Article: Media Gets Retirement Wrong

[ExFlyBoy5]

I thought this was of interest in light of the recent lengthy thread on the media. In this article, the author calls out the WSJand its lousy articles on the "retirement crisis." I thought about posting it in that thread, but I think it's worthy of its own discussion.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrew...ement-saving-really-is-terrible/#99e36b4da2e6

 

[REWahoo]

...a great deal of media coverage on retirement saving is biased, financially illiterate or simply lazy. In short, much of the media’s coverage of retirement saving issues just stinks.

I'm shocked, just shocked...

 

[Red Badger]

Yeah, until I educated myself with respect to financial-retirement literacy, fish wrap like the WSJ was one of the places where I would routinely read, "You need 80-100% of your working gross income for a decent retirement."

Like the OP's referenced article, just another wagon load of horse sh!t touted as news.

 

[VanWinkle]

I think you could throw in a few more subjects that stink.

 

[Texas Proud]

Link does not take me to an article...

 

[aja8888]

Yeah, until I educated myself with respect to financial-retirement literacy, fish wrap like the WSJ was one of the places where I would routinely read, "You need 80-100% of your working gross income for a decent retirement."

Like the OP's referenced article, just another wagon load of horse sh!t touted as news.

I like the fish wrap term. Fits many newspapers well!

 

[HI Bill]

Interesting article. Most of the professionals in my office don't save much towards retirement, and when I gave a talk on retirement planning, I asked how many had read their annual social security statements. About half. Most people adjust their standard of living to match their resources. This is not the same as being able to sustain the standard of living you enjoyed during your working years. Spending changes as you age (less on travel, entertainment, clothes), and more on health care. If you are average, you might only spend $8K on long term care, but if you're at the long-term end of the spectrum, it might be more than $300K. This article cites pensions, and most private sector employees do not have a pension, nor do they have an ESOP. Anyway, people often move through life, reacting to, and accepting the hand they've been dealt, rather than working to improve one's lot in later life. Many early retirees do have a pension (especially government workers who make it 20 or 30 years). The story of most here is not the same as that in the WSJ article, thankfully!

 

[Dtail]

Yeah, until I educated myself with respect to financial-retirement literacy, fish wrap like the WSJ was one of the places where I would routinely read, "You need 80-100% of your working gross income for a decent retirement."

Like the OP's referenced article, just another wagon load of horse sh!t touted as news.

Yeah if I needed 80-100% of gross income of my last year working, I could never retire.
Instead we reduced our expenses by 60% over the last 4 years leading up to retirement.

 

[jazz4cash]

It's not fair. How can people be expected to live on only 80% when they haven't even figured out how to live on 100%. Too many Jones' to keep up with.

 

[Red Badger]

Yeah if I needed 80-100% of gross income of my last year working, I could never retire.
Instead we reduced our expenses by 60% over the last 4 years leading up to retirement.

+ 1. In my case, I was bringing home right at 50% of my gross pay. Plowed the max allowed into 401K for several years. That, plus insurance, taxes, etc left us at the 50% mark for about 10 years before retiring. Taxes a lot lower now. No medical insurance payments and now drawing against 401K. Retire on 50% of gross income? Easy - peasy.

YMMV!

 

[flintnational]

You can't trust the media. Until just recently I thought contaminated fresh spinach was a leading cause of death!

 

[harley]

I like the fish wrap term. Fits many newspapers well!

I don't read news, but if I did I'd only read virtual fish wrap. I get more than enough paper as box filler from Amazon to light my charcoal chimney.

 

[foxfirev5]

I'm doomed. On top that I've turned over the keys to the lakehouse and boats to the kids for the holiday.

 

[scrabbler1]

I need 80%-100% of my income to live in retirement. But that became true only after I twice reduced my weekly hours worked, from 37.5 to 20 to 12 in the last 7 years of my career. My dividend income today is roughly what my wage income was when I worked 12 hours per week. And that's after I made one last reduction in my weekly hours worked, from 12 to ZERO, the most important reduction in weekly hours worked!

 

[braumeister]

You can't trust the media. Until just recently I thought contaminated fresh spinach was a leading cause of death!

Reminds me of the old song my father used to sing

I eat when I'm hungry, I drink when I'm dry
And if whiskey don't kill me, I'll live 'til I die

 

[haha]

Reminds me of the old song my father used to sing

I remember sitting with my parents in the Greyhound Grill and listening to that song when I was about 4 years old. I still sing it and remember the lyrics over 70 years on. Until about 10 years or so ago there was a beer garden in back with grape vines trellised above. I hated it when i went back a few years ago and the garden was gone.

Ha

 

[CaptTom]

Yeah if I needed 80-100% of gross income of my last year working, I could never retire.
Instead we reduced our expenses by 60% over the last 4 years leading up to retirement.

+ 1. In my case, I was bringing home right at 50% of my gross pay. Plowed the max allowed into 401K for several years. That, plus insurance, taxes, etc left us at the 50% mark for about 10 years before retiring. Taxes a lot lower now. No medical insurance payments and now drawing against 401K. Retire on 50% of gross income? Easy - peasy.

YMMV!

Both are pretty close to my "mileage." Pension at about 40% of gross annual before retirement. No commute, no mortgage, much lower taxes, no maxed-out 401k contribution. I'm pretty much "taking home" what I did before.

 

[Mr._Graybeard]

There's an old saying in newspaper journalism: "Don't tell me; show me. Mr. Biggs tells us a lot, but he doesn't show us much.

I could rant on about a number of points in this superficial opinion piece (I wouldn't call it reporting) but the one item that stuck out like a sore thumb for me was this: "Again from 1996 to 2016, the number of Social Security retirement beneficiaries rose by 32%; over that same period, the number of individuals receiving taxable pension/annuity payments rose by 46% ... " I'd really like to see something to back that up ... a fever chart, maybe. At the very least. Show me.

I'm not surprised that more people are drawing on retirement income. since we're at the point where nearly half the baby boom is near or beyond full retirement age. However, I'd sure like to know more about that surge in pensioners. Are they retired public service employees? Military careerists? Corporate executives with golden parachutes? Or does Biggs lump personal annuities in with pensions from an external provider? I can't tell from this article.

Are the pensioners getting $100 a month or $5000 a month? We don't know, and we don't know where to find out from this article, since Mr. Biggs is sketchy about his sources.

 

[haha]

There's an old saying in newspaper journalism: "Don't tell me; show me. Mr. Biggs tells us a lot, but he doesn't show us much.

I could rant on about a number of points in this superficial opinion piece (I wouldn't call it reporting) but the one item that stuck out like a sore thumb for me was this: "Again from 1996 to 2016, the number of Social Security retirement beneficiaries rose by 32%; over that same period, the number of individuals receiving taxable pension/annuity payments rose by 46% ... " I'd really like to see something to back that up ... a fever chart, maybe. At the very least. Show me.

I'm not surprised that more people are drawing on retirement income. since we're at the point where nearly half the baby boom is near or beyond full retirement age. However, I'd sure like to know more about that surge in pensioners. Are they retired public service employees? Military careerists? Corporate executives with golden parachutes? Or does Biggs lump personal annuities in with pensions from an external provider? I can't tell from this article.

Are the pensioners getting $100 a month or $5000 a month? We don't know, and we don't know where to find out from this article, since Mr. Biggs is sketchy about his sources.

One thing to remember is that the writers are trying to cobble together an income from this type work. I imagine that they get paid for an acceptable piece, and don't get paid much if any more for a more thorough piece. Also, what we might consider important information might not make the piece any more salable for its author.

Usually, people will do the safest and easiest thing that will be accepted. Nothing else makes any sense.

Ha

 

[Helena]

.

Propaganda to keep people from retiring.

 

[Nemo2]

.

Propaganda to keep people from retiring.

So..improperganda?

 

[Mr._Graybeard]

One thing to remember is that the writers are trying to cobble together an income from this type work. I imagine that they get paid for an acceptable piece, and don't get paid much if any more for a more thorough piece. Also, what we might consider important information might not make the piece any more salable for its author.

Usually, people will do the safest and easiest thing that will be accepted. Nothing else makes any sense.

Ha

That's true. And worth noting that the author's message has a slant consistent with that of his primary employer, the American Enterprise Institute.

Here's a link to a 2015 accounting by the Government Accountability Office, an arm of Congress. It concluded from a 2013 Survey of Consumer Finances (a Fed/Treasury Department-sponsored study) that, among "households age 55 and older, about 29 percent have neither retirement savings nor a defined-benefit pension plan. ... Among those households with some retirement savings, the median amount of those savings is about $104,000 for households age 55-64 and $148,000 for households age 65-74..."

The GAO's job is to inform Congress of unbiased facts. Andrew Biggs' job is to grind axes.