5 ms·

There are books on this phenomenon. Part of what they say is now men have access to their basic needs with out needing to work as much. Entertainment is abundan

by bruceb 12y ago

There are books on this phenomenon. Part of what they say is now men have access to their basic needs with out needing to work as much. Entertainment is abundant and relatively cheap and sex isn't tied to marriage. You can lounge around and be if not exactly satisfied, at least not terrible wanting for stuff. Of course these guys are screwed when it comes to retirement.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
return0 12y ago
just "these guys"? everyone will be screwed.
- morgante 12y ago
  > just "these guys"? everyone will be screwed. Why? I'm pretty sure I'll be totally fine in retirement (predicted savings of $5M+).
  - nilkn 12y ago
    He's probably referring to the average American, and someone with a predicted savings in the mid seven figures is certainly not among that demographic.
  - VLM 12y ago
    Everyone can still be screwed at the same time you're OK. Unless you're implying you're just average median dude. Some experiments can be run in a spreadsheet. I assumed 40 years of work (optimistic) and google reports a median personal income of 32140/yr and average savings rate of 3.2%. Shadowstats reports an average inflation rate around 5%, thats sounds about right. The S+P 500 total return over the last half century has been 7% but it oscillates insanely from -5 to +17 percent per decade. I think it very unrealistic to assume the 50s or 90s will ever happen again, but whatever, I feel optimistic this morning. I modeled in a 1% annual decline in income, which is lower than actual but sounds vaguely realistic. My spreadsheet model shows an inflation adjusted retirement nest egg of $51K for joe 6 pack median middle class dude assuming its never dipped into for medical, educational, or unemployment issues for J6P or his kids or parents (in other words almost everyone will not have the money). I'm also assuming smooth economic growth (LOL) for best compounding results. It still affects you as most investment advisors assume 0% inflation, 10% rates of economic growth, etc. In a world of poverty for almost everyone, that sounds rather optimistic. Some other interesting experiments... 15% annual growth rate still only gets joe 6 pack to about 10% of your goal. Joe6Pack at 1% annual wage increase (which is totally unrealistic in era of long term decline) and 15% annual economic growth rate (LOL) and triple the median savings rate at 10% of gross income being saved for 40 years and no unemployment, medical issues, or educational costs for J6P or his parents or kids (LOL) is still only about 1/3 of your goal.
    - morgante 12y ago
      Sorry, but some of your assumptions seem ridiculous. Nobody I know experiences nominal wage declines, even of 1%. For reference, the average annual raise is a full 3%. [1] As for 5% inflation, everyone knows Shadowstats is incredibly bogus and pushing a clear agenda without any grounding in realistic CPIs. [2] [3] For the past few years we've been experiencing almost 0% inflation, though I use 3% for my models (to be conservative). I'm not implying that someone with average income will retire with millions, I just took issue with the idea that somehow "everyone" is going to end up penniless. 50% of people fall above median income and a substantial portion of us can reasonably expect to have retirement savings readily available. 1: http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2013/09/18/how-much-of-a-pay-raise-can-you-expect-in-2014/2832791/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2013/09/... 2: http://voxrationalis.wordpress.com/2011/05/15/the-absurdity-of-shadowstats-inflation-estimates/ http://voxrationalis.wordpress.com/2011/05/15/the-absurdity-... 3: http://www.forbes.com/sites/modeledbehavior/2013/10/14/niall-ferguson-inflation/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/modeledbehavior/2013/10/14/niall...
  - return0 12y ago
    I was having in mind europe's imminent pension fund tragedy a few years down the road. Even if americans don't have statewide retirement funds, when a crisis erupts, pensions are one of the first things that does get cut. These costs, and also healthcare will eventually be shared by everyone. This has already happened in europe's southern bankrupt economies
    - morgante 12y ago
      Obviously the solution is to not depend on pensions (which I don't think most young Americans are planning on anyways). It's awfully hard to lose your own savings though. Basically, "everyone" is hyperbole. Obviously many people can retire fine, if you live within your means and consistently save.
mtbcoder 12y ago
Who is saying that and what is their data? I wouldn't say it never happens, but it sounds more like the kind of argument a random, obnoxious TV pundit would make.
ctdonath 12y ago
Shortly before meeting m'lady, I'd nearly paid off the house and otherwise driven my expenses to near zero. The prospect of withdrawing from the system ("going Galt") was becoming a realistic option; grow much/most of my food (as my folks had growing up), find a mundane job in walking/biking distance (notable as I lived in the country), and spend my time writing what software I wanted and puttering in a back-to-basics life. We live in a culture of cheap abundance, and if un-hitched and rent/mortgage-free then very little work effort is needed to get by in a comfortable, if humble, lifestyle. (Then I met m'lady, and life got very expensive very fast.)
- humanrebar 12y ago
  This is a really good point, actually. Parent says: Part of what they say is now men have access to their basic needs with out needing to work as much. ...but men don't have access to enough resources to fulfill their basic responsibilities. If you're a celibate hermit who pays his taxes and is funding his own retirement, that's fine. But I don't know many of those. In reality, one of the easiest ways to be poor is to have a single mom. In other words, one of the easiest ways to be poor is to have a dad who isn't (can't or won't) fulfilling his responsibilities. Men and women who are fertile and sexually active need to be able to care for a child for eighteen years. Yes, birth control, please. But there are millions of single moms out that came from somewhere. Additionally, someone needs to pay for current social security retirees, poverty programs, etc. And if you aren't having kids, someone else's kids will be paying for both their social security checks and yours. I say all that not to be judgmental, but to point out that the numbers don't add up for men to just live the minimalist lifestyle free of guilt. Like I said, that's possible, but you'd literally have to live (and die!) off the grid while somehow caring for orphans, veterans, and windows at the same time (lifestyle choices don't count).
- EC1 12y ago
  Are you saying 'm'lady' unironically?
  - ctdonath 12y ago
    Yes, as the period referred to spanned unmet/acquaintance/girlfriend/wife. "M'lady" seems a more respectable term than "significant other".

by bruceb 12y ago

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

return0 12y ago

just "these guys"? everyone will be screwed.

morgante 12y ago
> just "these guys"? everyone will be screwed. Why? I'm pretty sure I'll be totally fine in retirement (predicted savings of $5M+).
- nilkn 12y ago
  He's probably referring to the average American, and someone with a predicted savings in the mid seven figures is certainly not among that demographic.
- VLM 12y ago
  Everyone can still be screwed at the same time you're OK. Unless you're implying you're just average median dude. Some experiments can be run in a spreadsheet. I assumed 40 years of work (optimistic) and google reports a median personal income of 32140/yr and average savings rate of 3.2%. Shadowstats reports an average inflation rate around 5%, thats sounds about right. The S+P 500 total return over the last half century has been 7% but it oscillates insanely from -5 to +17 percent per decade. I think it very unrealistic to assume the 50s or 90s will ever happen again, but whatever, I feel optimistic this morning. I modeled in a 1% annual decline in income, which is lower than actual but sounds vaguely realistic. My spreadsheet model shows an inflation adjusted retirement nest egg of $51K for joe 6 pack median middle class dude assuming its never dipped into for medical, educational, or unemployment issues for J6P or his kids or parents (in other words almost everyone will not have the money). I'm also assuming smooth economic growth (LOL) for best compounding results. It still affects you as most investment advisors assume 0% inflation, 10% rates of economic growth, etc. In a world of poverty for almost everyone, that sounds rather optimistic. Some other interesting experiments... 15% annual growth rate still only gets joe 6 pack to about 10% of your goal. Joe6Pack at 1% annual wage increase (which is totally unrealistic in era of long term decline) and 15% annual economic growth rate (LOL) and triple the median savings rate at 10% of gross income being saved for 40 years and no unemployment, medical issues, or educational costs for J6P or his parents or kids (LOL) is still only about 1/3 of your goal.
  - morgante 12y ago
    Sorry, but some of your assumptions seem ridiculous. Nobody I know experiences nominal wage declines, even of 1%. For reference, the average annual raise is a full 3%. [1] As for 5% inflation, everyone knows Shadowstats is incredibly bogus and pushing a clear agenda without any grounding in realistic CPIs. [2] [3] For the past few years we've been experiencing almost 0% inflation, though I use 3% for my models (to be conservative). I'm not implying that someone with average income will retire with millions, I just took issue with the idea that somehow "everyone" is going to end up penniless. 50% of people fall above median income and a substantial portion of us can reasonably expect to have retirement savings readily available. 1: http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2013/09/18/how-much-of-a-pay-raise-can-you-expect-in-2014/2832791/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2013/09/... 2: http://voxrationalis.wordpress.com/2011/05/15/the-absurdity-of-shadowstats-inflation-estimates/ http://voxrationalis.wordpress.com/2011/05/15/the-absurdity-... 3: http://www.forbes.com/sites/modeledbehavior/2013/10/14/niall-ferguson-inflation/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/modeledbehavior/2013/10/14/niall...
- return0 12y ago
  I was having in mind europe's imminent pension fund tragedy a few years down the road. Even if americans don't have statewide retirement funds, when a crisis erupts, pensions are one of the first things that does get cut. These costs, and also healthcare will eventually be shared by everyone. This has already happened in europe's southern bankrupt economies
  - morgante 12y ago
    Obviously the solution is to not depend on pensions (which I don't think most young Americans are planning on anyways). It's awfully hard to lose your own savings though. Basically, "everyone" is hyperbole. Obviously many people can retire fine, if you live within your means and consistently save.

mtbcoder 12y ago

Who is saying that and what is their data? I wouldn't say it never happens, but it sounds more like the kind of argument a random, obnoxious TV pundit would make.

ctdonath 12y ago

Shortly before meeting m'lady, I'd nearly paid off the house and otherwise driven my expenses to near zero. The prospect of withdrawing from the system ("going Galt") was becoming a realistic option; grow much/most of my food (as my folks had growing up), find a mundane job in walking/biking distance (notable as I lived in the country), and spend my time writing what software I wanted and puttering in a back-to-basics life. We live in a culture of cheap abundance, and if un-hitched and rent/mortgage-free then very little work effort is needed to get by in a comfortable, if humble, lifestyle. (Then I met m'lady, and life got very expensive very fast.)

humanrebar 12y ago
This is a really good point, actually. Parent says: Part of what they say is now men have access to their basic needs with out needing to work as much. ...but men don't have access to enough resources to fulfill their basic responsibilities. If you're a celibate hermit who pays his taxes and is funding his own retirement, that's fine. But I don't know many of those. In reality, one of the easiest ways to be poor is to have a single mom. In other words, one of the easiest ways to be poor is to have a dad who isn't (can't or won't) fulfilling his responsibilities. Men and women who are fertile and sexually active need to be able to care for a child for eighteen years. Yes, birth control, please. But there are millions of single moms out that came from somewhere. Additionally, someone needs to pay for current social security retirees, poverty programs, etc. And if you aren't having kids, someone else's kids will be paying for both their social security checks and yours. I say all that not to be judgmental, but to point out that the numbers don't add up for men to just live the minimalist lifestyle free of guilt. Like I said, that's possible, but you'd literally have to live (and die!) off the grid while somehow caring for orphans, veterans, and windows at the same time (lifestyle choices don't count).
EC1 12y ago
Are you saying 'm'lady' unironically?
- ctdonath 12y ago
  Yes, as the period referred to spanned unmet/acquaintance/girlfriend/wife. "M'lady" seems a more respectable term than "significant other".