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

Too poor to retire, too young to die (2016)

graphics.latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 154 posts

Re: Too poor to retire, too young to die (2016)

#121

Post by pkaye »

creaghpatr wrote: post #36
toomuchtodo wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mind if I expound on this? My mother died in July at 59 from a brain hemorrhage. I took her in 2 years ago, and I paid ~$1000/month for her prescriptions before the ACA kicked in. After it kicked in, her prescription costs dropped (thankfully, as I was going to Canada to get non-controlled prescriptions) but her provider costs increased. Only because I’m a tech professional in a top earning tier was I able to do this…

So your solution was to shaft the hospitals $48k? Sounds like an applicable solution for the rest of America. This is why healthcare costs are so high.

Next thing you will be telling me is that the CEO of a company should be responsible for company debts?

Re: Too poor to retire, too young to die (2016)

#122

Post by Danihan »

bitL wrote: post #72
Danihan wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you be more specific about what "decent wisdom of civilization builders" we've disregarded...?

We completely disregard "evolutionary development" of civilization and replacing it with artificial reductionist constructs without understanding their consequences. Like allowing "unlimited" QA, and expecting money to trickle down, somehow pretending that passing through super-efficient money extractors won't get in the way. Increasing costs/financial burden on regular population while keeping real wages on the leve…

That seems pretty complex for distilled wisdom... ^

IMO we just live in fairly unprecedented times. Most people are still learning how to cope with new technologies and moral norms while trying not to completely throw away sacred traditions.

Re: Too poor to retire, too young to die (2016)

#123

Post by turc1656 »

JustSomeNobody wrote: post #116
turc1656 wrote: post #68

"...and faced yet another nasty choice between need and want. Should she go to the dentist, or take a guided tour of buildings designed by her favorite architect, Frank Lloyd Wright? Each cost $100. She picked Frank Lloyd Wright. Her teeth could wait." Wow, with decisions like that it's no wonder that woman is in a bad position. Honestly, though - am I supposed to feel bad for someone like this? You can bet that if I…

Never forget to pay yourself. It is morally crushing to work and work and never have any enjoyment. It's wrong to have the attitude that she makes bad decisions so of course she's poor.

Why is that wrong? Surely I am entitled to my opinion, however judgmental it may be. Also, it's barely an opinion at all. It's practically a fact based on the information in the article alone that a number of extremely bad decisions led to that woman's unfortunate situation.

Let me put it another way - I personally have never met a single person who was responsible, level-headed, and made rational decisions with their money ever wind up in a scenario even remotely like this woman's.

Re: Too poor to retire, too young to die (2016)

#124

Post by JustSomeNobody »

taway_1212 wrote: post #98
cpursley wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hum. Potential opportunity: Turn dead malls into senior centers with housing for the elderly.

I am not an architect, but are malls suitable for this? It seems to me that most of the space inside is too far from windows to get daylight. It would be more like storage for the elderly instead of housing.

Most malls (at least here in the south) have lots of windows in the roof along the walkways, so maybe that light could be light piped into the living quarters. Sure, it's not windows, but it's natural light to help keep their spirits up.

Re: Too poor to retire, too young to die (2016)

#125

Post by knicholes »

tytytytytytytyt wrote: post #87
knicholes wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd say even driving at all is a mistake if one is trying to save money. Insurance is costly, gas is costly, and so are speeding tickets. I recommend to struggling friends to buy a used bicycle (some non-profits will give bicycles away for free) or to ride public transportation.

Are you suggesting someone her age should bike dozens of miles per day to and from her job? And it's not like spending an extra hour a day on a bus is a great solution, either, possibly 2 hours on days someone needs to go somewhere other than work.

Maybe a recumbent bike. Maybe it's electric to help out. $2k vs $20k.

Re: Too poor to retire, too young to die (2016)

#126

Post by JustSomeNobody »

turc1656 wrote: post #123
JustSomeNobody wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Never forget to pay yourself. It is morally crushing to work and work and never have any enjoyment. It's wrong to have the attitude that she makes bad decisions so of course she's poor.

Why is that wrong? Surely I am entitled to my opinion, however judgmental it may be. Also, it's barely an opinion at all. It's practically a fact based on the information in the article alone that a number of extremely bad decisions led to that woman's unfortunate situation. Let me put it another way - I personally have never met a single person who was responsible, level-headed, and made rational decisions with thei…

> Let me put it another way - I personally have never met a single person who was responsible, level-headed, and made rational decisions with their money ever wind up in a scenario even remotely like this woman's.

What does this prove? Those people wouldn't be hanging out on HN for sure!

Edit: But you're right, you're not wrong for having your opinion.

Re: Too poor to retire, too young to die (2016)

#127

Post by rayiner »

falcolas wrote: post #108
rayiner wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can buy a 5BR house in Sibley IA (downtown, walkable to the grocery store and general store) for $330/month in mortgage. Add $350 in health care and you’ve still got $700 per month. Tight, yes, but definitely decent.

$700 to cover food, (gas, car insurance - probably a requirement in Iowa to do more than go to the stores), entertainment, a house repair fund, clothing, electricity/gas/water/sewer/garbage... That $700 is going to be stretched pretty damned thin. And that's assuming that insurance covers everything health related (it probably doesn't).

Instead of splitting hairs on hypothetical budgets, let’s look at it another way. The median HHI is $43,000 and the median household size is about 2.7. (And remember, that is taxed while her SS and pension likely are not.) $17,000 as an individual living alone with no dependents probably puts her at the bottom of the middle 1/3. Middle third in Sibley isn’t just barely surviving. It’s a decent life.

Re: Too poor to retire, too young to die (2016)

#128

Post by turc1656 »

jorblumesea wrote: post #120
turc1656 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A "real" social safety net? Is that a joke? As though we already don't have tons of social programs? Sure, the US might not be as insanely generous as some European nations, but the US has medicare, medicaid, food stamps (SNAP), social security, welfare (SSI), disability, housing assistance, CHIP, WIC, ACA subsidies, section 8 housing assistance, home energy assistance, and probably even more I can't think of or don'…

$7k / person is nothing compared to most European countries. And we still don't have a single payer healthcare system.

To be clear - it's 7k for each person in the entire country - not each recipient. So the amount received by the actual people getting the benefits is far, far more than just 7k.

Think about it this way - the average household income is something like 55k in the US. Even if it were just the far lower 7k number, that's nearly 13% of income. That maps out to around 6 weeks of work/income for which the member(s) of that household must work for to then have that money taken by government and given to someone else. And that's the best case scenario, using the lowest number. Households with multiple earners making larger amounts pay an even higher percentage towards all of this.

Re: Too poor to retire, too young to die (2016)

#129

Post by linkmotif »

falcolas wrote: post #114
linkmotif wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Big Macs are shit salty food that doesn’t make you full and spikes your glycemic load so you’re hungry again in 30 minutes. The American idea that poor people get to organize their time the same way that non poor people get to organize their time is near the core of the problem. The argument that eating fast food saves you time is deeply troublesome because poor people, while disadvantaged in many ways like having to…

Where else can I spend $6, and have 1000+ calories available to me the next minute? Assume I don't have prep time, because I'm not at home, or because I'm already late for my second job in an attempt to provide for myself at minimum wages. A lot of folks don't have the time or energy to stock up for, prepare and cook proper meals, whether rich, poor, or somewhere in between. Call it a tragedy of the modern times.

> Where else can I spend $6, and have 1000+ calories available to me the next minute?

The supermarket. You’ll have 10-15,000 much better calories, but you’ll have to cook them in water before you consume them.

If you can’t find time to cook and you’re poor, you’ll be poor forever. If you can’t find time to cook and you’re middle class, you’ll be poor soon enough. If you can’t organize your time to run your home economy, you’re going to be poor. Your home economy is the basis of all your wealth. It’s fundamental. If you “don’t have time” for that you’re a slave to The Man, parroting that nonesense for the privilege of eating inferior food other people prepared for you at a huge markup.

> Call it a tragedy of the modern times.

I am! :) It's the tragedy, really.

Re: Too poor to retire, too young to die (2016)

#130

Post by turc1656 »

JustSomeNobody wrote: post #126
turc1656 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is that wrong? Surely I am entitled to my opinion, however judgmental it may be. Also, it's barely an opinion at all. It's practically a fact based on the information in the article alone that a number of extremely bad decisions led to that woman's unfortunate situation. Let me put it another way - I personally have never met a single person who was responsible, level-headed, and made rational decisions with thei…

> Let me put it another way - I personally have never met a single person who was responsible, level-headed, and made rational decisions with their money ever wind up in a scenario even remotely like this woman's. What does this prove? Those people wouldn't be hanging out on HN for sure! Edit: But you're right, you're not wrong for having your opinion.

It goes to show that what I said isn't an "attitude" or mindset, but rather a simple observation of reality. Mainly that decisions have consequences. What I said is nothing new, yet you say that it is wrong to have that attitude. Meanwhile basically everything we have ever seen supports the claim that if you prepare and plan for the future you are in nearly every circumstance far better off in the long run.
Post reply on HN