Millions of Not Quite Retireds just want jobs - people don't have enough money to retire anymore

[Liberal_in_LA]

Millions of Not Quite Retireds just want jobs
Rebecca D. Costa

San Francisco Chronicle March 26, 2011

Mitch, a telecommunications engineer once in high demand, looks down at his coffee and shakes his head. We're sitting in the kitchen of his three-bedroom home in Cupertino on the edge of Silicon Valley - a place where overnight millionaires once were commonplace. "We thought we had enough. We figured a million dollars in the bank was the magic number. We even hired a financial planner to look over our investments."

Welcome to the NQR generation: the Not Quite Retireds. They planned. They diversified. They resigned gracefully from their careers. And now they need a job.

Their numbers are exploding just as the prices of heating fuel, food, health care and gasoline hit new highs. A Wyoming newspaper reported last month that 433,000 seniors older than 65 were on the hunt for work. This is the highest level recorded since the federal government started keeping unemployment statistics in 1948.

According to AARP executive Deborah Russell, people don't have money to retire anymore. A recent AARP survey revealed that "1 in 4 respondents 45 and older are planning to work much longer. One-third of them cited falling home prices and shrinking investments as the main reasons." Statistics from the National Home Price Index concur. The latest report shows a 15 percent decline in home prices - the worst drop ever cited. "Our home was our fallback position, and now that's gone," says Michael, a 51-year-old engineer who worked as an executive at Fairchild Semiconductor and Lam Research. He retired to Boise, Idaho, but has dusted off his resume and is preparing to re-enter the workforce.

------------------------


NQRs are the silent victims of broken pensions, endangered Social Security and Medicare benefits, a volatile stock and real estate market, and prices rising faster than any financial planner could have prepared them for. They live in every neighborhood in America, silently pondering nest eggs that are now half the size they need and puzzled about what to do about financial safe havens that no longer exist. The latest report from Fidelity Investments indicates that retirees have already lost an average of one-fourth of their retirement savings. But the most shocking report came from Wells Fargo Bank at the end of 2010. In its sixth annual retirement survey, the bank indicated that the average retirement savings for Americans 50 to 59 is a paltry $29,000. At a 5 percent return rate, this means they have $190 per month to add to their Social Security income - not enough to cover the average household grocery bill.


ead more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/03/26/IN1D1IGCFR.DTL#ixzz1IPF2vkI9

[virgogal]

1. Oh to have a 5% return rate. I wonder where they came up wth that figure.

[Liberal_in_LA]

2. pulled it out of their ass, I guess

:shrug:

[Tansy_Gold]

3. They forgot one or the other

The decimal point or the minus sign.



Tansy Gold, 62-year-old member of the NATR* generation.



*Never Able To Retire

[Desertrose]

6. Ditto....

same here.

[RKP5637]

8. Yeah, I was wondering the same when I saw that ... n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

4. A guy with a million bucks and a house in Cupertino 'needs'

a job? Ok. I guess. Mitch confuses me.

[DBoon]

9. Must have 7 kids going to Stanford

you can't imaging how hard it is to for him squeak by on his paltry earnings

[shanti]

11. here's an idea

move out of the bay area and DOWNSIZE, mr. cupertino man! personally, i would LOVE to live in the bay area as opposed to sacramento, but i can only afford to live here. you do what you gotta do.

[AndyTiedye]

14. Maybe They Figure It's WORTH Going Back to Work Again to Continue Living Here

[shanti]

19. possibly

but why whine about it? i don't understand that.

[Newest Reality]

5. This means that people who have left, or would

have left the workforce are continuing to re-enter it.

That's another factor working against all who are unemployed. It can also offset any job creation.

Wouldn't it be great if more people could just retire if they actually want to. Mind you, I mean those who are already living meagerly on low wages and without much in the way of assets. Just comfortable, livable retirement at the end of the line. That would be a benefit to those coming into the job market or struggling to find work.

In fact, we should lower the retirement age for SS to fifty-five or even fifty. Most of the money goes out will somehow come back into the economy, so what's the excuse?

However, that idea will not be addressed by the current profit-is-all Overlords. It is much better to have an employers market for the benefits it provides: low pay, no benefits, Fascist/tyrant control, one person doing the job of several, etc.

Work will increasingly become like a visit to Hell for many. In fact, it already is.

[Skidmore]

7. This is the reason that Rs and their backers are trying to cut medicaid

and medicare. It's easier to have a die-off than to create jobs or provide benefits for this age group...and we aren't dying off fast enough for them. I'm waiting for them to start screwing with the life insurance. They haven't started that yet.

[RKP5637]

10. That's exactly what they want, kill off people as they get older, and if they can't do

that financially, they will do that with no healthcare and let people die in the streets or in shoddy senior housing. After all, people don't matter in USA, Inc., this country only cares about money and profit for the skewed wealth, greed and power group. The sooner all of the masses get that, the better off the country will be. To date, not too many escape getting old and dieing, no matter how much F'en money they have. ... even creatures like Cheney.

There is some justice left, even if twisted.

[AndyTiedye]

15. They Projected in All the Extra Cancer Deaths from Fukushima and are Trying to Weasel Out of Paying

Hence the new Repig proposal to replace Medicaid with vouchers that certainly won't be enough to pay for private insurance.

:nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke::nuke:

[999998th word]

28. BINGO

Got it in one-I've been saying that even before I was 'forced to retire'@55.
Have medicaid 4 now.
I'm deathpaneled if they pass that bullshit bill.Thought about taking up smoking
again-cant afford to+dont want to give them the satisfaction.
My new goal is to stay healthy as long as I can -just to piss the tpukes off.

[DiverDave]

12. Confusing article

How in the hell can you be worried with a million in the bank?

Christ, I could live the rest of my life AND give money to the kids.


I don't think a million dollar fund counts as a reason to worry.
Unless you are buying lots of things you dont need.

[spinbaby]

18. A million is not enough to retire on anymore

Between inflation and low returns on investments, a net worth of a million isn't going to take you into your nineties at a middle-class lifestyle. The "experts" now advise us to have two to three million for a comfortable retirement. Not a chance in hell we'll get there, so I guess we'll just work forever.

[DiverDave]

22. Well, I guess your lifestyle is a bit more expensive then mine

A million?

Like I said, I could live along time and STILL give my kids something.

We dont live very high, you see.

[JCMach1]

26. Seriously, if 1Million isn't enough, there are some serious lifestyle issues to reconsider

maybe they should cancel one of their 4 cruises each year! :sarcasm:

[AndyTiedye]

27. Maybe He Expects to Live Longer than You are Planning To

How much will things cost in another 30 years?

[csziggy]

24. If he had a million in investments, he no longer does

If it was around a million before 9/11/2001, it was cut by a large amount. Unless his broker was lucky in redistributing what was left, over the last four years, it was cut by even more. And even if it was still a million in face value, most stock portfolios no longer produce the return they once did. Where at the top of the curve it was possible to make 7-10% return, now it is more likely to be 3-5% or even less.

Say he had a million, which lost 25% in 2001. Maybe the remainder grew 10%, that brings him up to a little over 80% of the original value. Then we get to Sept/Oct of 2008 and he lost another 25-33%. That drops him to say $600,000. Instead of making 7% return on a million - $70,000 per year - he is now making maybe 4% on that $600,000 - $24,000 a year.

So not only has his net worth dropped, his expected income has dropped to a little over a third of what he thought he would have when he retired.

Sure, he is better off than most of us, but it is still not what he planned to live on when he retired. At least he is able and willing to work - if he can find a job.

[Curmudgeoness]

13. They don't say how old Mitch is, but Michael is 51. And has been

retired long enough to move. I have a hard time feeling sorry for people who I consider to be in their best years of work---not old enough to be senile and old enough to have experience---who have already retired. Oh, that it could be me! But retirement at a young age means that you damned well better have a boatload of money saved. Especially if you want to continue to live at the same level you did when you were working.

[AndyTiedye]

20. He Must Have Moved After the Real Estate Market Crashed Though

If they had moved in 2008 or before, they would have made a bundle on a Silicon Valley home.

If we assume he moved in 2009 or later, his retirement may have been prompted by downsizing.

[jwirr]

16. This is not good. If they reenter the jobs market that means jobs

will be scarcer than ever for younger workers.

[SoCalDem]

17. "...At a 5 percent return rate,..."...HORSE-FEATHERS

I'd like to know where you get 5% return these days.. We are lucky to find ONE PERCENT..:grr:

Once again, the KEY to retirement in ANY era or economic situation, is having a home free & clear. Most people can manage to scrape together enough for annual taxes & insurance IF they do not also have to make house payments.

There's a REASON why mortgages usually have a 30 year term.. That's to assure people of having the house paid off BEFORE they retire.. In recent decades, when equity loans & lines of credit popped up...along with people moving every few years for job hunts, that model of home ownership evaporated.

It's only quite recently, that people have lived so long after retirement, so the whole system is in flux now, and no one knows quite how to handle it...add in economic downturn & it's a nightmare scenario.

People in my parent's era inherited homes from their parents during their 30's & 40's..(my Mother's parents were both gone by the time she was 32). This allowed for a "free" place to live for an only child or a lump-sum cash infusion that could be a sizable down-payment on a home that they could easily pay off in 20-30 years.

Older parents have been living well past their money for a long time now, and often have NO assets left to pass on to the next generation..

Rich people have no problem with asset-passing, because their accountants & tax-dodges have protected their familial wealth, but the middles & former-middles have been unprotected for decades, and have had to use up their meager assets just to stay alive as long as possible..and by the time they die, there is nothing left but credit card & hospital bills for many of them and their heirs:(

[AndyTiedye]

21. Most of Us Have Assumed They Paid Off The House Already

If you throw an underwater mortgage on a California home into the mix, then it could get ugly.

[Liberal_in_LA]

23. yeah. He could be still paying a mortgage of $5K per month or more

[marlakay]

25. Most americans don't stay in the same marriage and

home to pay off their 30 yr mortgage. We are 54 & 61 and retired early out of CA to mountains in WA. We built small home on land we owned so our mortgage is only 200,000 but when my husband lost his job here after retirement and there isn't anything else we had to switch from 15 yr loan and refi to 30. Our original goal would have had house paid off in 10 yrs. We started paying on the 15 yr one 5 years ago. It crushes me to think about it.

I was able to get part time job at B & B but we are stuck here now. We can't move back to larger city to work again, homes aren't selling at all and the ones that are we would lose almost all our equity.

I can't take it back but we both should have worked longer in CA we had secure jobs.

That is the problem when you are older, if you make a mistake you can't take it back and change. Work is hardly out there for the young, for the older its almost impossible.

My boss hired me because she said the young girls that worked there were flaky, that helped me.

But bosses know they control you now. They can treat you how ever they want.

[B Calm]

29. and a lot of us are working just to have health insurance.