-
Generation Unwed Motherhood
June 11, 2012 | 64 comments
-
The Millennial Perspective
May 1, 2012 | 0 comments
-
The Millennial Perspective
April 26, 2012 | 83 comments
-
The Best Last Man Standing
February 15, 2012 | 226 comments
-
Carolina Girl
February 3, 2012 | 30 comments
Special Report
Retirement Wars
The growing “wealth gap” between old and young could get ugly as it dawns on the latter that they won’t have anything to retire on.
Will Baby Boomers be the last generation to enjoy the modern concept of a leisure-filled retirement? It’s a worthy question to ponder in light of a new Pew Research Center report showing a growing wealth gap between young and old in the United States.
Using government data over the last 25 years, Pew found that households headed by those over 65 have made “dramatic gains” in economic well-being, while those headed by younger adults have fallen steadily behind.
In 2009, elderly households possessed 42 percent more median net worth than their same-age counterparts had in 1984. Young adults veered in the opposite direction: Households headed by those under the age of 35 had 68 percent less wealth in 2009 than those in their same age range had in 1984.
Put simply, the age-based wealth gap was 10:1 in 1984. A quarter-century later, it’s 47:1.
It’s obvious why older Americans typically have a higher net worth — extra years of earning — but the rising gap illustrates a growing problem, one worsened by the Great Recession: Many Americans in their golden years are enjoying a retirement that, most likely, will be extinct by the time today’s younger workers reach their 60s.
That reality is setting the stage for a generational war over retirement, and a large part of the equation is Social Security. The political fault lines on the issue already are real.
A recent poll conducted by Pew found a generational rift on the nation’s most popular social welfare program. Boomers and members of the “Silent Generation” (born during the Great Depression and World War II) have warmer feelings toward Social Security than younger generations. That’s not surprising: The Silent Generation is eligible to receive the benefits, and early Boomers are now collecting them, too.
Generation X (born in the mid-1960s through the late 1970s) and Generation Y (born in the 1980s and 1990s, also called Millennials) are more supportive of seeing the program overhauled:
Most Millennials (56%) and Gen Xers (66%) say Social Security needs major changes or a complete overhaul. By contrast, most in the Silent generation (62%) say the system works pretty well and needs only minor changes. Boomers, many of whom are on the cusp of receiving Social Security themselves, are more divided — 45% say they think only minor changes are in order, while 50% say major changes need to be made.
An overwhelming number of Millennials, 86 percent, support an overhaul that would allow them to invest their Social Security taxes into a private retirement account. That’s similar to U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan’s budget plan — allowing workers under 55 to contribute a third of their Social Security taxes into a personal retirement account managed by the federal government.
Millennials also are more realistic about Social Security’s insolvency. “More than seven-in-ten (72%) Millennials do not expect Social Security to be their main source of retirement income,” Pew found. “In fact, 42% of Millennials think they will get no retirement income from Social Security at all.”
Beyond generational differences, part of the looming difficulty is this: Generation Y might acknowledge fiscal realities, but they aren’t doing anything about it from a personal responsibility standpoint. A retirement survey by Scottrade found that 55 percent of Millennials reported having not started saving for retirement, and 64 percent said they didn’t even think about retirement.
That raises an uncomfortable specter: Today’s young people will be worse off when they reach retirement age than Boomers, by far. It’s true that many Boomers haven’t adequately prepared for retirement, but at least most of that generation will benefit from Social Security payouts, and also a greater number of pension plans.
For Generation Y and, to a lesser extent, Generation X, the picture is bleak. Young people aren’t saving — oftentimes not even participating in their employers’ matching program, because they need the extra cash to meet expenses. In addition, they won’t have Social Security’s paltry payout. Nor will they have access to the same number of pensions, as the shift continues away from a defined-benefit to a defined-contribution model of savings.
By the time Generation Y begins to retire, life expectancy in the United States will have increased, by some estimates to as much as 94 years for women and 86 years for men. The United States system already can’t withstand retirees living, on average, into their late 70s. Tack on another 15 years, and the scenario becomes even worse.
About the Author
David N. Bass is a journalist who writes from the Old North State. Follow him on Twitter.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (77) | Leave a comment
More Articles by David N. Bass
More Articles From Special Report
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/11/10/retirement-wars
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- The Mole in Don Draper
- His Reach Exceeded His Grasp
- Of Weiner and Women
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 4:12PM
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Brian Mc| 11.10.11 @ 6:58AM
Pretty much resigned to the fact that when I get there, so will the government telling me that all I qualify for is food stamps. If this country makes it that far. My own fault of course, never having found that magic formula of self-determination and struggling hand to mouth...having never played the lottery. Of course, I will deal with it when and if I get there. After all, that's what we Americans do, we deal with it.
Alan Brooks| 11.10.11 @ 4:17PM
Funny, you don't like whining, but all these comments are "all I'm going to get is..."
You cons are whining as if America is a starving third world nation and you will end up living in cardboard boxes.
Stop the pity parties.
Appleby| 11.10.11 @ 7:08AM
Its 3 years until I retire, and thanks to three stock market crashes (1987, 1994 and 1998) I have only Social Security and whatever I can scrape togther by part time work.
But my generation knows how to scratch a living on a rock, because our parents were Depression Babies. All the Millenials and Yners know is Gimmee. (Actually they hope we will die so they can continue to live in our basements.)
As I have pointed out before, the period of history in the USA from 1950 to 1970 was an aberration, not a trend; we were 20 laps ahead of Europe because we had not been wrecked by 20 years of war on our own ground, and there was a lot of pent-up demand and workers to provide it. Now those days are over and life is going back to what it was before two World Wars changed everything. If you would put down your Gay Studies manual and read about the history of the 19th century in America, you might see where things are going.
Meanwhile, kiddies, here is a hint: Gimmee is not a plan.
Herb| 11.10.11 @ 7:43AM
Well..... when the Boomers die, the Gimmees in the basement will move into the main house.
My wife & I are in our early sixties, newly retired. If we mind our P's & Q's we'll do OK. Never did have children. Whether that turns out to be a blessing or not remains to be seen. One thing's for certain, I no longer envy anyone at all just for being younger than I.
Doctor_X| 11.10.11 @ 7:56AM
"Gimmee is not a plan"
Excuse me what do you think Social Security is!
it is a government redistrubution of wealth. I love how the baby boomers talk about freemarkets until it comes to Social Security then it's the government knows best. They feel entitled to Social Security due to all the work they have done. Well I have to pay twice, once for you in the form of Social Security and once for myself int he form of a 401k. That is why we in gen X resent you so much.
Moe Blotz| 11.10.11 @ 9:08AM
Your ire is misdirected. The greatest generation is more likely to demand full Social Security benefits because of how much they paid in, whereas we Boomers know what a farce it is. My investments other than SS have been more successful than not and I plan to work as long as I can turn a wheel, even though I will reach "retirement age" in two years. Our blessed federal government has been promising since before I was born full benefits for retirees as we paid into a mandatory scheme. Entitled? You bet your arse I am. But where is the money from the trust fund?
Sam Vaughn| 11.10.11 @ 9:25AM
Definitely misplaced ire. Conservative boomers have been advocating taking SS back to it's original intent. A safety net for the elderly destitute, not a retirement program predicated on Ponzi scheme. I'm not that far away from retirement but all my planning is predicated on it not being there. There is no better advice I can give than living within your means and foregoing keeping up with the Joneses.
Jacob R| 11.12.11 @ 10:29AM
But you idiots don't "misplace your ire"? You've been blaming your kids for ruining the country since they were ten years old and you were out at the bar cheating on your wives!
AND Herb most certainly is bitter that he's reduced to bitching for the remainder of his life.
And Appleby those golden pre-1950s years when women were constantly raped and told to shut up and blacks couldn't drink at the same fountain as you?
Give it a rest...the only thing any of you are the greatest generation at is hypocritical complaining!
Shamus| 11.10.11 @ 10:11AM
I don't like the way Social Security is structured, but you can hardly blame that on baby boomers. The program was created before the baby boom were born, and restructured before they were able to vote. Furthermore, baby boomers are most likely to lose money as a result of the program. We've paid a significant part of our wages into it, and it's likely to run out of money when we begin to collect benefits.
But it's foolish to divide Americans in this way.
The correct thing to do is to change the program so that it works for everyone. I would suggest giving people a property right to money taken from their wages for Social Security. There's no reason to avoid this, as the program is supposed to provide for people in their old age, and the current system can be changed whenever Congress wants. Most other developed countries have savings programs which allow people to own their savings. The US government should do the same.
Mac Jehoff| 11.10.11 @ 1:35PM
I would settle for forty acres and a mule.
TrueBlue| 11.10.11 @ 2:17PM
I'd settle for my money back, or even getting to cut my losses and not having to pay into the system anymore.
Doctor_X| 11.10.11 @ 7:50AM
I gave up on Social Security a long time ago. IF it is there when I am able to collect (looks like age 72 for me!) I won't get anywhere near what I put into it. What I resent the most is haveing to 'save twice' for retirment, via Social Security and a 401k
That means less cash now and later and they wonder why the economy is so bad!
RND| 11.10.11 @ 9:26AM
No worries, Doctor X. SSN payments will have long evaporated before you reach any age you
And your 401K will have been plundered in two dozen different ways within the next twelve years.
In short, you'll have nada.
How good are you at canning? Fruit and vegetable preserves? Start viewing the how-to vids on YouTube now.
dc| 11.10.11 @ 9:41AM
My father (now in his late 60s) told me when I was about 11 yrs old: Social Security is a bad deal for him; but for me, it was and would be a total fraud--in effect, a donation (but not deductible) to the federal government, with no strings or control attached. He encouraged me (now early 40s) to treat the SS withholding from my future paychecks as money flushed down a gaping, dark toilet, never to be recovered. Social Security is a fraud, a gross, confiscatory fraud on the American people. Those who have paid in their whole lives (like my father) ought to be grateful for getting out what they paid in (no interest, of course, no return on "investment"). And they ought to let the rest of us reclaim OUR money, and put it into accounts that we OWN.
Anyone who thinks that he has any "right" to SS payments--go ahead and take that case to federal court, and enjoy being slapped with sanctions for filing a frivolous lawsuit. You (we) are "owed" nothing--zero--and in fact, there's nothing for the government liars and thieves to "give," even if they wanted to (which they don't) or were legally obligated to (which they aren't).
So in addition to learning how to grow veggies and can fruit, I suggest buying land on which you can hunt game, and learn how to butcher it. When (not if) this sick society deteriorates beyond repair, and the nation fractures, I'd want to make sure I'm not a beggar to whatever "government" then might exist.
DWSWesVirginny| 11.10.11 @ 8:19AM
Part of the reason households headed by those under 35 are poorer than they were in the past is because a huge part of those under 35 aren't forming households. They're still goofing around, shacking up and living alternative lifestyles--none of which are oriented toward the future.
Herb| 11.10.11 @ 8:48AM
"Youth is wasted on the young." - G.B. Shaw
PolishKnight| 11.10.11 @ 1:03PM
One of the problems is that "shacking up" is literally harder: The real estate boom kicked in about 15 years ago when nearly the whole nation became obsessed with making a quick buck by owning a home. So those who got in early (namely, the older folks) made out like bandits by selling a pyramid to the young.
That said, DWS has a point: it's harder for younger people to settle down and have families due to cultural factors often discussed on this forum. As people put off parenting or don't have children altogether they blow the wealth on other stuff.
TrueBlue| 11.10.11 @ 2:21PM
Many under 35 also seem to lack a thing called fiscal responsibility. Quite a few live paycheck to paycheck, not because they have to, but because they spend money on frivolous stuff like iPhones and overly expensive Macs, two cars when one will do, and large screen TVs.
Gen X Cynic| 11.10.11 @ 5:43PM
And the under 35 people passed the no-fault divorce laws? They also developed the idea of the "me" generation? Ye shall know the seed by the fruit which it bears. These young people were raised by boomers.
One can't blame self-indulgence entirely on the hippies, the 80's yuppies were also far from being straight and narrow types.
Skippy| 11.11.11 @ 4:26PM
Excellent point!
When his third and final baby boy was born, my father was weeks from turning...26.
He had 6 years in the Navy and 5 years of marriage under his belt already.
We had a product trainer here this week who was so proud that he and his recent bride were expecting their first child in a few months.
He was 37.
Dave | 11.10.11 @ 8:26AM
A Letter From Peepa:
Dear Grandchildren:
I am replying to your request for more money. First, you kids must know that I love you dearly and am sympathetic to your financial plight, and plans for a comfortable future. Unfortunately, times have changed. Now that President Obama has been in charge of the country for nearly three years, your grandmother and I have had to set forth a bold new economic plan of our own: The Grandchildren's Economic Plan - "Four More Years Under President Obama." Let me explain.
Your grandmother and I have been highly productive, wage-earning tax payers all our lives. As you know, we have lived a comfortable life and in return have forgone many things like fancy vacations, luxury cars, etc. We have worked hard and were looking forward to retiring soon. But the plan has changed. Your president is significantly raising our personal and business taxes while promoting the destruction of the very system that could bring you the success you're seeking. He says it is so he can give our hard earned money to other people. Do you kids know what this means? It means less income for us. Less income means we must cut back on many business and personal expenditures. One example is, we were forced to let go of our receptionist, Mrs. Goggin, today. You remember Mrs. Goggin. She always gave you candy when you visited my office. She also worked for us for the past eighteen years? I can't afford her anymore, and it's breaking our hearts to be forced into letting her go
This is a taste of the business side. Or the reality. Some personal economic effects of Mr. Obama's taxation and redistribution policies include none other than you. You know very well that over the years your grandmother and I have given you thousands of dollars in cash, tuition assistance, food, housing, clothing, gifts, etc. By your vote nearly three years ago , you have chosen another family over ours for help. Judging from your e-mail requesting more money, I recommend you call 202-456-1111. That is the direct telephone number for the White House. You yourself repeatedly told me I was foolish vote Republican. You said Mr. Obama is going to be the people's president and is going to help every American live a better life. Based upon everything you have told me and things we heard from him as he campaigned, I am sure Mr. Obama will be happy to send a check or transfer money into your checking account. Have him call me for the transaction and account numbers, which by now I know by heart.
Perhaps you now can understand what I have been saying for all my life: Those who vote for a president should consider what the impact of an election will be on the nation as a whole, and not just be concerned with what they can get for themselves. What Mr.Obama voters didn't seem to realize is all of the "government's money" he's been redistributing to private financial instituions, large government unions, illegal aliens, and the growing 47% of *Americans who pay no federal income tax ( *i.e. less fortunate, but more apt to vote Democrat) comes from tax money collected from income tax-paying families. Remember how you told me, "Only the richest of the rich will be affected"? Guess what, kids? Because of our business, your grandmother and I are now considered to be the richest of the rich. On paper, it might look that way. But in the real world, we are far from it. But, as you said while campaigning for Mr. Obama, some people will have to carry more of the burden so all of America can prosper. You understand what that means, right? It means that raising taxes on productive people results in them having less money. Less money for everything, including grandchildren.
Anyway, good luck with your choice for change. For future reference, I encourage you to attempt to add up the total value of the gifts and money you've received from us over the years, and compare it to what you expect to get from Mr. Obama should he be re-elected to serve another four years.
Remember this: I love you dearly, but from now on you'll need to call the number referenced above when you need help.
Good luck, kids.
Your loving grandfather,
Peepa
Moe Blotz| 11.10.11 @ 9:10AM
Right in, that reads like some of Booger's work.
Sam Vaughn| 11.10.11 @ 9:29AM
yeh, where's Booger lately? Haven't seen a post in a while. Good one Dave...
RND| 11.10.11 @ 7:06PM
Booger is POST American. My take. Yeah, call it a stylistic change.
Herb Tarlek| 11.10.11 @ 1:00PM
You're doing something wrong; my taxes went down. Try a different accountant maybe.
Jill James| 11.10.11 @ 3:45PM
Amen to this. One wonders whether the current young generation has any idea that it is their hero Obama and his ilk that have created this disaster for them.
JimH| 11.10.11 @ 8:39AM
I'm old. Give me money. - Abe Simpson
VonMisesJr| 11.10.11 @ 8:49AM
While Mr. Bass is absolutely correct regarding Social Security and Public Pensions, the real problem for Generation X and Y is that if we do not face the problems soon, the financial collapse will not only wipe ouot their financial future, but usurp their liberty.
The financial turmoil under Louis XVI gave us the French Revolution. The Weimar Republic financial collapse gave us the Nazis. The Great Depression and the Welfare State gave us Obama.
Lawrence of Lutz| 11.10.11 @ 8:49AM
Those that work and have a long range plan will do fine; those that expect to live on their parents level just starting out will find themselves in trouble. When you start working, you're at entry level, that means entry level houses, cars, etc.
Not the level you'll be at thirty years from now.
David W| 11.10.11 @ 8:59AM
When I was just starting my working life back in the mid-80s, I was able to put money into a 401k plan. I put in the max everywhere I worked. Even though the democrats and the Republican elites lied about social security, I knew the truth. I have never ever included social security in my retirement calculations. Whatever I get (which is at least 9 years away) will just be gravy on top of what I have saved. As others, I did not take fancy vacations (one trip to Europe was it, the rest to visit family). In 26 years I've only had three vehicles - and two of them were pickup trucks. I've been in the same house for 25 years and almost have it paid off.
Sure, I splurge, but not very often and I've been able to save a lot of money due to several factors (never married, no kids, and worked for two companies that did multiple rounds of layoffs so there was the fear factor inducing saving). I thought ahead and planned ahead, partly because of my own doing and partly because of what I learned from my parents.
I know of peole who are doing nothing to save. I have a coworker who is married and has several kids and is not even contributing the minimum to the 401k. Granted, he is quite a bit younger than me, but he already is way way behind (by his choice - I tell him pay yourself first). I see the OWS mental pygmies and I wonder how much of the tax dollars that I couldn't have/save are going to support these and other leeches. I donate money to charities (I bet a greater percentage of my income than Michael Moore, Al Gore, and the other liberal elite) to try to help others, but the sense of entitlement that seems to pervade this country gives me second thoughts (but then I realize it's not their fault that democrats and liberals are sooo stupid, cheap, and just oooze hypocricy).
If Obama is not re-elected and the economy does finally recover when we kick the socialists out I hope to be able to retire early and try to make up for what I didn't get to enjoy while I was growing up (I'm keeping my fingers crossed). If there is no social security it won't cause me any major heartburn (though I'll miss what I could have been able to earn off of the thousands of dollars that Uncle Sam took from me).
RND| 11.10.11 @ 9:15AM
David W., sounds like you have thought all this through very well.
I am just sorry to say that, well, you're going to lose it all. Please don't think you'll see an even somewhat comfortable retirement or last 10, 12, 15 years of your life.
That is no longer possible, given the age you are (what one can estimate from what you have written above)
Please understand: I am not criticizing you. No. And I am not saying your planning and calculating was wrong.
It is just the reality. The reality that your electronic wealth, even when thoughtfully and conservatively invested, will all go away -- very, very soon.
A GOP guy will win next November 6th, but that won't matter one hoot.
See that guy "Barns" post below.
fmm| 11.10.11 @ 11:57AM
One unintended consequence of giving money to your grandkids over time has been to make them even more "entitlement" oriented. Don't expect them to stop asking for handouts from you or the government.
fmm| 11.10.11 @ 11:58AM
apologies, this was meant for the Dave post above
Storing up in barns for future| 11.10.11 @ 9:05AM
Mr. Bass, one of your key points is that in 1 or 2 decades American males and females -- both -- will be living longer.
Yes, I know that you are going off estimates that you see and that some medical folks offer up.
No, we've already maxed out on the living lifespan. We will now see lifespan decline. What people now ingest both willingly (legal and illegal) and unwillingly is shortening life spans.
You will see this trend very noticably within the next decade.
Simply put: Those who have now topped out/peaked out will not be what we'll see in the next generations. The "topped out," simply put, were living smarter and better (healthier -- food, exercise, work/exertion on the job, walking instead of driving everywhere, fewer drugs both illegal and legal, etc.) No, they did not know that they were "living better." It was just the natural course of living, being alive at that time in history.
I would submit that the generational warfare will be on us in less than 4 years. Seniors who mostly did everything right in terms of savings and investing will be at the barricades (as willpower and body strengths permit) because the "younger set" on Wall Street, in banking, in D.C. and in all the financial capitals of the world is losing it all and will continue to do so.
Squandered away. Corruption. Mismanagment. Incompetence. Laziness. Foolhardiness. A combo of all this -- the portfolios of personal wealth will wither like the foliage and leaves outside now.
Just as we are seeing now and have seen 3 times in just the last 6 years.
Retiree portfolios are tanking and WILL continue to do so, and the retirees losing all their digital wealth did nothing fundamentally wrong with their planning and investments.
The full societal conflagration is on the immediate horizon -- here, Canada, Europe, Japan, Australia.
Robert Caldwell| 11.10.11 @ 9:23AM
There is one major factor in this discussion this is being overlooked. It is the matter of inter-generational wealth transfer from older to younger when older submit to "that fell arrest without all bail," i.e., dies. The more older folks have, the more younger folks (and the tax man) eventually get.
Dr. X| 11.10.11 @ 9:30AM
The welfare mentality has thoroughly pervaded the U.S. The pending Social Security crisis shows that welfare teat-sucking is no longer just an urban minority problem, but a widespread phenomenon among the white middle class. Social Security contributions made during one's working life get used up within4-5 years of retirement, and if you live longer than that it becomes the equivalent of white welfare. This of course does not even mention the exploding costs of Medicare, Medicaid, and the increasing ability seemingly healthy middle-aged white people to manage to qualify for disability rather than work (frequently the result of self-induced behaviors like obesity).
I read somewhere recently that 49% of the population gets a government benefit, and that number is growing. Republicans who think we are becoming socialist are fools. We already are a socialist nation, and the house of cards is going to collapse when the majority of this country produces nothing but is "entitled" to a life of leisure paid for by the government.
ray bob| 11.10.11 @ 9:42AM
digital $$, sigh, alas that is all we have in the bank .... real $$ doesn't seem to exist beyond mortgage and car payments ... head first into my mid 50's; house nearly paid off but that is not true since the City and County actually own my house, not true you say, well don't pay your property taxes and see what happens ... wife and I figure we will be forced out of the house by ever increasing taxes which will in turn force us further out into the country side, right next to the brand new $50MM high school with its attendant $10MM football stadium ... keep moving, nothing to see here!
Louis Jenkins| 11.10.11 @ 10:11AM
Gentlemen:
Roll over and play dead. I've contributed to SS all my life, and was promised by the Federal Government that I would collect. Now regardless of whether or not I collect, I am pissed off that the Congressional Goonies have fritted away the SS fund. It's was and is my money!! And I deserve it (so to speak). So sit around and watch the Fed BigGovCo renig on their committment? Not by a da-- site. There's a big difference between not paying and paying. I've paid and so have most of you. If they cut out SS, then BigGovCo needs to be cut. Get it straight you bunch of inner belt no good double crossing scum bags.
Notary Sojac| 11.10.11 @ 10:40AM
Louis:
Nice parody post. It would be hard to sum up the "I'm old. Give me money" mindset more succinctly.
Moe Blotz| 11.10.11 @ 1:39PM
Smokey Stover, where have you been all these years? Are you still with the foo fighters or have you retired?
Gen X Cynic| 11.10.11 @ 5:49PM
Louis, did you vote during these years? If so, then you've nobody to blame but yourself and your fellow voters. The Dems spent it all on social experimentation and the GOP on things that go boom!
As a tax-paying gen Xer, I have my own anger considering that we are ending a decade where the boomers had one last spending spree, Iraq, that I am on the hook for. In order to appeal to boomer vanity, I and my descendants are in hock for cash spent on contract-cenary shock jocks, goat herds, and desert bandits.
Steve G| 11.10.11 @ 10:47AM
Gubmint hates savers and responsible people - the people that know Gubmint for the farce that it is. So Gubmint is now punishing you folks. Adjust to that reality. No SS for you (means tested - if even available); and yes, your 401k's will be seized - however Bernanke has pushed investors so far out on the risk curve it is doubtful there will be anything there, as well. Realizing this during the Clinton years, I gambled (not saved) like a mofo. After the market crash in 2008 I was essentially broke, but recovered and was able to cash out of my business with mid seven figures this year. I will probably lose it in the markets just trying to stay even.
Just remember: Gubmint hates you and there is nowhere to hide. Anyone up for a revolution?
Purpleguy| 11.10.11 @ 10:57AM
Why has this site not addressed the overwhelming rejection of the GOP on Tuesday? Ohio, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Mississippi, Arizona to name a few rejected many initiatives and elected Democrats to Red State positions ... Could this be the harbinger of a Blue Wave in 2012? Hmmmm?
DC| 11.10.11 @ 12:12PM
Purpletroll--you're so right, the nation is crying out for more socialism, more government, more economic malaise, higher taxes, more public employee union thuggery, and hoping against hope that the peaceful Syrian and Iranian terrorists continue to have a free hand in the world, to do as they please. Keep deluding yourself. And by the way, feel free to collect your OWS johnny-no-job hippies, coastal elites, and disaffected rust belt welfare addicts and form your own more perfect union. Frankly the 2d American Civil War can't come soon enough--there's no way to co-exist with entitlement-addled gubmint pukes and related scum who believe they have inalienable rights to the property and money earned by others.
RND| 11.10.11 @ 1:24PM
No Purpleguy, this is not a harbinger of anything Blue for 2012.
But you are 100% right to point out what should be the headline story for American Specator and like-type conservative media outlets.
The November 8, 2011 showing at the polls was pathetic for conservatives and the TeaParty sympathizers.
What happened? All that mojo in the air in May 2009 and November 2009 and November 2010.....fizzle....
THIS IS THE STORY.
Please add Virginia to the list of horrid showings by the GOP/Conservatives. Republicans had a truly historic (maybe once in a lifetime?) chance to gain the state senate and flubbed! (Recounts that will go on into the weekend will keep the VA state senate Democratic by 1 seat)
It could have been a slam dunk 5 seat easy majority for the Republicans, but there was no verve, drive, determination evidenced in the 2011 campaigns.
What gives? Conservatives were bilked in mail-in-checks for $millions$, but the Tea Party and conservatism have nothing to show for it on 9, 10 November -- practically.
The debts in all states will rise. The $15 trillion mark will soon be hit. SS and Welfare and Medicare and Govt Pensions SINK all hope.
RINOs win; libs win; statists win. Tea Party? Where are ye?
Bob Sloggin| 11.10.11 @ 11:12AM
Time to implement Soyet Green!!!
Bill Birnbaum | 11.10.11 @ 11:26AM
While this is clearly a long-term in nature, even the shorter term is problematic. As older workers are choosing to remain on the job longer, they're reducing the number of job openings for recent college graduates. Those recent graduates are therefore having a difficult time launching their career. Bill
Bob S| 11.10.11 @ 2:15PM
I have been wondering why this concept is not heard more often. Why not encourage me to retire as soon as possible? At 62 I receive less from SS and also free up a job for someone younger.
Mike Hawk| 11.10.11 @ 6:01PM
Don't be delusional. You are not freeing up a job for anyone. They may not replace you.
Audace| 11.10.11 @ 7:14PM
Mike Hawk, do not so quickly disparage what Bob S. writes here. This very thing, retiring employees early (by 5 - 8 years) is exactly what Europeans do all the time. It is another smoke and mirrors gimmick to hide the anemic jobs and economics situation.
There are plenty of relatively healthy 73 year old males meandering about aimlessly month after month who last went to work 14 or 15 years ago. They "suckered" them into stepping away.
They don't live good, but they live. But they are shadows of the men that they once were.
It is all a big fake.
Paul from SA| 11.10.11 @ 11:49AM
Older folks need to understand we younger people are suffering to pay for their benefits (retirement and health care).
Many of us work hard, sacrfice, suffer, conserve, eke out a living, struggle, can't afford retirement payments, can't afford health insurance, skip vacations, skip meals, all to transfer most of our money to the elderly.
We are suffering!
Mike Hawk| 11.10.11 @ 5:59PM
You aren't suffering. Most of have been doing just the same as you are now to get where we are. Now the gummint and young skulls full of mush think they are entitled to it instead. You have to earn yours youngin', just like most of us old farts did. Maybe in 30 or 40 years you my gain the golden thing called wisdom. Unfortunately it's not guarenteed even with age.
Paul from SA| 11.10.11 @ 7:31PM
Sure, I pay for your retirement, and you pay for mine! How about we just allow people to opt-out and pay for their own retirement?
bobmontgomery| 11.10.11 @ 12:19PM
Mr. Bass: Is it just so easy to latch onto the Progressive narrative about the wealth gap that you couldn't resist? Yes, we know it's PC now to bash old people, but the is the Spectator, not the Daily Kos. And yes, we know that your defense would be that you are merely engaged in an effort to wake up the younger genration, but your accepting the 'wealth gap' premise is merely taking class warfare, geneer warfare, race warfae in another direction. Surely you are aware that the intent of the 60's radicals, before they die off, is to seize all the wealth in 401k's, IRA's, bank accounts, and the works, and scatter it to the breeze. Those wishing to use your usefulness to them will not direct the under 35 crowd's attention to fixing the problem, except to note tha you agree with them that old people are greedily comfortable, to be despised, and ripe for picking. But don't feel all alone in your complicity. The major religions are jumping on the bandwagon, too.
bill carson| 11.10.11 @ 12:21PM
I'm days shy of age 61, with plans to apply for SS benefits the moment I turn 62. To tell the truth, I have no sympathy for the young. It was the young who put the head socialist in the White House. They still more or less worship him.
When the young decide that they're sick of socialism and want SS benefits to reflect what people actually pay in, THEN I'll have sympathy.
Would you believe I expect to get $1,425 per month, while the total paid in by me and my employers was only $88,000 (I retired relatively well off at age 44). My brother (a year older than me) has paid in, along with his employers, over $240,000 (last time he told me) and expects age 62 benefits of about $1,900. Whoa! Something is wrong there, huh? He pays in three times as much as me, yet his benefits are only about 25% more! What a gyp for him!
Yet the young keep voting for the Democrats who protect these lousy deals.
RND| 11.10.11 @ 1:09PM
Bill Carson, are you one who believes the "Rock the Vote" tripe?
You have asserted this here before on Am. Spectator comments.
No, it is not young people who gave us Obama. Showing up at a free rally in the university arena for national TV and a pep rally like atmosphere does not equal the act or "effort" of actually voting in the booth.
The record:
In the Demoncratic primaries that chose B. Obama to be the Dem nominee in 2008, the lowest voting demographic for Obama was in the under 26 years of age demographic.
Same for the general election in November 2008 when Obama defeated McCain. Lowest turnouts and votes for the sitting Ass-party president -- the under 26 demographic.
This dog don't hunt, Mr. Carlson.
The demographics that put B. Obama in the White House are overwhelmingly:
1. Women.
2. Blue state voters.
3. Union members and families of union members.
4. Blacks, Latinos, and Indians
5. Urban, inner city voters.
6. The aged 60's and 70's love, peace, party, burn draft card, NOW, and bongs generations
In categories 1 - 5 above, factor those over the ages of 36 (in November 2008)
In quick sum: Despite all the "Rock the Vote" and college campus hype every 4 years, those would-be first time or second-time voters under the age 0f 27....DON'T VOTE.
Apathy. No car. Stayed out late the night before. No gas for car. Hangover. Cramming for a math test. Late with term paper. Gettin' ready for a hot date. Video games. Basketball on the tube. SuperMario or WorldofWarcraft level 11. Whatever.
Their priorities are not voting in Novembers or on primary dates.
As long as there have been voting statistics, this is the ironclad case.
Please look elsewhere to blame who exactly put Obamster in the White House.
Moreover: It takes big$$$money to put a 6'1" man in the White House. How many under 26 year olds do you know who can or would donate $45.00 to any campaign of any sort? $25.00?
bill carson| 11.10.11 @ 1:44PM
It's Carson, Carlson.
I'd like to believe what you wrote, but ir still seems clear to me that Obama is extremely popular with the young, whether they vote or not.
So even if your actual voting data are correct, it is still true that young people essentially support socialist government. If they did not, we'd be reading about how and why young people are sick of Democrats, "Progressives" and socialists of all types. But we don't read that do we?
My points still stand.
RND| 11.10.11 @ 7:36PM
I apologize for the misspelling, Mr. Carson.
Trust me, the greatest pandering that candidates always do on the road to the White House is to the U-26 demographic. Thus, it is always ironic, because the under 30 set votes the least.
The under 26 is always the least registered demographic. (It requires forethought, foreplanning, and deliberate action)
However, the U-30 demographic segment that commits the greatest voter fraud. Plenty still vote at their college campus AND have already voted early back at home or via absentee ballot. College Democrats, ACORN outfits, and, sadly yes, even College Republican operatives actively advocate for this.
We could stamp it out, but when is the last time you heard your state bringing up ANYONE on this felony offense?
I agree with you; President Obama remains popular and has been since his Springfield Illinois 2007 announcement for the run; he enjoys an overall high popularity with younger people.
But this, for him and all other candidates, never actually translates into really big voter numbers on election day(s).
So many of the under 27 demographic don't even know 48 hours prior to election day where they are supposed to find their voter precinct, although free Smartphone aps will aid some for November 2012.
[These kids are lost in the world without their SmartPhone applications.]
bill carson| 11.10.11 @ 12:21PM
I'm days shy of age 61, with plans to apply for SS benefits the moment I turn 62. To tell the truth, I have no sympathy for the young. It was the young who put the head socialist in the White House. They still more or less worship him.
When the young decide that they're sick of socialism and want SS benefits to reflect what people actually pay in, THEN I'll have sympathy.
Would you believe I expect to get $1,425 per month, while the total paid in by me and my employers was only $88,000 (I retired relatively well off at age 44). My brother (a year older than me) has paid in, along with his employers, over $240,000 (last time he told me) and expects age 62 benefits of about $1,900. Whoa! Something is wrong there, huh? He pays in three times as much as me, yet his benefits are only about 25% more! What a gyp for him!
Yet the young keep voting for the Democrats who protect these lousy deals.
Gen X Cynic| 11.10.11 @ 5:59PM
1) Obama isn't a socialist. Wallstreet don't back socialist. If only we had a socialist! One might disagree with the pre-60's socialists, but at least they were in the world of reality. We've got Clintonian, post-60's cultural marxists, which are worse.
2) It was your generation that decided to subsidize East Asian and European socialist safety nets, in order to gratify your militarist hubris. We are partially in hock thanks to the Military Industrial Complex. You don't like young people? Take it up with the hipsters in Paris and Berlin, you've been subsidizing them these decades along with Saudi back-stabbers.
3.) Thoughts on Dubya? Compassionate Conservatism and Iraq and Afghanistan Nation building was just the last Boomer spending spree, fostered on the backs of young folk, a gift, just like Reagan's immigrant amnesty, that keeps on giving. I'd also add the GI bill, which insured college degrees would become increasingly expensive, and the subsidization of the civilization-destroying suburbs.
Who Knows?| 11.10.11 @ 12:34PM
Eschew obfuscation!
“The growing "wealth gap" between old and young could get ugly as it dawns on the latter that they won't have anything to retire on.”
“Today's young people will be worse off when they reach retirement age than Boomers, by far.”
I read the first page of this chicken-little screed, and was NOT surprised to see the visage of the author, picturing a young man.
Ah, youth is wasted on the wrong people!
The first rule to apply, when trying to make sense of the human comedy, especially in “imperialist” America, is that polls are NOT NEWS. Asking people what they NOW think, and then aggrandizing the answers into some kind of “reasonable” prediction about the future, is simply another version of circle jerking off.
Oh, how many people, TODAY, have too much free time---so much LEISURE!---to even take part in polls! Oh, let me tell you my opinion.
Specifically to the point about how much more wealthy oldsters are TODAY than youngsters, and the growing “missile” gap---
What happens to the “wealth” of people when they die?
Why, it usually passes into the hands of---their heirs!
And, the heirs are---younger people!
Besides, offering tears for the “poor” youth of today---crocodile tears, to be sure---is so foolish: such fake envy. Ask ANY sane youth if they’d rather be one of those old farts who’s so wealthy, or themselves, with fifty years or so of a good life likely ahead of them.
Short of a wrenching manmade or natural catastrophe, which I think is what we ought to be paying attention to, and preparing for, even if America suffers from ZERO economic growth, is there any doubt that improving technology will at least maintain the relatively easy situations we enjoy?
And, anyway, “enjoying” LEISURE isn’t what life is all about. An actualized life should entail ongoing learning, more and more understanding, and a daily life that involves robust creativity.
No—we needn’t worry about “wealth” gaps, when it comes to those lucky enough to have been born in, or otherwise arrived in, America.
The choice is ALWAYS and ALREADY---yours.
oldfart| 11.10.11 @ 2:50PM
We will be going back to multi-generational living because that is the only way families can survive.
WhiteBikerTrash| 11.10.11 @ 3:49PM
Social Security needs to be deconstructed!!
I was born back in 1957, I knew in the early 70s that there would be no Social Security for people my age.
It has been a Pozi scheme from the start and like any other Ponzi, it must collapse under it's own weight of promise!
My suggestion, Freeze all admission to SS. Freeze all benefits. Make an offer to all people born between Jan 1 1945 through Dec 31 1960 you receive all of your "contribution" plus 2% per year interest in one lump sum, or collect SS at the frozen level after you reach eligibility age.
You must sign up for one or the other.
Stop collecting SS Taxes.
Return all SS contributions to anyone born between Jan 1 1961 to Dec 31 1970.
66% to Jan 1 1971 to Dec 31 1980.
33% Jan 1 1981 to Dec 31 1990.
none returned to Jan 1 1990 and later. The Government is now out of the retirement business! The returned monies will be spent or invested. People will take responsibility for their own retirement, or not!
My napkin scribbling, with the information I have tells me that the final cost of this plan will be about 33 Trillion Dollars as opposed to the over 200 Trillion dollar obligation that SS currently carries.
Mike 3/505| 11.17.11 @ 4:27PM
Sign me up! Lump sum payment. I'll settle for 50 percent of I've paid in.
Regards,
Mike
jane | 11.10.11 @ 4:25PM
Creative thinking will need to come into play for many reasons, as our baby boomer generation waves good bye and sinks slowly into the sunset, leaving several generations behind to deal with the horrific messes of our environment and financial structure!
Slacker| 11.10.11 @ 6:26PM
For whatever reason there is an assumption that Gen X and Y will eventually fix the mess they will inherit. This may not be so.
If one has marketable skills, expatriation is realistic in the age of globalization. This country could have a brain and productivity drain. Look at how many young professionals left the Midwest in the last decade for greener pastures. If things totally go to hell, well they are always hiring in China and Abu Dhabi. Our own multinational corporations are paving the way for it.
The boomers inherited the greatest county in history and look what they have wrought. In their youth they had had no respect for their elders. Now matured, they have no sympathy for the young.
Well boomers: Perhaps it is in your own self interest not to allow this place to go completely to hell. Do you really think the successful young will have no options other than to roll over?
Fear not. The lazy and unemployable young, the women studies feminist with no savings, the underclass, and the various other groups you loathe will stick it out with you.
The person doing the screwing is easily suckered.
POST American| 11.10.11 @ 6:52PM
---------------------FINAL WORD-----------------------
----Solution?
HURL the Rockefeller/Stanford engineered
'POP' culture immediately and get back to
marriage and children.
----------HUAC meets NUREMBERG 2012----------
Soljerblue| 11.10.11 @ 9:33PM
"By the time Generation Y begins to retire, life expectancy in the United States will have increased, by some estimates to as much as 94 years for women and 86 years for men. The United States system already can't withstand retirees living, on average, into their late 70s. Tack on another 15 years, and the scenario becomes even worse."
Why do you think Obamacare is weighted against seniors? Hellooo!
OnTheRoadALot| 11.10.11 @ 9:51PM
Its LBJ's fault.
John Gray| 11.10.11 @ 10:39PM
Seniors need to stop to 2-stepping and figure out what their argument is for supporting SS/Medicare. Is it like an annuity, that pays for itself based on contributions, or a welfare program? Can't be both, but seniors want to have it both ways. See if you recognize BOTH patterns of debate when it comes to entitlements:
A. Reformist: Programs are too expensive and we gotta cut back.
Gramps: Well, Sonny, I paid into the system and just want my money back!
B. Reformist: Well, Gramps, actually seniors take out many times what they paid in, accounting for inflation, etc.
Gramps: Why you selfish greedy kid. Do you just want us old people to starve in the gutters?
Seniors, if you want the comfort of A, that you are a rugged self-reliant person and not a welfare deadbeat, then argument over: TIME-TO-CUT.
If you prefer B, that this is a welfare system, then fine: let's roll SS into welfare and Medicare into Medicaid. Save on paperwork and what-not. Then have the truly needy line up for benefits regardless of age.
But this whippersnapper is tired of slaving for your early-bird dinners and golf games when you live better than I do. Pick ONE side, please.
carnot| 11.12.11 @ 5:16PM
You argument is specious to the degree that one does not get back (plus interest) what was "invested" into the system. it's not either or.
POST American| 11.12.11 @ 1:45AM
----------HURL that Rockefeller/Stanford Research
/Tavistock Institute et al 'social
engineering' 'POP' culture ----prosecute the
PERPS behind it ------and bring back the
culture of courtship, marriage, children
and family --------------IMMEDIATELY.
------------------------------Problem solved.
Marco| 11.12.11 @ 8:13AM
The way things are going in the West, I doubt seriously that life expectancy will be increasing to 94 years, if at all. Fewer people living shorter lives, a retirement actuary's dream, and the purpose of Obamacare. Problems solved?
carnot| 11.12.11 @ 5:14PM
don't care about the younger generation at this point. they can vote their own interests.
I better get back (with interest) what I put into the SS system over a lifetime. or I will be angry. very angry.
POST American| 11.13.11 @ 11:13PM
---------------------FINAL WORD-----------------------
"Understand, in ALLLL real cultures,
EVEN among the elitist Hindus, the
MOST sacred duty of senior men,
above and beyond all else
-----is their duty to the UNBORN."
-----------------------------------------GET IT?????
wedding dresses | 11.14.11 @ 3:11AM
Seniors, if you want the comfort of A, that you are a rugged self-reliant person and not a welfare deadbeat, then argument over: TIME-TO-CUT.
If you prefer B, that this is a welfare system, then fine: let's roll SS into welfare and Medicare into Medicaid. Save on paperwork and what-not. Then have the truly needy line up for benefits regardless of age.