4 ms·
> Time with kids, no worries about the future, or how you are going to eat when you retire, if you get to retire. Good times. The numbers say you're wrong: htt
by jdminhbg 9y ago
> Time with kids, no worries about the future, or how you are going to eat when you retire, if you get to retire. Good times.
The numbers say you're wrong: http://www.nber.org/aginghealth/summer04/w10466.html http://www.nber.org/aginghealth/summer04/w10466.html
- rifung 9y agoIs this the right link? This article is about poverty and not about how far you could go on a middle class income
- jdminhbg 9y agoIt's about elderly people living in poverty. It's very relevant to whether retirements and pensions are falling off a cliff and whether people won't be able to eat when they're retired, as alleged.
- rifung 9y agoAh.. but what about being able to afford a house on a job that requires minimal education like working in a factory? That was actually the main point from my interpretation.
- lowbloodsugar 9y agoI say "the middle class was better off only a few decades ago". You show me a graph that ends two decades ago. About poverty.
- jdminhbg 9y agoYou say "no worries about the future, or how you are going to eat when you retire, if you get to retire," and I pointed out that the number of the elderly in poverty has fallen off a cliff since your mythical golden age. The current poverty rate for seniors is now below that of when the above graph cuts off, naturally [pdf warning]: https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2016/demo/p60-256.pdf https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publicatio...
- lowbloodsugar 9y agoThe graph on page 9 shows that the number of people in poverty since your first graph ended (in 2000) has increased by 15 million.