4 ms·

We are not in disagreement about most of this except for the comment about professional classes being just fine if they have to arrange their own retirements. T

We are not in disagreement about most of this except for the comment about professional classes being just fine if they have to arrange their own retirements. The overwhelming evidence is that they are not, full stop. Take away social security- a defined benefit model- and real estate and at best the professional class in the US has sufficient investments only to retire to thailand, not the US. Open the conversation to cover professionals who are younger and are subjected to education debt and there is no argument that individual self-funded "retirement" is even an option.

gizmo686 7y ago
There is a difference between a world where social security is taken away, and one where it never existed. Not having SS means people would have the money that was instead paid into SS. Ignoring that, many people planned based on having SS. If they could retire fully without SS, this would mean that they overcontributed (I say this as someone planning for a retirement with 0 SS). I am not sure why you discount real estate. You might not think it is a good investment, but it is still the idividual managing their retirement. Besides, in this context "real estate" mostly means owning your own home. The main benifit here is not the paper value of the house, but the imputed rent. If this value goes down, by definition, cost of living went down a corresponding amount. (There is admitadly the risk that you want to move, and the local market tanked).