Yep, the whole retirement issue is based on a LOT of "assumed" trends, trends that seem quite likely to be no longer valid.
....
Don't quite agree with the moderator edit here but I do agree with the gist of the question brogan007 is posing. Solving/managing any problems we may face really isn't aided by most discussions which bury heads in sands of emotion and denial. Actions have consequences for society as well as individuals. To deny consequences is to take action without thinking. I guess that is why I would have liked a better discussion of single payer health care than we had even if we decided against that solution.
Demonizing people who depended on pensions because they didn't save $1M is not going to change the plight of those people when little to no pension is forthcoming. The very act of offering benefits and increasing benefits over the years has social consequences whether one wants to accept it or not.
I could argue that everyone was in la la land when taxpayers never had much to say about state pensions until recently. Should people taking jobs with outstanding benefits have refused those jobs saying "I am turning you down because I think your voters are in la la land when they ask you to offer me more than they are going to think I am worth 20-30 years down the line."? In short, talking about "what went wrong" and "how can I, a responsible person because I wanted to ER or didn't have a pension, escape the social consequences?" does not change what is and certainly doesn't address what consequences will need to be addressed.
I was reading a Mauldin newsletter a few minutes ago. Much about monetizing debt and problems in Europe. But the US can monetize it's debt so what is the consequence to you if the US were backed into debt monetization? One thing is for sure - those SS promised benefits won't be enough even if current worker salaries can adjust. On the other hand (and this is a big if): If the dollar devalued by 50% and wages rose by 75% of that 50%, we could probably meet those promised benefits if we don't call much to any of it inflation or if we change COLA rules before we do it. Problem solved? Not by a mile because of the social consequence. All standards of living are lowered with retiree standards lowered to permanent unsustainable levels. (My imagination is just flowing here so give me a break on this.) We could then do things like massively increasing cheap public housing or bring back "poor houses", instituting or liberalizing euthanasia laws, increasing welfare/food stamp budgets enormously, incentivizing through taxes the care and maintenance of parents in one's own home, etc. Maybe, if we have enough jobs, we could pass welfare to work laws for 85 year olds. Don't work, don't get your SS and other government subsidies.
OK, maybe I have gone to the extremely ridiculous here but, on the serious side, I think the poster had a point. We don't need "uniquely American solutions" unless they solve the problem. And we certainly don't need questionable assumptions.
So Mauldin goes on to say the only alternative is to increase population and/or GDP. For the US that is not something that could be accomplished overnight. (I am assuming that the air-filled economy/GDP is not coming back.) Anyway, the social consequence of targeting this solution is probably a lower standard of living for workers and that means for your children and grandchildren assuming you are not super rich.
I think that all of you here and I know that we are headed for uniquely retiree solutions and that whatever has to be done, one retiree will be tapped to support another retiree whether it be by reducing one retiree's pension, taxing his savings, lowering his SS, etc in order to sustain another retiree. Does anyone doubt this? You may not like it; I certainly don't. But, with our heads in the sand, what other solution will be available at the last minute?
I just have one question for brogan007 - what are the proper assumptions as you see them?
?
