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

101–110 of 147 posts

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

#101

Post by [deleted] »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #96
mmirate wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

[deleted]

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

#102

Post by russellbeattie »

dsnuh wrote: post #71
russellbeattie wrote: post #24

My Vanguard 401k home page has this helpful notice in the dead center of the page: "We think you need $7,840 more per month." Sure... That makes two of us. I guess it's extrapolating my current salary out and how much I'll need to save to live with the same income after I retire. That's not going to happen. Here's a helpful article to see how far behind you are in your retirement: https://smartasset.com/retirement/av…

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…

Yep, I had some financial missteps, including divorce, a year with an income, etc. That said, I do have the "average" 401k by now, but Vanguard is still telling me I need to save a lot more...

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

#103

Post by simonsarris »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #44

If you turn 65 in 2040 or 2050 or 2060 Some historical perspective: My understanding is that when Social Security was created, the average life expectancy was 67. So offering it for people age 65 was intended as providing for people in extreme old age who had probably worked physically hard their entire lives and were pretty beat up. I'm not saying we don't have genuine problems here, but this article is bellyaching…

Well, the life expectancy at birth was 67 because of lots of early deaths. Life expectancy at 65 has only increased by 2 or 3 years: https://www.seniorliving.org/history/1900-2000-changes-life-...

Once you're old, you've kinda "made it" as far as life expectancy numbers go. I think someone who is 70 in 1935 would be considered just as "old aged" as someone 70 today. In fact someone who made it to 70 in the early 1900's may be considered healthier due to obesity/diabetes epidemic numbers alone...

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

#104

Post by DoreenMichele »

simonsarris wrote: post #103
DoreenMichele wrote: post #44

If you turn 65 in 2040 or 2050 or 2060 Some historical perspective: My understanding is that when Social Security was created, the average life expectancy was 67. So offering it for people age 65 was intended as providing for people in extreme old age who had probably worked physically hard their entire lives and were pretty beat up. I'm not saying we don't have genuine problems here, but this article is bellyaching…

Well, the life expectancy at birth was 67 because of lots of early deaths. Life expectancy at 65 has only increased by 2 or 3 years: https://www.seniorliving.org/history/1900-2000-changes-life-... Once you're old, you've kinda "made it" as far as life expectancy numbers go. I think someone who is 70 in 1935 would be considered just as "old aged" as someone 70 today. In fact someone who made it to 70 in the early 1900…

The article you linked to doesn't seem to fit with your claims and I don't believe your claim is accurate. Everything I have seen indicates we are seeing a lot more people live into their 80s and beyond.

I'm not going to try to prove that. My understanding is that is common knowledge.

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

#105

Post by yardie »

1stranger wrote: post #64
yardie wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it completely ridiculous and totally regressive that you have to live in Australia to receive your state pension. It’s like a final FU to the workers who have spent all their life contributing to it.

Meaning you can't retire abroad and receive your pension? How many months out of year do you have to reside in Australia?

If you’re out longer than a few months they cut your payout severely. Some friends sailing with us had to fly back every few months and check in.

So any pensioners planning to retire to SE Asia because of the lower cost of living are screwed.

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

#106

Post by derekp7 »

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…

As far as the amount to save, I've always figured that about 7.6% will get you the same pre-tax income at retirement assuming net growth of 7% (after 45 years of work -- age 20 - 65) minus FICA (since you don't pay FICA on 401k withdrawals or investment interest income). You can also probably get by with less in retirement, if you have a house paid for by then and don't drive as much. But you will have to pay some amount a month for medicare, so that should be factored back in.

If you assume 5% growth, then you will need to save about 14% of your income. Here, I'm using the average returns of the stock market minus inflation should get you 7%.

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

#107

Post by RickJWagner »

bdcravens wrote: post #59
tcbawo wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> I think the only way to fix it is wage inflation across the board. And to convince people to spending so much. The new iPhones will be announced next week. How many will buy a $1000 phone yet not have $1000 saved for any kind of emergency?

Yes, exactly.

Also: How do those "FIRE" millenials manage to retire at 30? By living WELL below their means. It's no a lifestyle for everybody, but it demonstrates that money skills can be learned.

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

#108

Post by netfire »

mmirate wrote: post #90
netfire wrote: post #45

Per https://www.valuepenguin.com/average-credit-card-debt#income ; the lower income earners in the US have almost 10% of their income in credit card debt. Per https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/fact-shee... 12 million people spend $9 billion in payday loan fees and people spend billions of dollars each year playing the lottery. Poor financial decisions and money management is definitely playing a role…

> payday loan fees ... playing the lottery ... poor financial decisions and money management ... predatory lending ... consumer spending Those are all basically taxes on idiocy and innumeracy. Idiocy and innumeracy are arguably vices whose prevalence in society should be counteracted. In the absence of the abject and horrifying immorality/aggression/violence of state eugenics, isn't taxation the next most effective t…

Several states already ban payday loans and some don’t allow lotteries (let alone state sponsored lotteries that are used to fund things like education). Personally, I think setting an effective interest rate cap (including loan fees) at around 15-20% a year would be very effective at preventing the kind of lending that can lead someone to multiple years of high-interest debt repayment or eventual bankruptcy. More education in high school about how to manage your finances wisely could also prove beneficial.

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

#109

Post by ACow_Adonis »

yardie wrote: post #23
grecy wrote: post #2

In Australia the official retirement age when you can start to receive a pension (or access your own retirement money without penalties) was recently moved up to 67. The new Prime Minister just announced he won't raise it to 70, which was on the table. I think it's clear that's just a sign of things to come.

I find it completely ridiculous and totally regressive that you have to live in Australia to receive your state pension. It’s like a final FU to the workers who have spent all their life contributing to it.

Aside from the economic physical reality (that is to say all pensions need to be financed from current stock of capital/labor), in Australia the government pension is generally funded through general revenue as a (kind of) means tested general social safety net.

It is not the same system as social security in other countries. You don't notionally "pay into" your account with variations on how much you will then be able to draw out.

We also have other employee pensions (though far fewer these days), and now the superannuation system (roughly 9.5% of full time earnings go into a compulsory tax effective defined contribution investment scheme)

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

#110

Post by microtherion »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #44

If you turn 65 in 2040 or 2050 or 2060 Some historical perspective: My understanding is that when Social Security was created, the average life expectancy was 67. So offering it for people age 65 was intended as providing for people in extreme old age who had probably worked physically hard their entire lives and were pretty beat up. I'm not saying we don't have genuine problems here, but this article is bellyaching…

Some historical perspective: My understanding is that when Social Security was created, the average life expectancy was 67.

While this is true, I think it's a misleading statistic. The relevant figure, it seems to me, is not life expectancy at birth, but life expectancy at age 65 (because the latter determines social security outlay). In the 1930s, a 65 year old could expect to live for about 12 more years, while in 2010, life expectancy was about 18 years. That's a considerably smaller increase than life expectancy at birth during that time.

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/NOTES/as116/as116_V.html

Post reply on HN