Boomers still not smart

[mickeyd]

Many of my fellow boomers seem to be, once again, making some very poor investment decisions that will make them look to Uncle Sam even more in the yeas to come. No doubt, my future federal income tax will be paying for their retirement as well as mine.

Thus, as the recent AARP survey showed, 35% of those between the ages of 45 and 54 have stopped 401(k), IRA and other retirement account contributions. Twenty-five percent have withdrawn money from a retirement account, 56% have postponed a major purchase and 24% are planning to retire at a later age.

Boomers Face Longer Years of Work, More Meager Lifestyle

 

[haha]

I'm convinced.

 

[freebird5825]

No arguments here.

 

[REWahoo]

Hey, easy now! Some boomers are 'samrt' enough to realize what a ripoff those evil 401k plans are...

http://www.early-retirement.org/forums/f28/who-shredded-our-safety-net-mother-jones-44817.html

 

[Zathras]

How about the part of the quote that you didn't put in bold?
Delaying major purchases does seem to be a 'smart' thing to do.

 

[W2R]

I think it's so sad. Makes me wish I could draft a realistic budget for each of them and make them stick to it and like doing it! But you can't change people.

So many of my boomer generation came to regard all the trappings of yuppiedom as necessities of life. They would feel like failures living a modest but reasonable lifestyle that half the world would envy.

 

[Notmuchlonger]

YouTube - The Smallest Crying Violin

 

[travelover]

Kids these days!


Hey wait a minute, that's my generation!

 

[ziggy29]

http://www.early-retirement.org/forums/f28/who-shredded-our-safety-net-mother-jones-44817.html

If this happened to a younger generation, I suppose the question would be "Dude, where's my safety net?"

 

[MichaelB]

Actually, boomers delaying retirement is not a bad thing. The additional years worked mean more payroll taxes and more income tax on SS distributions. It also means more competition in the labor force, which will help control inflation.

 

[ziggy29]

It also means more competition in the labor force, which will help control inflation.

And increase the unemployment rate, meaning more tax money going out for unemployment benefits.

Plus, with age discrimination as rampant as it is (particularly over 50), I am skeptical of the modern economy's ability to keep the older segment of the work force fully employed.

 

[MichaelB]

And increase the unemployment rate, meaning more tax money going out for unemployment benefits.

At lower wage levels more jobs become available. More so for folks over age 65 - no medical benefits needed.

Plus, with age discrimination as rampant as it is (particularly over 50), I am skeptical of the modern economy's ability to keep the older segment of the work force fully employed.

Welcome to Wal-Mart. No smilie - it's really quite tragic, but also likely.

 

[harley]

Yeah, this one is one of those that's a tragedy for those involved, but probably good for me personally. Keep those payroll taxes coming!

 

[bbbamI]

I think it's so sad. Makes me wish I could draft a realistic budget for each of them and make them stick to it and like doing it! But you can't change people.

Yup.

I know two people that I can actually reach out and touch that will discuss financial matters.

Soooo...I spend a lot of time here rattling on to strangers that have a common interest.

 

[Bestwifeever]

LIke many AARP articles this one seems weak to me. It acknowledged that 9 percent of the people in the 45 and older age group have lost their jobs in the last year, so I'm not surprised that those people, of the 35 percent cited, are no longer contributing to retirement plans.

The article also says "...they are gearing up to work longer, set aside more now and live a more modest lifestyle..." So perhaps they are not contributing any more to a retirement plan because they are paying off debt instead, or building an emergency fund, or in some other way "setting aside more now" outside their retirement accounts?

And the horror of "living a more modest lifestyle"! Those crazy boomers, what will they be doing next?

 

[ziggy29]

And the horror of "living a more modest lifestyle"! Those crazy boomers, what will they be doing next?

It's even sillier than that, IMO. The best time to learn to live a "more modest lifestyle" is while you're still w*rking. That will help provide a sanity check with respect to how much you really need to retire, and whether or not your plans to give notice are realistic.

I suspect some people don't do this and underestimate what they need to retire. These are the folks who are forced back into looking for w*rk in their 50s and 60s when they're likely to face rampant age discrimination.

 

[Independent]

The Financial Planning article in the OP refers to an "AARP survey", but doesn't provide any link. I looked at the AARP website and didn't see anything that seemed to match this article.

IMO, it's hard to say whether these are bad decisions without knowing more about the details. If you or your spouse have been fired, it could make a lot of sense to stop making 401k contributions.

 

[audreyh1]

Actually, boomers delaying retirement is not a bad thing. The additional years worked mean more payroll taxes and more income tax on SS distributions. It also means more competition in the labor force, which will help control inflation.

Ditto MichaelB! I'm delighted to see so many of my generation feel that they have to keep working so they can keep buying all that stuff! All those extra taxes they pay is a great side benefit (for the rest of us).

Audrey

 

[Notmuchlonger]

Ditto MichaelB! I'm delighted to see so many of my generation feel that they have to keep working so they can keep buying all that stuff! All those extra taxes they pay is a great side benefit (for the rest of us).

Audrey

Well. I'm hoping they got enough jobs for them all.

 

[audreyh1]

Well. I'm hoping they got enough jobs for them all.

Well, I guess I had better hope so too! At one time it sure looked like there were - we were running really low unemployment numbers for a long time. And there have been lots of fears of not enough workers in the future due to low population growth so I've tended to believe older workers will be needed. Maybe this current high unemployment won't last that long.

Audrey

 

[HFWR]

Well, I guess I had better hope so too! At one time it sure looked like there were - we were running really low unemployment numbers for a long time. And there have been lots of fears of not enough workers in the future due to low population growth so I've tended to believe older workers will be needed. Maybe this current high unemployment won't last that long.

Audrey

I've never believed this for one moment... Everywhere I look, I see companies getting rid of older workers as fast as they can boot them out the door.

I've heard all the "we can't get good help" bullsquat. What they can't get are experienced, stable employees for MickeyD wages...

 

[ziggy29]

I've heard all the "we can't get good help" bullsquat. What they can't get are experienced, stable employees for MickeyD wages...

And then there's the tech companies pushing for more H-1B visas and more "cheap imported labor" even as they lay off their better-paid (and often older) workers in droves.

The only way boomers working longer can really be good for the economy is if the rampant age discrimination goes away, and I don't see that happening. Until then all it will do is increase unemployment, IMO.

 

[Lawrence of Suburbia]

Would you like fries with that?





...and I'm a boomer who's increased his 403b contribution, to 20%. I'll only be able to have a decent retirement if the stock market grows really spectacularly over the next fifteen years or so.

 

[MichaelB]

The only way boomers working longer can really be good for the economy is if the rampant age discrimination goes away, and I don't see that happening. Until then all it will do is increase unemployment, IMO.

I don’t follow you. Business will attempt to exploit the labor pool to it’s advantage, and a larger pool of skilled labor – although I sometimes wonder about those skills – means downward pressure on skilled labor costs. The US has always had a predisposition toward young workers – perhaps something to do with being such a “marketing culture” - but business will usually gravitate toward the most profitable labor options. In addition, the evolution from business-based defined benefit to individually managed defined contribution relieves some of the imbalance of more senior vs less senior wage earners.

Increasing or declining employment is more a factor of the cost of not working vs the cost of low wages for the exploited worker. What will keep unemployment higher are public subsidies.

 

[Cut-Throat]

Many of my fellow boomers seem to be, once again, making some very poor investment decisions that will make them look to Uncle Sam even more in the yeas to come. No doubt, my future federal income tax will be paying for their retirement as well as mine.

Actually you may be the one that is not so smart. With the majority of Baby Boomers having to keep working and paying taxes and not drawing social security, the stress on the Federal Budget will be less not more. If you are feeding at the Public Trough drawing a Military Pension or Social Security (Both come out of the same Socialist Federal Pot) you should be thankful that the masses need to keep working to fund your lazy lifestyle. And my Lazy Lifestyle.

BTW- This is what I have been predicting years. Social Security will not Bankrupt the U.S - Healthcare Will Bankrupt it, unless something is done very, very soon.