Well shit, millenials... first it turns out our investments in higher education was a bad idea, now it turns out investing in our retirement is going to get us equally mocked by boomers.

[SwimModSponges]

https://www.marketwatch.com/amp/story/many-young-people-shouldnt-save-for-retirement-says-research-based-on-a-nobel-prize-winning-theory-11664562570

Quote

1. High-income workers tend to experience wage growth over their careers. And that’s the primary reason why they should wait to save. “For these workers, maintaining as steady a standard of living as possible therefore requires spending all income while young and only starting to save for retirement during middle age,” wrote Jason Scott, the managing director of J.S. Retirement Consulting; John Shoven, an economics professor at Stanford University; Sita Slavov, a public policy professor at George Mason University; and John Watson, a lecturer in management at the Stanford Graduate School of Business.

2. Low-income workers, whose wage profiles tend to be flatter, receive high Social Security replacement rates, making optimal saving rates very low.

 

Edited October 2, 2022 by SwimModSponges

[katt_goddess]

Okay Boomer.

It had to be done.

 

[NewBluntsworth]

Yeah, there's no reason to even try to save for "retirement" if you're a low wage worker. Not that it's even fucking possible since you're going to need that money for ten million different things long before getting old, and by that point you won't be able to afford to stop working anyway. 

Only socialism can save us. 

[1pooh4u]

This applies more to Gen Z millennials born between 81-92 can start saving 😆 but none of this shit matters no matter what people do their  retirement will probably be a hellscape  of tent and canned pet food living ☹️ 

[scoobdog]

I wonder if a true socialist society has ever existed?

[tsar4]

Yes, whatever you do don't buy into the market while the stock prices are depressed.  Wait until they're really high again.

[Insipid]

14 hours ago, NewBluntsworth said:

Yeah, there's no reason to even try to save for "retirement" if you're a low wage worker. Not that it's even fucking possible since you're going to need that money for ten million different things long before getting old, and by that point you won't be able to afford to stop working anyway. 

Only socialism can save us. 

Nah, only "catastrophe" can save us. Income inequality has been mainly reduced throughout history by plague, war, revolution, or state collapse.

https://www.economist.com/open-future/2018/09/10/can-inequality-only-be-fixed-by-war-revolution-or-plague

However, I think one new problem that will possibly rectify our situation is population decline: decreasing fertility rates in the developed world, famines in the developing world. Japan has had an issue with deflation even before its population started to decline. When the overall world population starts to decline, which I believe it will this century, this will cause an unprecedented shock to the system.

[SwimOdin]

My retirement plan is to die, so this fits nicely.

[Doom Metal Alchemist]

The entire premise of the article is based on social security paying our way through retirement through covering a large portion of our preretirement income.

I don't know about any other millennials but I've heard my entire life Social Security is gonna run out before our generation gets to retirement age.

[matrixman124]

Yeah Social Security is being depleted by too many boomers retiring early. That's what happens when you don't expand wages with inflation.

[1pooh4u]

3 hours ago, Doom Metal Alchemist said:

The entire premise of the article is based on social security paying our way through retirement through covering a large portion of our preretirement income.

I don't know about any other millennials but I've heard my entire life Social Security is gonna run out before our generation gets to retirement age.

They been saying this shit forever but there’s no reason it should deplete and if there were it doesn’t stop both Dems and Republicans borrowing from it.  
 

 

[matrixman124]

45 minutes ago, 1pooh4u said:

They been saying this shit forever but there’s no reason it should deplete and if there were it doesn’t stop both Dems and Republicans borrowing from it.  
 

 

Enough money needs to be going into Social Security from wages. And essentially too many work able people are retiring early and are depleting it faster than the rest of us can pad it out with the taxes from our wages. It could at the very least severely reduce how much we would earn from Social Security post-retirement. Smaller and smaller breadcrumbs.

[scoobdog]

2 minutes ago, matrixman124 said:

Enough money needs to be going into Social Security from wages. And essentially too many work able people are retiring early and are depleting it faster than the rest of us can pad it out with the taxes from our wages. It could at the very least severely reduce how much we would earn from Social Security post-retirement. Smaller and smaller breadcrumbs.

To Pooh's point, all of those problems are self-inflicted.  Allowing employers to lowball wages (and, in the service sector, offset some of that SSI burden with tips); generally cutting corporate taxes; and defunding social security for pet projects have all contributed to Social Security being underfunded.  Furthermore, a bottom-heavy job market due to the exporting of manufacturing and general replacement of semi-skilled jobs by automation is similarly a direct consequence of both friendly corporate tax regulations and lax corporate oversight.  Essentially, the government has a direct hand in defunding social safety nets for the sole purpose of boosting corporate stock value.

[1pooh4u]

1 hour ago, matrixman124 said:

Enough money needs to be going into Social Security from wages. And essentially too many work able people are retiring early and are depleting it faster than the rest of us can pad it out with the taxes from our wages. It could at the very least severely reduce how much we would earn from Social Security post-retirement. Smaller and smaller breadcrumbs.

 

I’m not doubting it will happen only saying I’ve been hearing this since I’m 12 and we never did anything to fix it  

One fix would be to raise the ceiling of how much income can be taxed it’s capped at $147k currently 

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/select/will-social-security-run-out-heres-what-you-need-to-know/

By 2034 the surplus will be gone SS was only ever supposed to be a supplement and not the full retirement.  Pensions were supposed to take care of the rest. Pension’s that companies were allowed to drop in favor of 401ks further fuckin over everyone especially older boomers that saw their 401k take tremendous hits in 2008, I think?   

the OP article isn’t giving great advice considering what it’s basing its claims on you don’t need to save because SS will supplement what’s missing 

[scoobdog]

9 minutes ago, 1pooh4u said:

 

I’m not doubting it will happen only saying I’ve been hearing this since I’m 12 and we never did anything to fix it  

One fix would be to raise the ceiling of how much income can be taxed it’s capped at $147k currently 

That is an excellent point.  Obviously, raising the cap doesn't do much in the long term, but it does act as a great short term bridge while the economy transitions its manufacturing sector into emerging markets.

[1pooh4u]

27 minutes ago, scoobdog said:

That is an excellent point.  Obviously, raising the cap doesn't do much in the long term, but it does act as a great short term bridge while the economy transitions its manufacturing sector into emerging markets.

How would raising the cap not do much long term?  Obviously wages need to increase but raising the cap is a long term solution because it puts more $ into the pot.  Especially since SS collects more than it pays out?  It’s not all that has to happen but its definitely something that can be done, like yesterday but wealthy people will convince poor people that we don’t want to pay more or make the wealthiest pay more because they don’t need SS in the first place.  So they really dgaf if it’s there or not. All they care about is hoarding their money like some sort of ancient dragon. 

[scoobdog]

3 minutes ago, 1pooh4u said:

How would raising the cap not do much long term?

Because the underlying malaise in that sector continues to drag the job market.  I'm not suggesting it isn't one of the permanent solutions because it very much is; I'm just pointing out that its benefits will decrease over time if we don't do more to replace those all-important semi-skilled jobs.  It certainly doesn't replace increasing tax burden on corporations or, even, the highest income earners who benefit through stocks - the best way to refill the SSI coffers is to additionally keep corporations from diverting as much of their earnings to stock holders and execs while also decreasing the need for mid-level wager earners from reliance on the social safety net.  

[katt_goddess]

9 hours ago, SwimOdin said:

My retirement plan is to die, so this fits nicely.

It's the Company Way™. 

[tsar4]

10 hours ago, matrixman124 said:

Yeah Social Security is being depleted by too many boomers retiring early. That's what happens when you don't expand wages with inflation.

It don't work that way.  You retire early, you get a lot less money.  Plus, you won't be on Medicaid until 65, so you're going to have to pay for insurance out of pocket (say about $900/mo).

 It would only work if you have a lot saved in retirement funds, which are currently being depleted in this market (but it's a paper loss).

[scoobdog]

3 hours ago, tsar4 said:

It don't work that way.  You retire early, you get a lot less money.  Plus, you won't be on Medicaid until 65, so you're going to have to pay for insurance out of pocket (say about $900/mo).

 It would only work if you have a lot saved in retirement funds, which are currently being depleted in this market (but it's a paper loss).

That has nothing to do with whether or not SSI can cover even that, which it can’t much longer.