[quote=bearishgurl][quote=The-Shoveler][quote=Hobie]Flyer gets the point for calling the retirement issue here first. 100%agree this will soon trump student loans and dare I say foreign policy issues.
With personal saving at such lows and non-existant pentions for private sector careers I bet we will see a huge increase in (fraudlent)disability claims to support people in retirement with no savings. Sad.[/quote]
This does not sound like “any” of the boomers I know.
Most have several hundred thousand in 401k’s and own their home out right.
But maybe I run with a small crowd.[/quote]Same here, shoveler. I run with the same “crowd” you do but it is not small. Not only do they have 401K assets, but IRA’s, business and real estate income and jumbo CD’s everywhere. This includes the senior citizens I know as well (those currently at least 70 years old).
When you bought your personal residence in San Diego (or almost anywhere in SoCal) for $4K to $34K once upon a time, still own it and live in it, worked steadily FT for a minimum of 30 years, earned a pension (and in more than half the cases, your spouse ALSO earned a pension), this is a no-brainer. Even the majority of those who bought their first home in SD County as late as 1986 (for ~$50K to $170K) are doing just fine today.
The problem with at least half of Gen X and all of Gen Y is that their expectations for everything material are much higher than that of the boomers and beyond so they are more of an “instant gratification, throwaway society.” Yes, I will admit my own kid(s) show these traits. Even when making enough to have already saved a downpayment and qualify for a mortgage, they tend to spend their earnings on stuff that depreciates, instead. In addition, less of a percentage of today’s Gen X and Y parents are in the full-time workforce today than when boomer-parents were in their prime working years.
Boomers, for the most part, kept their heads down ALL of their working years, showing up at 6-8 am every morning like clockwork (dressed and groomed), five days per week for decades. I know because I was there every day along with my brethren who arrived at their homes at 5:30 pm situated in the likes of (gasp!), East and SE SD, Lemon Grove and Spring Valley. Some of the “moms” I worked with had up to five minor children still attending (K-12) school or in the FT care of daycare providers and/or relatives. 90% of new moms came back to work FT 6-8 weeks post-partum.
Well people, I’d say 65-75% of these “boomers,” now mostly “retired” are still residing in these same (now long paid-off) homes on two pensions and SS, if eligible (but many have “filed and suspended” their SS benefits, because they “don’t need” the income right now). A sub-portion of these SD County boomers (30%?) also have a military pension for life and Tricare for Life (deeply discounted Medicare Part B/D coverage deducted from their pensions).
I’ve posted before here that I know retired teachers and police officers who still own 4-44 (sometimes in partnership with longtime co-workers and family members) rental SFRs in San Diego County, most of which are completely paid off. (Yes, I meant “garden variety” retired public schoolteachers and law enforcement officers here.) Not to mention the lawyers and judges I know who are longtime owners of multiple SFRs and multifamily units either on or within 2 blocks from the beach (OB/PB). Some have formed REITS to attract more investors and hire professional mgmt for them.
So, please don’t feel sorry for the boomers …. most of us are “golden.” Those of you trying to find a decent home in an established, urban community in SD or an established SD suburban city (or anywhere in coastal CA counties) should feel sorry for yourselves. All of the above are the biggest reasons why there is so little inventory out there to choose from today. And the situation won’t get any better because, uhh, hello? … these boomer-and-beyond owners aren’t going anywhere. They will hold until their deaths and then these properties will be passed onto their heirs at their current, ultra-low assessments. We all have Props 13, 58 and 193 still on CA’s books to thank for this.
In CA, whoever’s family of origin is established the longest and held their RE assets without managing to re-mortgage them wins. It has little to do with an individual’s educational attainment or lifetime earning power. Based upon flyer’s previous posts, he appears to be in this category and as such, is most fortunate.
Just ask one of those low-key longtime slumlords in SF who own a handful of “rent-controlled” buildings how they’re doing, financially. You may find that they are set for life (as will be their children and grandchildren). Some of them undoubtedly never even finished HS, a fact of which is completely irrelevant to their lifetime financial security.[/quote]
For one thing, hundreds of thousands of dollars isn’t going to cut it for most people, especially if Social Security and/or Medicare get cut.
It’s funny how so many people are advocating for 401ks and other DC pension plans when it’s been shown that very few people are willing/able to save enough to get through their retirement years…and I’m talking about just basic living expenses, no big vacations or luxuries.
Some people seem to be under the impression that DB pension plans will fail. IMO, the much bigger failure will be evident when the majority of these DC pension retirees hit their latter years. That will be a much bigger problem, and we will still be forced to bail them out (at a much greater expense than if they had maintained DB plans, IMO), but that will be a sudden expense that “nobody saw coming,” making it even worse than the DB pension issue where people have at least been trying to better fund these plans in advance.
And I don’t think that the younger generation has higher expectations for the most part, either. Most young people would be happy to get what the Boomers got 30+ years ago — affordable homes with nice-sized yards in clean, safe neighborhoods. The problem is that fewer and fewer of those homes and neighborhoods exist for a much larger population. It’s gotten to the point that once middle-class homes can now only be afforded by “rich” people, many of whom are able to buy only because of their parents’ financial help.
As for women in the workforce, the percentage of mothers in the workforce increased until it reversed around 2000, at which point many women came to the realization that they were working for a negative income. Even those who were earning something (almost always less than they had expected, after taking into account all of the costs of working, including taxes) found that they weren’t earning enough to warrant leaving their children (six-week-old babies!) with strangers to raise them for the majority of their waking hours. This reversal is a good thing because it removes some of the surplus labor from the labor market, helping to prop up wages and open up positions for those who truly need to be in the workforce (single people/parents, heads of household, etc.). We’d be in even worse shape if the trend of mothers in the workforce had not reversed.
