Quote:
Originally Posted by texdav
That just depends on who you are in that generation really. I see alot that make alot of money in their 20-30's but alot that wil never based on thier capabilites. Ypour never going to see industrial labor jobs in numbers just as the boomers saqw them cut in half at the same age.What boomers found was that thsoe who reskilled did bettrer those that complained had lower income ;levels. Same in most generations really. look at the adjustment the WWII generation had to make. There are those that do and those that wh9ne in evry generation IMO.
|
Well your point is noted but it's just red herring, the mantra of globalization "reskill or die" stop-whining patronizing misses the point. The point is that pound for pound when I sit next to my retired boomer parents with their 75% pensions and confront them with the idea that I can't find a job for the life of me that can come anywhere near their defined benefit plans and health care packages, and after adjusting for inflation my purchasing power is less than theirs was at my age, which is why home purchasing and other big financial decisions will be postponed in my lifetime compared to theirs. Their only recourse is to give me a blank puzzled stare and go on about their lives with an implied "dang that sucks...". I say this recognizing how grateful I am for the educational opportunities they were able to afford me. It doesn't mitigate the truth.
For the first time in our history, my children will not be able to take advantage of a footing higher than what my parents were able to provide me. How's that for upward mobility...I'm racking my brain at the age of 27 (when my parents were admittedly not worrying about retirement) trying to figure out how am I going to come close to retiring to the level of my parents on multiple retirement sources and 401Ks that don't even hold a candle to the most rudimentary defined benefit plan. I have to take a 20% paycut for life just to gamble it (stupid) anyways and I don't even come close to matching their lifetime benefit when its all said and done. They only saw pay increases and their savings funded discretionary purchases and cost of living increases. They were able to afford me an undergraduate education, I won't be able to do the same for my children while attempting to save for retirment in the absence of a defined benefit plan. Bottom line, my definition of upward mobility doesn't include waiting on my parents to die and inherit me some parity, that's just callous. In the absence of that, yeah I can't keep up with my parents and I 'work hard' too.
401Ks are this country's biggest ticking time bomb. Most people who've worked under the advent of these plans as primary or sole plans haven't retired yet (i.e. my generation). Most people singing the praises of 401K were grandfathered from pension plans (and didn't see the recent market bust) and at best have a hybrid 401K contribution to their retirement. Most recent plans are underfunded because people can't afford life and 20% of their salary into retirement funds consecutively. The market has shown that just like houses, 401Ks are in fact quite vulnerable to tanking in life-altering ways. The insolvency of the 401K model is yet to mature and show its face, but make no mistake, it's gonna get ugly. Heck, even the late boomers are going to take it in the shorts when they wake up to their pittance of a 401K balance and go WTF. As a Gen Y it is ill advised to believe social security will exist when we're on our late 50s.
Once again, do not fall for the slippery slope of 'personal responsibility' that has been cemented as the moral reason why it's acceptable to retire on 401Ks, when we all know the economic reasons why they've become so prevalent; portability in a world where people expect to job hop all their lives is not a compliment to 401Ks, it just means our jobs straight up suck and futher erode our ability to comfortably retire for the same lifetime effort.