Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Retirement Nomads: Too poor to retire and too young to die

graphics.latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 198 posts

Re: Retirement Nomads: Too poor to retire and too young to die

#161

Post by Daishiman »

knicholes wrote: post #14
kafkaesq wrote: post #6

Westfall — 5 feet 1 tall, with a graceful dancer’s body she honed as a tap-dancing teenager — is as stubborn as she is high-spirited. But she finds herself these days in a precarious place: Her savings long gone, and having never done much long-term financial planning, Westfall left her home in California to live in an aging RV she calls Big Foot, driving from one temporary job to the next. This is just shameful. You…

I find it unfair that I'm expected to make sacrifices while I'm young to ensure a comfortable retirement and also have to pay for other's retirements because they failed to do so.

Society is about letting go of some things to get other benefits amortized over a long term. Do you want a safe country? Pay up for a police force and a judiciary. You want to reach old age and live a somewhat satisfactory life in a way that you're also shielded from random catastrophes in life? Well you better expect to put your part in, unless you absolutely believe there is no way you could possibly ever waste your savings or have some sort of problem where you'll end up dependent on others.

Re: Retirement Nomads: Too poor to retire and too young to die

#162

Post by Daishiman »

Lawtonfogle wrote: post #146
lukev wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? Why is that? Say you encountered a local situation where you meet someone in real danger, and for some contrived reason only you are able to help them (say, they knock at the door of your remote house during a blizzard or something, if it helps to make it concrete.) The majority of society would say it is your ethical duty to help a person in such a circumstance, even at moderate inconvenience to yourself. You w…

>The majority of society would say it is your ethical duty to help a person in such a circumstance, even at moderate inconvenience to yourself. A stranger man knocks on the door of a single mother with a young daughter (yes, I am piggy backing on stereotypical social norms). Does she have an ethical duty to put both herself and her child at potentially great risk (which is probably largely overblown by 24 hours news…

It's funny that you mentioned the first scenario because that one of the exact reasons why government emergency services exist; you still bear the cost but your physical safety is much more likely to be assured.

Re: Retirement Nomads: Too poor to retire and too young to die

#163

Post by rconti »

6stringmerc wrote: post #128
duderific wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why did Boomers not have enough income to put savings aside? Many of them did have enough income to put aside, but chose not to. My father is one of them. He was making 6 figures back in the 1980's when that was a lot of dough, yet he finds himself at 74 still having to work and living essentially paycheck to paycheck. I'm pretty sure he is not the only one like this.

From the article, it sounds like the lady definitely had means at one point in time - at least enough to rack up some serious CC debt: > She owes $50,000 on her credit cards.

Also from the article "having never done much long-term financial planning"

Re: Retirement Nomads: Too poor to retire and too young to die

#164

Post by rconti »

CocaKoala wrote: post #105
toomuchtodo wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps you should ask the questions: Why did Boomers not have enough income to put savings aside? If savings was put aside, what rate of return did it earn? And what remains of those savings? But heh, f___ old people for decisions that were made before you were born, amirite?

>Why did Boomers not have enough income to put savings aside? To be fair, plenty of millenials don't have enough income to put savings aside either, and they're not even getting social security benefits.

True, but there's a difference between not having started saving by 25 or 30, and not having started saving by 70.

There's still hope for the millennials.

Re: Retirement Nomads: Too poor to retire and too young to die

#165

Post by dragonwriter »

roymurdock wrote: post #48

Here's a breakdown of the US 2015 combined (Federal, State, Local) government spend: Total Spend: 6.18tn Total Revenue: 6.08tn Healthcare: 1.32tn (21.3%) Pension: 1.20tn (19.7%) Education: 0.93tn (14.8%) Defense: 0.80tn (13.1%) Welfare: 0.50tn (8.2%) Other*: 1.43tn (23.1%) *Other = Protection, Transportation, General Government, Interest Currently, social security is taking in ~$74bn less in payroll taxes than it pay…

> If the Federal Reserve follows through in its quest to raise interest rates and inflation, it will be relatively expensive to raise the $2.83tn in debt that we will need to fund SS through 2029

The Federal Reserve is not on a "quest" to "raise interest rates and inflation", it is raising interests rates not as a goal of its own, but as a means to restrain, rather than raise, inflation. (h/t to laurencerowe for catching the dumb mistake I made earlier here by reversing the effect sought -- the correction actually makes reality farther from "raise interest rates and inflation" than my initial response.)

And even with rates much higher than any that the Fed is likely to raise them to between now and 2020, new government debt has been fairly cheap. Not as cheap as it is now, but not particularly expensive.

Further, if it is more expensive to issue new government debt, than the returns on the Trust Fund will be greater, and it will not be exhausted as soon. (In fact, the "low cost" alternative scenario -- in which Social Security is solvent as far out as projections go -- is, compared to the intermediate projection, based on higher interest rates, higher inflation, and higher employment [the latter of which is one of the factors which lead the Fed to seek higher interest rates, since balancing inflation against employment is a big part of what they do]. So the Fed being on that "quest" is, arguably, a positive sign for Social Security.)

(Anyhow, the most recent -- 2015 Trustees Report -- intermediate projection is for exhaustion of the Old Age & Survivors Trust Fund is in 2035, not 2029.)

Re: Retirement Nomads: Too poor to retire and too young to die

#166

Post by Lawtonfogle »

Daishiman wrote: post #162
Lawtonfogle wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The majority of society would say it is your ethical duty to help a person in such a circumstance, even at moderate inconvenience to yourself. A stranger man knocks on the door of a single mother with a young daughter (yes, I am piggy backing on stereotypical social norms). Does she have an ethical duty to put both herself and her child at potentially great risk (which is probably largely overblown by 24 hours news…

It's funny that you mentioned the first scenario because that one of the exact reasons why government emergency services exist; you still bear the cost but your physical safety is much more likely to be assured.

So sometimes we find that bearing the full cost, including the cost to safety, to be too great but we find a solution with a different cost (maybe not always lower as there are multiple dimensions of cost) that we are willing to enforce on people.

But even given emergency services, there are still limits where they are unable to provide help. And in those cases, while we are free to judge a person regardless of what they choose, we do not force them to render aid.

Re: Retirement Nomads: Too poor to retire and too young to die

#167

Post by 6stringmerc »

k-mcgrady wrote: post #159
6stringmerc wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I doubt you'll be espousing this same view when you can't walk due to a bad hip and can't afford a new one possibly due to factors outside of your control. Sigh, this is unfortunately a subject I refuse to go into much detail about, but this view was entirely crafted under the auspices of having an expensive, lifetime handicap. Pre-ACA, I lived constantly under threat of medical bankruptcy and pre-existing conditio…

Sorry to hear about your health issues. I can see your point of view on this but I just don't see why it sound be an issue at all. I believe it's perfectly possible for us to be able to provide free health care to everyone if the government stops wasting significant amounts of money on unnecessary ventures.

Thanks for the response, and practically speaking - also philosophically - I am in agreement with you. I frankly don't understand why we don't make compassion and care a higher priority! With this noted I hope we can both work towards it in our own small ways, cheers.

Re: Retirement Nomads: Too poor to retire and too young to die

#168

Post by 6stringmerc »

zepto wrote: post #156
6stringmerc wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually I have a summer birthday so, yes, I do not enjoy them very much. I'm basically very disappointed at the economy and society that I've inherited. Forgive me if I don't wear a smile while looking critically at those who came before me.

Sounds like you blame the elderly for your situation. What happened to taking responsibility for your own station?

I'm doing fine right now, but I'm looking ahead 5 years.

Re: Retirement Nomads: Too poor to retire and too young to die

#169

Post by roymurdock »

dragonwriter wrote: post #165
roymurdock wrote: post #48

Here's a breakdown of the US 2015 combined (Federal, State, Local) government spend: Total Spend: 6.18tn Total Revenue: 6.08tn Healthcare: 1.32tn (21.3%) Pension: 1.20tn (19.7%) Education: 0.93tn (14.8%) Defense: 0.80tn (13.1%) Welfare: 0.50tn (8.2%) Other*: 1.43tn (23.1%) *Other = Protection, Transportation, General Government, Interest Currently, social security is taking in ~$74bn less in payroll taxes than it pay…

> If the Federal Reserve follows through in its quest to raise interest rates and inflation, it will be relatively expensive to raise the $2.83tn in debt that we will need to fund SS through 2029 The Federal Reserve is not on a "quest" to "raise interest rates and inflation", it is raising interests rates not as a goal of its own, but as a means to restrain, rather than raise, inflation. (h/t to laurencerowe for catc…

> to maintain, rather than raise, inflation

The Committee judges that there has been considerable improvement in labor market conditions this year, and it is reasonably confident that inflation will rise, over the medium term, to its 2 percent objective. Given the economic outlook, and recognizing the time it takes for policy actions to affect future economic outcomes, the Committee decided to raise the target range for the federal funds rate to 1/4 to 1/2 percent. The stance of monetary policy remains accommodative after this increase, thereby supporting further improvement in labor market conditions and a return to 2 percent inflation.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/2015...

> exhaustion of the Old Age & Survivors Trust Fund is in 2035, not 2029

Social Security’s combined reserves likely will be fully depleted by 2034, according to the trustees’ intermediate forecast. The disability-insurance trust fund could run dry as soon as the end of 2016, while the old-age and survivors’ fund is expected to be depleted in 2035 – assuming it’s not tapped to backfill the disability fund. (The Congressional Budget Office, in a separate report that uses somewhat different demographic assumptions, projects that the disability fund will be exhausted in fiscal 2017 and the old-age and survivors’ fund in calendar 2031; if the funds are combined, they would be exhausted in calendar 2029.) The exact depletion dates depend, of course, on future demographic and economic trends. After the reserves are exhausted, the system still will be receiving tax revenue, but it will only be enough to pay about three-quarters of scheduled benefits – unless Congress changes the benefit formulas, raises the payroll tax, or makes other changes such as raising the cap on taxable wage income (currently $118,500).

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/08/18/5-facts-abou...

Re: Retirement Nomads: Too poor to retire and too young to die

#170

Post by laurencerowe »

dragonwriter wrote: post #165
roymurdock wrote: post #48

Here's a breakdown of the US 2015 combined (Federal, State, Local) government spend: Total Spend: 6.18tn Total Revenue: 6.08tn Healthcare: 1.32tn (21.3%) Pension: 1.20tn (19.7%) Education: 0.93tn (14.8%) Defense: 0.80tn (13.1%) Welfare: 0.50tn (8.2%) Other*: 1.43tn (23.1%) *Other = Protection, Transportation, General Government, Interest Currently, social security is taking in ~$74bn less in payroll taxes than it pay…

> If the Federal Reserve follows through in its quest to raise interest rates and inflation, it will be relatively expensive to raise the $2.83tn in debt that we will need to fund SS through 2029 The Federal Reserve is not on a "quest" to "raise interest rates and inflation", it is raising interests rates not as a goal of its own, but as a means to restrain, rather than raise, inflation. (h/t to laurencerowe for catc…

> The Federal Reserve is not on a "quest" to "raise interest rates and inflation", it is raising interests rates as a means to avoid deflation (or, phrased differently, to maintain, rather than raise, inflation.)

Raising interest rates generally lowers inflation. The Fed recently raised interest rates because it thought the danger of deflation had receded as inflation had begun to increase (though inflation remains below the 2% target.)

Post reply on HN