartisan support that are likely to pass in the near future include making Feds pay in much more than they already pay into their pension fund and getting less in their pensions.

[liberal N proud]

6. They throw my hope of Social Security under the bus and I will be there too

Shared sacrifice my ass!

[Lone_Star_Dem]

7. It would appear the best many of us can hope for is to die before we're no longer able to work.

At lest that's what I'm seeing as my best option.

[dgibby]

10. Grayson was right. n/t

[valerief]

78. He always is. nt

[SusanaMontana41]

94. Yup. eom

[elocs]

8. I've lived on next to nothing & nothing lately, so SS will be a step up for me in 3 years.

Fortunately I am in good health and it's just me so I'm looking forward to retiring in another 3 years. I've always adapted my lifestyle to how much money I have coming in, so being on SS won't be any different, but this is just me and for others it's obviously different.

[Angry Dragon]

9. No taxpayer paid pensions for Congress

Interesting article

http://www.rollcall.com/issues/56_80/-203229-1.html

Now is the time for them to rely on just SS
No more taxpayer money for Congressional pensions


Another one:
http://readersupportednews.org/pm-section/78-78/4778-will-congressional-pensions-qshare-the-sacrificeq



Between 2001 and 2009, Congressional salaries increased from $145,100 to $174,000 thanks to an automatic Cola increase. As Social Security recipients have not received a cost of living adjustment since 2008, Congressional Cola increases cost taxpayers $2.2 million and $2.5 million in 2008 and 09 respectively. In 2010, Congress voted to not accept a 2011 COLA increase. On January 7, 2011, Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Az) introduced a bill to cut Congressional salaries by 5%.

Would it come as a shock to hear that former Speaker Newt Gingrich who resigned under an ethics cloud with 20 years in the House and former Senator Alan Simpson with 18 years in the Senate who serves on the President’s Deficit Commission, both hard line advocates of cutting People Program entitlements, are on the public dole. Both collect full CSRS pensions including Cola increases, full medical care and other Congressional privileges. As an example, consider that Sen. Bill Bradley (NJ) who retired in 2000 after 23 years of service is expected to receive a total of $7.9 million in pension payments (assuming an average lifespan).

More recent examples of Congressional pension largesse are Senators Chris Dodd and Byron Doran who will collect $125,000 and $116,000 annually after 30 years of service, Judd Gregg will collect $63,000 for 16 years, Kit Bond and Jim Bunning will each receive $58,900 for 14 years of service. These pensions do not include annual COLA 'adjustments.'

Even if Congress protects Social Security and Medicare as well as it protects its own pension and health care coverage, public employees who are not eligible for Social Security, are falling through the social safety net and waking up in an America with all the earmarks of a third world banana republic

[dgibby]

11. You should send this to Keith, Ed, and Rachel. n/t

[Mimosa]

23. Seconding DGibby: Please send the info, Angry Dragon.

If I could K&R a post... :D

[OwnedByFerrets]

29. +1 Although it will never happen. They make their own rules

[wordpix]

39. and no Soc. Sec. and Medicare for these richies either

They don't need a social safety net after making all this money

[BuelahWitch]

45. Indeed, they're not "sharing" any sacrifice!n/t

[TreasonousBastard]

12. That's it? No details? Well, if you don't have enough to throw a few...

bucks a week into a Roth or other savings plan, and your boss doesn't have a pension plan or 401K he contributes to, you're SOL even if you collect SS.

Fact is, the broker you are while you're working, the less you get under SS-- I know people who are going to collect the sterling amount of $650 a month, and that's all they're retiring on. If you're too broke now to throw a couple of bucks into savings, you're gonna starve anyway unless you figure out a way to save.

Most people don't save cash-- they depend on SS, employer-provided pensions, and whatever value is in their house. Throw 10 or 20 bucks a week into a growth fund or savings account? That's just silly.

Notice that with all the boss-hating and soak the rich talk going on, NOT ONE person has bothered to bring up floating pensions for those not working at one company long enough to be vested. That would be more valuable to most people than a lot of the half-assed healthcare plans being tossed around.

[LooseWilly]

20. Floating pensions for those not working at one company...?... that's called "cash".

I have no 401K. I have no IRA. I have some cash... and if I'd put it in an IRA when I earned it I wouldn't be able to take it out for another 24 years without a penalty.

What people seem to be ignoring is that the ONLY point in IRA/401K/Keogh/what-the-fuck-ever is that one either pays no taxes on it until they draw it out when they retire or no taxes on the gains of the investment growth.

In the first case... you've locked your money in and can't get it until retirement age, assuming you live that long (my mom didn't...), or you lock your post tax dollars in and can't get to it until retirement age, again—assuming you live that long—and even then, in the case of a Roth, you're betting that investing earned rather than lost value...

If you're not working at a company long enough to... then you're likely to need to keep your income liquid, rather than locking it into some sort of retirement fund that may or may not actually earn anything... unless, of course, you're earning such stellar "wages" with your contracting jobs that you just plain "don't know what to do with it all"... in which case... may I suggest a fucking IRA? Or... is the $5K/year limit just a little too "pinching" on your discretionary-investment funds? {In which case... alas—my heart fucking bleeds for you...}

[raouldukelives]

13. Investing in a 401k is investing in death

Profiting from war, denial of insurance claims, big pharma, 3rd world labor, destruction of the environment. What self respecting human being would want to retire on funds derived from such madness?

[quaker bill]

27. It is not a risk

because they will steal it before you ever get to cash out.

[sarcasmo]

98. I have been saying that all along Quaker Bill.

[quaker bill]

121. It is fairly obvious - eh?

[joeglow3]

37. That makes no sense

So, instead you want to tax these companies more and get retirement from the government on the backs of profiting from war, denial of insurance claims, big pharma, 3rd world labor, destruction of the environment. While I get your point, the ultimate source of the funds come from the EXACT SAME PLACE. I would rather be in control of my funds as we are seeing what happens if you give up that control.

[raouldukelives]

124. I'm fairly convinced most of the corporations

I refuse to support/invest in pay no taxes at all. In fact, many receive huge subsidies back from us! I feel working at the bakery and paying my fair share of my taxes and avoiding profiting from the merchants of misery is the best I can do at this time.

[quiller4]

56. There are responsible 401k funds available.

PaxWorld Mutual Funds is one such vehicle. CREF Socially Responsible Fund is another.Socialfunds.com is a resourse for looking at other options.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lifelong Protester]

16. When i see these 'retirement fund' commercials on TV, I really

wonder...how many folks are reaching that $1,297,046.00 to retire on? The last poster in line here says it all, most folks retiring have WAY less than the 'magic number'.

And for those who chide about not saving even a little, well, have you seen the unemployment numbers?? Might it be that even the most frugal saver has had to tap those funds just to live NOW, not some time in the future??

Wanda Sykes was right when she said to watch out for anyone with a brief case and a Wall Street Journal. Haul a** and get away from them. Gang members will only steal what you have ON YOU NOW. The Wall Streeter wants to steal your FUTURE.

[spinbaby]

17. The "experts" are always upping the amount

Used to be the "experts" recommended you have a million put away for retirement. Lately I notice that the "experts" recommend two or three million. May as well be a trillion for all the chance we have of saving that much.

[FreeJoe]

50. It make sense

The amount you need to have saved to live off of investment income rises as interest rates go down. Interest rates are very low right now. Trying to live off of funds earning 2% is much harder than living off of funds earning 4% or 6%.

That has created an interesting problem where I work. The company still provides a defined benefit pension. They give you the option of getting the payments or taking it as a lump sum. The amount of the lump sum is based on the cost of an annuity that would give you the payments. Because interest rates are so low, the lump sum amounts are huge. We now have people retiring early so that they can lock in the lump sum amounts now.

[Withywindle]

18. Less than a decade ago, when I was in my mid-30s

I had a 401k that was at about 40,000. Not great, but not terrible for a 35-year-old, assuming the economy held. I sent my funds to the big-risk, high-payoff funds, because that's what I was advised to do for my age group.


You know where that lead--and of course, the $36,000k job with benefits, whose "retirement counselor" advised me to do that is long gone too.


$36,000 was the peak of my earning life; I've never had a higher income than that. Now I'm 42, working two part-time jobs to the tune of about 22k combined, living in an apartment share with roommates, uninsured. The retirement plan worth 40k in, oh, '98? Definitely not worth that now! The money was never real to begin with. I'm starting to think that the only real savings that count are in cash in the mattress. But that would impoverish the economy even further!

[curlymoses]

19. What Happened To COLAs?

Congress has voted to freeze SS Cost Of Living Adjustments from what I recall in recent years. $16 trillion in loans to banks all over the world from the Fed, but Congress can't figure out how to finance a 4% SS payment increase.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-H6bldEvqI

[Mimosa]

22. They're probably attempting to slowly kill S.S. Curlymoses.

Welcome to Democratic Underground, Curlymoses. :D

[LooseWilly]

24. Even with negligible COLA increases in recent years, it's apparently been deemed "too expensive"

Instead the plan being pushed is the "chained CPI".

What the fuck's that? you ask...

...

First published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in 2002, the chained CPI was designed to adjust for the ways real-life consumers compensate when a product or service gets more expensive: They buy less of it, or find a cheaper brand, or find something different, or go without.

The phenomenon is known as "substitution." Economists fear that an inflation index that ignores substitution might overstate the real cost of living because it will include products in its market basket that consumers have tossed out of theirs. The example favored by BLS analysts is ice cream — as it rises in price, the analysts observe, consumers will buy a pint instead of a quart, or buy a store brand instead of Breyers, or shop for it at Costco instead of Ralphs.

For budget cutters, the charm of the chained CPI is that it consistently rises at a lower rate than the traditional CPI, differing by two- to three-tenths of a percentage point per year. Social Security's own actuaries have calculated that pegging cost-of-living increases to the chained CPI would cut seniors' benefits by nearly 10% over any 30-year span, compared with the current formula.

...

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/13/business/la-fi-hiltzik-20110713

It's improved exploitation through mathematics/economics... ;)

[sybylla]

33. Too expensive, while my grandmother tries to make it on $700/month.

With jacked up gas prices and food prices. But SS recipients don't need no COLA. Just don't drive and don't eat.

[Mimosa]

21. Amen!

KPete, thanks. MOST Americans are in the same boat. The question is whether the boat we're in is the Titanic. ;)

[Skidmore]

25. We've tried to save over the years and were doing a pretty good

job until the stock portion of our portfolios took a nosedive toward the end of the * years and it has never fully recovered. The retirement plan we have was required by our employer and was vested after 5 years. We do not have control of those funds entirely since you cannot move the value of the stock portion to the annuity or bond portions. You are required to carry stock.

[melm00se]

26. do you want to be a millionaire?

it CAN be done.

Age......Amt set aside per year....Years to save....Amount at 65
15.......$2,000.........................7............$1,020,430
15.......$2,000........................50............$2,327,934
25.......$2,259........................40............$1,000,000
35.......$6,079........................30............$1,000,000
45.......$17,459.......................20............$1,000,000
55.......$62,745.......................10............$1,000,000

Source: http://www.clarkhoward.com/news/clark-howard/personal-finance-credit/who-wants-be-millionaire/nFcQ/

the key is to start early but most people can't/won't/don't.

[WinkyDink]

31. ummm...Saving over $62K at age 55 means one is ALREADY a millionaire.

[TexDevilDog]

42. That why you must start saving when young

I have saved nearly 10% my whole life. Socking away money first before anything else. Now 43, half way to being a millionaire but I never made over $55k in a year my whole life.

[MedicalAdmin]

64. I am your exact same age and I did the same thing.

And then I had a car accident and despite having insurance, I was denied treatment and all of my savings, my job, my everything went poof. I've managed to hold onto the house, but just barely.

In a rational country this NEVER would have happened. And my savings did nothing to help. Not a damn thing. You've been lucky so far. You might not be tomorrow. And in the USA if your luck runs out you may as well bend over and get ready to take it dry.

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MadHound]

90. Nice to see that you've lived a relatively stress free and carefree life,

But the fact of the matter is that millions simply don't have the ability to save ten percent of their paycheck since they make too little to actually save a dime. Not to mention the fact that making thirty thousand, much less fifty five thousand, is out of the question as well. And let's not forget that emergencies, accidents, all that and more can wipe out your savings in an instant.

Easy to tell people what they need to do, but the follow through is the hard part. Not everybody is as fortunate as you are.

[TexDevilDog]

95. I use to be there. I was living paycheck to paycheck.

I had a car repoed, deep in credit card debt. I said no more. I paid off all my debts, made a budget. I changed my life, I didn't wait for someone to fix the problem I created.

I started wondering where all my money went. I started tracking every cent and found out I was wasting money everywhere.

I always budget and plan now. If I don't plan where my money goes, it is going to leave.

[MadHound]

104. You are implying that if people can't privately finance their own retirement

That it is somehow their fault, completely. That simply isn't the case.

I'm happy that you dug yourself out of a hole, but many people can't. Chronic health issues, accidents, etc. are simply bolts out of the blue that wipe out a person's savings all too easily.

[Name removed]

113. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MadHound]

120. LOL,

First of all, the median wealth rate of the average American household, across all age brackets, was a little over $120,000, with most of that invested in their home. The median wealth rate of people in your age bracket is a bit over 98,000.

So obviously, sitting on a half million dollars worth of savings, you are not part of the normal crowd. That is what I'm trying to tell you, it's nice that you've saved that much, but for millions of people that simply isn't happening. Count your blessings that you have such a nest egg, but realize that you are the exception, not the rule.

[WinkyDink]

106. Mr. Ant, meet Ms. Grasshopper. :-)

[sybylla]

34. Bullshit. Bloody, putrid, odoriforous Bullshit.

Banks and fund managers have been pushing that crap since I was working for them in the 80's.

Those numbers used to be based on a 9% (IRA) savings return. Look at how that turned out. Now Fuckwad Clark bases that magic million dollar figure on an average 9.4% stock market return

Everything I gained before the 2001 stock market crash, I lost, plus some principle. Lost again in 2003. Lost again in 2008.

I've gained back some, but I'm still barely above principle.

Where's my 9.4% average return, Fuckwad Clark?

The Stock Market gets no more of my money to gamble with. And savings accounts pay zero now, thank you Greenspan.

So I'm basically fucked.

[joeglow3]

36. 9.4% is high, but the premise is still valid

The vast majority of millionaires in this country made their money by doing exactly what Clark Howard is talking about: consistently saving over the long term. However, sadly people don't start thinking about it until they are too old to really take advantage of compounding earnings.

Whenver someone new starts out of college, I recommend they contribute the max to their 401(k). They are used to living off of shit and will still have a higher standard of living than they did previously. However, once you settle into spending what you make, it is a LOT harder to cut back. Sadly, few took the advice, but a few who have have thanked me years later.

It really is not a hard concept to grasp.

[pitohui]

55. the premise is NOT valid, the premise is based on a lie

joeglow3, you are in for some harsh times ahead, since your ability to do basic math is so poor

9.4% is not just a "high" rate of return, it is an impossible rate of return in a mature economy, if your plan for retirement is based on that rate of return, year after year, decade after decade, you are going to be eating a lot of dogfood when you're old

garbage in, garbage out is a phrase you may have heard from the math boys and the computer boys, trouble is, it isn't just a cute phrase...it's REALITY

in the real world, if you make your plans based on winning the lottery, which is what you do if you predict an annual rate of return so far out of line with an honest broker could produce, you are GOING to end up being scammed by a madoff type, there's no other outcome that can happen because your expectations are delusional and you make yourself a prey to the hucksters

i strongly urge you to educate yourself before it's too late

[raccoon]

61. +1000. nt

[joeglow3]

73. Who said you have to invest in the US only?

I am 34 years old and have saved almost $500,000. I am very happy with the choice I have made: invest consistently into ONLY index funds. I currently do a mix of about 50-60% domestic and 40-50% foreign. I never once stopped investing when the market tanked and, thanks to dollar cost averaging, made out pretty well. I will soon start to move a little out of stocks and into more stable investments.

However, please educate me on how I ensure I don't have to rely on anyone (including the government) in retirement? What would you recommend?

[reformist2]

103. You didn't get to $500K by putting away $2k per year....

[WinkyDink]

107. Or by making minimum wage. More like high 5-, low 6-figures.

[joeglow3]

119. I started out making minimum wage

I worked 40 hours a week during school and 80-100 hours a week during ALL breaks (Christmas, Spring, Summer) to pay my own way through college. I make no apologies for the success I have. I came from a blue collar, union family that could not afford it, so I made my own sacrifices. I graduated college with no debt and a salary of $37,000. I now have a salary of $94,000 and I earned it by sacrificing much of my youth (I even paid my own way through a private, college-prep high school after 9 years of public schooling).

[joeglow3]

118. I started out making $37,000 a year

I put 15% into my 401(k) and invested a few hundred a month in taxable accounts. My wife started out at $30,000 a year and put 20% into her 403(b). We live WAAAY below our means: we have 1 cell phone between the 2 of us with phone service only. We just dumped dial up internet a few years ago (because her employer now pays for our internet so she can work from home).

However, regardless of how I am doing, my point still stands: the key to maximizing your future success and comfort is to invest consistently (even if it is only $50-100 a month) over a long term. It will accomplish a HELL of a lot more than your strategy of pissing and whining, making excuses for not investing, and saving dick.

[TexDevilDog]

38. Most people have the highest standard of living they can borrow

and you think they will plan for their future and save money.

:rofl:

[Nye Bevan]

43. I can't help wondering, when I pass a crowded Starbucks,

is everyone in there who is buying $5 coffees in a good position regarding saving for their retirement? Because if not, they have no business buying $5 coffees in Starbucks.

[kctim]

51. They also have no business

paying for internet so they can blog about not being able "to save enough to securely fund a private retirement."

[pitohui]

57. nobody ever got rich drinking $3 coffee instead of $5 coffee

you work an average of 22 days a year, so you're talking about an extra $44 per month

that money does not go to retirement, that money goes toward gifts, donations, little emergencies, etc. as i know well since i don't drink coffee "out"

the money you find in your sofa is not gonna fund your retirement

believe me, really, it isn't, this "retire on the money from not drinking coffee" crap was created under reagan and it has NEVER been proven to have made even one person a millionaire

you become a millionaire by inheriting it, marrying it, having the connections to be given a six figure job (prob. because one of your parents inherited it or married it)

you do not become a millionaire by cutting back on coffee or i'd be a fucking millionaire, hell, 90 percent of the people i meet every day would be fucking millionaires if that nonsense worked

where are people's brains? why do they keep parroting such propaganda, year after year, for 30 years? we've had decades to test this crap. it is proven NOT TO WORK...

[Nye Bevan]

65. $44 per month, invested at 5%, over 40 years, gets you about $67,000.

Wouldn't that come in handy when you want to retire?

[shanti]

69. but wait...

even YOU can become a millionaire by playing the lottery!:sarcasm:

[TexDevilDog]

96. Most lottery tickets are sold in poor nieghborhoods

Chance to win is 1 in 50 million and people waste good $$$ every month.

But if they investment that money they have 1 out of 1 chance to have a bunch of money when they retire.

[NickB79]

59. Where is there a crowded Starbucks these days? Most of them closed here

Due to lack of business. The ones at the Barnes and Noble bookstores do fair business, but that seems to be because you can camp out there all day and read books and magazines for free, as well as use free internet.

[pitohui]

54. that chart is a LIE, a completely bogus piece of horseshit

do you understand that these charts were created under ronald reagan -- that's where the $2K figure comes from, that was the max you could place in an IRA at that time

in 30 years NO ONE, NOT ONE LIVING BREATHING HUMAN BEING, was ever shown to have followed that advice and now hold a million dollars in their account, starting at age 16 (when most people start working) and investing $2K a year for 30 years -- EVEN THOUGH THE 15 year old in your example should have been a millionaire by now!!!

you know WHY it didn't work? the assumptions are fucking bogus, they're based on an 11 percent annual rate of return in a tax sheltered account

the annual rate of return has proved to be nothing close to 11 percent per annum, in fact, for index fund investments it has been close to a zero rate of return from 2000 to 2010 -- an entire lost decade

today, the interest rate for most investments is 1 or 2 percent, on a savings account or money market is close to ZERO

that chart is a lie, and anyone who is still pulling it out of their ass KNOWS it is a lie, because we have reached the other end of that 30 year, 11 percent annual rate of return in the stock market horsehockey ronald reagan bullshit, and we now KNOW that it is a lie

we have a mature economy, an 11 percent rate of return year after year, for decades, was horseshit and should have been known to be horseshit all along

you cannot find one living human being who invested $2K a year for 5 years in their tax sheltered IRA, got anything close to that rate of return, and has anything close to a million dollars, they might have $30,000 or so if they followed this crap advice

how do i know? because i tried it, and my husband tried it, and a lot of people tried it, and nobody has anything close to a million dollars as a result of this advice, what we do have is enough to fund perhaps a year or two in retirement, that's it

i have an idea, don't tell people to do something you've never tried to do yourself, it just makes you look like you've got something to sell (presumably financial investments)

[quakerboy]

72. I question the methidology

1) "This assumes a 9.4 percent average gain annually, which has been the average return on the stock market since 1926, according to The Chicago Tribune article."

Good luck on that one. The money I invested in my IRA is worth less than half of what it was when I put it in. In fact, considering my employer match, I am almost exactly breaking even.

Drop that to the ~ 1.75% I can get on a CD from my credit union, and your 2k per year for 50 years becomes more like 180k. Nothing to sneeze at, but a long way off from a million.

[dkf]

99. Also...deduct it before it hits your checking account.

Then you never had the opportunity to spend it.

[RobinA]

28. I've Come to Believe

that very few people, even those with beyond decent incomes, can "save" for a secure retirement. My grandfather did on a lower middle class/middle class income in the '40's, '50's and '60's. And he wasn't cheap in daily life. Frugal and smart, but not cheap. Financed my grandmother until she died at 101 and had some left over. Helped put my father through medical school, too. Those days are gone, as most of it was done with utility stock that he started amassing in the '30's. Back when you started with a company in the '30's and retired from the same comapny in the '70's. Took full advantage of the boomingest economy ever. And he had a very small pension. Now you need a guaranteed source of funds to last a lifetime. SS and a pension are by far the best bets today. Do what you have to do to get a pension.

[sybylla]

30. Not a chance at .5% interest.

If you can even get that.

At least my great-grandparents could get 3-5% on a standard savings account and more on certificates of deposit.

There's nothing in this economy to benefit the little guy.

If I started burying money in the back yard tomorrow (because why should I waste gas to get it to a bank), I still couldn't bury enough to keep poverty at bay once I hit retirement in 20 years (and I sure the hell hope it's sooner than 20 years).

[WinkyDink]

32. Re: Interest on savings: Americans tend to forget THAT aspect of Carter's years.

15-18% on CDs!! My now-87-yr-old mother would have NOTHING if not for that brief moment in time!

[sybylla]

35. Even before Carter.

Granted that was an unusual time.

Still, throughout the 60's and 70's, you could get 5% on a standard passbook savings and several points above that for other types of savings. That's what I grew up with.

And the savings and loan I worked in had records going back into the early 1900's with savings between 3 & 5% depending on the era.

But the powers that be have what they wanted - you now have to gamble in the stock market if you want a chance to see any return on your investment. And if you lose it all it's not their fault.

[RobinA]

79. My Above-Mentioned

Grandfather also made a killing at that time. With money markets. Inflation had its advantages.

[HughBeaumont]

40. What I'm being told now is that our generation (X) is likely to never retire.

It's either being explained to us in two ways. The first way is flat-out honesty: we'll never be able to save the money needed because our wages will likely never match our cost needs. The second way is even more odious: that retirement is "overrated" and an "active lifestyle is needed to combat the depression and medical issues that come with old age" and "our minds need to stay fresh". In other words, the "positive thinking" fluff they've been trying to foist on us while they stagnate our salaries and fire us en masse.

What it all boils down to for us is that by the time we're supposed to be saving and investing money, no one ever told us that the very act of making a living will likely drain you of all that extra cash. You know, unless you live in a cramped hovel and live on Kraft Mac and Cheese for 20 years. By the time we're supposed to amass a decent sum of money, none of us have a dime. And it's all . . . "our fault".

That's why these financial self-help books gall me to no end, but somehow they still sell; the plans they have drawn up usually depend on the right circumstances. There can never be layoffs. There can never be triple digit emergencies or repairs at the start of the savings. There can never be a major illness. You have to buy the right house. You have to live on the extreme cheap. You must get a 8-11% return each and every year without fail. You must put away at least 100 to 200 dollars away every month and compound it.

We've been sold a moldy bill of goods.

The Boomers were allowed to retire, but as they've seen, it's not at all comfortable. Many are postponing retirement and still working because their bills and medical expenses are too high and their wages haven't matched the skyrocketing cost of living. That's why it only applied to those who . . . had no landmines. It appears that having no landmines is becoming a lottery in itself.

I think the WWII generation was the last generation that was allowed to retire comfortably, and the reason for that is that they were the last generation which had a reasonable cost of living with a wage to match. They were the last to have a reasonable tax structure to assure a boring, smooth economic flow of consumption and production rather than the boom, BUBBLE, CRASH casino economics we've been nailed with. They weren't, for the most part, affected by Asia or Europe, because they were either in a state of rebuilding or still backwater third-worlds with no modernization. They had pensions and benefits guaranteed, whereas now the corporate leaders shifted all responsibility for our investments and medical needs on us.

Unless we do something to reign in corporate irresponsibility, we'll probably never see what our fathers and grandfathers got to see. I'm dreadfully afraid that we're going to have a glut of educated young people working lousy jobs or living at home for a long time because they'll never make it out of the starting gate.

[Brickbat]

41. Well said.

[Nye Bevan]

44. So why do so many Gen-Xers buy $5 coffees in Starbucks?

Not doing this would certainly help them save for retirement.

[JoeyT]

48. The vast majority don't.

I had a buddy the other day call me and he was positively ecstatic he'd found a job that might let him finally break $30k a year in a few years. Good luck saving for retirement when wages have fallen so far behind costs.

[PVnRT]

58. I know, and what's with all this buying of "food" anyway?

Fucking kids having money to spend on stuff. FUCK it pisses me off!

:sarcasm:

[Nye Bevan]

66. YES because buying $5 caramel macchiatios is EXACTLY equivalent to buying basic sustenance (nt)

[JanMichael]

68. This one doesn't. Make our own (Costco), drink it black no milk no sweet crap. nt.

[RobinA]

83. Nobody Can Retire

on what they would save by not buying Starbucks.

[Nye Bevan]

87. Not buying Starbucks is only part of it.

Also you should brown bag your lunches, not be embarrassed to drive a 7 to 10 year old car (as opposed to leasing a brand new car every 3 years), live in a sensibly sized home that does not cost a fortune to heat or cool, buy a water bottle and fill it with tap water instead of buying bottled water or soda, use coupons at the supermarket, etc.

My in-laws make fun of my 1994 Honda Accord and tell me I should buy a new car. They lease a brand new vehicle every 2 or 3 years. I think my retirement savings are in better shape than theirs.

[Lifelong Protester]

46. I agree with you Hugh, and I buy $1.75 coffee if I chance to be

in a Starbucks! (That's a note for the poster who keeps on about the $5 drinks that youngsters seem to buy there).

I believe the whole retirement idea is vanishing. It was a chimera, enjoyed by my Grandparents (they would be those born around 1910 or so). For a lot of boomers, we've been chasing a phantom. It may happen, but it sure won't be what we were 'sold' it to be.

Save money, get a job with a pension, collect SS. I've done the first two, will the last happen?

My parents both died young, dad at 51, mom at 60. Another reason I get ticked at the whole "blame it on the boomers" routine when it comes to SS. My folks never collected! I know their contributions went to help someone else, and I am more than fine with that. But sheesh, I've been paying in for 40 years now, I expect to see something.

I am in line for a pension, if Governor Walker doesn't somehow 'steal' that, and I'm a saver.
But I will always say I have been LUCKY. I feel empathy for folks who have had to tap into their retirement accounts just to live; I feel empathy for all who lost money in the market (haven't we been told you MUST be invested to keep up with inflation?)

We've all been sold a bill of goods. And Hugh, you are also right about young people. I worry that if oldsters like me can't retire, we will be keeping a lot of bright young folks out of good jobs.

[marions ghost]

47. +++!!!

"...chasing a phantom" --you said it.

[pitohui]

60. who's telling you that? gen x is actually not so likely to have a lifelong job

you will retire whether you can afford it or not, most people don't i think choose to retire, people my age sure as shit don't choose to retire, when you see someone in their fifties who is "retired," there is a sad story somewhere of harassment, planned obsolescence, age discrimination, health challenges, or whatever


a lot of people in technical fields get retired out before they're ready, maybe to be hired as consultants without benefits, maybe not to ever work again

the people who say they'll work until they die mystify me, do they honestly not understand that you don't get to make that decision, your boss makes that decision? or the company that buys your company makes that decision?

when they're done with you, you're out the door..."retiring in place" is not going to be so easy as folks imagine

[shanti]

71. i disagree with some of your post

i am 55 and am retired from state employment with a pension, damn lucky too. however, i do not feel that i am typical for my age. most everyone i know around my age is still working or not working (but not by choice). i might have worked longer, by my boss was an asshole and i just couldn't handle working for him another five years (when HE was planning to retire). thank god for the pension which enabled me to retire....

my sister and brother are both over 50, but bro, who was always a roofer, is unable to find steady work. my sister has a well-paying position with a commercial insurance agency, but only a 401K, which has lost much money over the last few years. however, she doesn't feel as if she will ever be able to retire.

there is a lot of pain out there!

[raccoon]

63. You said this so well it bears repeating:

"That's why these financial self-help books gall me to no end, but somehow they still sell; the plans they have drawn up usually depend on the right circumstances. There can never be layoffs. There can never be triple digit emergencies or repairs at the start of the savings. There can never be a major illness. You have to buy the right house. You have to live on the extreme cheap. You must get a 8-11% return each and every year without fail. You must put away at least 100 to 200 dollars away every month and compound it. "

That's what I've always thought about those dumbass plans.

[RobinA]

82. Agree Generally

But consider that the WW2 generation may not have been the LAST with a reasonable standard of living and a wage to match, they may have been the FIRST and only. That economy was and remains unprecedented. We see it as the way things were, but it may have been the way things were but usually aren't. An aberration. Maybe right now we are returning to the world as it usually is outside of an incredibly booming post-war economy.

[leeroysphitz]

49. Same here. If only there were a non-profit based way for all of us to pool our money to make sure

that everybody would have the means to survive after retirement.

[RobinA]

85. Yep!

With an idea like that, no one could be against it. It would benefit everyone, so there would be no controversy.

[curlymoses]

52. Hard Earned 401(k) and IRA Confiscation Legislation In The Works

Those able to save can look forward to having inaccessible savings when they need it and frozen earning potential.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5SM2_HJnF4

[wishlist]

88. factcheck.org has totally debunked this right wing claim

factcheck.org (the Annenberg foundation) has researched this rumor spread by the John Locke foundation of NC and found it to be untrue unfounded hysteria. What has been discussed in Congressional committees are ideas about reducing the tax deductions of future IRA's and possibly changing the nature of future IRA's, nothing about confiscations of current IRA's. The rumor seems to be based on one person's idea (who is not in Congress) of making future IRA's mandatory (5% of salary) and controlled by the government so that contributors cannot draw out their money before retirement. Obviously this idea would be rejected by right wingers (and majority of other Americans as well)

[pitohui]

53. almost no honest working person could save such a sum so most decent people in the same boat

salaries are simply too small, relative to the costs of supporting an aging body

[marions ghost]

80. that's the equation I see

:thumbsdown:

I'm so tired of fighting for basic rights that should be beyond debate. So tired.

[ArtiChoke]

70. Emigration..

will be the answer for many. Moving to a country where $5k/yr is a small fortune and they will be glad to have you.

[jtuck004]

101. Where? n/t

[EnviroBat]

74. Neither will I. Paycheck to paycheck with nothing left over.

Getting paid monthly is a budget nightmare, and I've been doing it for four years now. Savings? Fuck, I wish. Give what little I can scrape to "private investments". Not on our life!

[FloriTexan]

76. another "me too" in case you're keeping count. n/t

[valerief]

77. Haven't you heard? Bootstraps, bootstraps! nt

[Tuesday Afternoon]

86. shout it from the rooftops. k&r

[marions ghost]

91. K & R

-------

[tammywammy]

92. I put 8% of my paycheck in a 401k every pay period

I then get 4% of a match from my employer plus they automatically set aside 3% of your salary (which I can invest as I want). The 3% is automatic and not dependant on participation in the 401k.

At my previous employer I set aside 6% each pay period. Toward the end they didn't offer any match, but I still at least took out my portion. After I was laid off, I rolled that over and it's separate from the 401k from my current employer.

I'm lucky as I'm single with no children. It's easy for me to set it aside, and since it's straight out of my paycheck it's pretty much "out of sight, out of mind." I do use the investing tools to understand how my investment should be diversified.

[napi21]

93. Ov course you're right. I wouldn't get tooconcerned though. I don't

see SS going away. I can see the age of eligibility raised, and maybe some means testing so that millionairs simply do't get it for pocket change anymore, but it will still be here for all of us.

I don't want to see means testing because that will give the opening to the Pubs to call it a real Socialist Program. They may say it ow, but that will be proof.

I don't want to see raining the eligibility age either because many jobs are simply too physically difficult for someone 66+ to perform. But I CAN see the logic in doing hat. When SS was enacted the avg. life expectancy was 60, and now it's 75 or 76. That's a lot of years to cover people and it wasn't anticipated.

I still wouldn't worry about it's demise.

[JDPriestly]

117. The eligibility age should not be changed for anyone.

If someone can work longer, they will. But think of the people who suffer from repetitive motion syndrome by the time they are in their 40s. Think of the people who have arthritis from the time they are in their early 60s.

If you just look at a person with serious back problems or repetitive motion syndrome or arthritis or high blood pressure or in many cases diabetes, you think they are healthy -- but there is a good chance that they are are unable to work efficiently and to the standard now imposed in most workplaces. They won't keep jobs long. They won't be hired as quickly as healthy people.

[badtoworse]

100. That is wonderful! I hope you maintain the discipline and stick with it.

You should be able to retire comfortably. I have been doing that and more for the last 25 years and have a good nest egg for retirement.

I'm always amazed at the number of people who don't contribute at least enough to their 401k prgram to get the maximum employer match. Many don't contribute at all and the match (if there is one) is free money! Pretty dumb passing that up. (I don't buy the argument that a person can't afford to save - if your salary were cut by the same amount as a 401k contribution, you'd have to get by on the reduced income.) No matter how little you make, someone is getting by with less - it can be done.

Once again, congratulations on having a workable plan.

[tammywammy]

108. I'm only 30, so I have a long time before retirement.

One way I know someone increased their 401k percentage, is they started with just 1%. Then every 6 months increased it by just another 1% until they were at the max match with the company. It helped her get use to the paycheck difference without trying to do it all at once.

Since this is taken straight out, honestly it's not like I even miss it. Also, it would have to be a major event for me to feel the need to take out a loan against it. Once my salary increases after I graduate with my bachelor's next May, I want to start sending money to the roll-over 401k regularly.

[badtoworse]

109. You are one smart woman!

[JDPriestly]

116. You are one of the few who may be able to save enough.

But most employers don't match the 401(K), and those who have children find it much harder to save for retirement -- until the children are through school.

And now, with so many people being laid off in their 50s, it is too late to save for retirement.

[in_cog_ni_to]

97. You have to be a Millionaire to retire in this country.

That's why we're leaving. We aren't millionaires....far, far, far from it, but we can live a comfortable life elsewhere.

[jtuck004]

102. We are thinking the same thing. Where do we go?

Making a list, you see... :)

[in_cog_ni_to]

114. We know where we're going.

And we can't WAIT. :) I never thought I'd see the day I would be looking forward to, anxiously waiting and extremely excited to leave my own country. I plan to leave and NEVER come back here...unless I need to use my Medicare...should it still exist when I need it. 4 years and counting....starting August 18. My son starts college and when he's finished....we're outta here.

[jtuck004]

125. Yeah, I was just thinking about nations with habeas corpus. A guy I knew

many years ago suggested the only countries he would consider were those with habeas corpus, for several reasons related to the life of an expats. The little reading I have done makes me think that's good advice.

There was also some discussion of the good and bad points of creating a place here vs leaving. Others have moved into and carved out a space for themselves, getting elected, and working with their new neighbors. It is an interesting idea, putting the word out via the net and seeing how one might organize people to move into a small community and make it more sustainable and safer for a like-minded people.

Anyway, thanks.

[dkf]

110. Yes you do need a million at a minimum to retire.

[Jakes Progress]

105. Then, according to this government, you don't count

and aren't worth listening to.

Basically the administration's response to you is "Shut up and leave us alone."

[BiggJawn]

111. Me neither. Guess I shoulda saved more when I was on food stamps working a minimum-wage job.

Or I shoulda belonged to the Lucky Sperm Club.

Well, one bright spot about having to work till you die...
You won't be spending 3 weeks rotting on the toilet before somebody notices the smell.

[WillyT]

112. K & R !!!

:kick:

[JDPriestly]

115. kpete, nobody who earns a normal salary and has children can save enough for retirement.

[quaker bill]

123. Pretty much correct...

The fiscal discipline of a spartan might help, but not enough.

[PotatoChip]

122. I think this is true for a majority of Americans

An astonishingly high percentage of us are barely able to save up enough money for a down payment on a new house or car even. Many others are unable to save at all, living from paycheck to paycheck.

It took the Great Depression and FDR to address this issue which was as true then as it is now. It's been an important safety net for millions of Americans for over 70 years. Now Congress wants to chip away at one of the best social programs to come out of the late 20th century.

For SHAME!!!