Random Thoughts

[srblanco7]

The death of pensions is a huge problem. Pensions were easy. Everything was done for you and you just started getting monthly checks when you retired. Nothing to think about or do beyond that. 401k and IRA plans are great but require far more knowledge and hands on involvement to get it right. Even as someone who considers myself to be pretty well versed on investing, I find the whole process of deciding when and how much to draw from each account to be quite overwhelming. Is it better to tap my 401k first or my Roth or maybe my traditional IRA or maybe the inherited traditional IRA. How do I know how much I can afford to take from each to make sure I don't run out of money when I'm 80? And that's on top of having to decide along the way how much to contribute and how to invest it. It's quite a lot of responsibility for most everyone, even those who are pretty good with financial stuff.

Not something I'd personally do - but you could take a portion of your savings and purchase an annuity to create a pension-like payment.

[disneysteve]

Not something I'd personally do - but you could take a portion of your savings and purchase an annuity to create a pension-like payment.

That is an option if you have a chunk of money available. If you've spent a couple of decades funding a 401k though, it's not so easy. Annuities get a bad rap, rightfully so, but there are some that can be a pretty reasonable option as part of one's retirement plan.

[Fishindude77]

Pensions are great if you can get one, but there is a reason why you see so few in the private sector anymore. They are unaffordable for the employer in todays market.
About the only places still left providing pensions are governmental entities where they don't have to make a profit and compete against anyone. Some of the unions still offer pensions, but many of those are terribly underfunded and doomed to implode at some point.

It was doable for employers when life expectancy wasn't as high. Got to be a big problem for companies when people had there 20 years in at 40-45 years old, retired, then drew their pension for 30-40 years or more.

[disneysteve]

Pensions are great if you can get one, but there is a reason why you see so few in the private sector anymore. They are unaffordable for the employer in todays market.
About the only places still left providing pensions are governmental entities where they don't have to make a profit and compete against anyone. Some of the unions still offer pensions, but many of those are terribly underfunded and doomed to implode at some point.

It was doable for employers when life expectancy wasn't as high. Got to be a big problem for companies when people had there 20 years in at 40-45 years old, retired, then drew their pension for 30-40 years or more.

Very true. Heck, the same is true for Social Security. When SS began, the average life expectancy at birth was 58 for men and 62 for women. For those who reached adulthood, it was longer, but it is still much longer today than it was in 1935. You can retire and collect SS at 62 and potentially live 40 more years.

[srblanco7]

You can retire and collect SS at 62 and potentially live 40 more years.

Here's hoping

[QuarterMillionMan]

There's one big problem though of retiring at 62, you cannot get Medicare until 65 (unless you have ALS or end stage renal failure).

[disneysteve]

There's one big problem though of retiring at 62, you cannot get Medicare until 65 (unless you have ALS or end stage renal failure).

You don't have to be fully retired to take SS. I know lots of people who collected at 62 but were still working. They just stayed under the threshold to have benefits reduced.

Or, like us, you can retire whenever and pay for your own health insurance. We've been on COBRA since August 2022 and will switch to an ACA plan in January (which will be much cheaper).

[srblanco7]

You don't have to be fully retired to take SS. I know lots of people who collected at 62 but were still working. They just stayed under the threshold to have benefits reduced.

Or, like us, you can retire whenever and pay for your own health insurance. We've been on COBRA since August 2022 and will switch to an ACA plan in January (which will be much cheaper).

Steve - will be interested to hear about your thoughts on ACA - which plan provides the best bang for the buck, etc. If you're willing to share. Thanks!

[mumof2]

[QUOTE=myrdale;n742705]We're misplacing the cause of homelessness here. The greater majority of the homeless have serious mental issues or drug addiction. Previously these people who would have lived out their lives as wards of the state are now turned away to live on the street. And in many cases the drug and alcohol use is / was an attempt to self medicate to a certain extent.

I had a 20 something year old guy come up panhandling to me last week. There were four businesses with "NOW HIRING" signs within eye shot of where we were standing on the sidewalk. But rather than put in a job application he was happy to go around and beg for money.

Capitalism is not a zero sum game. Everyone who participates benefits.

I am just wondering if he had walked in looking like he had would they have hired him....people are homeless for many reasons and we have so many here in aust where families are living in their cars or tents because there isn't affordable housing....greedy homeowners are taking advantage of the rent rise hikes....but many of them are working just can't get a house to live in...so they are working homeless....how do you fix that?? people like to keep others down and the govt like having rich and poor...

[mumof2]

I’m just spit balling here but not everyone can be a doctor even if everyone was smart enough. We need other professions.

So do people or companies that make billions of dollars need to pay their employees more? I always hear people say about low paying jobs if you to make more money then getting a better paying or skilled job but what if you were hired at one of these low paying jobs at full time? Should a full time employee be entitled to a living wage based on inflation or something else?

Yes if you are making billions you full time staff shouldn't be on food stamps or not being able to pay rent or feed their family....its disgusting...afterall we need all these people whether they are doctors or working in retail...they are all needed and need to have a livable wage

[mumof2]

I have a question as seen on the news you have people (guessing from poorer neighborhoods) looting stores and the stores can't do anything about it...they just claim it on insurance..then insurance goes up and so does the prices and it continues in the loop...my thought is (and yes it is a bit morbid) but bring back the death penalty...you murder someone..you get a bullet, you are a pedophile or traffic people you get a bullet...if you go to jail 3 times..don't care what the charge is...you get a bullet....people will start changing their behaviors...seriouslypeople don't respect themselves let alone others these days and the world is going to crap...and people can't work for things they just want it now....and get credit so easily....yes not a great solution but people need to be held accountable...damn here in aust...our sentences are so light its pathetic...can get 6 years for killing someone...no I'm not a violent person but I think that people need to be held accountable and then they need to put money into schools/hospitals/rehabs instead

[Like2Plan]

Very true. Heck, the same is true for Social Security. When SS began, the average life expectancy at birth was 58 for men and 62 for women. For those who reached adulthood, it was longer, but it is still much longer today than it was in 1935. You can retire and collect SS at 62 and potentially live 40 more years.

I think the baby boomer population is a much bigger factor.

Here is a quote from the Social Security History website:

"Also, it should be noted that there were already 7.8 million Americans age 65 or older in 1935 (cf. Table 2), so there was a large and growing population of people who could receive Social Security. Indeed, the actuarial estimates used by the Committee on Economic Security (CES) in designing the Social Security program projected that there would be 8.3 million Americans age 65 or older by 1940 (when monthly benefits started). So Social Security was not designed in such a way that few people would collect the benefits.

As Table 1 indicates, the average life expectancy at age 65 (i.e., the number of years a person could be expected to receive unreduced Social Security retirement benefits) has increased a modest 5 years (on average) since 1940. So, for example, men attaining 65 in 1990 can expect to live for 15.3 years compared to 12.7 years for men attaining 65 back in 1940."

The article goes on to say,
"(Increases in life expectancy are a factor in the long-range financing of Social Security; but other factors, such as the sheer size of the "baby boom" generation, and the relative proportion of workers to beneficiaries, are larger determinants of Social Security's future financial condition.)"

https://www.ssa.gov/history/lifeexpect.html

I think the other half of this equation is the declining birth rate in this country. I remember when the drum beat issue was overpopulation of the planet--maybe that is still so, but I think the birth rate is below replacement level in this country now. Without immigration in this country the numbers would look even worse, But, even still the numbers of workers to retirees have shrunk. I don't think they ever envisioned such a low birth rate when they designed the program.

[LivingAlmostLarge]

Most 1st world countries have below replacement rate of births. US finally crossed over.