Meet the silver squatters: Adults in their mid-50s who are woefully unprepared for retirement

that's me

Paywalled

R1 Same. It's such a frightening prospect.

Paywall, nay wall

People worried about a paywall are really in for trouble!

The reality of rural America. All my relatives that are poor are taking themselves out with meth booze and fentanyl. The youngster tried to take himself out with a single car accident but ended up with a DUI. I should be able to keep what I have for myself. They have bred but the state is going to take the boy so his prospects can only improve.

[quote]they expect financial support from their family members

That usually means parents. Do they honestly expect their parents will be alive during their retirement years? What crack are they smoking?

Lost my business and home during covid. Used all my savings to get back to normal. Starting over again at 51. It’ scary. Being extra sweet to my nieces and nephews as they may have to take care of my old ass someday.

Snap out of it! ^

[quote]the median retirement savings for those in their mid-50s is just under $48,000, with 35% of 55-year-olds having less than $10,000 saved and 18% having saved nothing at all in 2023.

Eeek

Makes me feel a little better about myself. I have about $150K at 50, which is not great but apparently much better than most.

Y’all fucked!

I saved excess “cash” so that my net income from 63-70 would be the same as on my retirement date (only at 70 would I take SS and 401(k) distributions). Until then I draw down on my tax-free muni fund account (the saved cash) to keep me at the same level as the day I walked away from corporate America. So far, so good.

I’m 51, woefully unprepared aside from owning my home which I inherited.

My retirement plan is suicide.

R7 they think their kids are going to save them. Which i guess means Gen Z. Ummm yeah, good luck with that!

R13, don’t you have kid(s)? Sounds a bit brutal.

I am retired payroll and can tell you this story is 100% accurate. I've had far too many, long term employees in their mid to late 50s , stop by to discuss what they need to do to start, yes, start -their 401K contributions for their anticipated retirement at 65. These were low wage mfg jobs, so the salary was never high to begin with, so not much on the SS side. Our company held annual meet-greets with the company retirement specialist handling our plan. Free retirement planning sessions, a match up to 4%, etc. Those folks are probably still working, if their health allowed for it and the company did not lay them off. Sad, really sad.

Speaking from personal knowledge, and with hand to God, I can attest to GenX's being the most fucked cohort ever.

If you’re 51 and suddenly realize you have $0 for retirement, get a second job and bank the proceeds in a tax-resistant, untouchable fund.

[Quote] People worried about a paywall are really in for trouble!

I’m r4, I have 1.3 million dollars in 401k and pension, a $250k index mutual fund, several CDs in the aggregate value of $300k, a home worth 700k shared with my partner that’s almost paid off, and two small businesses that net about $80k a year.

And I say again, paywall, nay wall.

I forgot to add, $200k completely liquid in the bank ^^^

R19. No one likes a braggart.

Whatever, R19/R20.

[quote] That usually means parents. Do they honestly expect their parents will be alive during their retirement years? What crack are they smoking?

I was thinking that they (mid-50s people) were planning to live with their adult children.

[quote] I’m 51, woefully unprepared aside from owning my home which I inherited.

Huh? At least you were being honest about inheriting a house.

We'll all be dead from drought and hurricanes by the time mid-50's genexers retire.

I'm 53, and I love my parents, but I won't be able to retire or even own a home again until they are both no longer with us.

R26, will you get an inheritance? Is that what you mean?

I'm sure bad financial planning is behind some of this; with others it's just bad luck, getting fired/laid off for an extended period and being forced to drain your savings.

It's sad if you're waiting for your parents to die in order to fund your retirement. Anything could happen, cancer or long term care could quickly deplete a life savings...odds are high you'll have the rug pulled out from under you.

R19 are you in your early 50s or younger. If your over 55, you need to step it up.

We now bring you the newest Brazzers full length feature film“The Silver Squatters”…

R1 and R3 You may be having to work into your 80's.

R27, yes, that's what I meant. Of course, something could happen, but they're pretty well off and actually make more money now from passive income than when they worked.

What do your 80s possess, r32?

I would think waiting for your parents to die to secure your future would create an unhealthy dynamic.

I wasn’t bragging, and many on here have a lot more set aside than I do.

I was just pointing out that I can hate paywalls and not be a silver Squatter, which I was accused of.

[Quote] [R19] are you in your early 50s or younger. If your over 55, you need to step it up.

Not as badly as your grammar does.

I thought I would get 250k from my parents but my mom wanted her independence and we 5 wanted our independence so mom spent all my dad's and her own net worth paying for years of in home care. Well, it was their money to spend, not ours to inherit! Them're the breaks. I have a forever rent controlled apartment in a wealthy European city but if were to loose it during my retirement, finances will go from tight to I dunno what. Charity case and a subsided apartment if I'm healthy enough to remain independent. old folks home for the poor, if not.

With the onset of cheap, effective medications for conditions that once shortened lives, our parents may live longer lives. Plus new advances in longevity sciences (coenzymes that support cellular function and slow the breakdown of cell structures) indicate that those who live five to seven more years will likely live past 100.

Many boomers will outlive their assets. The quality of these longer lives is really uncertain. At the same time, social structures and forces of social cohesion are being eclipsed by online communities like this one. We have to be really careful not to become isolated and broke, or exploited by poorly designated trustees and caregivers. It’s pretty scary.

Most gay people I know will be well prepared for retirement, because they don’t have a family to mooch off of. Not having kids to put through college was also a big help.

[quote] I would think waiting for your parents to die to secure your future would create an unhealthy dynamic.

People aren't necessarily waiting with bated breath. However, I do think that middle-agers and older people are mentally adding their inheritance into their entire retirement fund.

My parents died relatively young, before I could even start thinking about inheriting anything from them. I did inherit something. (I have lots of siblings, so we had to split it up.) However, if they had lived longer, I do think I would be mentally adding my prospective inheritance to my overall financial situation.

R37 Your proofreading will be of little help when you’re out of $. It’s inevitable that you’ll be disappointed. Any executor will be at its wits’ end.

Feel better?

I’m caregiving solo for years for long-lived and unwell parents, and it’s been draining on many levels including financially as far as helping to pay for services and needs beyond what in-place eldercare supports I’ve been able to get to help with them. Then in turn this has taken a toll on my ability and wish to advance more at work, missing out at promotion opportunities because of focus and balancing with time out for parental healthcare emergencies and appointments, etc. It. Never. Ends. And saving more will never be enough, anyway, because things just continue to become expensive, COLA and benefits don’t keep up likewise, and it’s only unlike that for the so-called 1% who never end up needing to worry about that.

I am 45 and have 165K in my 401K and that is 1/2 of what I should have.. These stories horrify me and also make me feel not as bad. Wow

how would you invest 150k? put in CDs? Treasury bills?

What stocks to invest if trump or kamala wins?

R43, can you find a support group? I was my mom's caregiver and she wasn't even doing that bad (she could walk and go to the bathroom on her own). Yes, it's tiring. A LOT of other people are going through what you're going through. You're not alone out there. I went to a support group and it helped a lot.

How old are you? The younger you are the more you should buy stocks or ETFs with $150K. If you’re not so young, mix and match with longer term CDs or similar. If you’re older, invest in tax-advantaged shorter term investments (as in a muni bond fund with tax-exempt status in your state, if possible). Or die now—someone else will thank you for the gift.

R47- WHO THE FUCK are you speaking to? Other than that, I am looking into your advice now--

There will be no retirement for most people aged 55 and under.

The person above investing 150K. Who the fuck else?

See r45

There is no retirement for people aged 55 and under who don’t work in public safety.

FIFY

R50- I'm sorry, baby. I am too stupid to live, basically.

Thank you :)

I retired several years ago at 50 with $2 million.

I enjoy reading articles like these while I pinch my nipples and whisper my own name.

You get yourself off?! ;)

I am just shy of a million dollars saved as I prepare to retire, and I'm worried that it's not enough. I'm thinking of working for another two years on top of a side freelance job I have that I am not going to give up even when I retire.

Do you sit on a traffic cone at the same time R53? All the way down?

Gen Z won’t even make it to old age what with taking drugs, fake hormones, school shootings, suicide, etc.

I'm just hoping to live on my pension and keep my retirement savings for emergencies. It will continue to grow, too, if I'm not spending it from 65 to 80, for example. My maternal side lives into their 90s and usually pretty healthy.

R53, that’s not a lot to live on.

You have a pension R58? You can't be 55 and under because pensions no longer exist for this age group.

Smells like Elderly Homelessness

Get out of the US, do not retire in this country.

Perhaps I'm not the other person you think I am, r60. I am in my early 60s and still working in Europe - univ prof and yes I will have a pension. Teachers in USA still have pensions, don't they?

Whatever Suze / R59.

I’ve got two paid off homes, no debt and I’m drawing down $6000/month from my savings, dividends, REIT payments and interest until I can access my retirement accounts and SS in several years.

I’m good.

Again, as life expectancy increases and you’re worried about money:

1) Get a job if you’re able and healthy

2j If employed and healthy, get a part-time job if able

In my office, our Executive Assistant is 75…she manages our office functions, is skilled to step into virtually any position in the case of sickness or absence, and she maintains our web site.

She says if she retired, she’d quickly become depressed, lose her mental sharpness, and would gain 20 lbs.

R63 public safety and other governmental workers, and union employee—almost always YES. The rest of us —NO.

R65- Your post gave me hope. i am not even 45 but know that I always want to work.

Lyle Menendez has entered the chat at r26!

The linked article from Stanford should give GenXers like me hope, but its prescriptive tone just makes me want to eat a box of cookies:

Is it just me or does anybody else notice that the majority of the new homeless are Gen Xers? There are just tons of down and out people in their 40's and 50's

May retire next year. I have about $1 million saved (IRA and brokerage account) along with another $100,000 cash in the bank. I will have a modest Social Security monthly income. I don't think it's all that much, but that's what I have. I own my own condo, no mortgage. It's still scary. I may work for another couple of years, save my salary and just live off SS.

That’s not a lot unless you plan to die within a decade.

How much will you get monthly from SS R71?

You're in a much better financial position than the vast majority.

R73. $3600

Scary. The only plan is to keep working as long as possible so that Social Security payments increase. Have a partner or a roommate and put as much as possible in the Market now. As a teacher I always had a meh salary and retired at what college students probably start at now. But my pension is actually more than my salary now. I’m one of the lucky ones.

If in your 40s, try to get a government job. You may be vested after 10 years and get a decent pension when you retire

Ooh I've got a retirement plan but thats between me and my god and non of your goddam business. You will find out soon enough how well your plan has worked. Enjoy your moment of virtue signaling but remember the reaper is always waiting patiently. The uninvited guest comes for everyone in his time. He won't be consulting you about your schedual preferences .Save your money if you want to and leave there rest of us to choose what were gonna do with our time.

R45, just invest alot of it into a no load fund mutual fund that buys the whole market. . Also some stock that is safe and pays a good dividend. Talk to someone at Fidelity for advice. You can buy bonds too for a more conservative approach.

Don’t get hung up on who wins the election, A friend sold all his stocks when Trump won in 2016. A big mistake. The market has done great under Trump and Biden.

My partner never worked much and never saved much for retirement. He’s 59 now. He’s an only child. I was the one working and saving mostly over a he years. His father died a couple years back. My partner got everything, house, cash in his savings and like 200k the dad had stashed all around the house. His dad was just a postman but lived a simple life and never spent more than he made. My partners parents have pretty much subsidized his entire life.

For those sitting pretty with a million in the bank, and lots of property, watch where you step after 60. I would also venture to guess the real estate market isn’t going to look as rosy in a few years either.

A broken hip or long term recovery from surgery will deposit elderly into the giant maw that is nursing care. You will be required to liquidate holdings before you’re able to have the government kick in and pay for a nursing home or long term care.

I plan on working well into my 70’s, or sell my wrinkled old ass in a van down by the river.

Different people have different needs in retirement, depending on their resources and their lifestyles. People who own a home outright will be eliminating a large expense of retirement. There will still be property taxes and homeowner's insurance, and there will be ongoing maintenance expenses, but those are still going to be much less than rent would be. Even a very modest rental (studio, small one-bedroom) is going to be $1000/month in inexpensive parts of the country, up to $3000/month or more in desirable coastal cities, with no control over future increases, whereas a paid-for house might be in the realm of $5000/year in expenses. ($10,000/year in more expensive states). Some people say that owning property is not the best use of money if it could be invested in safe and high-yielding investments. However, that advice mostly comes from people who earn their living from selling such investments, such as stock-brokers. And, in the past, purchasing a home and paying down a mortgage over time was not cost-prohibitive in most areas of the country. Now that has changed, especially in the past 8 years or so.

Food would be in the realm of $500/month or $6000/year if you include some dining out. Dining out daily will run a great deal of more money, so that's not a good retirement strategy. Automobile expenses will run about $200/month depending on where you live and how much annual registration , gas prices, and routine maintenance are where you are living. If you're in a city with decent public transportation, you will be better off using that in retirement (and it will be safer for everyone else on the road too!)

Average social security will be in the realm of $2000/month for most people, after Medicare is taken out. A person who goes into retirement owning a home and a car could conceivably live on that (barely, but manageable unless they have expensive medical needs). But really, some sort of after-retirement job that would net something like $1000/month would make a huge difference (such as driving an Uber, or working a 20 hour week as a cashier or receptionist) and would make for a more comfortable life.

However, people who rent, and who do not own a vehicle cannot realistically hope to survive on SS alone. They will have to work full-time in their retirement years, or they will have to have saved money enough money in their 40s, 50s. and early 60s to at least double what they will be getting in SS. That's the tragedy of the silver squatters. They didn't save money and they don't own homes. Many of them never earned enough money in their jobs to save any out of their paychecks, and others suffered set backs, such as losing homes and credit during the housing recession of the late 2000 aughts, or accumulated so much college debt that they could never dig themselves out. According to statistics, home ownership rate in the US is still around 65%. It's mostly people under 40 who don't own real estate, and I worry the most about them, because of high prices, high interest rates and low availability. But some of them will acquire a home from their parents eventually.

Move abroad like I did. The cost of living is much cheaper. We have no kids and nothing really holding us down in the states. I have a 401k but nothing crazy. As residents our healthcare is free. Older people aren’t just pushed aside once they stop contributing. And it’s beautiful.

R7 family members for an older is more than likely to be a SO, wife, husband. Making a go strictly on your own may be beyond the reach of many. As it is for many who say so on DL.

I know a lot of retired people and none are expecting $$$ help from parents , cousins, aunts, and almost none from their children.

Being single at 30 is a lot different and maybe more fun than being single at 70.

And with a wife or husband if they die first you still get $$ support from their SS or retirement plan.

R80, in NYC many seniors live in rent stabilized apartments That means low rents with increases regulated by the city. Also no one over 65 can be forced to vacate their apartment. I think the key is having a partner or a spouse. Two people on SS can make it but one is not so easy. Of course when they pass away, you’re in trouble.

“Also no one over 65 can be forced to vacate their apartment.“

R83, can you say more about this ^^^^^?

Is that NYC law? I googled but didn’t find anything meaningful.

Late 60s here, in Brooklyn. My rent is high for me - but low compared to everything else around. I’m sure if I vacated my landlord would have no problem charging a couple of hundred more than I pay now.

Relationship with my landlord is decent and I’m an ideal tenant but I have gotten a vibe from her. Would like to know I’m more protected than I thought.

Thanks!

Is your apt. rent-stabilized or not? You should already know the answer. That’s basic living in NYC knowledge. Oy vey.

No, it’s not rent stabilized. Is that protection only for rent stabilized apartments?

On the specific point of non-eviction—yes; subject to special eviction protections made more generally available out of the pandemic. Just Google it—-go to nyc.gov.

R84 you need a plan. I don't know what. But I can pretty much assure you the landlord is going to screw you over with a rent raise you could never afford. I would figure this out now, when you are strong. I'm sorry for your situation. I find it terrifying.

If he’s in a market rate apt (not rent-controlled or stabilized), then that’s just a fact of life. Its part of existing in NYC….nothing unique about your rent increasing. Please.

If you have saved aggressively enough, I’d recommend familiarizing yourself with your estimated social security benefits. How much you will receive each month in retirement depends on:

1. How many years you worked and contributed (maxes out at 35 years).

2. How much you contributed each of those years (the current max is around $168k and it’s inflation adjusted, so to hit the max in 1999 you could have wanted much less.

3. The age at which you claim (not the age you stop working). Earliest is 62 and to get the max you need to wait until 70. If you max out (1) and (2) you get almost $4900 a month at age 70, but only $2710 at age 62. But that doesn’t mean 62 is the wrong choice, it’s very individual.

I am not sure, but I think the number of years worked has a bigger impact than the amount contributed each year. It’s good to get familiar with this so you incorporate the impact into your planning. I realized recently that I may not hit 35 years.

I think a lot of people would benefit in retirement if they could position themselves to work at SOMETHING (on the books) in the event that they are unable to continue on their career path past 50 or 55. Something you’d be unlikely to be laid off from, don’t hate, and could replicate if you were laid off.

Skip r90 and her incomplete explanation. Go to

My partner and I will both have good pensions. And luckily live in Canada so don’t have to worry about healthcare other than dental and drug coverage. We plan to downsize on retirement to a condo, or just rent til we die. Which I’m hoping is around mid-70s at the latest. Really, we knock ourselves out working and worrying for what - maybe 10 years of old age where we don’t know what to do with ourselves and everything fucking hurts.

maybe live with a roommate, less expensive.

I know in NYC, I read a while ago that you can freeze your rent after a certain age. your landlord will get perks or something in exchange.

R90 should read if you HAVEN’T saved aggressively enough

Not so fast r93.

He must be over 62, have a maximum income, spend a specified portion of income on rent and live in Stabilized, Rent Controlled, or Rent Regulated Hotel housing…applicants residing in an apartment located in a building with a mortgage that was federally insured under Section 213 of the National Housing Act or is owned by a Limited Profit Housing Company or Limited Dividend Housing Company (Mitchell-Lama development), Redevelopment Company, or Housing Development Fund Company (HDFC) incorporated under New York State’s Private Finance Housing Law must contact the Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) to apply. For applications and more information, please call (212) 863-8494 or visit www.nyc.gov/hpd.

The key in NY is a rent stabilized apartment. The protections don’t apply to other apartments. And if your apartment is rent stabilized you already know it because the city raises your rent through guidelines. Lots of other rules apply as well.

Don’t assume your mid 70s self will be so ready to die. Maybe you’ll be involved in some activity you enjoy . Or just want to keep watching old movies. Do all you can do to provide a decent lifestyle for your future self. And try to keep yourself healthy.

[quote] at its wits’ end.

Oh dear, R42.

R96, did you know you can freeze your rent when you reach 65 in NYC?

I have a 50 year-old stepdaughter who has never held down (never tried to) a job in her life. She inherited 1M from her mother, who died 10 years ago. She blew through that and is on the verge of bankruptcy. She sees me as the evil, uncaring villain because I told her a year ago (after sending her 75,000 she demanded from her father's retirement money) that the Dad ATM was closed. Her dad has 2M in his IRA (plus social security). He is also 86 and in mid-stage Alzheimer's. He could live a long time (he is in decent physical health) and, whether we have him age in place (both of our preferences), which may ultimately require 24 hour care or move to a memory unit (where we live the nice ones cost 19,000 a month), 2M suddenly doesn't sound like a fortune. But it sounds like she is hardly unique to her generation (did I mention she has bipolar I?) in expecting to take little responsibility for her own future. I've hardly been a financial wizard, but the job I held got me 1.1M in my retirement fund plus social security. But she would put her father's future welfare at risk. Tell me, other mid-50s, is this your philosophy as well?

A thread like this inevitably brings out the bragging cunts who say, oh, well, I have a million or two, so...

Or worse, the fake humble braggers who say I "only" have a million--will I be okay?

R100 Here. I should mention I am 66, so could either have a few more decades of life myself or I could get a life-limiting disease or get run over by a car. Either way, I have my money protected and have POA for my husband who, in his more lucid moments, tells me that he thinks he has given the daughter enough over the years.

Good thing the gen z are horrible employees and many employers are hiring older workers co they have better work ethic

R90, that's wise advice. I was shocked recently when I looked at my SSA account online and saw how many more years I'll need to work full-time in order to live decently in my 70s and 80s. It was a huge wake-up call. No more new clothes for me!

BTW, the online SSA account is pretty easy to open. I opened mine during COVID, and an extremely helpful and polite SSA employee helped me do it over the phone. I was so grateful. The online account makes it easy to track where you are and what to expect.

R103, that's so true. I used to worry about age discrimination, but to my amazement, I find that no one cares that I'm in my mid-50s. They just want an employee who will show up every day on time, not whine about fibromyalgia or microaggressions, and take constructive criticism without melting down. I.e, the bar is low right now for employees--doesn't take much to keep employers happy--so I'm thrilled to have more job security and employability than I expected at my relatively advanced age.

Thanks, Gen Z!

It's a big problem, yes. A lot of us either just weren't careful or never earned enough to save very much in the first place. I've gotten myself out of debt and upped the amount I'm saving, but it still feels like a sword hanging over my head.

I joke with friends that I'll likely have to work until I die, but it's not much of a joke.

R100, mid-50s here. I think most in my age group agree that our elderly parents must keep every last dime of their savings for their own care, present and future. After age 80, life is a catastrophe waiting to happen. Some elders need little care until the very end, but others, as you point out, might need up to 200K (or more!) just to be assured of adequate (not even wonderful) care. So no, I don't think most of us are like your step-daughter. Sounds as if she needs meds and a job. And perhaps a good DL vicious face-slap.

^ I meant $200K per year.

Please, we were promised Mutually Assured Destruction, AIDS, Monkey Pox, terrorists, and Radon the silent killer!

You expected me to save money? Looking this cheap is expensive. And i’ve barely kept up with my vices.

R101. It’s perfectly reasonable to question whether one million is enough.

If you are retiring at 65 or later and aren’t extravagant, it probably is enough, but some people in these threads retire in their early to mid-50s with one million. At that age, you may have three to four decades left to live and ten to 15 years of funding your own health insurance

Even though most people don’t have one million In savings it’s not just false modesty to worry if it is enough of you plan a very early retirement.

There is an argument for elderly parents transferring assets to their adult children. If a parent is in their 80’s and has over $1million in assets, they are extremely unlikely to run through that in the course of normal living (obviously there are big variations in standards of living and life expectancies, but this is back of the envelope). However, if one (or both!) end up in a facility that costs $15 or $20k a month, they could run through that pretty fast. At which point many places don’t kick you out, Medicaid kicks in. But only after your assets are depleted. So you end up with zero whether you went in with $500k or with $2 million.

Obviously, parents are entitled to hold on to their money. But people should understand the potential consequences. My brother and I discovered this when my mom got ill shortly before she died. We foolishly hadn’t done adequate research. She got ill at the end of her life and was paying some ungodly sum. Maybe $1000/day? I think we hid it from her because she would have somehow found the strength to thrown herself out a window if she’d known. She was ready to go and only lasted a week or two, but look at Jimmy Carter. Someone in a nursing home for a decade could go through millions.

R107 Thanks for your reassurance. I think she needed a visious face-slapping years ago--it might have gotten her to be real and to think of someone other than herself. I would not generalize from a n of 1.

[Quote] Your proofreading will be of little help when you’re out of $. It’s inevitable that you’ll be disappointed. Any executor will be at its wits’ end.

What does an executor have to do with retirement savings?

R42 has that $200 savings bond grandmother gave her in assets, and nothing else.

R111. Following this strategy has a lot of pitfalls. 1) Most people with a lot of assets don’t want to volunteer for the level of care Medicaid provides to the elderly (shared rooms, sub-standard care homes, etc.). 2). You have to make the transfer five years before you expect to need Medicaid. 3). It requires a high level of trust in your children. I don’t have children, but I can’t imagine risking this strategy myself.

R114, it’s my understanding that people can often stay in the same facility they originally enter. That was definitely going to be the case with my mother. We weren’t got to put her in some hovel.

And, yes, you have to do it sooner rather than later, that’s my point.

I’m not sure how much trust it requires, as the parents ends up in the same situation. There could always be unforeseen consequences where they need the money back or require financial assistance, but there are families that can handle that rationally and fairly.

Darling R110, most people won't have a million dollars to retire on nor will they need it. Of course, it depends on many things--where you live and what your expenses are. Most people I know have retired with under a million or even well under a million, and they're fine. Only DL queens acgt as if you need $5 million dollars to survive. Such bullshit.

R110 Starting early is not the point at all. The point, instead, is that there is by law a claw-back of assets transferred less than five years before going onto Medicaid. Even if you can remain in the same home, how does your proposed strategy work? You enter the home, then transfer your assets and count on your children to continue to pay for the more expensive homie for the five years until the elderly parent becomes eligible for Medicaid without recapture of the assets? This also assumes quite a long stay in a care home to pay off.

I know of no one who has retired in their early 50s. If so, I suppose you'd better have a lot stashed away if you have 4 decades more to live. That's not the problem for most people.

R116, talk us through a budget that allows someone with under a million to retire comfortably at 50. Don’t forget to account for $1200 a month in health insurance for 15 years and that their social security will not kick in until age 62 and will be the equivalent of under $2500 in todays dollars since they are claiming at 63 and haven’t worked for the full 35 years.

If their expenses are $1500 in rent, $500 for food, $1200 for insurance, and $300 for entertainment, clothes, and THE BUS, they will have spent $500k by the time they hit age 62. And that’s with no car and eating beans and rice. Then they can claim social security, but they still have three years to go to get Medicare.

Sure, R119, I can tell you. First off, most people don't retire at fucking 50. Let's start there.

It doesn't cost $1200 a month for health insurance. That's another. Rent, or a mortgage, can be as much or more as $1500 a month, or as little as $500-750 a month. It all depends on where youy live. Or the mortgage is maybe already paid off by the time you retire in your mid to late 60s, when the vast majority of people retire.

Okay?

R117. Darling, there are few things more endearing than extreme stupidity/illiteracy coupled with condescension. Everyone knows most people don't retire with one million. Those who, unlike you, darling, are literate, will have noticed my post even said that. Most people also do fine in retirement with less than one million, darling, as also noted in my post. What is not possible, usually, is to retire at a very young age, darling, and live without worry with one million. Can you tell us, darling, there is any lower limit on the retirement age outside of DL world below which it is not advisable to retire with one million? Can people retire at 25 with one million? Please let us know.

There's no shame in being illiterate, darling, if you politely ask for help in reading something you don't understand/

Let me revise what I said: if you're retiring very early and have to pay for your own health insurance until you reach Medicare age, your insurance costs will be high. I guess that's the drawback to retiring at 50, which most people can't do, anyway.

R117, you aren’t following me. I’m talking about people with substantial estates preparing for the possible eventuality of requiring long term care.

I’m not suggesting older people give their kids ALL their money. I’m not talking about transferring assets after they are already in expensive facilities. I’m suggesting that they should consider giving their kids the excess beyond what they could reasonably expect to spend outside of the possibility of long term care.

For example, if a 50 year-old would like to buy a home in preparation of retirement it might make sense for their 80 year-old mom who has $3 million dollars to help them out. Because if mom enters a nice memory care facility in five years with $1 million or $3 million the kids are all going it get zero in the end if she lives to 100.

Can you imagine R119's retirement in a $500 a month apartment with only his rage and stupidity to keep him company?

$1,200 a month is spot on as an average Obamacare premium for a 60-year-old. And R116 is not saying most people retire at 50.

Maybe this moron generation should stop voting for Trump?

Ooooh, do you think they ever think about that in between patting themselves on the back for how cool they still think they are?

R98 wits always takes the plural. The singular wit has a separate and distinct meaning. You can look it up, if capable.

Most people who work get their insurance from their job. And I haven't heard the word "Obamacare" since the Repugs used it.

R123 The para was to mock the proofreader by an exaggerated use of grammar that is easily autocorrected, incorrectly, in the blue box of DL.

^ for R113. ;)

[quote] Most people who work get their insurance from their job. And I haven't heard the word "Obamacare" since the Repugs used it.

Good point. So as long as I keep working, I can retire. I knew this was the place to come for rock solid financial advice.

R123 A nice nursing home can definitely eat up $1 million in five years. And your elderly parent can only stay in the facility if it is Medicaid approved. Are your sure most nice nursing homes pursue that approval? And are you sure the parent gets to stay in the same private room of the home or gets shifted into a shared room within the same home?

Yes, if the assets are significant, the timing works out right, and there is a lot of trust, it can be planning idea.

R130 owns the thread!

R131, I do not know if most nice nursing homes do, but I was under that impression. I would be surprised if they didn’t because I would think there are circumstances under which they would have difficulty kicking people out and would want the option of Medicare or Medicaid dollars vs. nothing. But I’m hypothesizing. I don’t know.

But I know for sure that my mom could have stayed where she was after her assets were depleted. Maybe she would have been required to share a room? But I’m not even sure they had shared rooms.

There are certainly a lot of very individual variables involved as well. I’m not saying it’s something everyone should do, I just think it’s a consideration.

R103 forget Gen Z being horrible employees, which they are. 25% of Gen Xers are hitching their wagon to Gen Z supporting them in old age!!! How's that for a retirement plan?

How many on DL have claimed that the military is only for those with no other good options? Those in the military can start retiring at 20 years of service with full life time medical coverage. 37 yo and retired for some.

Of course working longer gets an even better retirement.

And if the economy does crash and burn in a big way their retirement will be safer than your $1 million.

Fire and police would be similar to military

R133. Over a third of homes are not approved in my state. And assisted living homes are never covered. Only nursing homes. So your parent has to be already debilitated at the start of the five years.

In general, the government sensibly puts rules in place to prevent people having nice retirements at taxpayer’s expense.

With Americans living longer working until 70 does not seem that unreasonable. Not for me of course. But for now it makes sense.

[quote] Or just want to keep watching old movies.

❤️

R136 is correct, I believe. I had to research this exact issue recently.

Well, then it sounds like close to 2/3s are, R133.

It seems like you have skin in the game. If you read through my posts you will see that I am not trying to provide a recipe for shifting the expense of high level care to taxpayers, just suggesting that the statistically unlikely eventuality of requiring extended nursing care years in the future is something people might want to consider when assessing whether it makes sense help their adult kids out financially. I’m comfortable with my ethics given that in the scenario I present the need for a nursing home is entirely theoretical and includes mom entering with a million to pay for her care. Most people don’t end up in a nursing home for years. So I don’t see bringing up the argument that a healthy elderly adult should consider helping their middle aged son with a home for retirement instead of saving for death or a two million dollar nursing home bill in 15 years as equivalent to planning for “having nice retirements at the taxpayers expense.” But, yes, there is a gray area.

I’m not sure what you mean about the parent needing to be debilitated for five years.

I retired at 58 - planned to go at 61, but my employer of 20 years job eliminated me. I was prepared though - house paid off, zero debt, no dependents. My sister - well, she is two years younger than I am. Until March of 2023 she was dead broke all the time, and relied on handouts from my mom just to make ends meet. Then my mom passed, and my sister and I split a fairly sizeable inheritance. Now my sister could retire at any time, but she still works as she has no life, and her work is everything. I cannot imagine being in my early 60s and having no prospect of retiring, or thinking I could retire at 70+ then still rely on the goodness of family to keep me from being homeless.

R81 Where abroad do you live?

My parents are dead. My husband and I had a pillow talk: when the time comes just use the pillow on me…no one will be the wiser.

R142 Infinity, and beyond. They ain’t kosher overseas without citizenship, a derived passport or $ to buy residency.

I have absolutely no skin in the game. I just wanted to point out that what you propose is not easy to do in practice, which is why very few people with serious money do it.

I also have no ethical qualms about anyone pursuing such a strategy. I was merely stating why the rules make it hard to pursue the strategy. The government doesn't want wealthy people to have their retirements funded by the taxpayer.

People generally don't live in a nursing unless they have to and unless they qualify ( i.e., they are debilitated). Therefore, your strategy of getting your parent into a home in advance of the five-year window requires them to be debilitated for five years before they start to receive Medicaid.

You mean Medicare, R145, don't you?

No

R44, you really need to educate yourself, as should everyone, about financial issues. Investing really isn't that complicated and there's plenty of educational resources on a thing called the internet. At least start looking into low cost, online financial services providers like Charles Schwab, Fidelity or Vanguard. They all have educational resources, too.

Do not buy individual stocks! As someone else said up thread, ETFs and mutual funds are by far the safest bet.

I think, sadly, that the image at OP is an accurate depiction of what most Americans have for a 401-K: a jar with coins in it..

That’s no excuse. It’s not like anyone lacked warning. Jeez.

At full retirement age, Medicare should cover all the booze and recreational drugs a senior might want or need free.

I absolutely do not mean Medicare. Medicare does not cover your nursing home expenses. You have to be impoverished, in which case Medicaid will pay for it, just as it does for impoverished people of all ages.

[quote]Well, then it sounds like close to 2/3s are

And those are not the ones a rich person would probably like to be in. If a home accepts Medicaid, they get a fixed reimbursement. Homes that have high operating expenses (i.e., the nice ones) are not going to want to want a low reimbursement.

For all of you living in NYC, whatever happened with the stories of people getting their rents reduced by checking the last legal documentation of their rent price with the city? I forget exactly what it's called. But many owners have not documented the insane prices increases they have charged. They do a few upgrades and charge double the price for the next tenant. There are stories of renters getting their apartments reduced by hundreds of dollars, sometimes in half, because they owners have to prove through receipts the improvements they have made and why that would warrant the price they are charging now. I am sure Brooklyn would be best, because back in the day those places were next to nothing, then all of a sudden they are $3500 a month.

I had savings, but used much of it around 2007. My sister had cancer and no insurance, no Obamacare. Medicaid/Medicare took fucking forever, and I couldn't wait. At least she died in a good hospice with excellent care. It too me a while to build my retirement savings, but not where it could be. I don't regret it, but I wish there were programs to help when she was ill. My niece and nephew are middle-class and I can't expect help from them. Ah well. We love each other and support each other as best we can.

R116 , DL queens routinely spend $3000 on a night with rent boys and they intend to do so until they are 95, of course they are worried!

Yeah, do not buy individual stocks unless that's your "play money."

It’s only $2900, R156.

What about the tip (for the rent boy), though?

R155, you're a lovely person. 🙏

I'm quite affluent and besides I live ( unlike most Americans who buy things they don't need and can't afford) below my means.

R141 proves you can get by without millions, unlike some DL Marys here.

Roz Chast called these folks out DECADES ago. Sounds like most of these silvers are banking on the MK Plan:

Save that the have no kids who will take care of them. They are banking on the MP plan.

It’s good to treat yourself occasionally. Having retired at the end of April, if I see something I want I now ask myself if it’s a need or want. More often than not, I have forgotten what it was that caught my eye by the next day.

The key to having healthcare if you retire and before you reach Medicare age, is to live on cash for those years so you qualify for subsidies in the ACA. So you use your savings and the money from a Roth, and not touch your 401K and traditional IRAs until after 65 to live on.

The Healthcare Marketplace has made a huge difference in my cost of living (I'm 63). I don't quality for Medicare (yet) but my health insurance premiums are subsidized. If you're American, don't skip the Healthcare Marketplace (Obamacare), since it can make a huge difference in your healthcare premiums.

Those Roz Chast cartoons were the only good cartoons in the New Yorker at the time that I stopped my print subscription.

I’m 36 years old and I have $21,000 in 401k. So basically I’m totally fucked.

No you are not R169. But figure out a way to make 50k to 100k a year extra for a number of years. I saved half a million in my 40s. When your professional gravy train comes in, don't spend it all.

Not necessarily, R169. You have 30 years to catch up.

R169, here’s a simple planner that can help give you a sense of where you can be.

Set up a consultation with a financial advisor. Most companies will not charge you and you do not need to commit to anything, I recommend Edelman Financial Engines or Fidelity.

Sadly this is a large % of my longtime gay friends. I’m the lucky one who’s maintained a decent paying career and then married into significantly more inherited $$ than I’d foreseen. It’s awkward sometimes, the difference between us. Cyndi sang about money changing everything and it’s true when you have financial ease while others around you are hitting the skids.

Some of my most stylish and charismatic friends in NYC are secretly flat broke. They live in rent stabilized apartments in pretty prosperous neighborhoods, yet struggle to pay the interest alone on maxed out sub-prime credit cards. That would stress me all the way out. Rent and healthcare subsidies help them maintain the illusion of bohemian independence, but the reality is pretty dark and uncertain past the age of 60.

I have some personal knowledge about assisted living places referenced in some posts above. I do think that some assisted living places do have Medicaid programs, but those are places that have an in-house nursing facility or a special memory-care unit. But for the wealthier people above, there is a way to "buy in" to a quality assisted living facility. In my town, there are several. A person puts in a substantial amount (perhaps $150,000 to $350,000) and "buys" an apartment or sometimes a townhouse or separate house in a large complex. This buy-in guarantees a person a "continuity of care", which means as a person gets more feeble, he or she will be moved out of the separate house into an apartment with access to a dining room and more assistance with routine daily care, and then if the person declines further, would be moved into a skilled nursing facility within the overall complex. There is still a monthly fee (of course!) but its increase is sometimes modified by the initial buy in.

In most assisted living situations, a person is charged according to level of care needed. My mom had to go to live in an assisted living complex after a house fire (up to that point, I had been her caregiver for 22 years). Although she was 98 and wheelchair-bound with double amputations as a result of septic shock in her late 70s, she was pretty self-sufficient. She needed assistance getting out of bed in the morning and getting into bed in the evening, and she needed assistance when transferring on or off the toilet. She had a call button for those services. Otherwise, she didn't need assistance, so she was evaluated by a nurse at the facility to be at the lowest level of assistance, and her monthly cost was thousands of dollars less than a person who would need help all day with multiple needs. A person shouldn't assume that he/she will be charged $10,000/month or so for living in such a place. I think my mom's monthly cost was about $4000. Her social security and an annuity covered about $2600 of that, and she had some stocks worth about $15,000 which we sold to cover some of the costs, amortized over a year. So most of her children contributed to make up the difference - about $150 from each of us per month.

My friend’s mother went into a nursing home, paid about 7K a month and when her money ran out Medicaid picked up the bill. Her level of care remained the same. My friend has money but wasn't forced to go broke supporting his mother. I think that’s the rule in NY. Every state is different and it can get very complicated.

.

my friends dad retired at 62, put his retirement money into some business with a friend then had a heartattack and died. He left zero. His son paid for the funeral on his credit card. Now, this may seem like he was a bad guy but the thing is he spent his money. He put his 3 kids through college and they never wanted for anything. Whereas my dad died and left us a nice amount...but looking back he should have been spending that money on essentials for the family. We had no car; i seemed to have spent my childhood frrezing at bus stops. We didnt have anything EXTRA.

I think spending money to give your family a good life trumps leaving it to them.

My 2 cents and a lot of years of observation. Those who expect to 'work till I drop' , may find plans altered should their physical health no longer allows them to be employed. No one ever expects it to happen to them, but it does.. Secondly, don't count on your parents, inheritance, etc. to fund your retirement years, you might luck out but odds say you will end up with zero.. If you are young(ish) now, DON'T GIVE UP! Throw every penny into retirement, ($ diet now, but eat well later). Yes, that means bringing a paper sack lunch and driving old, shitty car, but that extra $ you throw into a 'target date retirement fund' now may mean you don't eat cat food when you are 75.

Some homey, folsky logic from Captain Obvious at R179.

*folksy

R180, yet millions ignore what you call obvious, which is why there are so many silver squatters. What R179 might be common sense to some of us, to many it is all inconceivable.

People put things off until they can no longer. Credit cards allow people to live beyond their means until the bill finally comes due.

Millions of Americans retire with little other than social security.

Even if you want to work till you drop, you may not find anyone who wants your elderly labour.

Unless it's Walmart, R184. You can always get work there until you drop.

I'm currently the "neighbor bank" for my neighbor who is a bit of a silver squatter. She is around 70 or 71, and not in great health. She receives social security (probably minimal). I think she has a bit of a gambling problem, and gambled away most of her settlement from a very serious car accident about 10 years ago. I've paid money that she should really be laying out (for soil amendments to regrow the grass between our houses, for a ticket to some country western singer that she just couldn't miss no matter what, and my sister made a car title loan payment for her because her car was going to be repossessed and her one job is to deliver Uber Eats). She claims that she changed banks and that the last three social security payments have not been deposited in her new bank. I don't have strong confidence in that story, but I'm about to pull the plug on further expenditures. She does have an ex-husband and 4 kids who should be assisting with some of this stuff, but most likely they have been burned in the past. Part of me feels sorry for her, but when I see what she spends money on, I have to throw up my hands. Right now, she has covered her entire front yard in blow-up Halloween displays and monsters hanging from every tree. These are things she bought in the past, but I'm sure they cost many many hundreds of dollars when new. Not for the first time, I feel I've been suckered into helping to support a person totally unrelated to me.

Why the hell are you doing all that for a neighbor, R186? If you got suckered into helping her for some reason of misplaced pity, that's on you.

r186, bless you. You are a good neighbor and friend. But yes, it sounds like it is time to ghost her. Get out now, before she starts having really bad mobility, health issues and you get sucked into becoming her free caregiver.

401Ks and other vehicles like TIAA Cref are transferable. If you start early (20s and early 30s) you will be fine. Unfortunately most people do not even though they could have. Young people live in the present and as they age think more about the future. But not early enough for most it seems.

For much of the baby boom, pensions took care of retirement. They were mandatory and long term employment was more common. Pensions have decreased, as has long term employment. Many do not opt for voluntary plans like the 401k or IRAs. They could, but they don’t. Kind of sad.

I’m not saving. My family has terrible genes for cancer and heart disease. That’s if the old Sue O’Cyde doesn’t reap me first

So, R190, you're on the heart attack investment plan?

I’ll die in poverty in a few years due to my own choices, but at least I never forced anyone else to bear my burdens or cursed another generation to worry about supporting itself in a world of bloody competition. This evil game ends with me, thankfully.

R192, the race is always with yourself. I worked my way through college, took on increasing responsibilities and more challenges at work so that I could grow intellectually, emotionally, and in capability. My income increased accordingly. I sometimes took the risk of changing jobs for more income and it always worked out well. I also learned a few lessons about credit cards and learned to live within my means.

It isn't a perfect system by a long shot but there has been nothing like it to generate wealth, culture, science, and human development overall. Many of us never did what you are accusing everyone of. We acted responsibly and made it all work for us while contributing to our families, communities and companies. You chose not to. That doesn't make the system or us evil.

What is R192 accusing people of. I missed that.

Ii propose we all join R193 in congratulating himself. He had achieved a lot in spite of limited literacy and social skills. Bravo!

It won't just be Gen X. I'm surprised by the number of young people today who declare they just CANNOT live with roommates. That they NEED their very own apartment even if it's expensive as hell. They feel entitled to it.

I lived with roommates from age 22 to 33 and it wasn't always a picnic but it's the main reason I stayed debt free.

Oh, thank you, R195!!!

“The only person who will take care of your older self, is your younger self.”

I heard this on talk show from a financial advisor a while back, and it stuck with me.

R196, the problem with roommates is they can stop paying their share of the rent, and taking legal action against them is often costly. Roommates can also steal, leave doors and windows unlocked, make a ton of noise and mess, and otherwise turn your life into a shit show. There are other ways to save money.

R90 and others aren't making a lot of sense. SS requires 40 quarters in order to be eligible, not 40 years or even 25 years:

"To qualify for benefits, you earn "credits" through your work - up to four each year. This year, for example, you earn one credit for each $1,730 of wages or self-employment income. When you've earned $6,920, you've earned your four credits for the year. Most people need 40 credits, earned over their working lifetime, to receive retirement benefits. For disability and survivors benefits, young people need fewer credits to be eligible."

R200, I think R90 was referring to the 35-year threshhold for calculating SS payout, as explained here:

Yes—the 35 years part comes into play re the $ amount, not the basic eligibility threshold.

I'm 55 and would be totally screwed if my husband weren't younger and very successful.

But even with that I think about suicide a lot.

Depression sucks.

I don’t understand comments like r6, always limiting people struggling financially and poverty to rural areas. It’s strange, considering cities like NYC, LA, San Francisco, Miami, Portland etc. all have MASSIVE homelessness (the highest homelessness has been since the 80s, when it was at its highest ever) and people struggle everyday in cities. And this is statistics.

R186, you've been commendably kind and beyond, but trust your instincts that you've acquired in your neighbor a black hole. Stop with the money, and certainly stop with responding to her direct requests.

You can be a kind and good neighbor by the occasional gift of some groceries, a gift of some staples that you "overbought", even paying her half of what should be a shared expense of neighbors of adjoining properties, but you'll never dig her out of a taste for concerts and car repairs and more.

I understand being born into true poverty and having little to no parental guidance little to education. Or being an addict.

But most of the people I know in real time have done pretty well. They have a real trade or a quality education, they went to work and did not blow their money on drugs and sex nor where they gamblers of any note. None are truly rich but all doing pretty well.

I often wonder when I read these threads on DL that talk so often of a lack of a future, income, retirement etc what kind of life decisions these people made?

R206 what a load of shit. Tons of people worked hard to get college degrees and can’t find work in their fields and are forced to work minimum wage jobs. Tons of lay offs these days, so many who did have good jobs are now unemployed. Save the fucking bullshit.

R206 A lot of very necessary professions pay very little. Caregivers for the elderly, for example, often earn 15 to 20 an hour. You may need one of them one day.

Try building a secure retirement on that income, especially if you have children. Not everyone who struggles to retire is a lazy wastrel

My hubby and I retired 6 years ago. I had neck surgery 3 years ago so my mobility has been decreased. We currently collect $70K a month in ss and have a secondary insurance co. which covers any additional medical expense. Our home is paid off and worth about $800K and we live in the southeast part of NC. We originally moved from CT. Our retirement account is worth about $1.5M….our monthly bills are LESS then our monthly ss payments…..that would not be the case if we stayed in CT…..where you live in your retirement years will determine what type of lifestyle you can enjoy! I am 71 hubby is 74.

"We currently collect $70K a month in ss"

Did you mean $7K a month or $70K a year? It's impossible for 2 people to collect $70K a month in ss.

He meant $700. Them poor!

If I were advising a high school age student today that wanted a reasonable quality life as far as income and a comfortable retirement I’d suggest they learn some skill that people actually need and want to hire.

this is not meant for the career waitstaff and Uber drivers or those that want to work as home health aides for the elderly.

Not just a college degree which are a dime a dozen but a useful degree that will be in demand as far as jobs. Nursing, IT, teaching, accounting, etc etc

Or spend 5 years in training and become an electrician, plumber, welder, or consider military , fire, police, and general construction etc,

The old days of banking on a career with a,new liberal arts degree are long over.

Then I’d tell them to start a retirement savings account with their first job and not to use hard drugs. People with good skills, good work habits, those who make sound decisions usually do quite well in life. Others will fail and or fall behind.

I really didn’t start saving for retirement until I turned 50. And then I saved the maximum amount allowed to my 401(k). When I retired at 63, I had enough.

R208. I pay the caregivers for my 86 year old husband, who is mid-stage Alzheimer’s (which in his case means he is still alert and engaged, but has no short-term memory and can only be left alone when he is still asleep in the morning) $50.00 an hour. They are kind, warm, attentive, and respectful of him. They are worth every penny (one is an art therapist, the other two LPNs). They did not set the 50–we agreed on 40 (about the going rate—on the higher end). They do 4 hours each, so about $600 a week. I’m happy to pay it and realize not everyone can spend about 30,000 a year. They deserve it—I’m shocked that there are carers who get 15 or 20 an hour. That’s shameful.

That is what caregivers working for an agency typically receive. The agency usually charges 30 to 35 to the client. The caregiver receives 15 to 20.

I have never heard of 50 am hour either to an agency or to an individual caregiver. I am mostly familiar with rates in the moderate cost area where I live and not for caregivers without specialised certifications or training.

The implication of a 50 an hour rate of is a 438,000 annual bill for round the clock care unless you leverage caregivers across multiple patients. Obviously, few elderly or their families can afford that.

I used to go to a beachfront resort in NJ. I stopped when the tab hit $500. a day. The place was full of blue collar guys and their kids. Electricians, plumbers, contractors etc. Doing great while the film majors poured coffee.

[Quote] We currently collect $70K a month in ss

Clearly a typo — she meant $700k a month

I should say that 438,000 excludes the FICA payments and unemployment insurance payments required as well

Well, we are only at 12 hours a week right now. If it gets to 24/7 care, we are talking about care that may no longer include as many activities. I’d be surprised if we ever move to 24/7 (I can certainly cover 8 of the hours and I’d be surprised if we ever needed 16, though I may eat those words, I know). But I do see your point—we can afford the 50/hour because we only do what is essentially respite care for me (and variety for him). I do aim to keep him at home until the end—the “nice” memory unit is 19,000 a month, which is still around 200,000 a year. And that gives him one room, cafeteria, shared TV and activities room.

I had a dear friend pass last week. He had 24-7 home hospice care at the end—just two weeks. After insurance, it was over 30 grand. These things only get more expensive…

R219. It is good that you are generous with the caregivers and that your husband doesn’t yet require round the clock professional care.

15 to 20 an hour may seem shameful, but virtually everything in our life is dependent on many, many people working at that rate of pay or lower. The people who pick the food you eat and process it aren’t earning 50 an hour. They people who clean the buildings you use aren’t either. Your home is built using raw and finished materials produced by low wage workers. And that’s not taking account of the goods produced outside the US, at wages significantly below 15 an hour. The care workers earning 15 an hour, tough as that is, are probably not the most desperate among this group. We just don’t pay those people directly and are not reminded daily of their rate of pay.

If any of us individually is going to elevate the living standards of the people who make our daily life possible, we will be trying to pay a vast army of people.

It’s only going to get worse. The last 80 years of US economic success and political stability will be less so than in the next 80 years. Maybe a little maybe a lot.

And if the younger generations struggle $$$ they are going to resent more and more the paying of retirement living and years of truly expensive health care for the ever growing large population of old folks. Many who have not prepared themselves.

For many it’s not going to be a pretty picture. And for many life will be bleak. And sooner or later the right will win and take control and the house cleaning in services and safety nets will begin in earnest.

Good luck to you youngsters

R222 The biggest factor you by far is the increasing proportion of the population that is elderly. We can hope that no one who complains on the future about funding programs for the elderly also bitched about too many immigrants. The West will be trying to entice immigrants in a few decades once the retirement crisis truly hits.

Wharton just released a study that in 20 years, our deficits basically destroy our economy. No amount of cuts in spending or increased taxes will be enough.

R210, $70K a year…..

R224 nonsense. At the end of the day we print as much $ as is needed. It may mean higher long-term inflation, but that’s what America lived with for decade after decade—we will survive. We were, are and will remain the world’s reserve currency. Unless the world ends—in which case none of this matters.

Unmm. Printing money will be if absolutely of no use in solving the problem.

Says the gal who flunked her Econ 101 midterm.

It’s worked since Bretton Wood, though war, disease, inflation, deflation, stagflation, recession and more.

No. It has not.

So debt has collapsed the dollar? It is no longer the world’s reserve currency? The US no longer has the world’s largest and strongest economy?

Go away🥱

If anyone decides who goes away, it’s not a moron like you.

The US has never used inflation to erase its debt and wisely so. I question whether there is any way to simplify it to your level of stupidity, but let’s try.

Let’s suppose you have lent yi the US government. The government inflated the dollar so that you receive a repayment of the debt that is essentially worthless. I assume even someone as stupid as you would refuse fo lend in the future.

It wouldn’t be essentially worthless, that’s the point.

For chrissake, did you never live through real, extended, inflation —not Covid inflation—or actual stagflation? Did foreign banks stop buying U.S. treasuries or lending to U.S. borrowers? Of course they didn’t.

R231 seems to think the U.S. dollar is akin to the Argentine peso …oy vey.

R233. I absolutely do not think that. Please cite where i ii said anything so stupid.

“ The government inflated the dollar so that you receive a repayment of the debt that is essentially worthless. I assume even someone as stupid as you would refuse fo lend in the future.”

That’s Argentina^^ duh

You just don’t get it. Adios.

R232. I probably shouldn’t engage with your stupidity, but I will once more.

Lenders factor into the interest rate at which they lend the value they expect to receive in return. The US has not had to pay exorbitant interest rates on borrowing because the US has never engaged in hyper inflationary activities. However, even the low rates of inflation the US has pursued have cost it money. To the extent inflation is expected, lenders directly factor in the expected rare of inflation in the interest rate they charge. Lenders don’t like receiving payments back in dollars that are worth less than those they lent. They increase the lending rate to reflect the expected depreciation of the dollar resulting from inflation.

There is therefore never a costless level of inflator, even at moderate levels of inflation. And the kind of inflation you are suggesting to handle the massive levels of debt foreseen would essentially make people Unwilling to lend to the US government all, or, if so, at astronomical interest rates.

What kind of profession do you work in,? Are you under financial guardianship? I’m just surprised you’ve been able to survive operating at this level of stupidity.

R235. Sorry. Even I underestimated your stupidity. When I ask you to cite support it has to be from what I said, not what you said.

The US is not anything like Argentina. The US is quite credit worthy.

In the future, if the US inflates away its debt, it would not be creditworthy, which would make it like Argentina. So, I think can rephrase what you stupidly thought into something intelligible: “if the US followed your stupid suggestion, it would be like Argentina.” That I would say and stand behind.

There’s an entire history of the post-war U.S. economy that proves you wrong. Read a book. The dollar is THE reserve currency and will remain THE reserve currency long after we are dead. High inflation, stagflation or no inflation.

R232 if you are so sure of yourself, please explain why the dollar hasn’t already collapsed or why no one is buying our debt, lending to our borrowers or moving to a different reserve currency? All the conditions you point to already exist, or have existed one or more times over the last 80 years. Yet none of your “predictions” have come true. That’s because the assumptions underlying your argument are wrong. You are a Chicken Little for the ages.

For r236^. 😉

R239 it hasn’t happened yet because lenders accurately assume the US will raise taxes and cut benefits and will therefore have the resources to repay its debt. It will be unpleasant to do so, but it’s not an end of the world scenario .

Essentially defaulting on the debt through inflation is an end of the world scenario financially speaking. I have absolutely no expectation that will happen. I trust most elected officials, apart from Trump, are not stupid enough to do it. But you don’t. You are the Chicken Little for the ages.

The US was sold a bill of goods during the Reagan administration regarding reducing taxes to grow the economy and that the bigger economy was magically going to pump money back into the US treasury. Sadly, that bill of goods has survived to the present day. There's an entire organization (Club for growth) dedicated to making Republican congressman sign a pledge to never raise taxes under any circumstances. But we cannot reduce expenditures enough at this point to make a significant dent in our debt. We have to raise taxes. Both parties are dodging this. Yes, the rich have benefitted more from reducing taxes, and they should have the largest increases - but we all need to pay a little more, expect for the very poorest. In my opinion, the maximum marginal rate for the wealthiest should be at least 50% - 40% for people earning more than $1,000,000/year, and most of us should be paying a marginal rate of 30% to 40%. Yes, it will mean less discretionary income for many of us. TFB.

This just in.

R243 And there might not be any SS checks for them at all if someone gets elected.

I am only ok because of an inheritance and the fact I live very frugally. I did tell my financial planner I plan on working until I’m 70 (I’m 49 now).

Then I find out I was lied to at my new job. It’s a public/private entity but you become part of the state retirement system. They didn’t bother to tell me you have to wait a year. I don’t think I’m going to make it that long.

Wait a year for what? R244

I wonder what was the first US generation that generally thought they might have a comfortable retirement. Not all of them of course but most of them thought they would retire in relative comfort ?

Gen X is definitely generation homeless right now!

r246 I'm going to say that the activist work of unions in the 1930s through the 1950s finally brought a comfortable retirement within the reach of a good portion of American workers and their families. That was because of negotiated pension plans plus social security. That all began to be dismantled in the 1980s when Reagan, a staunchly anti-union president, BROKE the air traffic controllers union and signaled that he would work mightily to do the same to other unions. The system that replaced it (IRA contributions and 401Ks have proven much more fickle and variable, with the timing of a retirement very dependent upon market conditions at the time. I know people who retired (HAD to retire) in 2008-2009, and their 401Ks had almost no value because the stock market declined by 50%.

So I think the generation with the most predictable and comfortable retirement are people who were born in the Depression or just prior to it. Their work years began in the late 40s or early 50s and most retired in the 1980s.

Hey cunts!

I'm sure you'll figure it out yourselves without anyone needing to help you.