4 ms·

It's not their fault we make less, but they should have personal responsibility for their own retirement, especially since the massive amount of growth in housi

It's not their fault we make less, but they should have personal responsibility for their own retirement, especially since the massive amount of growth in housing value and the stockmarket over their lifetime.

Jach 10y ago
Social Security lifted the responsibility of saving for their own retirement. It's not much use to blame them for following incentives.
- lawpoop 10y ago
  You make it sound as if before Social Security, people saved for retirement because they recognized they had to. But of course they didn't-- because they didn't earn enough to save-- just like people nowadays. Social Security is insurance against destitution in old age. It really doesn't function to take away any saving incentive. It just keeps old people from being homeless and starving. http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB109520630433518093 http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB109520630433518093 http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0CEFDE1E38F930A15752C0A9639C8B63 http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0CEFDE1E38F...
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- Spooky23 10y ago
  Good point. Those lazy bums can just sit in furnished rooms and sell apples in the street.
  - Jach 10y ago
    Um, what? (No seriously, wtf? Is this a reference to something?)
    - Spooky23 10y ago
      Should have included a sarcasm tag. Pre social security, it was common for the elderly to end up like that.
psadri 10y ago
Is someone wealthy just because the house they own has grown in value? Practical wealth is how much you have relative to the cost of living. Someone in a $1M house is not necessarily more wealthy than when their house was $100K if all their other living expenses have also grown 10x.
- shostack 10y ago
  If they are near retirement they could always reverse mortgage it. Our generation will not have that option.
  - mac01021 10y ago
    Why won't we?
    - biesnecker 10y ago
      I think the idea is that we won't have the option to help us support our parents, because we'll need to keep living in the house (and haven't finished paying for it so we don't have the equity to borrow from anyway).
    - shostack 10y ago
      Because the increasing trend is that it is not financially viable for younger families to buy a home. So they would thus not have a mortgage to reverse in the first place. Rather, they would be stuck paying rent and hopefully have enough savings/Social Security/other income to cover it as long as they needed.
      - mjevans 10y ago
        There is also the issue of population growth rates. Future generations CANNOT keep growing like that. Be it by directed reproduction limits or global resource wars/pollution/plagues/extinction from the preceding the population will shrink.
pasquinelli 10y ago
We're talking about people who fall within a certain age range. Personal responsibility is something that makes sense when talking about a person, not a population. To my mind, therefore, personal responsibility doesn't have much to do with good policy.

Jach 10y ago

Social Security lifted the responsibility of saving for their own retirement. It's not much use to blame them for following incentives.

lawpoop 10y ago
You make it sound as if before Social Security, people saved for retirement because they recognized they had to. But of course they didn't-- because they didn't earn enough to save-- just like people nowadays. Social Security is insurance against destitution in old age. It really doesn't function to take away any saving incentive. It just keeps old people from being homeless and starving. http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB109520630433518093 http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB109520630433518093 http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0CEFDE1E38F930A15752C0A9639C8B63 http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0CEFDE1E38F...
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
Spooky23 10y ago
Good point. Those lazy bums can just sit in furnished rooms and sell apples in the street.
- Jach 10y ago
  Um, what? (No seriously, wtf? Is this a reference to something?)
  - Spooky23 10y ago
    Should have included a sarcasm tag. Pre social security, it was common for the elderly to end up like that.

psadri 10y ago

Is someone wealthy just because the house they own has grown in value? Practical wealth is how much you have relative to the cost of living. Someone in a $1M house is not necessarily more wealthy than when their house was $100K if all their other living expenses have also grown 10x.

shostack 10y ago
If they are near retirement they could always reverse mortgage it. Our generation will not have that option.
- mac01021 10y ago
  Why won't we?
  - biesnecker 10y ago
    I think the idea is that we won't have the option to help us support our parents, because we'll need to keep living in the house (and haven't finished paying for it so we don't have the equity to borrow from anyway).
  - shostack 10y ago
    Because the increasing trend is that it is not financially viable for younger families to buy a home. So they would thus not have a mortgage to reverse in the first place. Rather, they would be stuck paying rent and hopefully have enough savings/Social Security/other income to cover it as long as they needed.
    - mjevans 10y ago
      There is also the issue of population growth rates. Future generations CANNOT keep growing like that. Be it by directed reproduction limits or global resource wars/pollution/plagues/extinction from the preceding the population will shrink.

pasquinelli 10y ago

We're talking about people who fall within a certain age range. Personal responsibility is something that makes sense when talking about a person, not a population. To my mind, therefore, personal responsibility doesn't have much to do with good policy.