USA Today series on retirement

[REWahoo]

USA Today is doing a week long series on retirement. The first installment is directed towards retiring early: Boomers Eagerness to Retire Could Cost Them

Lots of focus on when to take SS, including quotes from James Mahaney, a retirement specialist at Prudential Financial who posts here as New Thinking. Most of this has been discussed here at least a half dozen times, but for those new to the forum I thought I'd bring it your attention.

 

[Notmuchlonger]

SS is a pretty easy choice. Take it at 62 and die at 80. Piece o cake!

 

[REWahoo]

Today's installment of this USA Today series supports the position of those who say boomers have it better than those who follow. Well, it doesn't quite go that far but it does compare older boomers to younger boomers and concludes...

Older baby boomers caught all the breaks

- Cheaper houses
- Better retirement benefits
- Superior investment returns
- Better jobs

 

[novaman]

Today's installment of this USA Today series supports the position of those who say boomers have it better than those who follow. Well, it doesn't quite go that far but it does compare older boomers to younger boomers and concludes...

Older baby boomers caught all the breaks

- Cheaper houses
- Better retirement benefits
- Superior investment returns
- Better jobs

Ain't that the truth!!. My wife and I were born in 1963, the very tail end of the baby boom. We bought our first house in 1989 at the age of 25 (which is young) at what turned out to be the top of the market for the next 8 years. The house was actually worth less in 1997 than it was when we bought it. We struggled to pay off our student loans and finally started saving in 1995, only to see everything evaporate in the dot com burst. Every move we make is in an already appreciated market due to all the older boomers ahead of us. With that in mind, we jumped at a vacation/second home at the shore 2.5 years ago, hoping to get in just as the big wave of boomers are retiring. We'll see how that pans out. We have been swimming up stream the whole time. Honestly, if we had been born 10-15 years earlier, our net worth would be close to double what it is now.

 

[UncleHoney]

•Cheaper houses. A boomer born in 1946 who bought her home in 1976, at age 30, would have paid about $39,300, according to the Census Bureau. That's equal to $145,200 now, adjusted for inflation. By contrast, a boomer born in 1964 who also bought his first house 30 years later would have paid $130,000, or $174,000 in inflation-adjusted dollars.

Somebody needs to get their brain in gear here. Lets add another 18 years of inflation to the junior baby boomer's numbers and then run the numbers again.

 

[novaman]

•Cheaper houses. A boomer born in 1946 who bought her home in 1976, at age 30, would have paid about $39,300, according to the Census Bureau. That's equal to $145,200 now, adjusted for inflation. By contrast, a boomer born in 1964 who also bought his first house 30 years later would have paid $130,000, or $174,000 in inflation-adjusted dollars.

Somebody needs to get their brain in gear here. Lets add another 18 years of inflation to the junior baby boomer's numbers and then run the numbers again.

In in Northern Virginia. In 1979 the guy who bought the house before I did paid 115,000 for it. In 1989, I paid 255,000 for the same house. It was all timing.

 

[UncleHoney]

In in Northern Virginia. In 1979 the guy who bought the house before I did paid 115,000 for it. In 1989, I paid 255,000 for the same house. It was all timing.

And what could you have sold it for about 3 years ago? It is all about timing.

My granddad built the house I live in in 1930, it cost $6200. Forty five years later (1975) the house was appraised at $38900. Three years ago I could have sold it for about $325000.

 

[Nords]

Older baby boomers caught all the breaks

Maybe you guys needed them.

I suspect it's all a conspiracy by Social Security to blow apart the Boomer demographic into dozens of tiny divisive splinter groups whose bickering will individually (not collectively) be powerless to resist Congress' legislation to accelerate the erosion of benefits.

-- Nords (born 1960)