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.
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.
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?