5 ms·

Well, that's why you need at least $1M (stressing at least) to retire in US. That's insane!

by WYepQ4dNnG 5y ago

1123581321 5y ago
You only need that if you want to live beyond what Social Security and public assistance provide.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  The purchasing power of social security benefits has been going down for many, many years. I predict it will continue to go down and become more means tested as the proportion of working to not working population goes down. I assume social security will just be a nice bonus if I get it in the 2050s.
  - 1123581321 5y ago
    Social Security payouts have been adjusted upward for inflation almost every year since 1975. You can see the data here: https://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/colaseries.html https://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/colaseries.html There are no plans to discontinue this practice. Many people believe SS will not be meaningfully available to them at retirement decades from now, which is understandable skepticism, but is not a reflection on how retirement is intended to work in the US.
    - lotsofpulp 5y ago
      Those inflation statistics have no bearing on my experienced expenditures over the course of my life and where I intend to spend money in the future. If I took all my expenses over my adult life of 15 years and calculated the price change between 15 years ago and when I purchased them, the total increase in prices eclipses the official nationwide statistics. So I assume healthcare costs will continue at above official inflation (especially as the proportion of young to old people decreases, which means less supply of labor in the face of increasing demand). And similar movements in the land and other labor I would be interested in. Also, social security retirement age was 65, and it was updated to 67 for those born in 1960 or later. It would be prudent to expect more increases in future years. I can easily see 70 being the new age at which you get “full” social security benefits. > but is not a reflection on how retirement is intended to work in the US. It does not matter what the intentions are. At the end of the day, it is productivity from the younger groups that allows for the benefits to be realized by older groups. As the younger group gets fewer and fewer, and the older group gets bigger and bigger, the supply of productivity from the younger groups decreases and the demand for it increases. The only way that works out is if fewer people actually get to realize those benefits, which means you want to be able to pay for it (with cash and/or political power).
      - 1123581321 5y ago
        In the scenario that spawned this thread, much of the healthcare inflation costs are borne by a state’s public health option. In some states, all or a portion of housing is as well. Again, I totally understand the skepticism about the long-term viability of social security. I also foresee retirement age adjustments up (they make some sense since people are living and working longer) and I also think that the income limitation on Social Security and Medicare tax will be increased in our lifetimes without offering proportional additional benefits to those paying to deal with the insufficient size in the working populations. However, the original misconception that started this thread was that a million in cash is required to retire in the US, and it’s simply not, and it’s not the intention of US policy to make that situation come about. It may inadvertently happen due to economic stress, but the same can be said about any western country’s expensive public welfare programs.

Well, that's why you need at least $1M (stressing at least) to retire in US. That's insane!

1123581321 5y ago

You only need that if you want to live beyond what Social Security and public assistance provide.

lotsofpulp 5y ago
The purchasing power of social security benefits has been going down for many, many years. I predict it will continue to go down and become more means tested as the proportion of working to not working population goes down. I assume social security will just be a nice bonus if I get it in the 2050s.
- 1123581321 5y ago
  Social Security payouts have been adjusted upward for inflation almost every year since 1975. You can see the data here: https://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/colaseries.html https://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/colaseries.html There are no plans to discontinue this practice. Many people believe SS will not be meaningfully available to them at retirement decades from now, which is understandable skepticism, but is not a reflection on how retirement is intended to work in the US.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    Those inflation statistics have no bearing on my experienced expenditures over the course of my life and where I intend to spend money in the future. If I took all my expenses over my adult life of 15 years and calculated the price change between 15 years ago and when I purchased them, the total increase in prices eclipses the official nationwide statistics. So I assume healthcare costs will continue at above official inflation (especially as the proportion of young to old people decreases, which means less supply of labor in the face of increasing demand). And similar movements in the land and other labor I would be interested in. Also, social security retirement age was 65, and it was updated to 67 for those born in 1960 or later. It would be prudent to expect more increases in future years. I can easily see 70 being the new age at which you get “full” social security benefits. > but is not a reflection on how retirement is intended to work in the US. It does not matter what the intentions are. At the end of the day, it is productivity from the younger groups that allows for the benefits to be realized by older groups. As the younger group gets fewer and fewer, and the older group gets bigger and bigger, the supply of productivity from the younger groups decreases and the demand for it increases. The only way that works out is if fewer people actually get to realize those benefits, which means you want to be able to pay for it (with cash and/or political power).
    - 1123581321 5y ago
      In the scenario that spawned this thread, much of the healthcare inflation costs are borne by a state’s public health option. In some states, all or a portion of housing is as well. Again, I totally understand the skepticism about the long-term viability of social security. I also foresee retirement age adjustments up (they make some sense since people are living and working longer) and I also think that the income limitation on Social Security and Medicare tax will be increased in our lifetimes without offering proportional additional benefits to those paying to deal with the insufficient size in the working populations. However, the original misconception that started this thread was that a million in cash is required to retire in the US, and it’s simply not, and it’s not the intention of US policy to make that situation come about. It may inadvertently happen due to economic stress, but the same can be said about any western country’s expensive public welfare programs.