Stern Advice: Retirees are doing better than you think

Comments (6)
americanguy wrote:

“(Reuters) – Contrary to what you may have heard, new retirees are doing better financially than previous generations”
Om what planet? This is earth, so what happens on Mars does not count. Besides, Republicans in Congress are about to fix the retired people real good and make them homeless, starving, sick, beggers.
By the time I retire, the age for Social Security and Medicare will be 110, that way they can take in all the money, slide it under the table to the wealthy, and old people will die before getting any benefits.
Nice plan, and REAL CHRISTIAN!

Dec 09, 2012 5:06pm EST  --  Report as abuse
PseudoTurtle wrote:

If retirees are doing better — which I seriously doubt they are doing as well as your glowing report indicates — it is only because they have access to better living conditions, including and especially quality health care. That is a VERY strong arguement for NOT cutting social benefits.

Apparently, what you and the wealthy/Repubicans want to do is take away what little retirees have and push them back into proverty again.

Does that make ANY sense at all?

Are you so greedy that you would rather see people lose their homes and starve on the streets, thus converting the US into a third world country, rather than pay your fair share of taxes?

What the hell is wrong with you people?

Dec 09, 2012 6:52pm EST  --  Report as abuse
foiegras wrote:

The new conventional wisdom…did you know that mammograms are unnecessary? And that prostate cancer screening (PSA) does more harm than good? Now doesn’t that feel much better, and look how much money Medicare is going to save!

Just another example of how really creative social engineering is going to preserve our safety net for future generations. If you’re dead, you don’t have to worry that your defined benefit pension has been phased out – long live 401ks, they’re really much better for you (and for Wall Street) now that black swans have been placed on the endangered species list.

Dec 09, 2012 10:16pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ACB610 wrote:

Article says present 2012 average household retirement assets $153,100.
Also says, after inflation adjustment, 2.7 times greater than 1985 and
5.6 times greater than 1975. Therefore assets in 1985 were 153100/2.7
or approx $56,700 and in 1975 were 153100/5.6 or approx $27,340. 6Mo
CD rate in 7/1975 was .0700, in 7/1985 was .0750, now in 12/2012 is
only .0053. Interest income in ’75 was then $1,914 +/-, in ’85 was then
$4,253 +/- and now 12/2012 only $811. Therefore us old folks must eat
into our Principal in order to have funds to live on. I take the good
old days so that I have security of knowing my savings will last until
I die.

Dec 09, 2012 11:09pm EST  --  Report as abuse
usagadfly wrote:

This article misses rather obvious generational differences in the data cited.

Current retirees, over 65, are the wealthiest Americans to ever live, as a generation. The vast majority of them have defined benefit pensions, which are rare in the “baby boom” generation and others that follow them, as well as being net beneficiaries from the Social Security and Medicare programs, while baby boomers will be net losers. One generation makes money off of these programs while the next loses money.

Does she advocate some sort of delayed justice by reducing the benefits of the “greatest” and “silent” generations to the level the boomers will get? I seriously doubt it. Those generations are the most powerful and unified generations since the GAR after the Civil War. They dominate our Government, politics, and our economy. They are too powerful to short. And unlike the generations following after, they are unified.

Boomers have no defined pension plans, mostly. They have no employer provided retiree health plans, unless they worked for Government. They have had less money, higher unemployment, a higher suicide rate, higher death rate from wars, and vilification. These generations are certainly different in many significant ways.

Yes, those generations have been better off by almost any measure than any of the generations following them, or preceeding them. That is no reason to justify increasing the programmatic “tilt” toward those generations. In fact, the numbers indicate quite the opposite.

Dec 09, 2012 11:18pm EST  --  Report as abuse
UauS wrote:

“…the poverty rate among people aged 65 or older has declined from nearly 30 percent in 1966 to 9 percent in 2011.”
Awesome! Also, in 2011 there was 95 percent more people aged 65 or older who had electricity in their houses than in 1913… :)

Dec 09, 2012 11:40pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.