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.
I was thinking that I won't be able to retire the way things are.
Millenials don't expect to work past 65 because they'd be surprised if they make it past 50 without committing suicide.
I have never met someone below the age of 30 that thought they had a chance of retiring at all. The majority expects Social Security to be gone, they have never seen a job with a pension, and they just lived the prime of their lives through the economic recession shattering both 401k investments and realestate.
Millenials are keenly aware of how screwed they are.
Millennials expect to retire at 59, two years younger than the working age average of 61
So they're only slightly more optimistic than actual stats would play out? I bet that's par for the course for any generation when they were still 20 years out from retirement.
Actually, it's hardly that simple. While you espouse a perfectly reasonable plan, there are lots of things that can get in your way. That job that concentrates on happiness (whatever that is) just laid you off. You run through your savings in 9 months looking for another job. Then your wife comes down with breast cancer.
I see this stuff all of the time. It's not just American Hedonism that is going to screw the Millenials - it's hedonism, no safety net and an economy run by those nice people that brought you 2008. If you're of the Buddhist persuasion then you can sigh, work some more on your karma and hope next time you get reincarnated as a housefly. The rest of us just get depressed.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
You forgot to include a few steps:
-Be lucky enough to never face a serious health issue.
-Be lucky enough to never be unemployed for an extended period of time due to forces beyond your control.
-Have zero family or friends that failed the previous two steps. Or even better, zero family or friends.
As a boomer, when i went to college, it was $180 a semester. Even adjusted for inflation that's a fraction of the cost today.
Tuitions went up enormously when the law was changed to allow loans not forgiven by bankruptcy.
Boomers are running about 10 years behind my age for every major landmark.
That being said- save hard, don't pamper yourself with eating out and starbucks and you can still retire years earlier.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
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.
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
And the lack of bankruptcy means the banks would loan unreasonable amounts of money to 18 year olds who had no clue how much pain they were signing up for.
If the bankruptcy was removed, loans would drop, and so would tuition.
Grants are a factor but they were tiny amounts of money compared to student loans.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
See my other post in this thread about the General Welfare clause. You have to take that as it was meant when written...it means more of the welfare of the UNION of the states, and the ability of the Feds to lay taxation for that purpose.
No, it doesn't.
Where the hell do you get these bullshit interpretations?
The meaning of the "welfare" in 1787 meant health and prosperity. Of the people. You know, that "we the people" thing? People.
Well, that provide for general welfare, has to be taken in the meaning of the day, not as "welfare" as we think of it today. Basically general welfare as used in the constitution was defined as the overall state of wellbeing of the nation as a whole.
Then so does "provide for the defense", which "in the meaning of the day" most certainly DID NOT mean the permanent standing military of the size and scope that we have today.
Basically your argument is shit.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.