Article Source: msnbc.com
from:msnbc.comThe Age of Retirement was one of America's most successful social reforms ever. But that era is over. A new vision of old age is emerging from the trauma of the credit crunch and the Great Recession: Forget retirement. Keep working.
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
Ally aims to end mortgage woes with ResCap filingAnalysis: Argentines jump through new hoops to get dollarsSNAP Grant Allows Little Rock Homeowner to Replace HVAC Unit After 10 Years Without Central AirThe little things: Managing a micromanagerFive Ways to Tame Your InboxSenior Talent Joins GoPago to Drive Product Development and Expand Sales Multi-Faceted Automotive Mecca Hot Rod City, Home to the World Famous Dezer Collection and Las Vegas Choppers and Tattoo Parlor, Celebrates Its Grand Opening Saturday May 12 From 10-5 Oil price still falling, near $93 a barrelColossus Minerals to Present at Macquarie's "Making the Grade" Mining ConferenceSpain's Repsol sues Argentina over YPF takeover
Leave a Comment:
How did we afford retirement in the past? By having 70-94% tax brackets and taxing the wealthy & corporations much more than we do today. By having good jobs here in the US and not outsourced or offshored to cheap labor countries.This all needs to come back. Why should we give up our retirement because of corporate greed? With those upper income tax brackets in place, companies put excess profits back into the company in the form of higher wages and benefits. That meant defined-benefit pension plans. It worked for decades until President Kennedy, then Reagan, then both Bushes lowered the tax brackets. So now we have an enormous national debt that rose in proportion to the tax breaks and now we are being told, after bailing out Wall Street, that we must give up ever retiring? NO WAY!
This article needs to be "A case for reinstating the upper-income tax brackets that brought prosperity for decades to the middle class".
Yes the brackets were high, but there were many loopholes and tax dedcutions that are no longer permitted. The upper 20% of taxpayers now pay 87% of all federal income tax, the highest percentage ever.
And the top 1%, the rich, they pay 40% of all federal income tax, again the highest percentage they have ever paid. Almost half of all taxpayers actually pay no federal income tax due to tax credits.
We need to stop all this class warfare crap - it does us no good as a nation. The fact is that we are spending too much, both as a nation and as individuals by using debt for that spending. Trying to pretend that somehow we can get somebody else to pay the bills will not solve the problem.
The many decades of stealthy "Engineering" of the tax laws for the rich by their Buddies in Congress and oh, let us not forget the Trade Agreements and Special Visa Agreements that stripped Americans of decent paying Manufacturing and now, engineering jobs here, so Corporate Interests could make more Billions off the backs of some Chinaman or Mexican making a tenth (if lucky) of what the American made. It's a fact now, that we have a Consumer Driven Economy (70%) as opposed to a Manufacturing driven Economy just a few short decades ago. The Guys and Gals sitting on the assembly lines didn't forge these new laws and Trade agreements so they could SCREW THEMSELVES !! The God Damn Corporations through their Whores in Congress cast millions of decent paying jobs offshore for their handlers on Wall Street.
You bet your A$$ Peter17! We need a little "Class Warfare" once in a while. There are certainly a lot more than one Bernie Madoffs in this country and I hope the A$$ Holes are hiding under their beds in their gated communities. The "Drums of War" are sounding loud and clear across this country.............We've had ENOUGH and things had better change!
Corporations establish operations overseas for a variety of reasons, probably too long to list and explain here. But all businesses exist for one primary purpose, to provide a return on investment to their owners/shareholders.
It may be convenient to blame trade agreements since so many in this country have a "victim" mentality, and someone else is always to blame for our problems. But the fact is, for example, U.S. based companies began to expand operations into Mexico in the 1960s, some 30 years before NAFTA. And those companies represented a large chunk of the Mexican economy by the mid 1980s, over 10 years before NAFTA.
The fact is that globalization of the world economy was inevitable, nothing could have prevented it. Madoff was a crook and is where he belongs, in jail. But I have nothing but admiration for those like Warren Buffett and Bill Gates, or for that matter A-Rod, or Oprah, or Tiger Woods, who have worked hard and amassed great wealth. That is the true American Dream.
Well that's just wonderful Peter. I'm glad A-Rod and Oprah are doing so well. The fact of the Matter is, since you mention Warren Buffett, It was out of his mouth, with which we heard, that his secretary paid more in personal income taxes than he did. He even challenged his Billionaire friends to dispute him. I think Warren Buffett is a honest, caring individual as many of the other individuals you mention are. I don't have a complaint with Individuals, it's the Blood Sucking American Corporations I have a problem with.
This country of ours went from Muskets to the Moon in two hundred years (much of it on the backs of working men and women) while much of the world was still defecating in their drinking water and asking us for help. The blood of simple, hardworking American kids have been spilled all across the globe for our security and independence for the past two hundred years. The American, Middle Class, working people, largely, sent their sons and daughters off to war, and they deserve much better than they have received from their Class Captured Government. So pardon their inability to watch legislation squirming its way through Congress. They've been too busy trying to keep their bills paid and food on their tables to watch what's been happening in the Halls of the Whore Houses in Washington.
Do you happen to know Buffet's salary?? Well I do, $100,000. That's all. So when he figures his taxes, it is only that salary that is taxed according to the tax brackets. So on the basis of that income he pays in either the 25% or 15%, depending on his deductions. Now, of course, he has a ton of investment income. Capital gains and dividends are taxed at 15%. Who knows how much that may be, but even if it is 20 million, it is still taxed at that level. So if it is a mere 20 million, he will pay 3 million on that portion of his income. When looking at his total COMBINED tax rate, it is likely around 16%, even though he pays MILLIONS in taxes. You could raise Buffett's income tax bracket to 100% and he would still pay a lower combined tax rate than his secretary. Now Buffett did not disclose how much his secretay makes, but I would guess perhaps as much as Buffett, around $100,000.
There is quite a difference when someone get's a $10 million salary plus a $10 million cash bonus. All that money is taxed at the current 36% rate, soon to go up to almost 40%. Add in state income taxes and that exec will pay about $4.5 Million in taxes. Bottom line - Buffet is playing you and other's for a sucker, and you took the bait. He could take a $1 dollar salary and still make many millions.
Where's Waldo - I forgot to add that Buffett said that he paid a combined lower effective tax rate than his secretary, not that he paid a less amount in personal income taxes.
See, and that's the biggest problem with our tax system today...You KNOW for a fact that Buffett made more than $100,000, and you ALSO know he SHOULD be paying more in taxes that his secretary, but you're OK with that.
genafan - Buffet pays far more tax than his secretary. His salary is $100,000 but he has substantial investment income. Because so much of his income is capital gain and dividend taxed at 15%, it is his effective tax rate that is lower than his secretary because he/she has far less income from capital gains and dividends. Buffet could pay his entire $100,000 salary in taxes, and his effective tax rate would still be less than his secretary's.
I'm not into splitting hairs Peter. The rich are getting richer any way they can and the rest of us are just getting it IN the can. My father (born in 1914) told me over thirty years ago that he thought I would see the death of the Middle Class. His prophecy is coming true. I also think that after reading your statements that most people will see the double speak. The bottom line is that the Corporations are getting away with all they can, and if they run into a road block, they just get their friends in Congress to tweak a law or have their Lobbyists write a new one to fit their needs. Maybe it's time for a whole new set of "Representatives" in Congress.
A resent study by the Government Accountability Office, says that upwards of 68 percent of foreign corporations who do business in this country, paid no corporate taxes between 1998 and 2005. In 2005, 38,000 foreign corporations had no tax liabilities and 1.2 million U.S. companies paid no income taxes ! The GAO report went on to say that " combined, " the companies did 2.5 TRILLION in sales.
So these upstanding corporations are pulling their weight in this country.
Where's Waldo - if you read the GAO report carefully it states that 68% of the companies did not pay corporate taxes during one of the years from 1998-2005. There happened to be a recession during that time and, as one might suspect, many companies during a recession fail to make a profit during a single year.
You are not to blame for the incorrect stories that ran on this issue. Too many in media look for the hype and don't do their homework. Notice that there were no real protests out of Congress once the real story came to light. Only problem was that the media had moved on to other issues.
If you check on the U.S. Treasury website under corporate taxes you will find that by 2007 corporate taxes soared to the highest amount ever, well above the amounts collected during the Clinton years.
Where's Waldo - I found a note you might find of interest. In a May 2007 Congressional Budget Memo to Sen. Conrad, Chm. Senate Budget Committee
Revenues from Corporate Income Tax rose from $132 Billion in 2003 (lowest level as a percent of GDP since 1983, due to the 2002 recession) to $354 Billion in 2006, highest level as a percent of GDP since 1978.
That means that corporate taxes under Bush rose to higher levels than even under Clinton.
I'll take your word for some of it Peter but I don't think we suffered through a recession through all of those years you mentioned. I stand by my statements on the fact that Big Money and their paid gunslingers (Lobbyists. All 17,200 of them.) have a weighted hand in the politics of the People. I still believe, as many do, that Corporate influence has ruined Middle America and it won't get better any time soon without a shift in influence back to the American People. The tide is rising.
Here you go Peter. This is what I've been trying to get people to understand. This shouldn't be happening to this degree in this country. Some thing's wrong when a country, as rich as ours, puts out stats like these. There is, and always has been, a need for people to have jobs, feel secure, pay their bills, feed their kids and go to the Olive Garden maybe once a month on those factory jobs that went to Mexico, China, Central America, ect., ect. Their jobs were viewed, STICKLY, by big business as a cost to the company. The cost to the company and the subsequent loss of jobs to cheap labor markets ultimately costs the rest of us in untold ways. Corporations only considerations is their stock price and the return. Where's the patriotism in that. All we're doing is feeding the Communist Chinese "Machine" and our country's direction is being dictated by corporations.
This article ignores the fact of age discrimination in hiring that many are experiencing. Perhaps its time for legislation, or a form of affirmative action, to protect "older" "over 40" people from being discriminated by forcing employers to justify their hiring/firing decisions. The era of free-choice employment should end. All employers should be held to account for rejection of workers over 40 years of age in hiring/firing decisions.
I think many might find your description of older folks as those being over 40 somewhat amusing. At any rate, we already have laws against age discrimination that are based on an ammendment to the Constitution. I worked in HR for a large corporation prior to my retirement and I can tell you for a fact that they, as most large firms, were quite active in ensuring that employment decisions were not based on age, sex or religious preference. Those who feel that they have been the subject of age discrimination continue to have available the ability to sue to address their grievances.
Peter, that reply is facetious and you know it. Most employment in the U.S. is in small business, and the hiring/firing practices there are not concerned with maintaining a non-discriminatory policy with regard to age. People like you take unreasonable comfort in the empty words that the ability to sue exists. Simply because the ability exists does not mean that people who have suffered age discrimination have the money, time or desire to pursue redress.
The government dropped the ball on this one. Pensions are a thing of the past, unless you're a politician or have a job in some form of government/state/local capacity.
The shift away from guaranteed pensions was encouraged by Congress, which structured the rules in a way that invites corporations to abandon their defined-benefit plans in favor of defined-contribution plans. Increasingly the contributions will never be enough to match the certain and long-term income from a defined-benefit plan. What's more, once the money runs out, that's it. If people live longer than expected, get stuck with unanticipated expenses or suffer losses of other once promised benefits, they will have little besides their Social Security to sustain them.
The Bush Administration envisioned an "ownership society." Treasury Secretary John Snow told a congressional committee in February 2004: "I think we need to be concerned about pensions and the security that employees have in their pensions. And I think we need to encourage people to save and become part of an ownership society, which is very much a part of the President's vision for America." They wanted to privatize a portion of Social Security.
Thankfully that never happened. Bottom line is people lost most of what they had saved for retirement in the stock market ( Enron and Polariod to name a couple of examples ). I've yet to see a percentage of those people who rely solely on Social Security for income. It was never meant to be the main source of income in retirement. The government has done squat about assisting people as opposed to bailing out corporate America at the expense of the average taxpayer. Now they're calling it a "jobless recovery". They're also saying the recession is over. It's not a recession it's a depression. Why did it take a year for the economists to crunch the numbers and determine we were in a recession, but they can turn around and say it's over at the drop of a hat?
I don't believe that many people "want" to work in their golden years. More like it's a necessity to survive, if one can find a job in the "jobless recovery" and not be a victim of age discrimination.
401Ks are easier to raid than defined pension plans. Wall Street simply laughs all the way to the bank every couple of years with piles of cash raided from 401Ks. 401K rules benefit Wall Street in many ways, as most workers can't touch most of their 401K until they leave their employer, but Wall Street can raid it any time it wants!
Pretty good deal for Wall Street, not such a good deal for Main Street.
I, personally, do want to continue working in some form for as long as I am able. I like the social aspects of work, and I like the feeling of accomplishment. Now, I don't want a 60-hour a week job with stress "when I'm 64", but maybe a 30-hour a week job that is personally fullfilling.
Greg: you are on the right track; the pension funds were driving the market, the problem is the mutual funds administrating them were leveraged at almost 100/1, in order to show giant profits; which were on paper only; when the time came due to cash in, there were no buyers, everything was leveraged in derivatives; the bottom fell out; the Treasury and Fed intervened with 7.5 Trillion , not to save the retirement funds, but to save the banking establishment. The piper is going to be paid in the near future, and it is not going to be pretty.
Leadership has WON. They didn't want people sitting on their butts collecting retirement, they prefer people work 'till they die. God Bless America.
The uninsureds are costing those who buy health insurance an extra $1000 per year, but that's true in any insurance, bad drivers are paid for by higher prices for good drivers. But there's a part of illness/aging that is not medical and not covered by health insurance.
Some 75 million boomers are ill prepared to cover the costs of long term care especially since Medicare and health insurance does not cover the bulk of long term care and Medicaid only does once someone has spent their live savings to the poverty level. According to http://www.guidetolongtermcare.com 70% of Americans 65+ will need long term care. Bye bye retirement income stream, life savings, inheritances.
With only about 10% of those buying long term care insurance (http://www.nationalltc.com) the rest will spend their estates on paying for care and some will end up on welfare health care (Medicaid) after spending all their money.
Medicaid is funded with federal and state tax money. You and I pay for Medicaid.
Our system will not be able to handle millions of boomers on Medicaid. You do the math, even if only 20% boomers end up on Medicaid long term care an average of 2 years at $100k/yr that's 15 million x $200,000 = $3,000,000,000,000 paying for Medicad over the next 20 years out of taxes, along with $700Bil a year for the Defense Dept… etc etc etc. There's just not enough money, unless we print it (borrow).
We already printed it to pay Haliburton, Blackwater, KBR, Bechtel, ChoicePoint, AIG, Goldman Saks, BofA, Citi ... the list goes on.
Perhaps we could get it back?
With unemployment high and going higher, this is just another sign that people looking for jobs are going to continue to have a hard time finding them. I certainly don't begrudge those who want to (or have to) continue working, my point is simply there will be fewer openings for college graduates if people do not retire. Eventually, colleges will be forced to lower their ever increasing tuition rates as people begin to question the value of spending 10s of thousands of dollars for a degree that gets them nothing.
I find this article quite amuzing. Especially the quote about the artist. I beleive with globalization anyone over 50 is at risk of losing their job (being forced out or bought out) and becoming cronically unemployed. The age of the baby boomer is OVER. All those who are not in a different country will soon be. Americans are not what they use to be. We are the land of immigrants and they rule. They send their money to their homeland and will return there to be buried.
We as True Americans should see the writing on the wall. The biggest growth in population is immigrants (illegal and legal). They have the most BABIES. WE are no longer self sufficient. We are forever changed. For all you over 50 still working GOOD LUCK. I have worked for thirty somthings and find them lacking in all management skills. The one thing I found was they were definitly OVER EDUCATED. I which the grandpas and great grandpas (grandmas too ) great success. For me as an Expat I am living the LA VIDA LOCA>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You are forgetting something, even in third world countries, robots and automation are taking over jobs. Check out this article: http://www.automationworld.com/webonly-320
Have you seen an automobile manufacturing plant, The employees are made of steel and have 6 arms. There might be a few humans walking around checking the robots, but not many.
Retired? At what age? Peter17, you won't find it so amusing when you're on the far side of 40 and actually LOOKING for work. And to exactly which "ammendment" (sic) to the Constitution are you referring? I have about 35 different resumes, each for a different job title, skill-based rather than old-style chronologic, use keywords, keep my education and hands-on skills up-to-date - and don't even get an interview for jobs where I fit every stated requirement. That doesn't leave many other reasons for the deafening silence from the other side of the HR desk. I've gone from $18 an hour to $15 to $9 to unemployment for over a year. During that time I've gone from age 50 to age 55 to age 56 to almost 58 - do you see a pattern?
Floretta, you are correct. It was the Federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), which protects individuals who are 40 years of age or older.
Sorry to hear about your situation. I can tell you that in the Fortune 500 company I worked for most of our hiring managers were quite happy when more senior workers applied. They usually had more experience, had a better work ethic, had lower absenteeism and were frequently more productive than younger workers. Let's hope we get back to those times when companies start hiring again.
Hi, Peter17,
Reality is the Federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), does little to protect the individual. It is very easy - and common - for and business owner or HR department to simply tell an experienced, over-50 worker that they are "over-qualified" for a position. Most people are not in a position to contest this. With the rising cost of healthcare, it is no wonder business choose young people.
I am fortunate enough to have a business which allows me to keep working. However, I work with enough individuals to know that Floretta's situation is unfortunately becoming more common.
When the example of $20,000 a year is given, realize that at $9/hour, which is the pay for many of the available jobs for older workers, FULL TIME would render annual pay at about $18,000 before taxes. For many older workers, what is left will barely cover their health care -- if they can get it.
So if there are a number of better paying jobs out there for workers such as Floretta who would like to work, perhaps you could do us the service of listing where they can find these positions.
Also, perhaps you could provide statistics on number of available jobs, the number of available jobs with health insurance and the number of people over 50 who need - and want - employment.
If you read my original post, it was in response to a comment that we needed legislation to proctect older workers, those over 40. My intent was to point out that such legislation already existed, not whether or not all companies complied with the law.
I actually responded to a number of your comments throughout this section. You seem to enjoy dishing out numbers. That's why I asked for specific numbers related to real hardship experienced by people like Floretta.
I noticed you didn't answer my challenge.
In most of your answers to others, it seems you fail to really understand the frustration and the reality for those without jobs, for those who have their backs against the wall with no where to turn because, as you put it, in your world: "... all businesses exist for one primary purpose, to provide a return on investment to their owners/shareholders."
You describe a society that no longer is governed by the people but by the corporations who twist the laws to favor profits above a strong society. That is why we read and hear how the bankers are reaping bonuses while unemployment goes up along with foreclosures and suicides.
The United States is made up of people - not numbers. Most of them simply want jobs so they can take care of themselves and their families. But it appears that this nation in your mind, is one concerned with profits and numbers, not people.
I lot of young folks never think of growing old.
I,ll save tommarro is the adverage rant.
Tommarro comes way to soon.
I have a nephew who is 7months younger than i and is,nt working anywhere in fact he has,nt worked anywhere for any length of time.
Sad to say.but i believe looking around my nephew is the norm.
It's ok to try and fail..but to never try at all..is PATHETIC !
Now i am not doing the big I little u thing(peter 5-5)i am ,i believe honestly humble..and frankly i am not sure when i,ll really retire all together.
I have been working since i was 15 .
I am just saying as long as GOD is willing to let me..i perfer to stand on my own two feet so far so good.
I do believe everyone else should too.
theres two ways to retire ..make more or want less.
Perhaps those big fat retirements for Congress and the President should be a thing of the past too! Let's put them all on Social Security and see how fast they start working to shore it up.
Why should we have to give up our retirement just because Congress's rollback of Glass-Steagall caused a global financial meltdown???? Maybe Congress should give up their retirements too!
My DH was medically retired @ 50 when he had his spine crushed at work after 27 years. He couldn't work even part time. I owned my own business and was heavily involved in politics, had a political column and ran campaigns. We chucked it all, sold out, and moved to the middle of Nowhere, where apparently not even the Weather Channel knows the name of our state. Here we raise chickens, cows for milk, butter, and cheese, and our own vegetables; live a comfortable and busy lifestyle, and can be fairly self sufficient. We have very few neighbors, no ordinances, can build and do whatever we like. DH learned to bake bread and butcher meat. Fortunately he can sit or take 3 hour breaks whenever he wants. No phony retirement 'communities' with endless exercises and mental boredom, no POAs, no gates - unless you count the cattle gates. No "God's Little Waiting Room" for US, TYVM.
What bugs me is that I haven't had insurance for 5 years, and it is so much cheaper and easier to say, "Self-pay" - because then the doctors don't have to run all of the ridiculous tests like they do to get repaid by both private insurance or Medicare. They treat me, I pay them, end of story. As a medical nihilist, I don't believe in living on pills for everything - my BP runs 90/40, I work hard and do physical labor so I am fit and strong, and I eat healthier food now than I ever did. Should I get a debilitating disease (I already have lupus) that would sap my funds and my life, I choose to "go quietly into that good night" - because I also worked on an ambulance and in hospitals as an EMT, and I don't want people changing my diapers and feeding me. Just because the technology is there to keep a heart beating and bowels moving does not mean that one HAS to take advantage of it. I will live my life every second until I die - then stop. Now with this BS "everbuddy's gotta have it" they want to charge me $15,000 a year for BS insurance I don't need, that I can't afford, and if I don't pay it, I'll get fined $250,000?? Bite me. Leave me alone and I'll leave you alone. I plan on being that 98 YOA mean irascible old lady down the street in the 'haunted' house that terrifies small children.
Sunshine- your simple life sounds good. But your healthcare politics are scary. That's right...those who are sick and can't pay should just die? Seems harsh to me. How about a single payer system like the rest of the world. It's cheaper and the poor don't die! You could even afford it. But to each their own.
Your approach is OK if you are older, but I don't believe that a child should die of pneumonia (or some other curable disease) just because their parents' cannot afford health care. It's true that we unneccessarily keep people alive when they are senile or terminal, but that does not justify not keeping people alive when they are young and vigerous but, for example, they have a nasty life threatening wound infection from a simple accident.
Peter17 I've enjoyed your posts. Charge on!
Thanks Dave. What I find most interesting is that many folks on both the left and the right have firmly entrenched beliefs that are built on false data that is spewed from the hate mongers on both sides. So it is fun to publish the data and watch them respond to it.
Sometimes I wish that our leaders for once would get together and on a BIPARTISAN basis, lay all the real data on the table without discussing solutions. At least we could all agree on where we are. Then we might be able to have civil discussions on what actions were appropriate. Yes there will be disagreements over what to do, but at least we would be starting from what reality is.
The posts above confirm that this issue is a UNIQUELY American debate.
America, arguably blessed with the inexorable shift away from "making" (i.e., manufacturing and the assembly line) to "thinking and planning" (i.e., the hallmarks of our current "economy and age"); increased longevity and health; and increased options available for any "retirement" that make doing so a net plus for an individual is the same America increasingly identified by high volatility in cost and standard of living; role of government in our lives; too much free time; a Social Sceurity system which, while well-intentioned in 1935 has become little more than a Ponzi scheme in which the new investors remit ever-increasing "contributions" while the old investors demand ever-increasing payouts and the whorish congress illegally squanders the money in the till- a system, like all Ponzis, that is unsustainable and which will with ertainty implode. Add in the recent wordlwide "economic crisis" and its attendant fallout, and we increasingly encounter a sisuation in which 7 doesn't divide into 3 without a remainder (i.e., in which the ECONOMICS of "retirement" become impossible).
That obsession with the permutations/combinations/planning/asset allocation etc ad nauseum is what makes this debate so uniquely American.
My theory: "retirement" is not an ECONOMIC issue. It is a PSYCHOLOGICAL one.
By which I mean that the ideal "retirement" is and should be not an interminable exercise in saving, investing, financial planning, asset allocation and the angst and absolute unpredictability that accompanies all that. This ECONOMIC aspect- while for many a "fun" diversion at the computer and calculator and for others (the ubiquitous and virtually-never-wrong "financial analysts" lined up to make pronouncements and quotes and projections...ALL FOR AN UNNECESSARY FEE OF COURSE...this aspect, which now consumes the vast majority of Americans' time and effort on the subject, is a pure diversion.
The reality of retirement, I posit, is an emotional, intellectual and psychological committment to life change. To slowing down, getting off the treadmill of "work" life and all that entails and reprioritizing time, space and "assets". Rather than ceaselessly plan and plot for the mis-percieved economics of retirement, realize that this almost-end-of-life period can be the ONLY one in an entire life completely committed to self-discovery, wanderlust, intellectual hedonism and the complete and unprecedented availability of unlimited time andd space.
This is accomplished by forgetting the economics and committing oneself to only oneself. To make the numbers work one can almost unlimitedly downsize an existence. Social Security ALONE is, indeed, adequate to fund a comfortable (NOT "opulent") lifestyle, for example, here in Mexico where the sun shines, the people smile, the pace of existence is slow and time becomes infinitely more important than money. I'm sure there are other "Mexicos" around the world. No, you can't live in any of these places -free of ANY concern about the EONOMICS of retirement- and still be 15 minutes from the kids, the grandkids and the frinds from the neighborhood. But, for many many people, that's the ultimate charm of the deal.
My bottom line one-liner: SKIP the calculator-computer exercises to analyze the ECONOMICS of retirement... realize that "retirement" is and can be for you simply a state of mind...AND ACT.
Employees are being replaced with automation and robotics. That accounts for more manufacturing worker displacement than outsourcing. Also, discrimination against people over 50 is rampant, and what company wants them on the Health Plan, they are expensive. This article ignores reality. We cannot employ everyone from age 16 - 75 in an economy that is rapidly replacing humans with machines and technology. It would be better to argue for more social welfare to retirees so they stay out of the workforce and just buy goods and services.
I once talked to a "Aussie" --- IHO, Americans are "Psychotic Workaholics" who can't even Relax(Take a Vacation) without worrying about their job security. And who said you "Can Work Anywhere,Anytime" --- But i DON'T WANT TO !!! The way we percieve work in this country is Seriously out of whack --- This country is headed for a economic breakdown --- Preceded by a Nervous one !!! I don't relish the idea of slaving on a job --- And Dying There !!!
As an Expat living in Mexico I can say that Americans have lost sight of what's important. Living is the key to life not helping extended family members. I have had a lot of good job's and they did pay a living wage. I did not get rich. I had to choose were my money would go the farthest and the life style would be good. Like crieg 305d42 we have chose to leave the country we we raised in to try a new country with vast more opportunities and are close to our loved one's but a little to difficult to get there. I am a firm believer in living within one's means. I am find Mexican ins superior to American ins and am happy with my choice. Americans are spoiled. We have no control over what the rich do as they OWN CONGRESS. The biggest Prostitutes are in congress and run for president. The have access to all the money before we even see it. We are than required to pay for it. For those at or near retirement do as the rich do move to another country where your buck goes further. If you don't stop whining. Eat S$$t and die>>>>>>>>>
Thanks to Reagan, Bush 1, and Bush 2 for destroying the good system we USED to have that treated the elderly with respect.
We used to have unions which created pensions. Republicans didn't like them, so the unions went away with the pensions.
Even non-union companies used to have pensions. That went away when some idiot convinced the gullible American people that you can create a great retirement with a 401K. The only people i know that are retired either had government jobs or good old fashioned pensions. A 401K is a crap shoot that rewards Wall Street.
The Republican solution is just let em die when they can't afford anything better. The bottom line is American just doesn't give a crap about aging with dignity. Our country used to have morals, but Republicans got rid of them.
Employees are being replaced with automation and robotics. That accounts for more manufacturing worker displacement than outsourcing. Also, discrimination against people over 50 is rampant, and what company wants them on the Health Plan, they are expensive. This article ignores reality. We cannot employ everyone from age 16 - 75 in an economy that is rapidly replacing humans with machines and technology. It would be better to argue for more social welfare to retirees so they stay out of the workforce and just buy goods and services.
One option that is working for some is retiring to an RV and working on the road. While some jobs pay well, most are closer to minimum wage but do include a free or low-cost RV site. Your expenses are lowered in addition to bringing in more income. Often there are perks like complimentary tickets to local attractions. The RV lifestyle can be a less expensive way to live!
Jaimie Hall Bruzenak
author of Support Your RV Lifestyle! An Insider's Guide to Working on the Road and Retire to an RV: The Roadmap to Affordable Retirement. http://blog.rvlifestyleexperts.com