timo2
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
The 'retirement porn' articles like this are just going to get more prevalent in the future.
29% of people age 55-No retirement savings.
- Thread starter Jpg1717
- Start date
Rustic23
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
I remember what my statistics teacher once said:
"Statistics never lie! Statisticians DO!
Dw and I could easily be one of those with low savings, but we have pensions double our annual expenses.
As pointed out, 30% of households have an income under $30,000. How much would you expect them to have in savings?
What was the make up of the survey? i.e. were undocumented individuals included?
How many of those surveyed were going to inherit money? A small amount, but our children will most likely get money from both sets of parents. Not a lot, but enough to make a difference.
How many have money sunk in houses they plan on selling and using for retirement? Several folks that worked for me in CA. were in that situation.
Already mentioned, people that have money in programs not covered by survey.
The Census Bureau reports that 14.5% of the population lives below the poverty level. Baring a lottery winning they will most likely never have any savings, but may be able to live on their SS.
All in all, as others have said, it sells newspapers, or in this case TV commercials.
"Statistics never lie! Statisticians DO!
Dw and I could easily be one of those with low savings, but we have pensions double our annual expenses.
As pointed out, 30% of households have an income under $30,000. How much would you expect them to have in savings?
What was the make up of the survey? i.e. were undocumented individuals included?
How many of those surveyed were going to inherit money? A small amount, but our children will most likely get money from both sets of parents. Not a lot, but enough to make a difference.
How many have money sunk in houses they plan on selling and using for retirement? Several folks that worked for me in CA. were in that situation.
Already mentioned, people that have money in programs not covered by survey.
The Census Bureau reports that 14.5% of the population lives below the poverty level. Baring a lottery winning they will most likely never have any savings, but may be able to live on their SS.
All in all, as others have said, it sells newspapers, or in this case TV commercials.
Numbers is fair game... 
The after tax income for the average (median) household in the US is approximately $51,000 of which about $5500 goes to Savings (Pensions, Insurance, Investments etc.)
Most of the rest of the income is spent on what we would call "cost of living".
If 6 years of the "savings" of that average family $33,000. were to have been invested in the DJIA in 2009, the total "savings" today would be $89,000.
.........................................................................
If the after tax income had been $61,000... and the cost of living was the same, and the balance of the difference between income and expense ($93,000) were to have been invested in the DJIA in 2009, the total "savings" today would be $251,000.
.........................................................................
Examples are meaningless, except to point out that a higher disposable income would allow a higher level of savings, all things being equal. The point that gets lost is that the compounding of amounts being invested makes for a disproportionate difference in the ending total... Simply a verification of the fact that it takes money to make money.
Then there's the argument for a flat tax versus graduated taxes...
The after tax income for the average (median) household in the US is approximately $51,000 of which about $5500 goes to Savings (Pensions, Insurance, Investments etc.)
Most of the rest of the income is spent on what we would call "cost of living".
If 6 years of the "savings" of that average family $33,000. were to have been invested in the DJIA in 2009, the total "savings" today would be $89,000.
.........................................................................
If the after tax income had been $61,000... and the cost of living was the same, and the balance of the difference between income and expense ($93,000) were to have been invested in the DJIA in 2009, the total "savings" today would be $251,000.
.........................................................................
Examples are meaningless, except to point out that a higher disposable income would allow a higher level of savings, all things being equal. The point that gets lost is that the compounding of amounts being invested makes for a disproportionate difference in the ending total... Simply a verification of the fact that it takes money to make money.
Then there's the argument for a flat tax versus graduated taxes...
Tadpole
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2004
- Messages
- 1,434
Don't worry, if it turns out our retirement cohorts don't have enough money, we can pool all of the retiree resources and divvy them out fairly.
Not sure why people on here are mad at CNBC for reporting on the "retirement crisis".
We already know that the avg. American household is not saving enough for retirement due to several obvious reasons. Globalization and outsourcing,Decline in union membership,aging broke parents,millennials still at home,flat wages for 30 years,The new hipster economy "Giganomics"(jumping from low wage job to different low wage job),College student loan debt crisis,A house is no longer a sure thing as an investment,etc.
There is a obvious reason why CNBC is not reporting the numbers to show why most Americans will have enough money saved to retire.
Because the good numbers do not exist. So don't kill the messenger.
We already know that the avg. American household is not saving enough for retirement due to several obvious reasons. Globalization and outsourcing,Decline in union membership,aging broke parents,millennials still at home,flat wages for 30 years,The new hipster economy "Giganomics"(jumping from low wage job to different low wage job),College student loan debt crisis,A house is no longer a sure thing as an investment,etc.
There is a obvious reason why CNBC is not reporting the numbers to show why most Americans will have enough money saved to retire.
Because the good numbers do not exist. So don't kill the messenger.
Last edited:
Good analysis Purplesky, I do not believe that the retirement savings only look low because people have pensions and $ in non retirement accounts .The sad fact is that most people at all ages are not prepared for retirement .40 years ago most people had good defined benefit pensions .Today the good pensions are gone, and that will hurt people.I feel blessed because I have a good pension.I hope these other folks can find a solution to their situation.
Have you tried Meetup.com? You put in your zip code and all kind of groups, interests, activities pop up that you can attend. I've planned my entire calendar a month in advance at times based on all the interesting things I can get involved with that I found on Meetup.
Hanging out with friends even my own age is challenging as many wistfully wish they were 25 again or are in "aches and pains/slow down/gripe" mode, none of which apply to me. I find myself generally spending time with younger people as a result.
CRLLS
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
I can think of many reasons why these numbers are not a surprise. None of the articles ever tell the whole story. There are other means of providing for retirement income beyond "retirement savings". What if you are fully invested in rental properties? Or are a farmer and plan to sell off the equipment and lease out the acreage after you can no longer actively farm. Or if you have a business that can be sold when the time comes. Or people who are living in huge property value areas who plan to sell their homes and move to a lower COL area? And who ever said that someone living at poverty level expect to have a higher lifestyle when they retire? Many ethnicities still care for their elderly within the family-unit. Alternative to "retirement savings" are many. I do acknowledge that there are some that are not prepared at all. To put numbers on it is difficult.
I seldom seek out articles of this nature. The financial writers have been talking about the traditional 3 legged stool for retirement for at least 3+ decades that I know of. I have read them years ago. I think these articles are more to awaken those in their 20's and early 30's rather than those of us in and near their retirement stage. The younger generations do have to be awakened. However, my feeling is that few of them are reading these articles, at least not the ones that should be.
I seldom seek out articles of this nature. The financial writers have been talking about the traditional 3 legged stool for retirement for at least 3+ decades that I know of. I have read them years ago. I think these articles are more to awaken those in their 20's and early 30's rather than those of us in and near their retirement stage. The younger generations do have to be awakened. However, my feeling is that few of them are reading these articles, at least not the ones that should be.
Mulligan
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
- Joined
- May 3, 2009
- Messages
- 9,343
This is only my opinion, but I think not only are you correct, but its probably even worse. People usually hang around with people of like caliber. Most people here are uniquely intelligent and self disciplined and thus are able to protest the numbers with other unique examples of people who have 10 different retirement accounts with 50k in each one.
I don't think many people here realize how truly dumb people are in regards to money (or other things, too) because they do not interact enough with people of that ilk. I will double down on the opposite side of that CNBC survey and suggest that a great many people who stated they are prepared for retirement really aren't and are too dumb or lazy to know it until their last dollar is drained from their too early retirement.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
NYEXPAT
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Until the flood came.
nash031
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
For my part, I've told people since I was an Ensign that if they weren't using TSP, they were throwing money away. I get a lot of eyerolls, etc. I even had one guy who told me he wanted to get into index investing and that he couldn't do that in the TSP. I thought, good lord man, do you know how to read?
Well, you could have a little sympathy. I recall being told that the TSP was not transferable if you separated, so I wisely figured I shouldn't touch it with a nine foot pole. I figured that TSP invested money would be completely lost, sorta like unspent money in a Flexible Spending Account. I remember plenty of briefings (I feel like it was nearly all) that were chalk full of misinformation. Sounds like the TSP briefing was also extremely misleading for a good half of service members.
nash031
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Not my experience at all. I've never had misgivings about TSP, and if I could figure it out at 22, most probably could if they learned for themselves. That said, I do my best to give good information and encourage young men and women to use it.
