Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My question is, how many of that 31% did have retirement savings before the crash of 2008 gutted it? (assuming that "savings" encompasses any type of product: savings account, IRA, 401K, pension plan) How many of that 31% lost their jobs during the worst of the recession and have not been able to replace that level of income, thus having to draw on and erode their original retirement savings either mostly or completely?
What I'd like to see is what percentage of that 31% did have retirement savings AT ONE TIME but through factors other than irresponsible spending they no longer do. Versus what percentage of the 31% never bothered to address their retirement income needs at all.
Define "irresponsible spending". I'm part of the 31% and the most I've earned in a year is $17K.
Shocking but not really surprising. This is what happens when an American style fundamentalist capitalist culture brainwashes you day and night into believing you are what you consume. I save 75%+ of what I make every year and have zero debt because I'm terrified of being old and broke. The day I become dependent on handouts you can pull the plug.
??? How much would you save if you earned minimum wage? How much do you expect minimum wage workers to save?
Let your fingers do the walking. Information is out there if one bothers to look:
"About nine in 10 Americans aged 65 and older receive Social Security. For nearly two out of three (65 percent) of those beneficiaries, Social Security is more than half their total income, and for one in three (36 percent), it is all or nearly all of their income. Social Security is a large share of income because many Americans age 65 and older lack significant income from other sources. Pensions (from private or government employment) were received by about half of married couples (from either the husband's or the wife's career). Among the unmarried, 38 percent of men and 34 percent of women had pensions. "
"Social Security is the sole source of income for about one in five (21 percent) of people aged 65 and older. Certain subgroups are particularly reliant on Social Security. Of those age 65 and older, Social Security is the sole source of income for 36 percent of Hispanics and African Americans, 25 percent of Asian and Pacific Islanders, 19 percent of whites, and 20 percent of unmarried women."
Three illustrations I put together as one earlier this year.
What is surprising is the number of people (44%) taking social security at 62 and the over half who took it at age 63 or under.
I'm 66, still working and not collecting social security yet with the minimum goal of putting it off to 67 1/2 (just a year and a half away) at which time my wife will be FRA and can collect a full 50% of my FRA benefit if I file and suspend. My ultimate goal is doing that and be one of the few to go to 70.
If my 67 1/2 benefit is estimated to be $2,250*1.12=$2,520, my wife would receive $1,125 for a combined ss benefit of $3,645. Doesn't sound like much but consider all of it is exempt from federal and state taxes so it would be exactly like having a job taking home $841.80 which would equate to a gross pay of around $1,150.
In most parts of the country a couple should be able to live somewhat to very comfortably on $3,645 as long as no debt including mortgage.
But what if we both decided to collect at 62 like 44% of Americans do?
Assuming a FRA benefit of $2,250 my benefit would be $1,687, my wife would be reduced to $843 (not really sure about that number) for a combined benefit of $2,530 and even in my low COL area that would be painful for two people. $1,115 less every month.
To withdraw $1,115 monthly for 25 years (age 87) a couple would have to have $262,385.51 in savings earning 2%. Actually you would need more than that because you will most likely have to pay some taxes on the savings withdraw whereas with social security it's all federal and state tax exempt.
Like many of you we do have savings but it isn't anything near a million bucks or anything like that. Maybe if I had a million I may have retired at 62 but for me retirement was never a goal to be strived for. Not saying planning isn't important, it certainly is especially when you enter your 60's, but it shouldn't be the end all goal when you're 40 and 50 with kids in college etc.
Working a little longer can make up for a lot of past sin of not saving.
Three illustrations I put together as one earlier this year.
What is surprising is the number of people (44%) taking social security at 62 and the over half who took it at age 63 or under.
I'm 66, still working and not collecting social security yet with the minimum goal of putting it off to 67 1/2 (just a year and a half away) at which time my wife will be FRA and can collect a full 50% of my FRA benefit if I file and suspend. My ultimate goal is doing that and be one of the few to go to 70.
If my 67 1/2 benefit is estimated to be $2,250*1.12=$2,520, my wife would receive $1,125 for a combined ss benefit of $3,645. Doesn't sound like much but consider all of it is exempt from federal and state taxes so it would be exactly like having a job taking home $841.80 which would equate to a gross pay of around $1,150.
In most parts of the country a couple should be able to live somewhat to very comfortably on $3,645 as long as no debt including mortgage.
But what if we both decided to collect at 62 like 44% of Americans do?
Assuming a FRA benefit of $2,250 my benefit would be $1,687, my wife would be reduced to $843 (not really sure about that number) for a combined benefit of $2,530 and even in my low COL area that would be painful for two people. $1,115 less every month.
To withdraw $1,115 monthly for 25 years (age 87) a couple would have to have $262,385.51 in savings earning 2%. Actually you would need more than that because you will most likely have to pay some taxes on the savings withdraw whereas with social security it's all federal and state tax exempt.
Like many of you we do have savings but it isn't anything near a million bucks or anything like that. Maybe if I had a million I may have retired at 62 but for me retirement was never a goal to be strived for. Not saying planning isn't important, it certainly is especially when you enter your 60's, but it shouldn't be the end all goal when you're 40 and 50 with kids in college etc.
Working a little longer can make up for a lot of past sin of not saving.
those charts that float around are not the same data folks try to make a point with by showing over whelmingly folks file at 62. that isn't what those charts posted show at all. i thought they did too but it is only when you examine what those charts are showing that you realize they are showing total oasdi payments for all reasons.
the charts include disability and survivor and dependant ssi. they are not just retirees and the 62 level has everyone included that is collecting disability and survivor and dependent benefits from oasdi that were already collecting for years prior..
by age 62 the breakout of that large group is you have 17% collecting oasdi for disability ,another 35% collecting survivor and dependent benefits and only 48% are retirees.
once you break that out the numbers are very different at 62.
that big jump at 62 contains everyone prior for all other reasons than retirement . that 62 group contains all you see below from under 18 to 61.
under 18-6%
18-61 15%
62-64 9%
65-74 38%
85 and older 10%
the full data set is here. page 17 has the data above
i wouldn't expect someone who had any motivation at all to be a minmum wage worker at all.
as we all know there will always be those who find a way ,the rest just find an excuse.
I would also submit that many minimum wage earners have suffered through things like undiagnosed learning disabilities, PTSD, domestic violence etc. We are too quick to point an accusing finger at those whose struggles we dont see or understand.
Compassion seems to be a lost art.
sure , the above is true , but what also is true is that you take any group of people and throw them in identical situations, you will always have those who find a way., that is just plain ole human nature.
skilled professions come and go and technology kills old jobs off and creates new ones. its the demand for the skills we need and the availability of those skills that create the job markets and the pay scales.
that skilled photo finisher, the buggy whip craftsman , even the corner shoe maker all faded into the past with little demand for their skills as consumer buying habits and technology killed off demand for those skills.
people have to shift gears and do what they have to do so they can stay ahead of the curve.
an old sam kinison skit really said it best.
he is sitting on the stage floor and sifting through a pile of sand. he goes this is sand... nothing grows in sand... it will always be sand. so why not send all those starving folks in these 3rd world countries u-hauls and vans instead of food. that way they can move to where the food is.
we have sand in our deserts in america too but no one lives in them and starves , we move to where the food is.it was a funny skit but soooooooo much truth. go to where the food is... what a novel idea.
folks have to do whatever it takes to earn a living. anyone stuck at min wage needs to find the food . they have to do whatever it takes to have good solid marketable skills that are in demand .
sorry but flipping burgers has a worker pool thats endless as anyone of us can do it.
if you have no skill set that sets you apart then you need to find jobs that take very common skills , things anyone can do or things where workers are over saturated and put a personal value on them and hope customers will pay them more then the job function is worth to an employer through tips.
waiters who can present themselves as suitable for the better eateries make amazing money for their job skill set.
there are always folks that just float through life like a cork just floating in a pond. they just drift around where ever they are pushed is where they end up and then they fail financially and blame everyone and everything around them.
then there are others who are in control and set their own path and they make sure things happen for them the way they would like.
your success and failure in life all boils down to which one are you.
many have to stop chasing the ghosts that were their last jobs or cosen career path and go to where the food is.
not everyone can do that and those who can't will be the financial failures which we will always have quite a few of. in any large group.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
