9 ms·

I have always found it to be extremely annoying when I hear people talk of senior citizens being "On fixed incomes", like I'm only making this much money becaus

I have always found it to be extremely annoying when I hear people talk of senior citizens being "On fixed incomes", like I'm only making this much money because I choose not to be rich. There are enough Baby Boomers to dominate politics, compared to so called Gen-X and the Millennials will one day soon be the dominant demographic so for people like me, when we were young, the older people stomped on us and when we're old, the younger people will stomp on us.

morgante 10y ago
> I have always found it to be extremely annoying when I hear people talk of senior citizens being "On fixed incomes" It's such a ludicrous statement. Are the rest of us on variable incomes which we can scale up and down at will?
- brbsix 10y ago
  When I hear senior citizens on fixed incomes, I assume we're talking about people who have left the workforce, permanently. Unlike almost everyone else currently in the workforce, there is absolutely no expectation of any future change in income. In this regard, it does not seem silly at all.
  - sedachv 10y ago
    > Unlike almost everyone else currently in the workforce, there is absolutely no expectation of any future change in income. Social Security is adjusted for inflation: https://www.ssa.gov/news/cola/ https://www.ssa.gov/news/cola/ Likewise bond yields and stock prices will change with inflation/deflation. Any retirement scheme not adjusted for inflation is a rip-off at best and a scam at worst.
    - paulsutter 10y ago
      Matching inflation would be no change in income, which is exactly why they do it.
    - KKKKkkkk1 10y ago
      If bond yields adjust to rising inflation, that means their prices go down and their coupons stay fixed. For stocks, prices follow the prices of bonds, and earnings take a hit, so you also a get hit on the dividends side. So it's not a good story for retirees.
    - loeg 10y ago
      National inflation doesn't cover local cost-of-living variation.
      - ghaff 10y ago
        No, but if you take out housing that's a big part of the variation. And, historically, it was assumed that many on a "fixed income" would own their houses and/or move to a lower COLA area (e.g. the stereotypical retire to Florida or, more recently, the Southwest). Property taxes are a potential wildcard which is one reason why increases are often capped--which isn't popular with the "they should just move out" crowd.
        loeg 10y ago
        How do you just ignore housing, though? Housing is probably the single most important expense and the most likely not to track national inflation. That's most of what people "on a fixed income" are at risk from.
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      > Social Security is adjusted for inflation: Which makes it fixed in real terms. > Any retirement scheme not adjusted for inflation is a rip-off at best and a scam at worst. Fixed (in nominal terms) annuities are not-infrequently used as retirement vehicles (and many pensions are either fixed or have less-than-full COLAs.)
      - sedachv 10y ago
        > Which makes it fixed in real terms. So where is the problem? Inflation adjusted income has barely increased at all for anyone but the top 20% of earners since the mid-1960s: http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/Household-Income-Distribution.php http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/Household-... > Fixed (in nominal terms) annuities are not-infrequently used as retirement vehicles Which is why annuities are almost always a rip-off.
        dragonwriter 10y ago
        > So where is the problem? Whether or not its a "problem", that is an explanation of why it is an accurate description of the scenario faced by the group in question, and a useful label. > Inflation adjusted income has barely increased at all for anyone but the top 20% of earners since the mid-1960s Its barely increased for the averages of segments of the income distribution. That doesn't mean individuals don't see income growth over time (and even move between, e.g., income quintiles), it just means that (except in the top ranges) the overall distribution isn't moving up. That's an important issue, to be sure, but its a different issue that individuals on fixed incomes and the impacts specific policies, etc., may have on the, distinct from the rest of the population which makes it useful to identify and discuss them as a group with a label.
- ssharp 10y ago
  Yes, a 25 year old has far more mobility than a 90 year old.
  - tostitos1979 10y ago
    Not always. The 25 year old may have to be stuck in a high priced city to get a job that pays off their massive student loans. A 90 year can live away from the jobs.
    - jdietrich 10y ago
      Some elderly people are so mobile that they migrate with the seasons. I don't know many working-age people who can afford to spend summer in Ontario and winter in Arizona. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowbird_(person) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowbird_(person)
      - mrep 10y ago
        Hugely popular with retirees. My parents own a condo in Sarasota Florida which has tons of retirees. I believe the last estimate I heard was that the population can grow up to 10x during the winter months.
      - ssharp 10y ago
        I'm talking about economic mobility.
  - jahewson 10y ago
    A 90 year old has lived through and benefited from a period of amazing upwards mobility. Their financial position now is most likely unrecognisable from that of their youth - even if they don't seem that well-off. But a 25 year old has virtually no mobility to look forwards to, household incomes have been stagnant since the 1970s and social mobility (which is, let's face it, closely tied) has similarly flatlined. Abundant cheap housing and the GI bill were a pretty sweet deal - despite the hardships that it took to get there.
- lr4444lr 10y ago
  It's even worse: seniors are on RISK FREE (or nearly so) incomes, often grealty tax shielded. The rest of us are on much more precarious footing. Though we way earn more, we also often have rising financial obligations during childbearing years.
- edmccard 10y ago
  >Are the rest of us on variable incomes which we can scale up and down at will? Are you on an income which is, by law, tied to changes in the Consumer Price Index? That's how Social Security works. From the 2016 benefit letters: "The law does not permit an increase in benefits when there is no increase in the cost of living. So your benefit will stay the same in 2016. There was no increase in the cost of living during the past year based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI) published by the Department of Labor." So maybe "pegged", as in "pegged to an index", would have been a better idiom, but we're probably stuck with "fixed".
  - zardo 10y ago
    Yeah... When someone says fixed income, I assume they mean a fixed income. Ie a pension or an annuity that does not adjust with the cost of living.
    - ad-hominem 10y ago
      Probably not a safe assumption. Most people without a pension that are retired are living off some sort of retirement fund (IRA, 401k) that still technically gets returns. They just are taking out instead of paying in. Their returns are likely to be a little less than inflation, but they are withdrawing $XX,000 a year for the rest of their life ("Fixed income")
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    When discussing income, there are two measures, "nominal" (the number of dollars) and "real" (the amount of buying power, which is the number of dollars adjusted for inflation). Social security is fixed real income. Annuities are fixed nominal income.
- imgabe 10y ago
  Yes? When you're young and in the workforce you can get a raise, get a higher paying job, learn new skills, etc. If you're retired and possibly chronically ill you have little opportunity to do such things.
- draw_down 10y ago
  Also older folks are much more likely to have wealth to live off of than young people. But we don't like to talk about wealth in America really, only income.
crdoconnor 10y ago
>There are enough Baby Boomers to dominate politics The boomers don't dominate politics; money does. The 0.1% is trying to drive a wedge between young and old (largely successfully) by pushing this boomer/millennial bullshit (for one example of blatant astroturfing, google "the can kicks back"). They've been doing this to get complicity from the old to ramp up student debt, keep wages for the young down, etc. Equally, they've been doing this to get complicity from the young to privatize social security and slash medicare (thus far unsuccessful but boy have they been trying). The worst part is that it's an utterly shallow and obvious self serving strategy that's very clearly working (look at all the 'boomer hate' on HN. Getting people to hate on their grandmas is depressingly easy). The last thing the 0.1% want to see is young and old united against them.
- pm90 10y ago
  I don't think its a planned strategy as much as something that is emergent from the way the current system works. Of course the wealthy will try any way in which to keep their wealth. Bill Gates, Warren Buffet etc. are the exception rather than the rule when it comes to philanthropic billionaires. I'm not trying to justify that kind of behavior, only pointing out that if the system is a certain way, there is a reason why many people behave the way they do.
dredmorbius 10y ago
There are historical reasons for that description. And generally it remains accurate. Particularly as those on defined contribution rather than (COLA indexed) defined benefit pensions become more predominant among retirees. Pensions are another simmering shitstorm on the horizon.
6stringmerc 10y ago
The Millenials just recently surpassed the Boomers in US population (75.4M to 74.5M, approx). I'm anxious to see when the IOTA Party starts gaining momentum - the one that stands for "It's Our Turn, Arses" and aims to pass legislation catering to the Millenial generation more than the Boomers.
- progressive_dad 10y ago
  No one wants online voting to happen, but that's the big secret: No one is actually afraid it will be rigged. Its rigged NOW and that's the way Democrat and Republican leaders LIKE it. They're terrified of massive demographic change. When you talk to leadership in both parties the line is not, "Online voting isn't ready", its, "America isn't ready for online voting."
  - pzuraq 10y ago
    Or because there are very good reasons to not have online voting, like vote buying and voter intimidation could become a thing again: 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_fraud https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_fraud 2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gEz__sMVaY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gEz__sMVaY Not that I don't think there is way to get the best of both worlds. I'm sure there's a way for us to vote without having our votes be made public, so things like vote buying and voter intimidation can't happen, especially with blockchain technology. Or perhaps those factors won't matter as much any more, and are actually acceptable factors when compared to voter suppression through poorly placed and managed polling locations. Either way, it's not as simple as it may seem.
    - dllthomas 10y ago
      How are vote buying and voter intimidation enabled by online voting more than absentee voting?
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
smokeu 10y ago
Boomers. They inherited from their parents; and stole from their children. If any sector is due for a collapse or correction it's our social security. Let it die on those who bleed it out.
- toomuchtodo 10y ago
  I'll Longbet you [1] $1000 this will never happen. Taxes will go up to meet the shortfall (and its able to pay out at 100% until something like 2034, dropping to ~75% after that). For social security to fail, the US government would need to fail (its the social program/entitlement equivalent of US treasuries). "...backed by the full faith and credit of United states Government." [1] http://longbets.org/ http://longbets.org/
hnal943 10y ago
Being on a fixed income is a valid complaint when inflation is high. Your salary will rise with inflation, but the bond/pension income does not which decreases buying power for those on fixed incomes.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > Your salary will rise with inflation Hourly wages in the US have, on average, grown slower than inflation since the 1970s.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> I have always found it to be extremely annoying when I hear people talk of senior citizens being "On fixed incomes", like I'm only making this much money because I choose not to be rich. "Fixed incomes" does not refer to the fact that they are at the cuurent limit and could not currently do better(which is how you seem to be interpreting it), but rather that it is fixed over time, with no prospect of increase. For many seniors, this is the case at least in real terms (i.e., considering inflation). Many seniors income is dominated by things that are either fixed in nominal terms (and thus shrink when, as is usually the case, inflation is positive), or which are adjusted only for inflation (which are fixed in real terms, even though they grow in nominal terms.) That is, over time, their income is either fixed or declining in real terms.

morgante 10y ago

> I have always found it to be extremely annoying when I hear people talk of senior citizens being "On fixed incomes" It's such a ludicrous statement. Are the rest of us on variable incomes which we can scale up and down at will?

brbsix 10y ago
When I hear senior citizens on fixed incomes, I assume we're talking about people who have left the workforce, permanently. Unlike almost everyone else currently in the workforce, there is absolutely no expectation of any future change in income. In this regard, it does not seem silly at all.
- sedachv 10y ago
  > Unlike almost everyone else currently in the workforce, there is absolutely no expectation of any future change in income. Social Security is adjusted for inflation: https://www.ssa.gov/news/cola/ https://www.ssa.gov/news/cola/ Likewise bond yields and stock prices will change with inflation/deflation. Any retirement scheme not adjusted for inflation is a rip-off at best and a scam at worst.
  - paulsutter 10y ago
    Matching inflation would be no change in income, which is exactly why they do it.
  - KKKKkkkk1 10y ago
    If bond yields adjust to rising inflation, that means their prices go down and their coupons stay fixed. For stocks, prices follow the prices of bonds, and earnings take a hit, so you also a get hit on the dividends side. So it's not a good story for retirees.
  - loeg 10y ago
    National inflation doesn't cover local cost-of-living variation.
    - ghaff 10y ago
      No, but if you take out housing that's a big part of the variation. And, historically, it was assumed that many on a "fixed income" would own their houses and/or move to a lower COLA area (e.g. the stereotypical retire to Florida or, more recently, the Southwest). Property taxes are a potential wildcard which is one reason why increases are often capped--which isn't popular with the "they should just move out" crowd.
      - loeg 10y ago
        How do you just ignore housing, though? Housing is probably the single most important expense and the most likely not to track national inflation. That's most of what people "on a fixed income" are at risk from.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > Social Security is adjusted for inflation: Which makes it fixed in real terms. > Any retirement scheme not adjusted for inflation is a rip-off at best and a scam at worst. Fixed (in nominal terms) annuities are not-infrequently used as retirement vehicles (and many pensions are either fixed or have less-than-full COLAs.)
    - sedachv 10y ago
      > Which makes it fixed in real terms. So where is the problem? Inflation adjusted income has barely increased at all for anyone but the top 20% of earners since the mid-1960s: http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/Household-Income-Distribution.php http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/Household-... > Fixed (in nominal terms) annuities are not-infrequently used as retirement vehicles Which is why annuities are almost always a rip-off.
      - dragonwriter 10y ago
        > So where is the problem? Whether or not its a "problem", that is an explanation of why it is an accurate description of the scenario faced by the group in question, and a useful label. > Inflation adjusted income has barely increased at all for anyone but the top 20% of earners since the mid-1960s Its barely increased for the averages of segments of the income distribution. That doesn't mean individuals don't see income growth over time (and even move between, e.g., income quintiles), it just means that (except in the top ranges) the overall distribution isn't moving up. That's an important issue, to be sure, but its a different issue that individuals on fixed incomes and the impacts specific policies, etc., may have on the, distinct from the rest of the population which makes it useful to identify and discuss them as a group with a label.
ssharp 10y ago
Yes, a 25 year old has far more mobility than a 90 year old.
- tostitos1979 10y ago
  Not always. The 25 year old may have to be stuck in a high priced city to get a job that pays off their massive student loans. A 90 year can live away from the jobs.
  - jdietrich 10y ago
    Some elderly people are so mobile that they migrate with the seasons. I don't know many working-age people who can afford to spend summer in Ontario and winter in Arizona. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowbird_(person) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowbird_(person)
    - mrep 10y ago
      Hugely popular with retirees. My parents own a condo in Sarasota Florida which has tons of retirees. I believe the last estimate I heard was that the population can grow up to 10x during the winter months.
    - ssharp 10y ago
      I'm talking about economic mobility.
- jahewson 10y ago
  A 90 year old has lived through and benefited from a period of amazing upwards mobility. Their financial position now is most likely unrecognisable from that of their youth - even if they don't seem that well-off. But a 25 year old has virtually no mobility to look forwards to, household incomes have been stagnant since the 1970s and social mobility (which is, let's face it, closely tied) has similarly flatlined. Abundant cheap housing and the GI bill were a pretty sweet deal - despite the hardships that it took to get there.
lr4444lr 10y ago
It's even worse: seniors are on RISK FREE (or nearly so) incomes, often grealty tax shielded. The rest of us are on much more precarious footing. Though we way earn more, we also often have rising financial obligations during childbearing years.
edmccard 10y ago
>Are the rest of us on variable incomes which we can scale up and down at will? Are you on an income which is, by law, tied to changes in the Consumer Price Index? That's how Social Security works. From the 2016 benefit letters: "The law does not permit an increase in benefits when there is no increase in the cost of living. So your benefit will stay the same in 2016. There was no increase in the cost of living during the past year based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI) published by the Department of Labor." So maybe "pegged", as in "pegged to an index", would have been a better idiom, but we're probably stuck with "fixed".
- zardo 10y ago
  Yeah... When someone says fixed income, I assume they mean a fixed income. Ie a pension or an annuity that does not adjust with the cost of living.
  - ad-hominem 10y ago
    Probably not a safe assumption. Most people without a pension that are retired are living off some sort of retirement fund (IRA, 401k) that still technically gets returns. They just are taking out instead of paying in. Their returns are likely to be a little less than inflation, but they are withdrawing $XX,000 a year for the rest of their life ("Fixed income")
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  When discussing income, there are two measures, "nominal" (the number of dollars) and "real" (the amount of buying power, which is the number of dollars adjusted for inflation). Social security is fixed real income. Annuities are fixed nominal income.
imgabe 10y ago
Yes? When you're young and in the workforce you can get a raise, get a higher paying job, learn new skills, etc. If you're retired and possibly chronically ill you have little opportunity to do such things.
draw_down 10y ago
Also older folks are much more likely to have wealth to live off of than young people. But we don't like to talk about wealth in America really, only income.

crdoconnor 10y ago

>There are enough Baby Boomers to dominate politics The boomers don't dominate politics; money does. The 0.1% is trying to drive a wedge between young and old (largely successfully) by pushing this boomer/millennial bullshit (for one example of blatant astroturfing, google "the can kicks back"). They've been doing this to get complicity from the old to ramp up student debt, keep wages for the young down, etc. Equally, they've been doing this to get complicity from the young to privatize social security and slash medicare (thus far unsuccessful but boy have they been trying). The worst part is that it's an utterly shallow and obvious self serving strategy that's very clearly working (look at all the 'boomer hate' on HN. Getting people to hate on their grandmas is depressingly easy). The last thing the 0.1% want to see is young and old united against them.

pm90 10y ago
I don't think its a planned strategy as much as something that is emergent from the way the current system works. Of course the wealthy will try any way in which to keep their wealth. Bill Gates, Warren Buffet etc. are the exception rather than the rule when it comes to philanthropic billionaires. I'm not trying to justify that kind of behavior, only pointing out that if the system is a certain way, there is a reason why many people behave the way they do.

dredmorbius 10y ago

There are historical reasons for that description. And generally it remains accurate. Particularly as those on defined contribution rather than (COLA indexed) defined benefit pensions become more predominant among retirees. Pensions are another simmering shitstorm on the horizon.

6stringmerc 10y ago

The Millenials just recently surpassed the Boomers in US population (75.4M to 74.5M, approx). I'm anxious to see when the IOTA Party starts gaining momentum - the one that stands for "It's Our Turn, Arses" and aims to pass legislation catering to the Millenial generation more than the Boomers.

progressive_dad 10y ago
No one wants online voting to happen, but that's the big secret: No one is actually afraid it will be rigged. Its rigged NOW and that's the way Democrat and Republican leaders LIKE it. They're terrified of massive demographic change. When you talk to leadership in both parties the line is not, "Online voting isn't ready", its, "America isn't ready for online voting."
- pzuraq 10y ago
  Or because there are very good reasons to not have online voting, like vote buying and voter intimidation could become a thing again: 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_fraud https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_fraud 2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gEz__sMVaY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gEz__sMVaY Not that I don't think there is way to get the best of both worlds. I'm sure there's a way for us to vote without having our votes be made public, so things like vote buying and voter intimidation can't happen, especially with blockchain technology. Or perhaps those factors won't matter as much any more, and are actually acceptable factors when compared to voter suppression through poorly placed and managed polling locations. Either way, it's not as simple as it may seem.
  - dllthomas 10y ago
    How are vote buying and voter intimidation enabled by online voting more than absentee voting?
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]

smokeu 10y ago

Boomers. They inherited from their parents; and stole from their children. If any sector is due for a collapse or correction it's our social security. Let it die on those who bleed it out.

toomuchtodo 10y ago
I'll Longbet you [1] $1000 this will never happen. Taxes will go up to meet the shortfall (and its able to pay out at 100% until something like 2034, dropping to ~75% after that). For social security to fail, the US government would need to fail (its the social program/entitlement equivalent of US treasuries). "...backed by the full faith and credit of United states Government." [1] http://longbets.org/ http://longbets.org/

hnal943 10y ago

Being on a fixed income is a valid complaint when inflation is high. Your salary will rise with inflation, but the bond/pension income does not which decreases buying power for those on fixed incomes.

dragonwriter 10y ago
> Your salary will rise with inflation Hourly wages in the US have, on average, grown slower than inflation since the 1970s.

dragonwriter 10y ago

> I have always found it to be extremely annoying when I hear people talk of senior citizens being "On fixed incomes", like I'm only making this much money because I choose not to be rich. "Fixed incomes" does not refer to the fact that they are at the cuurent limit and could not currently do better(which is how you seem to be interpreting it), but rather that it is fixed over time, with no prospect of increase. For many seniors, this is the case at least in real terms (i.e., considering inflation). Many seniors income is dominated by things that are either fixed in nominal terms (and thus shrink when, as is usually the case, inflation is positive), or which are adjusted only for inflation (which are fixed in real terms, even though they grow in nominal terms.) That is, over time, their income is either fixed or declining in real terms.