4 ms·

>Nearly one-third of U.S. heads of households ages 55 and older have no pension or retirement savings and a median annual income of about $19,000. So now we fi

>Nearly one-third of U.S. heads of households ages 55 and older have no pension or retirement savings and a median annual income of about $19,000. So now we finally get to the root of why Baby Boomers are so upset with the Millenial generation - there's nobody to bail them out of the mess they created.

tamana 11y ago
Poor old folks aren't the exploiters you are looking for.
- 6stringmerc 11y ago
  Voting records tell a different story.
toomuchtodo 11y ago
Perhaps you should ask the questions: Why did Boomers not have enough income to put savings aside? If savings was put aside, what rate of return did it earn? And what remains of those savings? But heh, f___ old people for decisions that were made before you were born, amirite?
- CocaKoala 11y ago
  >Why did Boomers not have enough income to put savings aside? To be fair, plenty of millenials don't have enough income to put savings aside either, and they're not even getting social security benefits.
  - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
    Which adds another grim view to this problem. Every dollar spent today to help the elderly who are poor is a dollar less for when we are elderly, and it is looking already like our situation is going to be even worse (even if you ignore the big issues like climate change).
  - rconti 11y ago
    True, but there's a difference between not having started saving by 25 or 30, and not having started saving by 70. There's still hope for the millennials.
- 6stringmerc 11y ago
  Perhaps I will try to answer: 1. There is no evidence Boomers did not have enough income to put savings aside; rather, their years of prosperity, bubbles, and behaviors indicate they squandered or bilked each other out of large sums of money. 2. Historical interest rates are about 7% - at least that's the peg for most public pensions rate of growth, which is not unrealistic in a healthy US economy. The Baby Boomer population which did not save enough was tempted by higher returns in the equities or housing casinos, gambled, lost a great deal of whatever wealth they had in bubbles bursting, and now what? I should feel all happy that my government is going to lift the funds out of my pocket?
  - tosseraccount 11y ago
    7% return is a goal. It consists of total (not real, inflation adjusted) returns from interest and dividends and capital appreciation. "7% interest", i.e. amount paid back from money you borrow out, is pretty rare these days. CDs did pay >8% in the 80s and junk and troubled sovereign might still pay that much. With lower inflation, some pension funds are targeting a lower return.
- duderific 11y ago
  > Why did Boomers not have enough income to put savings aside? Many of them did have enough income to put aside, but chose not to. My father is one of them. He was making 6 figures back in the 1980's when that was a lot of dough, yet he finds himself at 74 still having to work and living essentially paycheck to paycheck. I'm pretty sure he is not the only one like this.
  - 6stringmerc 11y ago
    From the article, it sounds like the lady definitely had means at one point in time - at least enough to rack up some serious CC debt: >She owes $50,000 on her credit cards.
    - rconti 11y ago
      Also from the article "having never done much long-term financial planning"

tamana 11y ago

Poor old folks aren't the exploiters you are looking for.

6stringmerc 11y ago
Voting records tell a different story.

toomuchtodo 11y ago

Perhaps you should ask the questions: Why did Boomers not have enough income to put savings aside? If savings was put aside, what rate of return did it earn? And what remains of those savings? But heh, f___ old people for decisions that were made before you were born, amirite?

CocaKoala 11y ago
>Why did Boomers not have enough income to put savings aside? To be fair, plenty of millenials don't have enough income to put savings aside either, and they're not even getting social security benefits.
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  Which adds another grim view to this problem. Every dollar spent today to help the elderly who are poor is a dollar less for when we are elderly, and it is looking already like our situation is going to be even worse (even if you ignore the big issues like climate change).
- rconti 11y ago
  True, but there's a difference between not having started saving by 25 or 30, and not having started saving by 70. There's still hope for the millennials.
6stringmerc 11y ago
Perhaps I will try to answer: 1. There is no evidence Boomers did not have enough income to put savings aside; rather, their years of prosperity, bubbles, and behaviors indicate they squandered or bilked each other out of large sums of money. 2. Historical interest rates are about 7% - at least that's the peg for most public pensions rate of growth, which is not unrealistic in a healthy US economy. The Baby Boomer population which did not save enough was tempted by higher returns in the equities or housing casinos, gambled, lost a great deal of whatever wealth they had in bubbles bursting, and now what? I should feel all happy that my government is going to lift the funds out of my pocket?
- tosseraccount 11y ago
  7% return is a goal. It consists of total (not real, inflation adjusted) returns from interest and dividends and capital appreciation. "7% interest", i.e. amount paid back from money you borrow out, is pretty rare these days. CDs did pay >8% in the 80s and junk and troubled sovereign might still pay that much. With lower inflation, some pension funds are targeting a lower return.
duderific 11y ago
> Why did Boomers not have enough income to put savings aside? Many of them did have enough income to put aside, but chose not to. My father is one of them. He was making 6 figures back in the 1980's when that was a lot of dough, yet he finds himself at 74 still having to work and living essentially paycheck to paycheck. I'm pretty sure he is not the only one like this.
- 6stringmerc 11y ago
  From the article, it sounds like the lady definitely had means at one point in time - at least enough to rack up some serious CC debt: >She owes $50,000 on her credit cards.
  - rconti 11y ago
    Also from the article "having never done much long-term financial planning"