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.
Nor I. But when I was 25 I thought I would retire at 55 (and actually all things remaining equal, my plan and habits would have enabled it). But all things do not remain equal. Unexpected, previously undesirable and sometimes unforeseeable things happen in life: wives, children, crashing economies, jobs constantly being shifted overseas, etc.
I guess this aspect of millennial thinking isn't new or scary. As with all of us, life will grind away hopes and dreams, no action is required from us.
I just retired at age 57. I bought my own home and even though I'm not rolling in dough I don't have to work to live. No house payment and if I make it to 62 I can expect around 2K more per month which will set me up pretty nice. I spent a lifetime working in avionics with a 60K yearly income at retirement. I still expect to work but no longer at a daily grind kind of pace. I look to do projects and temp work just to make play money. Not bad for a high school education.
Exactly.
I'm a gen X'er and I *know* I won't have a pension. Even if I retire, the government or the pension providers will default on me - either through inflation, or just because the damn pension providers will flatly announce they just don't have anything left in their coffers. I know this because they've already done it to my dad, who was born in the silent generation. So it's nothing new, but it sure won't get no better.
So, I'm not putting any money in a system that'll shaft me and I'm not saving anything for old age - most likely I'll be working until I die anyway.
What I do instead is, I enjoy as much free time now while I'm still young: I found me one of the last "old-style" jobs still available that lets me work 36 hrs/week with unreasonably great pay, in a heavily unionized old company that does business in a market that doesn't know the word recession.
In other words, I've maximized my salary/work ratio and I do as little work as possible to enjoy life the the fullest while I'm still in a condition to enjoy it. Time enough when I'm old and decrepit to kill myself at work for a living.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
Ho hum, that old line of reasoning.
Nobody is suggesting that the military go away. GP said "scaled ... back" Heck, before WWII we had a much smaller military. The Constitution doesn't require military spending to be 1%, 3% or 10% of GDP. Specifically it says "provide for the common defense." BTW, in the very same sentence it also says "promote the general welfare." So far we have interpreted "common defense" to mean "have a standing army." But you know what? Excluding WWI and WWII, up until WWII our military spending was < 1% of gross GDP[1]. Now it's over 3%, and Twitler wants to double it. Do we really need to double it? Opinions are nice, but objectivity is better.
You're all hot to point out that the Constitution requires the government to provide for the common defense. But you seem to want to gloss right over the promote the general welfare part. Why is that, do you suppose?
And if we the people want it, it seems to me that the government can solve the affordable health care problem. No Constitutional Amendment required/ We already do lots of other things under the banner of promoting the general welfare, e.g. seatbelt and airbags in cars, safe food, clean air and water, etc., etc. (and Science, bitches.)
OTOH you know what isn't in the Constitution? There's nothing in it that guarantees that every business will succeed. While Conservitards everywhere are obsessing over the possibility that some theoretical welfare queens somewhere (that typically don't actually exist) are bilking the government for millions, Corporate Welfare Queens are getting tax breaks and using bookkeeping tricks to avoid paying taxes they owe on billions in income. Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees. Oh, and those Corporate Welfare Queens are people too, thanks to Citizens United, so they can donate huge sums of money to the very same Congress Critters who give them those tax cuts, bookkeeping dodges, and "people" status. Something's fishy in Denmark if you ask me. (And hey, I'm a person too, I want that same 15% tax rate that Twitler wants to give them.)
But yeah, keep whining about health care not being in the Constitution. The ACA didn't give health care to anyone. It required the freeloaders who weren't buying insurance and driving the rest of our rates up to be adults and finally buy insurance. Maybe you didn't like the subsidies that the poor got, is that what your gripe was? Let me ask you, do you call yourself a Christian? Ask yourself, would Jesus have helped the poor? Should he have helped the poor? Would he have wanted you to help the poor? Is there a reason you don't think the poor should get help with buying the insurance they need? And want to buy?
[1] http://www.usgovernmentspendin...
Your simple plan is dependent on having above average salary, not getting sick and no close family member getting sick. Low salary forces you into simple life and you still wont save all that much. It is kinda hard when cheap rent in bad district eats all money you earn. It is hard to concentrate on happiness when you drive almost hour and half each day to get home after long hours.
The plan you're criticizing depends upon saving a percentage of income. It doesn't require an above-average salary. If you save 10% of income, you're buying a year of spending every 9 years (assuming 0% inflation and 0% rate of return). If you save 25%, you're buying 1 year of spending every 3 years. Percentages don't care if you're bringing in $100k or $50k.
Savings rate is the most important number. A lot of people chase the income number, not accounting for the cost of attaining that income. This includes commute time and stress, which translates into health cost.
Most middle class people won't retire in their 50s not because it's impossible, but because their savings rate is out-of-whack. If you optimize for Problem A, don't expect a solution to Problem B.