5 ms·

There is huge liability in living to be old. Sure, work hard, save money for old age, and get old, there's a stash of funds. But even a million bucks has got

by jrapdx3 12y ago

There is huge liability in living to be old. Sure, work hard, save money for old age, and get old, there's a stash of funds. But even a million bucks has got to last the rest of your life, and who knows, my aunt is 100 years old, and still going. Retire at, let's say 70, and figure it out, will that stash last up to 30 years? Do the math, taking out taxes at 25%, that's $25000/year. With social security, around $4000/month, just an estimate. How wealthy is that? Is it really even adequate? Consider what happens with age: people get sick, bodies deteriorate, it's natural. Go to the ER, have an MRI, a hospital stay, whatever, it can be thousands out of pocket, even with medicare + insurance. With serious illness, that million bucks can go fast. And even if there is good health care to be found, which is dubious, it's still scary and a constantly threatening reality. Don't forget the house payments, computer gear and all the other normal stuff one needs to buy. If the house is paid up, chances are it's an old house and will need repair. Price out what a new roof or furnace costs (I've had to replace both in the last couple of years). OK I'm old but I still go to work, though I can't do that forever. Call it what you will, I have a wealth of experience, accomplishment, family and great friends, but not a princely cache of money. Many old citizens are in a far more precarious position as financial security goes. I hope no one thinks it's a trivial concern.

Dylan16807 12y ago
So fix the insurance system to not be capable of wiping out a million dollars in savings. As far as housing, I'm not super sympathetic about having to move somewhere cheaper as the downside to spending an entire third of your life retired.
djokkataja 12y ago
Many young people have negative net worth because they keep taking out student loans hoping to get a job. Your scenario about the costs and difficulties of maintaining a house won't generate any sympathy with young people. There are zero people that I know from my graduating class (2009) who have purchased a house since college. If you're seriously concerned about having saved enough to retire by the time you reach retirement age, maybe you should keep working. My parents have planned to push their retirement back about a decade for that reason.
- ericd 12y ago
  Most young people can work and generate an income, many old people cannot. It probably takes a bit of aging/having your skills becoming outmoded to start understanding this at an intuitive level.
  - innguest 12y ago
    Most old people have the power to change the system, many young people cannot. Unfortunately the old lack the young's courage (as they're risk averse) and so are less likely to go against tradition. Money need not be inflationary, and if we solve this problem we end the cycle of the young being overworked for the sake of the old, but the old had rather do it later (the next generation will take care of it, they say).
bequanna 12y ago
I'm not quite sure I follow your logic. Are you saying that as a young graduate student, I should incur more debt to train for a career, then, pay higher (unsubsidized) interest rates on that debt, and pay higher taxes once I get a job in order to bolster the income of someone who (in your example) is already a millionaire? djokkataja is right. You will have a very difficult time gaining the sympathy of younger generations with that argument.
- jrapdx3 12y ago
  Frankly, IMO the student loan situation is as big a mess as any we have in our nation. It is outrageous that it costs $40000 a year to attend college. It saddens and sickens me to know that is the case. It represents a skew in our priorities perhaps the same as seen in other domains, thinking about health care in particular. The mistaken idea is that we save money by skimping on essentials. The only way to navigate toward solving problems is to see the whole picture, the impact on the entire system has to be known. The least expensive health care is providing high quality services to the extent people need. The cost to the nation of untreated illness is greater than the expense of treatment, considering the whole cost burden of illness. Same in education. Encouraging education that permits maximum accomplishment provides a net benefit to the nation as a whole. Under-education impedes productivity, technological innovation, and even contributes to health care costs indirectly. When I was in school and reliant on loans, the government program asked for "feedback", what I thought would improve the student loan program. I wrote on the form, for the price of one military jet, a thousand students could be fully supported for as long as required. AFAICT my comment had no effect. So no, I'm not asking you to support me as long as my million bucks holds out. With any luck (my luck), you won't ever have to. But there are quite a few old citizens not as lucky as me who we should try to support. And BTW, I may be old, but I am still a taxpayer. Retirement account withdrawals are federally taxable, so I'm guessing that would be roughly $7000/year. That's my money, saved out of what I earned. Some of my tax payments may go to support you or your school. It's OK, I do believe mutual support when necessary is we should be aiming for.
- bsdshepherd 12y ago
  You will not follow the logic until you remove emotion. As an thinking exercise, view age as cumulative chances for catastrophic failure instead of cumulative time for success. For single income families, all failures affect the only income stream. Examples of failure should include injury, sickness, obsolescence, folly, and greed.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
jacquesm 12y ago
$4K per month is a lot of money to spend.

by jrapdx3 12y ago

Dylan16807 12y ago

So fix the insurance system to not be capable of wiping out a million dollars in savings. As far as housing, I'm not super sympathetic about having to move somewhere cheaper as the downside to spending an entire third of your life retired.

djokkataja 12y ago

Many young people have negative net worth because they keep taking out student loans hoping to get a job. Your scenario about the costs and difficulties of maintaining a house won't generate any sympathy with young people. There are zero people that I know from my graduating class (2009) who have purchased a house since college. If you're seriously concerned about having saved enough to retire by the time you reach retirement age, maybe you should keep working. My parents have planned to push their retirement back about a decade for that reason.

ericd 12y ago
Most young people can work and generate an income, many old people cannot. It probably takes a bit of aging/having your skills becoming outmoded to start understanding this at an intuitive level.
- innguest 12y ago
  Most old people have the power to change the system, many young people cannot. Unfortunately the old lack the young's courage (as they're risk averse) and so are less likely to go against tradition. Money need not be inflationary, and if we solve this problem we end the cycle of the young being overworked for the sake of the old, but the old had rather do it later (the next generation will take care of it, they say).

bequanna 12y ago

I'm not quite sure I follow your logic. Are you saying that as a young graduate student, I should incur more debt to train for a career, then, pay higher (unsubsidized) interest rates on that debt, and pay higher taxes once I get a job in order to bolster the income of someone who (in your example) is already a millionaire? djokkataja is right. You will have a very difficult time gaining the sympathy of younger generations with that argument.

jrapdx3 12y ago
Frankly, IMO the student loan situation is as big a mess as any we have in our nation. It is outrageous that it costs $40000 a year to attend college. It saddens and sickens me to know that is the case. It represents a skew in our priorities perhaps the same as seen in other domains, thinking about health care in particular. The mistaken idea is that we save money by skimping on essentials. The only way to navigate toward solving problems is to see the whole picture, the impact on the entire system has to be known. The least expensive health care is providing high quality services to the extent people need. The cost to the nation of untreated illness is greater than the expense of treatment, considering the whole cost burden of illness. Same in education. Encouraging education that permits maximum accomplishment provides a net benefit to the nation as a whole. Under-education impedes productivity, technological innovation, and even contributes to health care costs indirectly. When I was in school and reliant on loans, the government program asked for "feedback", what I thought would improve the student loan program. I wrote on the form, for the price of one military jet, a thousand students could be fully supported for as long as required. AFAICT my comment had no effect. So no, I'm not asking you to support me as long as my million bucks holds out. With any luck (my luck), you won't ever have to. But there are quite a few old citizens not as lucky as me who we should try to support. And BTW, I may be old, but I am still a taxpayer. Retirement account withdrawals are federally taxable, so I'm guessing that would be roughly $7000/year. That's my money, saved out of what I earned. Some of my tax payments may go to support you or your school. It's OK, I do believe mutual support when necessary is we should be aiming for.
bsdshepherd 12y ago
You will not follow the logic until you remove emotion. As an thinking exercise, view age as cumulative chances for catastrophic failure instead of cumulative time for success. For single income families, all failures affect the only income stream. Examples of failure should include injury, sickness, obsolescence, folly, and greed.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

jacquesm 12y ago

$4K per month is a lot of money to spend.