Slashdot Mirror
Most Millennials Have an Unrealistic View of Their Retirement Prospects, Analysts Say (hsbc.com)
From a blog post on research firm HSBC: HSBC calls for millennials to wake up to living and working longer, as research finds only 1 in 10 expects to work past 65. Most millennials have an unrealistic view of their retirement prospects according to a new report from HSBC. The latest report in The Future of Retirement series, Shifting sands, finds that on average millennials expect to retire younger than other working age generations. Millennials expect to retire at 59, two years younger than the working age average of 61. The survey of over 18,000 people in 16 countries finds that only 10 percent of millennials expect to continue working after 65 -- even as their generation faces unprecedented financial pressures and state retirement ages continue to rise around the world. This is despite 59 percent of millennials agreeing they will live much longer and will need to support themselves for longer than previous generations.
The "research" comes from the bank that would like you to be more "responsible" with your money, like giving it to them. This is a bank that has paid billions of dollars in fines over the last five years for money laundering and interest rate rigging. The key statement form the report: "Despite the apparent ‘reality gap’ in Millennials’ retirement expectations, most (68%) have started saving for retirement, at an average age of 26. Millennials are also more likely than other generations to take investment risks to boost their retirement saving..."
So it's not that the millennials are unrealistic, they are saving a plenty, it's that the Fed and other national banks are keeping the interest rates artificially low to boost asset prices and prop up failing mega-banks including HSBC. So please HSBC, tell me more about how I need to "save" more for the retirement so that the government can bail you and your ilk out again when you blow up the economy with asset bubbles.
The US Govt (at least on the Federal level) is mandated by the US Constitution to provide for defense...that is one of its few enumerated responsibilities and powers.
I don't really think it is anywhere in the constitution for the government (at least on the federal level) to provide healthcare for the citizens, at least not without a constitutional amendment.
I find it interesting you say that. Comments about providing for/promoting the "general Welfare" literally appears in the same sentence as "provide for the common defence" in the taxing and spending clause, and in the preamble of the Constitution.
Trump Recession? Implying that the Great Recession isn't over.
The Great Recession was over in 2009. We had eight years of an expanding economy and we're overdue for a recession. Since Trump won the election, it won't be called the Hillary Recession.
Here's a chart of historical tuitions (inflation-adjusted). The change in student loan bankruptcy law was in 2005.
So contrary to your claim, the rate at which tuitions were climbing actually slowed down after it was made virtually impossible to discharge student loan debt via bankruptcy.
It was the widespread availability of loans and grants, starting way back after WWII with the GI Bill, which led to high tuitions. The schools simply sopped up that extra money by increasing their tuition. The change to bankruptcy law, while a cute theory, had nothing to do with it, according to numerical evidence.
If "provide for the common defense" can be used to justify spending as much on the military as the next 10 countries combined then perhaps "promote the general Welfare" might be considered to include keeping the citizens of the country healthy.
You're quoting the preamble, which simply explains why they wrote the Constitution. The actual powers of the federal government are vested in Article I, Section 8. Specifically, items 12, 13, and 14:
12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
13: To provide and maintain a Navy;
14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
There is no specific power granted for "promote the general welfare". Item 1 may come close, saying that "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States", but the fact that the founders didn't start building hospitals means that they never meant it that way. It's something the states can do, much in the same way that states establish university systems.
Do you have ESP?
You have to take that as it was meant when written...it means more of the welfare of the UNION of the states
SCOTUS doesn't agree with you, AFAICT
See U.S. v Butler, 1936
But it doesn't mean "welfare" in the same way that people in this century try to translate it.
If by "welfare" you mean the (((Entitlement))) part of Social Security? No, I I'm not aware that anyone in this exchange is translating it that way. Excepting perhaps you?