[quote=flyer]Can’t speak to the historical side of this question, and, perhaps more are better off in some ways, but when it comes to long-term financial survival going forward (which is essential, whether we want to admit it or not) that aspect does seem questionable for many Americans, as this excerpt from an article on retirement reveals:
“More than 38 million working-age households (45 percent) do not own any retirement account assets, whether in an employer-sponsored 401(k) type plan or an IRA.
The average working household has virtually no retirement savings. When all households are included— not just households with retirement accounts—the median retirement account balance is $3,000 for all working-age households and $12,000 for near-retirement households. Two-thirds of working households age 55-64 with at least one earner have retirement savings less than one times their annual income, which is far below what they will need to maintain their standard of living in retirement.
The collective retirement savings gap among working households age 25-64 ranges from $6.8 to $14 trillion, depending on the financial measure. A large majority of households fall short of conservative retirement savings targets for their age and income based on working until age 67. Based on retirement account assets, 92 percent of working households do not meet targets. 84 percent fall short based on total financial assets, and 65 percent fall short based on net worth.”
Perhaps the realization of these facts is what is fueling fear and anger among so many in our country.[/quote]
flyer, you didn’t list the source of your first quoted material and I looked at the “gloom and doom” video from the Business Insider link you provided.
I think there has always been wealth inequality in the US which is/was largely caused from being born into a particular family …. or not. Perhaps yes, it is more pronounced now, because those people who were born with a “silver spoon,” so to speak, have had more to invest throughout their lifetimes, especially during eras where investing in (safer) passive investments was more lucrative. They have also had more capital with which to invest in the stock market and ride its ups and downs without feeling any pain (due to not needing any funds from their investments while the market was down).
That said, all these retirement “gloom and doomers” are not taking into account that a large portion of 60+ year-old Joe and Jane 6ps all over the nation have lifetime monthly income from defined benefit plans. The average monthly pension is likely +/- $2K month. A large portion of these pensioners are/were also eligible for full SS benefits (OASDI) at the age of 65 or 66. This doesn’t even take into account that their spouses (Jane 6p?) have ALSO earned SS benefits in their own right (esp the boomer-generation women) and/or a defined benefit pension of their own.
If a current retiree’s primary residence and vehicle(s) are paid off and they have one or more defined benefit pensions coming into the household every month, there really is no “dire situation” here as your doom-and-gloomer talking heads would have us believe. Especially if they are longtime Cali residents with ultra-low property-tax bill(s).
flyer, you have to admit here that if you yourself didn’t have a defined benefit pension for life coming in and Prop 13 protection on assessments for your CA properties, your own financial situation today might look very different. You might be going thru your assets in order to live, while constantly trying to scare up one side-gig after another. Or you would have chosen not to retire when you did.
Honestly, it doesn’t really matter how many hundreds of thousands (or millions, as the case may be) Joe and/or Suzy (boomer and beyond) 6p have in their “nest egg.” They may not be able to be world travelers but they will survive just fine and their estates will not be indebted, as long as they manage to stay off Medicaid/Medi-Cal and keep themselves well-insured with Medigap policies, Medicare Advantage Plans or Tricare for Life.
As far as Gen X and Y (who are likely still working or looking for work), these groups may not have had as much opportunity to vest themselves into defined benefit plans and most of the plans they were offered were likely not as robust as those of their predecessors but their wages are MUCH higher, on average than their predecessors. That said, there is far more at play here which could explain why they aren’t saving as much as they should for their retirement. The vast majority of members of these groups (ESP Gen Y) are very heavily into “instant gratification” and won’t settle for the more mundane type of lives their parents had (moving up in every facet of life, one step at a time). They want everything (new possessions) and want to experience everything (foreign travel, etc) NOW! This is not a generalization … it is a fact. Perhaps this is mainly the group those doom and gloom MSM media articles you keep posting here are referring to.
I have lived in areas primarily populated by the over-55 set for over 25 years and I just don’t see where the problem is. Please enlighten me as to what I’m missing here.
