"The Wealth of the Baby Boom Cohorts After the Collapse of the Housing Bubble,"

[Bikerdude]

I believe the $140K in wealth includes any home equity. I still find it hard to imagine (even with SS, medicare, AND pension) having accumulated only $140K, including home equity, at age 55-64. None of these fixed income sources are written in stone these days.

I actually agree with you. I was just pointing out it may not be quite as bad as it looks at first blush.

 

[Moemg]

I believe the $140K in wealth includes any home equity. I still find it hard to imagine (even with SS, medicare, AND pension) having accumulated only $140K, including home equity, at age 55-64. None of these fixed income sources are written in stone these days.

I do not find it hard to believe .Put a few children through college , have a messy divorce or two , be laid off or have a serious medical problem and you are lucky to have a positive cash balance. As I remember you had a very low cash balance in your early 50's so you should be able to see how this happens .

 

[Gpond]

I do not find it hard to believe .Put a few children through college , have a messy divorce or two , be laid off or have a serious medical problem and you are lucky to have a positive cash balance. As I remember you had a very low cash balance in your early 50's so you should be able to see how this happens .

Then throw a hit in the old portfolio into the mix from 2000-2002. Then throw the portfolio hit from 2007 to 20XX on top of that.

Remember the indexes are back to early 1997 levels. So those "indexers" are back there too.

 

[ziggy29]

Bend over. Last hour. Here it comes again.

 

[Gpond]

Bend over. Last hour. Here it comes again.

Went out right at the low of the day.

 

[W2R]

I do not find it hard to believe .Put a few children through college , have a messy divorce or two , be laid off or have a serious medical problem and you are lucky to have a positive cash balance. As I remember you had a very low cash balance in your early 50's so you should be able to see how this happens .

The article refers to a median net wealth of $140K among those ages 55-64, though you are right that the circumstances you cite can and do cause financial disasters for some individuals during the ages 55-64.

 

[Walt34]

The article refers to a median net wealth of $140K among those ages 55-64, though you are right that the circumstances you cite can and do cause financial disasters for some individuals during the ages 55-64.

This is not hard to imagine. One distant relative in her late 50's has had severe mental problems since high school, compounded by a serious car accident 20+ years ago. She did buy a small duplex home with the settlement from the car insurance company, but her sole income is disability and food stamps. She's married to a fellow who is, shall we say, "not very bright". He's honest and hard-working but cleans highway rest stops and delivers telephone books for income. Buying a six-pack of beer is a luxury to them, and they are at or very near poverty levels.

 

[kumquat]

But from the sounds of it, they (or at least he) are honest, hardworking and deserving of whatever social programs benefit them (him)?

 

[FinallyRetired]

As a baby boomer, I guess I was naive in never considering home equity as part of my "wealth." I always thought wealth had to do with liquid assets used to put food on the table, take vacations, and eventually never having to go back to work. Not that I haven't lost home equity along with everyone else, but the idea of using my home as a bank never appealed to me.

 

[barbarus]

Ever notice those women in WalMart, working checkout, who must be in their 70's if not 80's in a few cases?

Bored heiresses?

People who are actually twenty, but partied too hard in high school?

Most of us in another decade?

 

[Bikerdude]

Ever notice those women in WalMart, working checkout, who must be in their 70's if not 80's in a few cases?

Bored heiresses?

People who are actually twenty, but partied too hard in high school?

Most of us in another decade?

Its all relative. Most women (70 & 80) in the "third world" would die for the WalMart job. Oh, wait,...their already dead.

 

[harley]

Then throw a hit in the old portfolio into the mix from 2000-2002. Then throw the portfolio hit from 2007 to 20XX on top of that.

Remember the indexes are back to early 1997 levels. So those "indexers" are back there too.

Not if they had been rebalancing all along.