Another Critic of FIRE

[tangomonster]

That professor, Andrew Yarrow, wasn't alone in being critical of our choice and lifestyle. Here is George Will's column from yesterday's newspaper:

Hoo-ha over the economy delights entitlement crowd | ajc.com

His major criticism:

So, this is a facet of today's hydra-headed "crisis" —- the man must linger in the labor force until, say, 62. That is the earliest age at which a person can, and most recipients do, begin collecting Social Security.
The proportion of people aged 55 to 64 who are working rose 1.5 percentage points from April 2007 to February 2008, during which the percentage of working Americans older than 65 rose two-tenths of one percentage point. The Journal grimly reports, "The prospect of millions of grandparents toiling away in their golden years doesn't square with the American dream."
Oh? The idea that protracted golden years of idleness is a universal right is a delusion of recent vintage. Deranged by the entitlement mentality fostered by a metastasizing welfare state, Americans now have such low pain thresholds that suffering is defined as a slight delay in beginning a subsidized retirement often lasting one-third of the retiree's adult lifetime.
In 1935, when Congress enacted Social Security, protracted retirement was a luxury enjoyed by a tiny sliver of the population. Back then, Congress did its arithmetic ruthlessly: When it set the retirement age at 65, the life expectancy of an adult American male was 65. If in 1935 Congress had indexed the retirement age to life expectancy, today's retirement age would be 75.

He thinks we are "deranged by an entitlement mentality!" Now, okay, maybe I'll cop to the deranged accusation , but entitlement mentality? I worked and I saved my money, allowing me to retire at 52. Where is the entitlement mentality? I'm not counting on SS. Yeah, I did feel entitled to a paycheck (albeit a small one) since I didn't work on a volunteer basis, but that's as far as it goes.

And yeah, maybe I'd still be working and want to work if I could have a job like George Will's (the salary and the relatively low demands of just putting out a column a week). Wonder if old George would have become "deranged by the entitlement mentality" and have wanted to opt out if he had had my job and my salary??

[Midpack]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tangomonster The idea that protracted golden years of idleness is a universal right is a delusion of recent vintage. Deranged by the entitlement mentality fostered by a metastasizing welfare state, Americans now have such low pain thresholds that suffering is defined as a slight delay in beginning a subsidized retirement often lasting one-third of the retiree's adult lifetime. I worked and I saved my money, allowing me to retire at 52. Where is the entitlement mentality? I'm not counting on SS.

IMO he's not talking about you, see underline compared to your description of your situation. Frankly I agree with George Will that none of us are entitled to a subsidized retirement, and I'll bet you do to. Enjoy your retirement...

[talltrees]

...George Will represents a shrinking, dying minority of the population that still believes idleness and unearned luxury are the province of the very privileged few.

The idea that the "average" American can enjoy a life free of cubicle slavery is highly offensive to Will and those for whom he shills, i.e., those born with a silver spoon in their mouths.

How can a lifetime of paying compulsory taxes into Social Security be considered an "entitlement?"

I'll leave it to the Neocons to explain that one.

[HFWR]

Don't remember who coined the term, but "pseudo-intellectual claptrap" comes to mind...

[Caroline]

Quote:

Frankly I agree with George Will that none of us are entitled to a subsidized retirement,

I'll agree with him too... just as soon as someone gives me back a working lifetime's worth of payroll deductions.

Sheesh.

[Notmuchlonger]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Midpack IMO he's not talking about you, see underline compared to your description of your situation. Frankly I agree with George Will that none of us are entitled to a subsidized retirement, and I'll bet you do to. Enjoy your retirement...

George Will says it true. Too many people think they are entitled.

[Walt34]

I'm confused - that happens a lot lately. I started paying into SS when I was 17, all the while being told that it was so that when I got to be an old fart I could sit on the porch and give the finger to passers-by. (There was a guy three blocks away who did that.) Now George, et al is saying that I'm not entitled to it?

Re the 29 years I spent working at one career, I got beat up, spit on, shot at, and cut with a knife, and now I'm an elitist?

Grrrr....

[kcowan]

I think one tough job is getting up in the morning and dreaming up a column to write that people will read. Maybe he wants to retire now that his ideas are not that good anymore. And he is jealous...

[FIREd]

I agree with George, guaranteed retirement for all is a very recent invention which people have been quick to feel entitled to. If people understood how SS works, they would know that their payroll taxes are used to pay for current retiree benefits, and not to fund their own, future retirement. Their own retirement is only guaranteed if future generations agree to continue subsidizing that great ponzi scheme. In other words, SS is a privilege and not a guaranteed benefit. It never was.

[megacorp-firee]

George W can kiss my *ss. I worked hard to earn what I have so I can sit around and do nothing for the rest of my life. I am not entitled to anything that I did not w*rk hard for. He's got a lot of nerve ... telling me what I am thinking ...

[ziggy29]

I think what Will is trying to say is that Social Security wasn't originally intended to provide people with more income to pursue a cushy early retirement, and on that matter I think he's correct.

I think we *are* seeing an "entitlement mentality" when you listen to AARP's constant refusal to share any of the pain of "fixing" Social Security, and instead insist that their kids and grandkids eat all the pain.

[Edit to add: And I don't think Will is talking about people who can retire early from their own savings, either.]

[socca]

i've always thought of SS as a gov't-run compulsory insurance program, where the folks who die early 'subsidize' the folks who die late. However, I've heard that bureaucrats have raided the SS trust fund to pay other bills, turning the SS insurance program into a program where current SS taxes pay current SS benefits. Anybody know how much various U.S. agencies owe the SS trust fund?

An alternative way to implement SS would have been as a gov't run compulsory savings program, where your SS taxes would have been invested to at least keep pace with inflation, and you could start drawing from your SS 'savings' at retirement age. When you die (even if before retirement age), your beneficiaries would receive the balance in your SS 'account'. If you live long and your SS account is depleted, too bad. Bureaucrats being bureaucrats, you can bet they would have figured out a way to 'borrow' the money from everyone's SS accounts, sticking an IOU there instead. Current withdrawals would be paid with current taxes, leaving us right in the same boat we're already in with the insurance program approach.

Disclaimer: I'm not a finance guy, so these observations are worth what you paid for them.

[Bree]

Maybe I'm a little off base here, having been raised by a very cynical banker... but I was always told never to count on social security, that it simply wouldn't be there by the time I was ready to retire, and even if it was there it certainly wouldn't be enough to live on comfortably.

So, from this vantage point, I don't entirely disagree with George Will, but I can really see how it'd piss you off if you'd been counting on SS and this is coming to you as new information.

Best quote I've heard in a while:

Quote:

Your own retirement is only guaranteed if future generations agree to continue subsidizing the great ponzi scheme.