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

Why work has failed us: Because no one can afford to retire anymore

fastcompany.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 147 posts

Re: Why work has failed us: Because no one can afford to retire anymore

#91

Post by mmirate »

maerF0x0 wrote: post #88
mmirate wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> housing costs were not 50-75% of their salary 75% is far above what any reasonable person would recommend to be the maximum portion of salary that should be spent on housing. Personally, my housing is around 25% of my posttax income, and I thought I was pushing it a bit. This isn't a generations problem, this is a supreme-ignorance problem.

> 75% is far above what I or any reasonable person would recommend to be the maximum portion of salary that should be spent on housing. Two rules of thumb i've heard are: 1) Do not mortgage more than 4x your annual salary (household if double income) . 2) Do not pay more than 20x annual rent for a place (eg, $50k annualized rent == $1M house) . Another way to rephrase an ignorance problem is a lack of education probl…

> (parents, school system)

Being younger than the Web, I utilized neither of those things to learn how to set up a budget.

> On one hand we're all adults and ought to keep trying to learn whatever will benefit us best (ie "Financial education")

Damn straight.

Re: Why work has failed us: Because no one can afford to retire anymore

#92

Post by randomdata »

maerF0x0 wrote: post #88
mmirate wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> housing costs were not 50-75% of their salary 75% is far above what any reasonable person would recommend to be the maximum portion of salary that should be spent on housing. Personally, my housing is around 25% of my posttax income, and I thought I was pushing it a bit. This isn't a generations problem, this is a supreme-ignorance problem.

> 75% is far above what I or any reasonable person would recommend to be the maximum portion of salary that should be spent on housing. Two rules of thumb i've heard are: 1) Do not mortgage more than 4x your annual salary (household if double income) . 2) Do not pay more than 20x annual rent for a place (eg, $50k annualized rent == $1M house) . Another way to rephrase an ignorance problem is a lack of education probl…

> on the other hand those tasked with educating us have failed us (parents, school system)

Is the problem lack of education, or is it that humans also have emotions to contend with?

If, hypothetically, someone with a $100k income spends $75k on rent, they are left with $25k to spend elsewhere. If another location allows you to rent a place for $10k, that means that a $35k income would also leave you with $25k to spend elsewhere.

Assuming all else is equal, try and convince someone with that $100k income that they should move and take a $40k job instead. It, in almost all cases, isn't going to happen.

Sure, they would technically be better off, giving them an additional $5,000 in their pocket. But from a social perspective, saying that you make $100k sounds way more impressive than saying you make $40k. And moving isn't a desirable action for most. It seems that is difficult for a lot of people to overcome, even when they know the numbers are not in their favour.

Re: Why work has failed us: Because no one can afford to retire anymore

#93

Post by mmirate »

ryandrake wrote: post #83
mmirate wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If someone is unproductive and can't/won't work, then people shouldn't be obligated to give him/her the fruits of their labor.

I hope you don’t suddenly become disabled or chronically ill without a support network, with that attitude.

> disabled or chronically ill

a priori, I consider both of those fates worse than death. Support network or no.

Re: Why work has failed us: Because no one can afford to retire anymore

#94

Post by toomuchtodo »

ryandrake wrote: post #67
fomojola wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not emphasized enough: prior to the last 100 years, the concept of retirement as currently visualized simply did not exist. You had kids, and the kids took care of you in your old age (or you just had a terrible old age). A very small number of people had the resource base to survive growing old gracefully: Social Security was an attempt to extend that to all on a consistent basis. That's not to say some form…

I’m curious too. What’s the solution? Life expectancy keeps going up, but the age at which our bodies can no longer work has stayed relatively flat. People are living long past when they can no longer work. Fact. Society needs to solve this or we risk letting the elderly starve on the street.

The solution is to raise taxes on the highest earners, and a wealth tax on certain types of wealth. To defeat health care inflation with single payer or other universal coverage system. To ensure senior housing is affordable.

Off the top of my head.

Re: Why work has failed us: Because no one can afford to retire anymore

#95

Post by mdorazio »

the_gastropod wrote: post #66
mdorazio wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, so that's a median per-worker wage of around $22/hour. But $14/hour is right in the middle of the 2nd and 3rd income quintiles [1], meaning a solid 40% of Americans don't even make that much. It's not a very strong argument unless you're OK with current poverty and lack of retirement ability trends for large swathes of the country. [1] https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/household-income-...

Read the title of the article again ;-) Most Americans can retire. And there's this pretty broad movement to rationalize middle class earners failing to save. For those earning under ~25k/year, I agree: it's challenging. Especially if they've got medical problems or other extenuating circumstances to deal with.

Not disagreeing with the article title, just with your assessment of what "normal" means in the context of earnings for Americans. I think we just have different ideas about what segment of the population that term should apply to.

Re: Why work has failed us: Because no one can afford to retire anymore

#96

Post by DoreenMichele »

mmirate wrote: post #93
ryandrake wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hope you don’t suddenly become disabled or chronically ill without a support network, with that attitude.

> disabled or chronically ill a priori , I consider both of those fates worse than death. Support network or no.

You probably won't get anyone to engage you in earnest.

I have a genetic disorder. I'm significantly impacted by it. I spend part of every single day wishing I were dead and I'm actually pro Right to Die.

But your sweeping pronouncements are hard to engage because your first one isn't about your personal preference to die if faced with certain things. It's a pronouncement about not supporting others.

I fully support your right to choose to die rather than live with certain things, but it's much more complicated when we start talking about making general policies. At that point, you really need to provide some support for people who have had something unfortunate happen because society just works better when you do.

Trying to decide who, what, when, where and how much gets tricky. But a society that throws people to the wolves if they are even temporarily impaired winds up actively creating more problems than it solves.

You are lumping together your personal preference to die rather than live with X into your desire to not do shit all for other people and that makes it really hard to have a meaningful discussion here.

Re: Why work has failed us: Because no one can afford to retire anymore

#97

Post by Buldak »

the_gastropod wrote: post #18

C'mooon > The IRA won’t make anyone rich. A calculator on the site estimates that if you’re 22 years old and making $14 an hour–saving around $120 a month–you could end up with around $230,000 by the time you’re 65 1. $14 / hour? The median household (yes, I know, household, but wait) income is the highest it's been since at least 1985 [1] at $59k/year. So $14 is definitely a bit lower than "normal". 2. Saving $120/m…

>eat anything but rice and beans ...

This reads like a descent into satire.

Re: Why work has failed us: Because no one can afford to retire anymore

#98

Post by codeddesign »

Ultimately it has nothing to do with being able to afford but rather people are increasingly bad with their finances. The high majority of America today is in debt at will and much rather use a card over hard cash. Savings? Ha..nope. It’s all the rage to have a nicer house, car, possessions than to be financially safe. It’s not work that has failed people, it’s the parents that failed to teach their children how to conduct themselves in a fiscally responsible way.

Re: Why work has failed us: Because no one can afford to retire anymore

#99

Post by rule_follower »

tcbawo wrote: post #30
the_gastropod wrote: post #18

C'mooon > The IRA won’t make anyone rich. A calculator on the site estimates that if you’re 22 years old and making $14 an hour–saving around $120 a month–you could end up with around $230,000 by the time you’re 65 1. $14 / hour? The median household (yes, I know, household, but wait) income is the highest it's been since at least 1985 [1] at $59k/year. So $14 is definitely a bit lower than "normal". 2. Saving $120/m…

Fixed costs have gotten too high, and these prices are inelastic. I think the only way to fix it is wage inflation across the board.

How to accomplish this without exacerbating continued asset & fixed cost inflation?

Re: Why work has failed us: Because no one can afford to retire anymore

#100

Post by russellbeattie »

dgacmu wrote: post #80
dsnuh wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to the article you linked, based on your age (I'm in the same cohort), the average 401k is worth $91,000. Are you not contributing at all to your 401k? Did you get a late start, or have some hardship that required you to break into the 401k (divorce in my case)? I've never heard the 3x annual salary in savings, but that also seems super extreme. Assume a salary of $100K per year... No one I know has ~ $300K…

The 3x the article states means total retirement savings. 401k included. I really hope you know more than a few people with 300k in 401k if they earn 100k/year.

Yes, I was talking about total savings. I honestly think that if you know 'more than a few people' with 300k in their 401k then you are living in a upper class bubble, or maybe you are 60 years old...

(Or I'm in total denial. That's a real possibility as well).

Post reply on HN