Boston U. Econ. Prof. calculates $202 Trillion US Fiscal Gap

[GH]

A lot of things can change over 75 years …

That said, the notion of retirement funds, Social Security etc, must be changed from the unknown quantity of x dollars a month until you die to “your account currently contains x dollars – use it wisely in case you live too long”

All government workers and social security recipients should have their retirements converted to a fixed balance, based on their total contributions. You know like every one else?

[davelj]

The whole notion of “leisurely retirement for the masses” is a relatively recent phenomenon. Until the 1960s, the vast majority of folks worked until they couldn’t work any longer and then they moved in with family (or were heavily assisted by family) and their basic needs were met with Social Security and modest savings. And they died about 10 years earlier than they do these days, so that “retirement” was generally brief.

The top 10% of earners/savers will, in aggregate, probably have enough money to “retire” in the manner that we see in commercials – in their 60s, with travel, etc. But they are the exceptions. Everyone else should plan on working in some manner until they are no longer mentally/physically able. Last time I checked, a “leisurely retirement” was not a birthright. It is largely a fiction that’s been perpetuated by a long-building asset bubble (still popping) and unfunded (in reality) government programs like Social Security (which is really just a disguised portion of the credit bubble).

[davelj]

The whole notion of “leisurely retirement for the masses” is a relatively recent phenomenon. Until the 1960s, the vast majority of folks worked until they couldn’t work any longer and then they moved in with family (or were heavily assisted by family) and their basic needs were met with Social Security and modest savings. And they died about 10 years earlier than they do these days, so that “retirement” was generally brief.

The top 10% of earners/savers will, in aggregate, probably have enough money to “retire” in the manner that we see in commercials – in their 60s, with travel, etc. But they are the exceptions. Everyone else should plan on working in some manner until they are no longer mentally/physically able. Last time I checked, a “leisurely retirement” was not a birthright. It is largely a fiction that’s been perpetuated by a long-building asset bubble (still popping) and unfunded (in reality) government programs like Social Security (which is really just a disguised portion of the credit bubble).

[davelj]

The whole notion of “leisurely retirement for the masses” is a relatively recent phenomenon. Until the 1960s, the vast majority of folks worked until they couldn’t work any longer and then they moved in with family (or were heavily assisted by family) and their basic needs were met with Social Security and modest savings. And they died about 10 years earlier than they do these days, so that “retirement” was generally brief.

The top 10% of earners/savers will, in aggregate, probably have enough money to “retire” in the manner that we see in commercials – in their 60s, with travel, etc. But they are the exceptions. Everyone else should plan on working in some manner until they are no longer mentally/physically able. Last time I checked, a “leisurely retirement” was not a birthright. It is largely a fiction that’s been perpetuated by a long-building asset bubble (still popping) and unfunded (in reality) government programs like Social Security (which is really just a disguised portion of the credit bubble).

[davelj]

The whole notion of “leisurely retirement for the masses” is a relatively recent phenomenon. Until the 1960s, the vast majority of folks worked until they couldn’t work any longer and then they moved in with family (or were heavily assisted by family) and their basic needs were met with Social Security and modest savings. And they died about 10 years earlier than they do these days, so that “retirement” was generally brief.

The top 10% of earners/savers will, in aggregate, probably have enough money to “retire” in the manner that we see in commercials – in their 60s, with travel, etc. But they are the exceptions. Everyone else should plan on working in some manner until they are no longer mentally/physically able. Last time I checked, a “leisurely retirement” was not a birthright. It is largely a fiction that’s been perpetuated by a long-building asset bubble (still popping) and unfunded (in reality) government programs like Social Security (which is really just a disguised portion of the credit bubble).

[davelj]

The whole notion of “leisurely retirement for the masses” is a relatively recent phenomenon. Until the 1960s, the vast majority of folks worked until they couldn’t work any longer and then they moved in with family (or were heavily assisted by family) and their basic needs were met with Social Security and modest savings. And they died about 10 years earlier than they do these days, so that “retirement” was generally brief.

The top 10% of earners/savers will, in aggregate, probably have enough money to “retire” in the manner that we see in commercials – in their 60s, with travel, etc. But they are the exceptions. Everyone else should plan on working in some manner until they are no longer mentally/physically able. Last time I checked, a “leisurely retirement” was not a birthright. It is largely a fiction that’s been perpetuated by a long-building asset bubble (still popping) and unfunded (in reality) government programs like Social Security (which is really just a disguised portion of the credit bubble).

[SK in CV]

[quote=davelj]90% of this number is related to Social Security and Medicare. Raise the age at which Social Security and Medicare can be received to 70 – and keep raising it as life expectancy increases – and this fiscal gap largely disappears. Easy to accomplish in theory, but politically difficult. Average life expectancy is 13 years greater than it was in 1935 when Social Security was enacted. And yet the age at which benefits can be received has stayed the same. The solution isn’t that complicated, but it requires political backbone, which is in short supply.[/quote]

The fallacy of increased life expectancy.

[quote]Between 1920 and today, US infant mortality has decreased from more than 100 per 1000 to 10.9 per 1000. Yet during this same time span, life expectancy is said to have increased from 50 to roughly 80 years. That’s a thirty year difference we are told to swallow.

Now consider this: According to statistics, when an adult in 1920 turned 60 years old, he could expect to live an average of 16 more years, to about 76. Today, a 60 year old adult can expect to live 20 more years, to about 80.

So instead of a 30 year increase, we are looking at a mere four-year difference in life expectancy. The only dramatic change in the last eighty six years has been our chance of surviving to 60.[/quote]

http://www.articlesbase.com/alternative-medicine-articles/the-fallacy-of-increased-life-expectancy-2126995.html

[SK in CV]

[quote=davelj]90% of this number is related to Social Security and Medicare. Raise the age at which Social Security and Medicare can be received to 70 – and keep raising it as life expectancy increases – and this fiscal gap largely disappears. Easy to accomplish in theory, but politically difficult. Average life expectancy is 13 years greater than it was in 1935 when Social Security was enacted. And yet the age at which benefits can be received has stayed the same. The solution isn’t that complicated, but it requires political backbone, which is in short supply.[/quote]

The fallacy of increased life expectancy.

[quote]Between 1920 and today, US infant mortality has decreased from more than 100 per 1000 to 10.9 per 1000. Yet during this same time span, life expectancy is said to have increased from 50 to roughly 80 years. That’s a thirty year difference we are told to swallow.

Now consider this: According to statistics, when an adult in 1920 turned 60 years old, he could expect to live an average of 16 more years, to about 76. Today, a 60 year old adult can expect to live 20 more years, to about 80.

So instead of a 30 year increase, we are looking at a mere four-year difference in life expectancy. The only dramatic change in the last eighty six years has been our chance of surviving to 60.[/quote]

http://www.articlesbase.com/alternative-medicine-articles/the-fallacy-of-increased-life-expectancy-2126995.html

[SK in CV]

[quote=davelj]90% of this number is related to Social Security and Medicare. Raise the age at which Social Security and Medicare can be received to 70 – and keep raising it as life expectancy increases – and this fiscal gap largely disappears. Easy to accomplish in theory, but politically difficult. Average life expectancy is 13 years greater than it was in 1935 when Social Security was enacted. And yet the age at which benefits can be received has stayed the same. The solution isn’t that complicated, but it requires political backbone, which is in short supply.[/quote]

The fallacy of increased life expectancy.

[quote]Between 1920 and today, US infant mortality has decreased from more than 100 per 1000 to 10.9 per 1000. Yet during this same time span, life expectancy is said to have increased from 50 to roughly 80 years. That’s a thirty year difference we are told to swallow.

Now consider this: According to statistics, when an adult in 1920 turned 60 years old, he could expect to live an average of 16 more years, to about 76. Today, a 60 year old adult can expect to live 20 more years, to about 80.

So instead of a 30 year increase, we are looking at a mere four-year difference in life expectancy. The only dramatic change in the last eighty six years has been our chance of surviving to 60.[/quote]

http://www.articlesbase.com/alternative-medicine-articles/the-fallacy-of-increased-life-expectancy-2126995.html

[SK in CV]

[quote=davelj]90% of this number is related to Social Security and Medicare. Raise the age at which Social Security and Medicare can be received to 70 – and keep raising it as life expectancy increases – and this fiscal gap largely disappears. Easy to accomplish in theory, but politically difficult. Average life expectancy is 13 years greater than it was in 1935 when Social Security was enacted. And yet the age at which benefits can be received has stayed the same. The solution isn’t that complicated, but it requires political backbone, which is in short supply.[/quote]

The fallacy of increased life expectancy.

[quote]Between 1920 and today, US infant mortality has decreased from more than 100 per 1000 to 10.9 per 1000. Yet during this same time span, life expectancy is said to have increased from 50 to roughly 80 years. That’s a thirty year difference we are told to swallow.

Now consider this: According to statistics, when an adult in 1920 turned 60 years old, he could expect to live an average of 16 more years, to about 76. Today, a 60 year old adult can expect to live 20 more years, to about 80.

So instead of a 30 year increase, we are looking at a mere four-year difference in life expectancy. The only dramatic change in the last eighty six years has been our chance of surviving to 60.[/quote]

http://www.articlesbase.com/alternative-medicine-articles/the-fallacy-of-increased-life-expectancy-2126995.html

[SK in CV]

[quote=davelj]90% of this number is related to Social Security and Medicare. Raise the age at which Social Security and Medicare can be received to 70 – and keep raising it as life expectancy increases – and this fiscal gap largely disappears. Easy to accomplish in theory, but politically difficult. Average life expectancy is 13 years greater than it was in 1935 when Social Security was enacted. And yet the age at which benefits can be received has stayed the same. The solution isn’t that complicated, but it requires political backbone, which is in short supply.[/quote]

The fallacy of increased life expectancy.

[quote]Between 1920 and today, US infant mortality has decreased from more than 100 per 1000 to 10.9 per 1000. Yet during this same time span, life expectancy is said to have increased from 50 to roughly 80 years. That’s a thirty year difference we are told to swallow.

Now consider this: According to statistics, when an adult in 1920 turned 60 years old, he could expect to live an average of 16 more years, to about 76. Today, a 60 year old adult can expect to live 20 more years, to about 80.

So instead of a 30 year increase, we are looking at a mere four-year difference in life expectancy. The only dramatic change in the last eighty six years has been our chance of surviving to 60.[/quote]

http://www.articlesbase.com/alternative-medicine-articles/the-fallacy-of-increased-life-expectancy-2126995.html

[Arraya]

Maybe we need to end the recent phenomena of decreased infant mortality rates and longer life expectancies. It seems people have grown an entitlement to modern medicine. Perhaps the chronic elevated unemployment can fix that, rather than having people work until death. If we kill them off earlier, via no healthcare, there will be less drawing from their retirement entitlements.

[Arraya]

Maybe we need to end the recent phenomena of decreased infant mortality rates and longer life expectancies. It seems people have grown an entitlement to modern medicine. Perhaps the chronic elevated unemployment can fix that, rather than having people work until death. If we kill them off earlier, via no healthcare, there will be less drawing from their retirement entitlements.

[Arraya]

Maybe we need to end the recent phenomena of decreased infant mortality rates and longer life expectancies. It seems people have grown an entitlement to modern medicine. Perhaps the chronic elevated unemployment can fix that, rather than having people work until death. If we kill them off earlier, via no healthcare, there will be less drawing from their retirement entitlements.

[Arraya]

Maybe we need to end the recent phenomena of decreased infant mortality rates and longer life expectancies. It seems people have grown an entitlement to modern medicine. Perhaps the chronic elevated unemployment can fix that, rather than having people work until death. If we kill them off earlier, via no healthcare, there will be less drawing from their retirement entitlements.

[Author]

Posts