(Close Window)
Topic: RETIRE!!!!!
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Oct 11, 2015 12:13AM)
I'm pretty sure I have a "Step in the Right Direction".......

RETIRE!!!!!!!

I look around and I see many many of my friends, over 62, yet still working. Many have great jobs (Making a lot more than $15 an hour) and they continue to work. WHY?????

If these people (Over 62) all retired they would open up the job market for MILLIONS of youngsters that need employment.

I'm pretty sure this was the initial plan but someone got stingy with the TRILLIONS of dollars in the Social Security pot. They stole it or spread it around to places it was never intended for.

As a result they have lowered the amount of money a retired person can get..... THUS ... Older American CAN'T retire as promised. And the unemployed youth suffer. :coolest: :coolest:
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Oct 11, 2015 12:18AM)
Could the youth step right into the jobs they these experienced people are doing?
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Oct 11, 2015 12:24AM)
[quote]On Oct 11, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:
Could the youth step right into the jobs they these experienced people are doing?[/quote]
That's completely unfair: you're expecting Slim to have thought this through thoroughly.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Oct 11, 2015 12:31AM)
My bad. Indeed unfair.
Message: Posted by: Michael Baker (Oct 11, 2015 03:41AM)
[quote]On Oct 11, 2015, S2000magician wrote:
[quote]On Oct 11, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:
Could the youth step right into the jobs they these experienced people are doing?[/quote]
That's completely unfair: you're expecting Slim to have thought this through thoroughly. [/quote]

Yes. It often takes decades to work one's way through the Peter Principle.
Message: Posted by: ed rhodes (Oct 11, 2015 04:28AM)
Oh, I managed it pretty quickly. Wait, I'm almost 60. Maybe I did take decades and just wasn't noticing.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Oct 11, 2015 07:22AM)
It's not the Social Security benefits that have changed so much for the worse--it's pensions. Remember (well you do if you are over 50 or so) when a pension was an accepted unquestioned part of being an employee? It was considered natural that society would want to take care of their elderly, and that people who put in long years working were entitled to retire at a dignified age. It was an integral part of the social contract.

Now, it's mainly the Golden Parachute guys who get their ridiculous pensions in the private sector, and public employees with strong unions who have pensions. But even the latter are under attack by politicians who cry poverty while they give tax breaks to their cronies, and steal pensions from workers, pensions which were supposedly guaranteed by contract.

If I hadn't been a member of a strong union I wouldn't be writing this right now, sitting back on my plush red velvet swivel chair under the crystal chandeliers of the fabled mansion that is Chez Landmark. I'd be flipping burgers. (Okay, arguably the burgers are way more important, but no matter).

Ahh, we'll all be dead anyway soon, those who remember how it used to be.

Have a burger.
:hamburger:
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Oct 11, 2015 07:25AM)
I agree about the Unions and pensions. Corruption is rampant.
If someone retires it usually opens up a pretty good job. "SOMEONE" must fill that job. It creates room to employ another person. If 20,000,000 folks that qualify to retire DID.... More and more people would move up the ranks or jump right in according to their abilities. Unemployment would drop and the economy would get better.
Win Win!!!! 20 million new people with JOBS!!!!
Message: Posted by: landmark (Oct 11, 2015 08:57AM)
Win/win--[i]if[/i] those retiring can live a decent life afterwards. Otherwise, not so much.
Message: Posted by: imgic (Oct 11, 2015 09:04AM)
Darn, here I thought it was a thread about Slim retiring.

Though that probably would mean he'd be spending more time here at the Café...
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Oct 11, 2015 10:18AM)
[quote]On Oct 11, 2015, Slim King wrote:
I agree about the Unions and pensions. Corruption is rampant.
If someone retires it usually opens up a pretty good job. "SOMEONE" must fill that job. It creates room to employ another person. If 20,000,000 folks that qualify to retire DID.... More and more people would move up the ranks or jump right in according to their abilities. Unemployment would drop and the economy would get better.
Win Win!!!! 20 million new people with JOBS!!!! [/quote]

So you force retirement? What I'd those who can't afford to live on retirement money?
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Oct 12, 2015 07:07PM)
[quote]On Oct 11, 2015, landmark wrote:
Win/win--[i]if[/i] those retiring can live a decent life afterwards. Otherwise, not so much. [/quote]
That's the point.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Oct 12, 2015 07:11PM)
How about answering my question?
Message: Posted by: imgic (Oct 12, 2015 07:48PM)
If only people would take a sensible balanced long term investment approach to be able to afford retirement...
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Oct 12, 2015 08:49PM)
[quote]On Oct 12, 2015, imgic wrote:
If only people would take a sensible balanced long term investment approach to be able to afford retirement... [/quote]

That's what they were told they were doing ,,,,
http://www.ssa.gov/history/ssn/ssb36.html
Social Security Trust Fund
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Oct 12, 2015 10:38PM)
I write and perform for a living. If I follow your advice and retire my income would be cut substantially and no one would get my job. Why do you assume that everyone works as an employee? They don't. So maybe you ought to rethink your original proposal that ALL people over 62 should retire.

Why do I keep working?

Because I can.
Message: Posted by: imgic (Oct 12, 2015 11:24PM)
[quote]On Oct 12, 2015, Slim King wrote:
[quote]On Oct 12, 2015, imgic wrote:
If only people would take a sensible balanced long term investment approach to be able to afford retirement... [/quote]

That's what they were told they were doing ,,,,
http://www.ssa.gov/history/ssn/ssb36.html
Social Security Trust Fund [/quote]

And nowhere in that pamphlet did it say it was a livable wage, that it was to be sole source of retirement income...
Message: Posted by: Mr. Mystoffelees (Oct 13, 2015 04:54PM)
[quote]On Oct 13, 2015, imgic wrote:
[quote]On Oct 12, 2015, Slim King wrote:
[quote]On Oct 12, 2015, imgic wrote:
If only people would take a sensible balanced long term investment approach to be able to afford retirement... [/quote]

That's what they were told they were doing ,,,,
http://www.ssa.gov/history/ssn/ssb36.html
Social Security Trust Fund [/quote]

And nowhere in that pamphlet did it say it was a livable wage, that it was to be sole source of retirement income... [/quote]

True, but for most of us it wasn't voluntary either. I believe we had a right to expect much better than we got...
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Oct 13, 2015 05:14PM)
No doubt it is a messed up situation. That is true.
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Oct 15, 2015 09:17AM)
[quote]On Oct 12, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
I write and perform for a living. If I follow your advice and retire my income would be cut substantially and no one would get my job. Why do you assume that everyone works as an employee? They don't. So maybe you ought to rethink your original proposal that ALL people over 62 should retire.

Why do I keep working?

Because I can. [/quote]
Sorry Bob but you are 100% wrong. If a convention decided to hire a mentalist to perform for them they could hire you or SOMEONE ELSE. If a mentalist decides to buy a book they can choose one of yours or one written by SOMEONE ELSE. So YES Bob, someone else would get those gigs.
And PLEASE stop violating the ten commandments of logic by creating a STRAW MAN argument ... I've never said "ALL people over 62 should retire" I did say "IF" they retired ...There are many other reasons to continue working. (Lack of medical for retirees is one)
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Oct 15, 2015 10:07AM)
What are those 10 commandments of logic?
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Oct 15, 2015 10:24AM)
[quote]On Oct 15, 2015, Slim King wrote:
[quote]On Oct 12, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
I write and perform for a living. If I follow your advice and retire my income would be cut substantially and no one would get my job. Why do you assume that everyone works as an employee? They don't. So maybe you ought to rethink your original proposal that ALL people over 62 should retire.

Why do I keep working?

Because I can.[/quote]
Sorry Bob but you are 100% wrong. If a convention decided to hire a mentalist to perform for them they could hire you or SOMEONE ELSE.[/quote]
Would that someone else be a youngster? If not - and it's quite likely that it wouldn't be - then your argument falls apart. You did, after all, write that:

[quote]On Oct 11, 2015, Slim King wrote:
If these people (Over 62) all retired they would open up the job market for MILLIONS of [b][i]youngsters[/i][/b] that need employment. (Emphasis added.)[/quote]
Message: Posted by: RNK (Oct 15, 2015 10:27AM)
No social security raises next year. I just can't understand why since our economy is so much better now??????
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Oct 15, 2015 10:37AM)
Yes .. My daughter at 20 is the best mentalist I've ever seen perform. I'm sure there are many others waiting for their shot. "Youngsters" can fill up the convention work easily. Some of the new international mentalists are quite young. Many also publish their work.
There are MILLIONS of college kids just graduating that can easily perform many high demanding jobs that older people are hoarding.
Message: Posted by: Tom Jorgenson (Oct 15, 2015 10:49AM)
Another meaningless contentious thread by you. Older people are HOARDING their own jobs? It's all THEIR fault? Millions of graduating kids can perform high demanding jobs? No they can't and that's a major problem.

Why haven't YOU retired and let a young kid do your job? They can do it better than you, right?
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Oct 15, 2015 11:02AM)
[quote]On Oct 15, 2015, Slim King wrote:
There are MILLIONS of college kids just graduating that can easily perform many high demanding jobs that older people are hoarding.[/quote]
No, there aren't.

I'm not even close to 62, but no youngster could fill any job that I do, and most of what I have done:
[list][*]Teaching upper division university mathematics
[*]Teaching financial mathematics and financial modeling
[*]Teaching accounting
[*]Consulting in risk management
[*]Teaching review courses for the CFA exams
[*]Designing EFP warheads
[*]Analyzing mortgage-backed securities
[*]And so on[/list]
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Oct 15, 2015 11:32AM)
Slim is just amazing.
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Oct 15, 2015 01:35PM)
[quote]On Oct 15, 2015, Slim King wrote:
Yes .. My daughter at 20 is the best mentalist I've ever seen perform. I'm sure there are many others waiting for their shot. "Youngsters" can fill up the convention work easily. Some of the new international mentalists are quite young. Many also publish their work.
There are MILLIONS of college kids just graduating that can easily perform many high demanding jobs that older people are hoarding. [/quote]
I'm sure nobody's hoarding mentalist jobs. How can you? They're mostly self-employed!
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Oct 15, 2015 01:39PM)
[quote]On Oct 15, 2015, S2000magician wrote:
[quote]On Oct 15, 2015, Slim King wrote:
There are MILLIONS of college kids just graduating that can easily perform many high demanding jobs that older people are hoarding.[/quote]
No, there aren't.

I'm not even close to 62, but no youngster could fill any job that I do, and most of what I have done:
[list][*]Teaching upper division university mathematics
[*]Teaching financial mathematics and financial modeling
[*]Teaching accounting
[*]Consulting in risk management
[*]Teaching review courses for the CFA exams
[*]Designing EFP warheads
[*]Analyzing mortgage-backed securities
[*]And so on[/list] [/quote]
ROTFLMAO .......
IF YOU CAN ADD, THEN IT IS OBVIOUS THAT WHEN SOMEONE LEAVES THE WORKFORCE THEY MAKE ROOM FOR SOMEONE TO ENTER THE WORKFORCE. :dancing: :dancing: :dancing:
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Oct 15, 2015 01:56PM)
So forced retirement regardless of if they want to or if they can live the life they want? Slimtopia is an unusual place I date say.
Message: Posted by: 0pus (Oct 15, 2015 02:11PM)
[quote]On Oct 15, 2015, Slim King wrote:

IF YOU CAN ADD, THEN IT IS OBVIOUS THAT WHEN SOMEONE LEAVES THE WORKFORCE THEY MAKE ROOM FOR SOMEONE TO ENTER THE WORKFORCE. :dancing: :dancing: :dancing: [/quote]

You presume a steady-state workforce.

That is very naive.

You also presume that one worker is entirely fungible with another.

That makes you a cotton headed ninnymuggins.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Oct 15, 2015 02:24PM)
So to be clear in Slimtopia experience counts for NOTHING. A 20 year old performer is just as good as a performer with 30 years experience. A doctor who is fresh out of college is just as good as one with thousands of operations behind him. A singer who is just starting is as good as one with experience.

You must have hit your head several times rolling on the floor lauhing. The concept that experience is of no consequence is ridiculous. Probably breaks at lay l least 4 of your 10 commandments of logic.

Why not just make peole retire at 55?
Message: Posted by: 0pus (Oct 15, 2015 02:28PM)
Actually, Slim's simplistic view presumes that a physician with 30 years experience can be replaced by a 20 year old card magician.
Message: Posted by: imgic (Oct 15, 2015 02:30PM)
[quote]On Oct 15, 2015, 0pus wrote:

That makes you a cotton headed ninnymuggins. [/quote]


Quote of the day!
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Oct 15, 2015 07:41PM)
[quote]On Oct 15, 2015, Slim King wrote:
[quote]On Oct 15, 2015, S2000magician wrote:
[quote]On Oct 15, 2015, Slim King wrote:
There are MILLIONS of college kids just graduating that can easily perform many high demanding jobs that older people are hoarding.[/quote]
No, there aren't.

I'm not even close to 62, but no youngster could fill any job that I do, and most of what I have done:
[list][*]Teaching upper division university mathematics
[*]Teaching financial mathematics and financial modeling
[*]Teaching accounting
[*]Consulting in risk management
[*]Teaching review courses for the CFA exams
[*]Designing EFP warheads
[*]Analyzing mortgage-backed securities
[*]And so on[/list] [/quote]
ROTFLMAO .......
IF YOU CAN ADD, THEN IT IS OBVIOUS THAT WHEN SOMEONE LEAVES THE WORKFORCE THEY MAKE ROOM FOR SOMEONE TO ENTER THE WORKFORCE.[/quote]
You are so childlike in your naïveté.

First, you said that a youngster can do a job that I vacate.

Sheer stupidity.

Now you say that it is obvious that when someone leaves they make room for someone (else) to enter it.

Sheer stupidity.

And you cannot seem to figure out the meaning of what I wrote.

Sheer . . . well . . . you get the idea.
Message: Posted by: lynnef (Oct 16, 2015 02:52PM)
Opus had it right in mentioning that there is no steady-state workforce. I retired from the post office; and although a youngster could certainly replace me (as a mail handler, not much expertise required), the labor force went through dramatic changes as mail was abruptly adjusting to the digital age. In addition, the bosses got cheaper and began hiring temps instead of regulars.
BUT... I have to agree with Slim about RETIRE! If you're job is non-professional or just basic labor, if you have some health benefits and such and you're over the minimum age, yes, for the sake of sanity, RETIRE and do something you really like! Lynn
Message: Posted by: 0pus (Oct 16, 2015 03:07PM)
A very different proposition than Slim's.

Slim is saying get out of the workforce, you useless lump - you are screwing up the economy.

You are saying that there are more rewarding things to do than menial labor for the MAN.
Message: Posted by: Tom Jorgenson (Oct 16, 2015 03:37PM)
Actually Dave is playing Poke The Pig To Hear Him Squeal. You can tell by his inflammatory responses and insults. Now that his other thread is gone, he's starting a new one one.
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Oct 16, 2015 09:07PM)
[quote]On Oct 15, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:
So to be clear in Slimtopia experience counts for NOTHING. A 20 year old performer is just as good as a performer with 30 years experience. A doctor who is fresh out of college is just as good as one with thousands of operations behind him. A singer who is just starting is as good as one with experience.

You must have hit your head several times rolling on the floor lauhing. The concept that experience is of no consequence is ridiculous. Probably breaks at lay l least 4 of your 10 commandments of logic.

Why not just make peole retire at 55? [/quote]
Your STRAW MAN arguments thrill me to no end. It's just painfully obvious that violating the 10 commandments of logic is all you have left ;) Ad Hominem attacks and such is all you have left once confronted with the facts.
ROTFLMAO ...BTW... I'm not the one attacking

The money taken for retirement has been used for other things... The TRUST FUND was raided and that's the first domino that fell ... Even Bob has to work even though he's old enough to retire. He said so here.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Oct 16, 2015 09:48PM)
[quote]On Oct 15, 2015, Slim King wrote:
ROTFLMAO .......
IF YOU CAN ADD, THEN IT IS OBVIOUS THAT WHEN SOMEONE LEAVES THE WORKFORCE THEY MAKE ROOM FOR SOMEONE TO ENTER THE WORKFORCE.[/quote]
So, Slim:
[list][*]Where's the youngster teaching upper division university mathematics at my former university?
[*]Where's the youngster who's going to teach accounting when I leave my current university?
[*]Where's the youngster consulting in risk management at the clients I've had?
[*]Where's the youngster teaching review courses for the CFA exams at my former employer?
[*]Where's the youngster designing EFP warheads?
[*]Where's the youngster analyzing mortgage-backed securities?[/list]
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Oct 16, 2015 10:18PM)
[quote]On Oct 16, 2015, Slim King wrote:
[quote]On Oct 15, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:
So to be clear in Slimtopia experience counts for NOTHING. A 20 year old performer is just as good as a performer with 30 years experience. A doctor who is fresh out of college is just as good as one with thousands of operations behind him. A singer who is just starting is as good as one with experience.

You must have hit your head several times rolling on the floor lauhing. The concept that experience is of no consequence is ridiculous. Probably breaks at lay l least 4 of your 10 commandments of logic.

Why not just make peole retire at 55? [/quote]
Your STRAW MAN arguments thrill me to no end. It's just painfully obvious that violating the 10 commandments of logic is all you have left ;) Ad Hominem attacks and such is all you have left once confronted with the facts.
ROTFLMAO ...BTW... I'm not the one attacking

The money taken for retirement has been used for other things... The TRUST FUND was raided and that's the first domino that fell ... Even Bob has to work even though he's old enough to retire. He said so here. [/quote]

What are the 10 commandments of logic? What is a straw man argument and how did I use one? What is an ad hominem attack and how did it apply to anything I said. Try answering without using Google. You use loss of terms you have no clue what they mean.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Oct 17, 2015 12:40AM)
[youtube]DRLHDB68Ees[/youtube]
Message: Posted by: Ray Chelt (Oct 17, 2015 02:20AM)
[quote]On Oct 15, 2015, S2000magician wrote:
[quote]On Oct 15, 2015, Slim King wrote:
There are MILLIONS of college kids just graduating that can easily perform many high demanding jobs that older people are hoarding.[/quote]
No, there aren't.

I'm not even close to 62, but no youngster could fill any job that I do, and most of what I have done:
[list][*]Teaching upper division university mathematics
[*]Teaching financial mathematics and financial modeling
[*]Teaching accounting
[*]Consulting in risk management
[*]Teaching review courses for the CFA exams
[*]Designing EFP warheads
[*]Analyzing mortgage-backed securities
[*]And so on[/list] [/quote]

But you were the youngster who went on to do the job you do .

And it isn't a case of all 62 year olds disappearing overnight to be replaced by graduates, so youngsters get the chance to learn from those around them.

But the underlying point is that, because people are living longer and, because of poor planning, we have a whole bunch of folk who can't afford to retire. In fact I think in the UK it feels like most people feel they'll have to work until they're 75 !!

One other thing. I'm 57 and work for a large company. I'm very experienced and good at what I do but...I'm knackered...if I could afford to go I'd go..and let somebody with a but more energy take over. I've seen other people around me who are much worse and wander through the day zombie like...There's a limit to how long you can do a highly demanding job.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Oct 17, 2015 06:47AM)
[quote]... because of poor planning...[/quote]

No, because of very good planning. The planning of robbery and exploitation. The planning that goes on every minute to maximize profits at the expense of working people.

We now return to our regularly scheduled program.
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Oct 17, 2015 01:34PM)
The government promised we could RETIRE if we paid into their system for 46 years ... Which I have... Now they have moved the goal posts. They claim RETIRE doesn't mean RETIRE and they have convinced simple minded people to follow their lead. They have stolen the money and spent it on their own friends or projects or salted it away in some Swiss Bank Account. It's NOT a retirement fund if no one can RETIRE on it.

The government needs to double the retirement allocations, medicare, medicade, and all the bells and whistles for those who paid in for 46 years and are now 62 and ready to retire. This in turn will open up millions of jobs for others to fill. Instead of dishing out the cash to welfare, food stamps, and unemployment benefits, more Americans will be working while the older ones can retire as promised!

Take the free money from those who have never had a job (and give them an opportunity to work) and give it to those who have worked their entire lives. Just makes sense....
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Oct 17, 2015 01:48PM)
[quote]On Oct 17, 2015, Slim King wrote:
The government promised we could RETIRE if we paid into their system for 46 years ... Which I have... Now they have moved the goal posts. They claim RETIRE doesn't mean RETIRE and they have convinced simple minded people to follow their lead. They have stolen the money and spent it on their own friends or projects or salted it away in some Swiss Bank Account. It's NOT a retirement fund if no one can RETIRE on it.

The government needs to double the retirement allocations, medicare, medicade, and all the bells and whistles for those who paid in for 46 years and are now 62 and ready to retire. This in turn will open up millions of jobs for others to fill. Instead of dishing out the cash to welfare, food stamps, and unemployment benefits, more Americans will be working while the older ones can retire as promised!

Take the free money from those who have never had a job (and give them an opportunity to work) and give it to those who have worked their entire lives. Just makes sense.... [/quote]
Brilliant! The democrats have been trying to expand social security for decades! Now if you can just convince some of the republicans in congress to go along with the idea.

Aren't many of them past the age of retirement as well?
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Oct 17, 2015 01:53PM)
I agree, but instead of the current disaster of a medical plan, we should have simply expanded medicare and medicare and beefed up retirement. BTW .. The left wing and the right wing are both on the same bird.
Message: Posted by: The Hermit (Oct 17, 2015 01:56PM)
[quote]On Oct 15, 2015, S2000magician wrote:
[quote]On Oct 15, 2015, Slim King wrote:
[quote]On Oct 15, 2015, S2000magician wrote:
[quote]On Oct 15, 2015, Slim King wrote:
There are MILLIONS of college kids just graduating that can easily perform many high demanding jobs that older people are hoarding.[/quote]
No, there aren't.

I'm not even close to 62, but no youngster could fill any job that I do, and most of what I have done:
[list][*]Teaching upper division university mathematics
[*]Teaching financial mathematics and financial modeling
[*]Teaching accounting
[*]Consulting in risk management
[*]Teaching review courses for the CFA exams
[*]Designing EFP warheads
[*]Analyzing mortgage-backed securities
[*]And so on[/list] [/quote]
ROTFLMAO .......
IF YOU CAN ADD, THEN IT IS OBVIOUS THAT WHEN SOMEONE LEAVES THE WORKFORCE THEY MAKE ROOM FOR SOMEONE TO ENTER THE WORKFORCE.[/quote]
You are so childlike in your naïveté.

First, you said that a youngster can do a job that I vacate.

Sheer stupidity.

Now you say that it is obvious that when someone leaves they make room for someone (else) to enter it.

Sheer stupidity.

And you cannot seem to figure out the meaning of what I wrote.

Sheer . . . well . . . you get the idea. [/quote]


So why couldn't a 'youngster' do any of those jobs. I don't think they appear to require some sort of genius that is acquired in later years. Looks like math and accounting skills to me. Everyone is replaceable.
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Oct 17, 2015 02:00PM)
[quote]On Oct 17, 2015, Slim King wrote:
I agree, but instead of the current disaster of a medical plan, we should have simply expanded medicare and medicare and beefed up retirement. BTW .. The left wing and the right wing are both on the same bird. [/quote]
The difference being when they both flap on a bird, the bird flies.
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Oct 17, 2015 02:12PM)
Exactly ... That's why someone needs to make America great again... All this flapping and no action. You will some day realize that the powers that be don't want it to work any better than it does now.... You must be dependent on them ... If you have wealth, you wouldn't be.
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Oct 17, 2015 02:25PM)
[quote]On Oct 17, 2015, Slim King wrote:
Exactly ... That's why someone needs to make America great again... All this flapping and no action. You will some day realize that the powers that be don't want it to work any better than it does now.... You must be dependent on them ... If you have wealth, you wouldn't be. [/quote]
David Brin, a sci-fi writer had a character in one of his books mention that one of the things that helped humanity turn itself around and reach the stars was, when they invented an accurate mental test for psychopathy, they started administering it to every politician, and kicked out any who tested positive.

I think there's a similar test in existance today, the difference being you can't be a CEO if you test negative. :p
Message: Posted by: Tom Jorgenson (Oct 17, 2015 02:28PM)
Getting a bit political, aren't we?
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Oct 17, 2015 04:39PM)
[quote]On Oct 17, 2015, The Hermit wrote:
So why couldn't a 'youngster' do any of those jobs. I don't think they appear to require some sort of genius that is acquired in later years.[/quote]
What they require is not genius, but experience, which is acquired over years.

[quote]On Oct 17, 2015, The Hermit wrote:
Looks like math and accounting skills to me.[/quote]
And teaching skills, which generally come with experience, which generally takes time.

[quote]On Oct 17, 2015, The Hermit wrote:
Everyone is replaceable.[/quote]
This may or may not be true - probably not - but, in either case, isn't germane: I didn't say that I'm irreplaceable; I said that I couldn't be replaced [b][i]by a youngster[/i][/b].
Message: Posted by: The Hermit (Oct 19, 2015 03:23PM)
[quote]On Oct 17, 2015, S2000magician wrote:
[quote]On Oct 17, 2015, The Hermit wrote:
So why couldn't a 'youngster' do any of those jobs. I don't think they appear to require some sort of genius that is acquired in later years.[/quote]
What they require is not genius, but experience, which is acquired over years.

[quote]On Oct 17, 2015, The Hermit wrote:
Looks like math and accounting skills to me.[/quote]
And teaching skills, which generally come with experience, which generally takes time.

[quote]On Oct 17, 2015, The Hermit wrote:
Everyone is replaceable.[/quote]
This may or may not be true - probably not - but, in either case, isn't germane: I didn't say that I'm irreplaceable; I said that I couldn't be replaced [b][i]by a youngster[/i][/b]. [/quote]


My point is that any one job could be done by a youngster. You may have a lot of valuable experience from doing all those jobs, but a youngster could do any one of them. Older people have more experience and sometimes that translates into wisdom or insight, other times, its just experience.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Oct 19, 2015 04:26PM)
[quote]On Oct 19, 2015, The Hermit wrote:
[quote]On Oct 17, 2015, S2000magician wrote:
[quote]On Oct 17, 2015, The Hermit wrote:
So why couldn't a 'youngster' do any of those jobs. I don't think they appear to require some sort of genius that is acquired in later years.[/quote]
What they require is not genius, but experience, which is acquired over years.

[quote]On Oct 17, 2015, The Hermit wrote:
Looks like math and accounting skills to me.[/quote]
And teaching skills, which generally come with experience, which generally takes time.

[quote]On Oct 17, 2015, The Hermit wrote:
Everyone is replaceable.[/quote]
This may or may not be true - probably not - but, in either case, isn't germane: I didn't say that I'm irreplaceable; I said that I couldn't be replaced [b][i]by a youngster[/i][/b].[/quote]
My point is that any one job could be done by a youngster.[/quote]
I understood your point.

I simply disagree with it.
Message: Posted by: Ray Tupper. (Oct 19, 2015 05:22PM)
[quote]On Oct 19, 2015, S2000magician wrote:
[quote]On Oct 19, 2015, The Hermit wrote:
[quote]On Oct 17, 2015, S2000magician wrote:
[quote]On Oct 17, 2015, The Hermit wrote:
So why couldn't a 'youngster' do any of those jobs. I don't think they appear to require some sort of genius that is acquired in later years.[/quote]
What they require is not genius, but experience, which is acquired over years.

[quote]On Oct 17, 2015, The Hermit wrote:
Looks like math and accounting skills to me.[/quote]
And teaching skills, which generally come with experience, which generally takes time.

[quote]On Oct 17, 2015, The Hermit wrote:
Everyone is replaceable.[/quote]
This may or may not be true - probably not - but, in either case, isn't germane: I didn't say that I'm irreplaceable; I said that I couldn't be replaced [b][i]by a youngster[/i][/b].[/quote]
My point is that any one job could be done by a youngster.[/quote]
I understood your point.

I simply disagree with it. [/quote]
On the flip side, I've worked with countless people over the years who have had over ten/ twenty/ thirty years more experience than myself, (On a sliding scale) though not so much now that I'm into my fifties. Most were decidedly average, some OK, and some good. The remainder were shocking.
All that being said, I did learn a lot from; the average, OK, good, and shocking.
Experience and inability is nigh on useless, lest you wish people to learn from your shortcomings.
Ability and inexperience is not so dangerous.
If you haven't got it in the first place, you'll never have it.
This comes from my field of work, so may not be beholden to all.
Message: Posted by: E.S. Andrews (Oct 20, 2015 12:43PM)
I don't know why we bother correcting Slim's pathological misstatements. Maybe it's just in the hopes of stemming the tide of disinformation he habitually parrots in his various threads. Anyway, here we go again (sigh):


"[S]omeone got stingy with the TRILLIONS of dollars in the Social Security pot. They stole it or spread it around to places it was never intended for."

"They have stolen the money and spent it on their own friends or projects or salted it away in some Swiss Bank Account."

Complete fiction. There ZERO EVIDENCE, let alone credible evidence, of a SINGLE INSTANCE in the eighty-year history of the Social Security program of any theft from the Social Security reserves or trust fund or of a misappropriation or misapplication of those funds. ZERO. Never happened.


If Slim is at all interested in facts and reality, he can easily and quickly educate himself about the factors that produced concerns in the late 1970s about the solvency of the Social Security fund and resulted in 1983 amendments to the Social Security Act (which merely enacted a 6-month delay in cost-of-living adjustments and increased FICA tax rates between 1984 and 1990). Hints: a period of prolonged economic “stagflation” during the Carter administration that came on the heels of a 20% increase in Social Security benefits enacted by Congress in 1972, a technical error in Congress's 1972 addition of annual automatic cost-of-living adjustments to benefits that double-compensated for inflation (corrected by a 1977 amendment), expansions of the program in the 1950s and 1960s to add survivor and dependent benefits and include many categories of workers who previously had been excluded from coverage and benefits, and the sharply increased demands on the benefits pool once the phase-in period of the Social Security program of the 50s and 60s had ended and large swaths of WWII era citizenry reached their sixties. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Social_Security_in_the_United_States


"As a result . . . ."

The thing Slim claim happened never happened (see above), so it cannot have produced a result.


"[T]hey have lowered the amount of money a retired person can get."

Another utter fabrication. Since the inception of the Social Security program, monthly benefits have only INCREASED or, in a handful of instances when an upward cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) wasn’t warranted by inflation, remained at then-current levels.


"Older Americans CAN’T retire as promised."

"The government promised we could RETIRE if we paid into their system for 46 years"

Again, Slim, NO SUCH PROMISE WAS EVER MADE. The government NEVER PROMISED that the benefits former wage earners would receive from Social Security would be sufficient to allow them to "retire" or otherwise permit them to maintain the lifestyle to which they were accustomed while working. (Slim first fabricated this non-existent "promise" in another thread he started about retirement where he claimed that IRA's were a "scam" and whined that no one told him he could direct his IRA into investments other than the stock market.)

The Social Security program was set up as a group old-age INSURANCE program that would pay old-age BENEFITS. In fact, it was initially titled “Social Insurance,” a kind of forced savings plan that would pay benefits to wage earners once they reached a certain age and were deemed unable to continue working. The program was designed to insure against rampant utter destitution amongst aging citizens as had occurred following the Great Depression, by paying old-age benefits sufficient for basic subsistence.

The Social Security program was NEVER intended, promoted or “promised” to be a government-administered RETIREMENT program that would pay all or a majority of a worker’s former wage or pay for older Americans to retire, in style or otherwise. There were advocates for such programs, but they were beaten back by conservatives who considered them too costly and socialistic. The compromise ultimately put forth by FDR was the Social Security Act of 1935: a U.S. Government "old-age benefit plan" funded by matching employer-employee contributions, paid into an interest-bearing "Old-Age Reserve fund in the United States Treasury."

And what were wage earners actually promised under the program? This: "What you get from the Government plan will always be more than you paid in [Social Security payroll] taxes and usually more than you can get for yourself by putting away the same amount of money each week in some other way."

THAT "promise" and the other quoted language comes straight from The 1936 Government Pamphlet on Social Security that Slim linked to and falsely cited for the proposition that the government "promised" that Social Security would enable him to retire and yet maintain his and his family's lifestyle for the rest of his years on this planet and beyond. The promises actually made by the government pertaining to the Social Security program were modest and have been kept, in every instance.

In sum, every "fact" about the Social Security program put forth by Slim is an utter fabrication. Made up. A lie. Misinformation. Disinformation. Long-discredited myths routinely peddled by those who want to dismantle Social Security or privatize it. Slim, of course, uncritically parrots these hackneyed fictions and then erects his simplistic, fallacious proposition on them. No, Slim, each early retirement would not create a job for a youngster just entering the work force. Regardless, no one is being prevented from retiring by any broken promise of the government pertaining to the Social Security program. Nor is anyone being prevented from retiring due to any theft, misappropriation, or misapplication of funds from the Social Security trust fund. If you have a shred of credible evidence to indicate otherwise, share it now or shut up and go away already.

Geez.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Oct 20, 2015 02:16PM)
[quote]On Oct 20, 2015, E.S. Andrews wrote:
In sum, every "fact" about the Social Security program put forth by Slim is an utter fabrication. Made up. A lie. Misinformation. Disinformation. Long-discredited myths routinely peddled by those who want to dismantle Social Security or privatize it.[/quote]
Color me shocked.

However, there's hope: Slim avered that he admits his mistakes and moves on. So we can fully expect him to post here again, hat in hand, soggy with contrition, admitting that what he posted were lies, and promising to mend his ways.

I wait with bated breath.
Message: Posted by: imgic (Oct 20, 2015 02:40PM)
Don't wait too long. If Slim replies it will be nonsensical rambling in all caps and lots of dancing emoticons. I long longer reply to any of his posts, unless he sets up too good of a straight line...
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Oct 20, 2015 10:59PM)
ROTFLMAO!!! ... The government has spent $17 trillion they don't have and you think the didn't sneak a DIME from the overflowing Social Security RETIREMENT funds ... ???? :dancing: :coolspot: :coolspot: :heavymetal: :band: :bigdance: :big dance
http://archive.democrats.com/view.cfm?id=4270
EVEN THE DEMOCRATS AGREE WITH ME!!!
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Oct 20, 2015 11:23PM)
I guess it was, after all, too much for which to hope.

Sigh.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Oct 20, 2015 11:38PM)
[quote]On Oct 20, 2015, Slim King wrote:

http://archive.democrats.com/view.cfm?id=4270
EVEN THE DEMOCRATS AGREE WITH ME!!! [/quote]
Well, at least one person writing a blog post on a corporate site with "democrats" in its address does.

http://archive.democrats.com/display.cfm?id=106

"[W]e sell Internet campaign services to a number of Democratic candidates and party committees. We operate as a vendor, which means we provide technical services but do not influence policy."

http://archive.democrats.com/display.cfm?id=105

"Democrats.com is a company. We are a company made up of experienced Internet professionals ... We are the leading provider of Internet services to Democratic candidates, committees and causes. Our services include Web sites, e-mail broadcasting, online fundraising and Internet advertising."
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Oct 20, 2015 11:48PM)
[quote]On Oct 21, 2015, S2000magician wrote:
I guess it was, after all, too much for which to hope.

Sigh. [/quote]

I bet was indeed rooted more in hope than expectation.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Oct 20, 2015 11:53PM)
[quote]On Oct 20, 2015, Slim King wrote:
ROTFLMAO!!! ... The government has spent $17 trillion they don't have and you think the didn't sneak a DIME from the overflowing Social Security RETIREMENT funds ... ????
http://archive.democrats.com/view.cfm?id=4270
EVEN THE DEMOCRATS AGREE WITH ME!!![/quote]
One obvious way in which the author of that page agrees with you is that you both believe that saying something is sufficient to make it true: no evidence required.
Message: Posted by: The Hermit (Oct 21, 2015 10:55AM)
[quote]On Oct 20, 2015, E.S. Andrews wrote:
I don't know why we bother correcting Slim's pathological misstatements. Maybe it's just in the hopes of stemming the tide of disinformation he habitually parrots in his various threads. Anyway, here we go again (sigh):

The Social Security program was set up as a group old-age INSURANCE program that would pay old-age BENEFITS. In fact, it was initially titled “Social Insurance,” a kind of forced savings plan that would pay benefits to wage earners once they reached a certain age and were deemed unable to continue working. The program was designed to insure against rampant utter destitution amongst aging citizens as had occurred following the Great Depression, by paying old-age benefits sufficient for basic subsistence.

The Social Security program was NEVER intended, promoted or “promised” to be a government-administered RETIREMENT program that would pay all or a majority of a worker’s former wage or pay for older Americans to retire, in style or otherwise. There were advocates for such programs, but they were beaten back by conservatives who considered them too costly and socialistic. The compromise ultimately put forth by FDR was the Social Security Act of 1935: a U.S. Government "old-age benefit plan" funded by matching employer-employee contributions, paid into an interest-bearing "Old-Age Reserve fund in the United States Treasury."

And what were wage earners actually promised under the program? This: "What you get from the Government plan will always be more than you paid in [Social Security payroll] taxes and usually more than you can get for yourself by putting away the same amount of money each week in some other way."

THAT "promise" and the other quoted language comes straight from The 1936 Government Pamphlet on Social Security that Slim linked to and falsely cited for the proposition that the government "promised" that Social Security would enable him to retire and yet maintain his and his family's lifestyle for the rest of his years on this planet and beyond. The promises actually made by the government pertaining to the Social Security program were modest and have been kept, in every instance. [quote]


If that is the case than they lied. It's not a chance to earn more than you paid in. The money collected is used by the government for other purposes. The government owes you the money, but if they don't have it, they won't pay it. See Illinois as an example of what they have to pay on promises and don't. There is no guarantee that the government will pay you the money, it's not a forced savings account, it's a tax. The tax and the money owed are two different things and are not related. When they took higher SS taxes from me, they didn't raise my payout.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Oct 21, 2015 12:24PM)
The government provides a website where you can calculate the SS payments you will received from the government. I'm planning on delaying my collection until I turn 70 at which point I'll get about $3000 a month. If my wife starts collecting at normal retirement age will be able to get about $2800 a month. That combines to almost $70K a year. Even if that's all we had, that doesn't seem too bad to me.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Oct 21, 2015 01:54PM)
It does seem ok
Message: Posted by: imgic (Oct 21, 2015 05:15PM)
Add some prudent investments...and you're set.
Message: Posted by: The Hermit (Oct 23, 2015 10:11AM)
[quote]On Oct 21, 2015, rockwall wrote:
The government provides a website where you can calculate the SS payments you will received from the government. I'm planning on delaying my collection until I turn 70 at which point I'll get about $3000 a month. If my wife starts collecting at normal retirement age will be able to get about $2800 a month. That combines to almost $70K a year. Even if that's all we had, that doesn't seem too bad to me. [/quote]


I would look at the fine print
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Oct 23, 2015 03:09PM)
[quote]On Oct 21, 2015, rockwall wrote:
The government provides a website where you can calculate the SS payments you will received from the government. I'm planning on delaying my collection until I turn 70 at which point I'll get about $3000 a month. If my wife starts collecting at normal retirement age will be able to get about $2800 a month. That combines to almost $70K a year. Even if that's all we had, that doesn't seem too bad to me. [/quote]
That sounds like a good deal if you make it to 70. However you must look at the retirement years LOST. You will lose 8 of your Golden Years still working. You will be about 80 before you make back the money you could of had by retiring early, AND my investment advisor says those dollars will be worth much less than dollars today. But my point is, we should be getting MUCH MORE! What if you could get your $3,000 at 62? (My suggestion) You could let someone else have your gig and help solve the unemployment dilemma that is destroying the economy.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Oct 23, 2015 04:00PM)
[quote]What if you could get your $3,000 at 62?[/quote]

Then you'd have to vote for different people that the ones you've been voting for.
Message: Posted by: imgic (Oct 23, 2015 04:03PM)
[quote]On Oct 23, 2015, landmark wrote:
[quote]What if you could get your $3,000 at 62?[/quote]

Then you'd have to vote for different people that the ones you've been voting for. [/quote]

Or have to pay more into the system...
Message: Posted by: imgic (Oct 23, 2015 04:03PM)
Golden years start at 62? My grandfather worked pretty much everyday until he was 84...
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Oct 23, 2015 04:19PM)
[quote]On Oct 23, 2015, Slim King wrote:
[quote]On Oct 21, 2015, rockwall wrote:
The government provides a website where you can calculate the SS payments you will received from the government. I'm planning on delaying my collection until I turn 70 at which point I'll get about $3000 a month. If my wife starts collecting at normal retirement age will be able to get about $2800 a month. That combines to almost $70K a year. Even if that's all we had, that doesn't seem too bad to me. [/quote]
That sounds like a good deal if you make it to 70. However you must look at the retirement years LOST. You will lose 8 of your Golden Years still working. You will be about 80 before you make back the money you could of had by retiring early, AND my investment advisor says those dollars will be worth much less than dollars today. But my point is, we should be getting MUCH MORE! What if you could get your $3,000 at 62? (My suggestion) You could let someone else have your gig and help solve the unemployment dilemma that is destroying the economy. [/quote]

My wife is 7 years younger than me. She doesn't want me retiring 7 years before she does! :bg:
Message: Posted by: Tom Jorgenson (Oct 23, 2015 04:19PM)
" ...help solve the unemployment dilemma that is destroying the economy..."

That is one result of 'the problem', not THE problem. Cure the cause, not the symptom.
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Oct 24, 2015 08:49AM)
[quote]On Oct 23, 2015, rockwall wrote:
[quote]On Oct 23, 2015, Slim King wrote:
[quote]On Oct 21, 2015, rockwall wrote:
The government provides a website where you can calculate the SS payments you will received from the government. I'm planning on delaying my collection until I turn 70 at which point I'll get about $3000 a month. If my wife starts collecting at normal retirement age will be able to get about $2800 a month. That combines to almost $70K a year. Even if that's all we had, that doesn't seem too bad to me. [/quote]
That sounds like a good deal if you make it to 70. However you must look at the retirement years LOST. You will lose 8 of your Golden Years still working. You will be about 80 before you make back the money you could of had by retiring early, AND my investment advisor says those dollars will be worth much less than dollars today. But my point is, we should be getting MUCH MORE! What if you could get your $3,000 at 62? (My suggestion) You could let someone else have your gig and help solve the unemployment dilemma that is destroying the economy. [/quote]

My wife is 7 years younger than me. She doesn't want me retiring 7 years before she does! :bg: [/quote]
My wife is 20 years younger than me. I'll retire when I want!! ;) I'm not waiting till I'm 82...LOL
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Oct 24, 2015 10:56AM)
Why do you get to retire when you want and get to force others to retire when you say?
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Oct 29, 2015 06:15PM)
Looks like a few others say they stole my money too!!!!
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Oct 29, 2015 07:34PM)
How is the stock market doing?
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Oct 29, 2015 09:46PM)
[quote]On Oct 29, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:
How is the stock market doing?[/quote]
Up 11.1% since September 28.

Makes you feel good for all your friends with 401(k)s who are making tons of money, doesn't it Slim?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Oct 29, 2015 09:53PM)
Yep it is a good thing he told his daughter to take all her money out.
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Oct 29, 2015 09:58PM)
Stock is still way down from May .. My daughter has saved plenty of money already and it is invested at a much better rate than the negative one you've suggested! ;)
BTW .. This is the retirement thread... Quit trolling.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Oct 29, 2015 10:20PM)
[quote]On Oct 29, 2015, Slim King wrote:
Stock is still way down from May ..[/quote]
Only 2.7%: a hiccough. Stop riding this mouse as if it were an elephant.

Still way up since September 28: 11.1%. That's four times as much as your "way down". [b][i]Four times![/i][/b] You should be ecstatic.

[quote]On Oct 29, 2015, Slim King wrote:
BTW .. This is the retirement thread... Quit trolling.[/quote]
You're the one who has tied the performance of 401(k) accounts to the DJIA.

401(k) accounts are [b][i]retirement[/i][/b] accounts.

You're the one who invited this.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Oct 29, 2015 11:34PM)
I am only following your lead Slim. You decided somehow the very short term investment of the DJA was the be all and end all. I simply am using your alleged "logic".

I would love to be in the room when your daughter sees all the money your advice ha cost her in 20 years.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Nov 4, 2015 08:18AM)
Quoth the article:

"Jobs in fields like manufacturing and construction, which were historically filled by people without college degrees, have been evaporating quickly over the past 15 years. [As noted previously] less-educated people are more likely to be unemployed and to make less, so they struggle to afford things like therapy, gym memberships, and recreation that isn't drugs. Without jobs, they may lack the social networks and sense of purpose that have shown to reduce mortality. Nearly half of Americans in their 40s and 50s don't have enough money saved for retirement to live as they're accustomed to, even if they work until they're 65. All of this is crashing down on Boomers, who were raised on the promise of the American Dream."

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/11/boomers-deaths-pnas/413971/
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Nov 4, 2015 08:49AM)
[quote]On Nov 4, 2015, balducci wrote:
..."Nearly half of Americans in their 40s and 50s don't have enough money saved for retirement to live as they're accustomed to, even if they work until they're 65."...

[/quote]

Translation. Nearly half of Americans in their 40s and 50s don't have enough money saved for retirement to retire with the same income that they have while working.

It would be 'nice' to be able to maintain the same income in retirement that you had while working but is that something that we should expect everyone to have?
Message: Posted by: balducci (Nov 4, 2015 09:49AM)
[quote]On Nov 4, 2015, rockwall wrote:
[quote]On Nov 4, 2015, balducci wrote:
..."Nearly half of Americans in their 40s and 50s don't have enough money saved for retirement to live as they're accustomed to, even if they work until they're 65."...

[/quote]

Translation. Nearly half of Americans in their 40s and 50s don't have enough money saved for retirement to retire with the same income that they have while working.
[/quote]
Your so-called translation is inaccurate. You do NOT need the same level of income to maintain the SAME level of comfort after retiring. Experts usually say you require 70%-80% of your pre-retirement income to maintain the SAME level of lifestyle. Because once you stop working, all sorts of expenses (like travel to and from work, etc.) end.

Now if you want to travel more or eat out more after retiring, that is something else again.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Nov 4, 2015 02:13PM)
[quote]On Nov 4, 2015, balducci wrote:
...
Your so-called translation is inaccurate. You do NOT need the same level of income to maintain the SAME level of comfort after retiring. Experts usually say you require 70%-80% of your pre-retirement income to maintain the SAME level of lifestyle. ... [/quote]

Well, you got one thing right. My translation was inaccurate.

It's actually very subjective. You may need more money, you may need less, you may need the same amount. It varies based on everyone's personal situation.
(I've never heard of transportation to work costing someone 20-30% of their income. Man, they gotta find a job closer to home!)

http://www.smart401k.com/Content/retail/resource-center/strategy/calculating-your-replacement-ratio

Example 1: He will likely need to replace 100% or more of his pre-retirement income in order to meet his expected retirement lifestyle."
Example 2: In this situation, they likely need a smaller percentage of their pre-retirement income and can most likely use a replacement ratio of 70% or less.
Example 3: Jennifer and Greg will likely need to use a higher replacement ratio because they don’t earn as much in their pre-retirement years, and they will have substantial costs related to the care of their parents.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Nov 4, 2015 02:48PM)
I can't imagine transportation costing that much but OK.

Thing is you have all the time not at work to account for. That is what usually makes people need more.

Why retire and sit home watching Judge Judy? You want to do the things you didn't have time for when you were working. Otherwise keep working.

Plus costs go up on everything, and you need more as people are living longer now. It costs more just to be even so starting with 30% less can put you 40% behind in a hurry. I am sure balducci was getting to pointing out the logical flaws as he always does.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Nov 4, 2015 03:13PM)
You are funny (if increasingly tiresome) about this pointing out logical flaws thing, Danny.

IMO you guys are right so far as a decent enjoyable life after retirement costing EVEN MORE than life before retirement. But I think you both missed the point.

This only makes the situation described in the article even worse!

"Nearly half of Americans in their 40s and 50s don't have enough money saved for retirement to live as they're accustomed to, even if they work until they're 65."

So the reality of the situation is even WORSE than that. Probably well over half of Americans don't have enough money saved to live as they're accustomed to or would want to. No wonder so many "Middle-Aged White Americans Are Dying of Despair".
Message: Posted by: balducci (Nov 4, 2015 03:17PM)
[quote]On Nov 4, 2015, rockwall wrote:

I've never heard of transportation to work costing someone 20-30% of their income.[/quote]
Neither have I. It was one example, followed by an etc. I didn't think I had to spell the etc. out to you so explicitly. Other costs would include things like business dress, licensing fees, union dues, gifts for co-workers, business lunches out, malpractice insurance, business vehicle, child care, and so forth. Obviously specifics would differ by job and by person.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Nov 4, 2015 03:19PM)
[quote]On Nov 4, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:

I am sure balducci was getting to pointing out the logical flaws as he always does. [/quote]
If it bugs you so much, stop making them. LOL.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Nov 4, 2015 03:26PM)
In my experience, there's a marked difference between the saving and spending habits of Americans in their 40s and 50s and those in their 70s and older, and it's not unrelated. Those who lived through the Great Depression or were raised by people who did seem to me to be far more inclined to live within or beneath their means - saving up and doing without. Those for whom it was just a story spend much more on discretionary items - toys, eating out, expensive clothes, etc. I'm sure there's quite a variety of factors at play, but it sure seems to me like the percentage of ants has declined and the percentage of grasshoppers has grown.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Nov 4, 2015 06:02PM)
[quote]On Nov 4, 2015, balducci wrote:
You are funny (if increasingly tiresome) about this pointing out logical flaws thing, Danny.
[/quote]

Yea I can see where being called on hypocrisy would be tiresome.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Nov 4, 2015 06:05PM)
[quote]On Nov 4, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
In my experience, there's a marked difference between the saving and spending habits of Americans in their 40s and 50s and those in their 70s and older, and it's not unrelated. Those who lived through the Great Depression or were raised by people who did seem to me to be far more inclined to live within or beneath their means - saving up and doing without. Those for whom it was just a story spend much more on discretionary items - toys, eating out, expensive clothes, etc. I'm sure there's quite a variety of factors at play, but it sure seems to me like the percentage of ants has declined and the percentage of grasshoppers has grown. [/quote]

I believe those who knew life prior to the credit card or were raised by those who did see things differently. The idea of "have now pay later" becomes quite seductive and then destructive.

It is basically what you are saying.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Nov 4, 2015 07:04PM)
[quote]On Nov 4, 2015, balducci wrote:
...
So the reality of the situation is even WORSE than that. Probably well over half of Americans don't have enough money saved to live as they're accustomed to or would want to. No wonder so many "Middle-Aged White Americans Are Dying of Despair". [/quote]

Oh, I have no doubt that the percentage of people who don't have enough money to live like they would 'want' to is quite high. They don't even need to retire to be in that group! I just don't think that's ever been the promise.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Nov 4, 2015 07:08PM)
[quote]On Nov 4, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
In my experience, there's a marked difference between the saving and spending habits of Americans in their 40s and 50s and those in their 70s and older, and it's not unrelated. Those who lived through the Great Depression or were raised by people who did seem to me to be far more inclined to live within or beneath their means - saving up and doing without. Those for whom it was just a story spend much more on discretionary items - toys, eating out, expensive clothes, etc. I'm sure there's quite a variety of factors at play, but it sure seems to me like the percentage of ants has declined and the percentage of grasshoppers has grown. [/quote]

Apples and oranges. Spending power of workers who reached their peak earning years in 2015 vs. 1985? Pensions of same? GI Bill? Cost of higher education? Medical Costs? Percentage of salary spent on housing? Return on standard investments? It's remarkably easier to save when there is more to save.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Nov 4, 2015 07:59PM)
[quote]On Nov 4, 2015, landmark wrote:
[quote]On Nov 4, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
In my experience, there's a marked difference between the saving and spending habits of Americans in their 40s and 50s and those in their 70s and older, and it's not unrelated. Those who lived through the Great Depression or were raised by people who did seem to me to be far more inclined to live within or beneath their means - saving up and doing without. Those for whom it was just a story spend much more on discretionary items - toys, eating out, expensive clothes, etc. I'm sure there's quite a variety of factors at play, but it sure seems to me like the percentage of ants has declined and the percentage of grasshoppers has grown. [/quote]

Apples and oranges. Spending power of workers who reached their peak earning years in 2015 vs. 1985? Pensions of same? GI Bill? Cost of higher education? Medical Costs? Percentage of salary spent on housing? Return on standard investments? It's remarkably easier to save when there is more to save. [/quote]

Apples and apples. It's a lot easier to spend recreationally when there is more to spend, but that doesn't stop people from having the deluxe cable package, the latest iPhone, restaurant dinners five nights a week...
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Nov 4, 2015 07:59PM)
[quote]On Nov 4, 2015, landmark wrote:
[quote]On Nov 4, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
In my experience, there's a marked difference between the saving and spending habits of Americans in their 40s and 50s and those in their 70s and older, and it's not unrelated. Those who lived through the Great Depression or were raised by people who did seem to me to be far more inclined to live within or beneath their means - saving up and doing without. Those for whom it was just a story spend much more on discretionary items - toys, eating out, expensive clothes, etc. I'm sure there's quite a variety of factors at play, but it sure seems to me like the percentage of ants has declined and the percentage of grasshoppers has grown. [/quote]

Apples and oranges. Spending power of workers who reached their peak earning years in 2015 vs. 1985? Pensions of same? GI Bill? Cost of higher education? Medical Costs? Percentage of salary spent on housing? Return on standard investments? It's remarkably easier to save when there is more to save. [/quote]

It's not apples and oranges at all. You're right that it's remarkably easier to save when there is more to save. That was Lobo's point. One reason people used to have much more to save was because they spent much less on discretionary items, they ate at home more, (enormously less expensive than eating out all the time), etc. etc. As an example, my daughter's husband lost his job over a year ago and now they live only on what she makes. She commented to me just the other day how she can hardly understand where all the money went when they had two incomes. She understands now that they spent an enormous amount of money on discretionary items that she realizes now weren't all that necessary.

But you're also right. Incomes have stagnated, even dropped.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Nov 5, 2015 08:21AM)
[quote]On Nov 4, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On Nov 4, 2015, landmark wrote:
[quote]On Nov 4, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
In my experience, there's a marked difference between the saving and spending habits of Americans in their 40s and 50s and those in their 70s and older, and it's not unrelated. Those who lived through the Great Depression or were raised by people who did seem to me to be far more inclined to live within or beneath their means - saving up and doing without. Those for whom it was just a story spend much more on discretionary items - toys, eating out, expensive clothes, etc. I'm sure there's quite a variety of factors at play, but it sure seems to me like the percentage of ants has declined and the percentage of grasshoppers has grown. [/quote]

Apples and oranges. Spending power of workers who reached their peak earning years in 2015 vs. 1985? Pensions of same? GI Bill? Cost of higher education? Medical Costs? Percentage of salary spent on housing? Return on standard investments? It's remarkably easier to save when there is more to save. [/quote]

Apples and apples. It's a lot easier to spend recreationally when there is more to spend, but that doesn't stop people from having the deluxe cable package, the latest iPhone, restaurant dinners five nights a week... [/quote]

You've not addressed the points I've made about housing, medical care, education, pension plans, interest rates, all non-discretionary. The point (really anecdotes) that you reference have been around since before 1985 with old people complaining about the spendthrift ways of the younger generation. But the hard evidence is this: despite large rises in productivity, workers are not living as well as they were even thirty years ago.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Nov 5, 2015 10:19AM)
[quote]On Nov 5, 2015, landmark wrote:
[quote]On Nov 4, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On Nov 4, 2015, landmark wrote:
[quote]On Nov 4, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
In my experience, there's a marked difference between the saving and spending habits of Americans in their 40s and 50s and those in their 70s and older, and it's not unrelated. Those who lived through the Great Depression or were raised by people who did seem to me to be far more inclined to live within or beneath their means - saving up and doing without. Those for whom it was just a story spend much more on discretionary items - toys, eating out, expensive clothes, etc. I'm sure there's quite a variety of factors at play, but it sure seems to me like the percentage of ants has declined and the percentage of grasshoppers has grown. [/quote]

Apples and oranges. Spending power of workers who reached their peak earning years in 2015 vs. 1985? Pensions of same? GI Bill? Cost of higher education? Medical Costs? Percentage of salary spent on housing? Return on standard investments? It's remarkably easier to save when there is more to save. [/quote]

Apples and apples. It's a lot easier to spend recreationally when there is more to spend, but that doesn't stop people from having the deluxe cable package, the latest iPhone, restaurant dinners five nights a week... [/quote]

You've not addressed the points I've made about housing, medical care, education, pension plans, interest rates, all non-discretionary. The point (really anecdotes) that you reference have been around since before 1985 with old people complaining about the spendthrift ways of the younger generation. But the hard evidence is this: despite large rises in productivity, workers are not living as well as they were even thirty years ago. [/quote]


Actually, in an impressive display of mentalism, I addressed your points - with you in mind, actually - before you made them:

[quote]On Nov 4, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
I'm sure there's quite a variety of factors at play[/quote]

I'm sure that the point the I made has been around quite a while; the Great Depression was a long time ago, and 30 years ago, people who had not directly experienced it were raising children. Those who have been through the hardest rainstorms tend to be the most inclined to prepare for rainy days. OK, I have some work to do, and I also have to make time to drop a one-liner about your Tamir Rice anecdote in another thread.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Nov 5, 2015 10:24AM)
Lobo yes about rainstorms. It is a perfect analogy. And without the sense of alarm often teaching others to prepare does not have that same impact.
Message: Posted by: The Hermit (Nov 5, 2015 03:19PM)
[quote]On Nov 5, 2015, landmark wrote:
[quote]On Nov 4, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On Nov 4, 2015, landmark wrote:
[quote]On Nov 4, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
In my experience, there's a marked difference between the saving and spending habits of Americans in their 40s and 50s and those in their 70s and older, and it's not unrelated. Those who lived through the Great Depression or were raised by people who did seem to me to be far more inclined to live within or beneath their means - saving up and doing without. Those for whom it was just a story spend much more on discretionary items - toys, eating out, expensive clothes, etc. I'm sure there's quite a variety of factors at play, but it sure seems to me like the percentage of ants has declined and the percentage of grasshoppers has grown. [/quote]

Apples and oranges. Spending power of workers who reached their peak earning years in 2015 vs. 1985? Pensions of same? GI Bill? Cost of higher education? Medical Costs? Percentage of salary spent on housing? Return on standard investments? It's remarkably easier to save when there is more to save. [/quote]

Apples and apples. It's a lot easier to spend recreationally when there is more to spend, but that doesn't stop people from having the deluxe cable package, the latest iPhone, restaurant dinners five nights a week... [/quote]

You've not addressed the points I've made about housing, medical care, education, pension plans, interest rates, all non-discretionary. The point (really anecdotes) that you reference have been around since before 1985 with old people complaining about the spendthrift ways of the younger generation. But the hard evidence is this: despite large rises in productivity, workers are not living as well as they were even thirty years ago. [/quote]

I will. maybe, wrong- insurance is more expensive but real cost of care is proportional except for new technologies that didn't exist then, true because of student loans pushed by govt, wrong, they are lower, higher discretionary now with somewhat lower income. As to productivity, it had almost nothing to do with workers. It was computerization and automation. That has caused some jobs to be negated, but that's always been the case. No elevator operators these days - and those guys had a union. Workers are not living as well because as a general group, the unskilled have less opportunity now than before. Manufacturing used to need unskilled labor and paid well for it. Now robots do that job. You have to have an economic benefit to the employer. No skill, low pay, no pay.

The healthcare issue is one of govt intrusion and technical breakthroughs. It costs a Billion dollars to develop a new med. Much of that is govt testing, etc. Should the company that invests that much make a good return? Or , should they invest in something else? This has drawn costs higher, but we also save millions that would have died 30 years ago. Example, we spend billions on aids research for a drug that wouldn't be needed if people behaved differently. Why should the govt spend billions on a disease that could be eradicated in a generation without medicine.
Message: Posted by: The Hermit (Nov 5, 2015 03:20PM)
[quote]On Nov 5, 2015, landmark wrote:
[quote]On Nov 4, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On Nov 4, 2015, landmark wrote:
[quote]On Nov 4, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
In my experience, there's a marked difference between the saving and spending habits of Americans in their 40s and 50s and those in their 70s and older, and it's not unrelated. Those who lived through the Great Depression or were raised by people who did seem to me to be far more inclined to live within or beneath their means - saving up and doing without. Those for whom it was just a story spend much more on discretionary items - toys, eating out, expensive clothes, etc. I'm sure there's quite a variety of factors at play, but it sure seems to me like the percentage of ants has declined and the percentage of grasshoppers has grown. [/quote]

Apples and oranges. Spending power of workers who reached their peak earning years in 2015 vs. 1985? Pensions of same? GI Bill? Cost of higher education? Medical Costs? Percentage of salary spent on housing? Return on standard investments? It's remarkably easier to save when there is more to save. [/quote]

Apples and apples. It's a lot easier to spend recreationally when there is more to spend, but that doesn't stop people from having the deluxe cable package, the latest iPhone, restaurant dinners five nights a week... [/quote]

You've not addressed the points I've made about housing, medical care, education, pension plans, interest rates, all non-discretionary. The point (really anecdotes) that you reference have been around since before 1985 with old people complaining about the spendthrift ways of the younger generation. But the hard evidence is this: despite large rises in productivity, workers are not living as well as they were even thirty years ago. [/quote]

I will. maybe, wrong- insurance is more expensive but real cost of care is proportional except for new technologies that didn't exist then, true because of student loans pushed by govt, wrong, they are lower, higher discretionary now with somewhat lower income. As to productivity, it had almost nothing to do with workers. It was computerization and automation. That has caused some jobs to be negated, but that's always been the case. No elevator operators these days - and those guys had a union. Workers are not living as well because as a general group, the unskilled have less opportunity now than before. Manufacturing used to need unskilled labor and paid well for it. Now robots do that job. You have to have an economic benefit to the employer. No skill, low pay, no pay.

The healthcare issue is one of govt intrusion and technical breakthroughs. It costs a Billion dollars to develop a new med. Much of that is govt testing, etc. Should the company that invests that much make a good return? Or , should they invest in something else? This has drawn costs higher, but we also save millions that would have died 30 years ago. Example, we spend billions on aids research for a drug that wouldn't be needed if people behaved differently. Why should the govt spend billions on a disease that could be eradicated in a generation without medicine.
Message: Posted by: The Hermit (Nov 5, 2015 03:20PM)
[quote]On Nov 5, 2015, landmark wrote:
[quote]On Nov 4, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On Nov 4, 2015, landmark wrote:
[quote]On Nov 4, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
In my experience, there's a marked difference between the saving and spending habits of Americans in their 40s and 50s and those in their 70s and older, and it's not unrelated. Those who lived through the Great Depression or were raised by people who did seem to me to be far more inclined to live within or beneath their means - saving up and doing without. Those for whom it was just a story spend much more on discretionary items - toys, eating out, expensive clothes, etc. I'm sure there's quite a variety of factors at play, but it sure seems to me like the percentage of ants has declined and the percentage of grasshoppers has grown. [/quote]

Apples and oranges. Spending power of workers who reached their peak earning years in 2015 vs. 1985? Pensions of same? GI Bill? Cost of higher education? Medical Costs? Percentage of salary spent on housing? Return on standard investments? It's remarkably easier to save when there is more to save. [/quote]

Apples and apples. It's a lot easier to spend recreationally when there is more to spend, but that doesn't stop people from having the deluxe cable package, the latest iPhone, restaurant dinners five nights a week... [/quote]

You've not addressed the points I've made about housing, medical care, education, pension plans, interest rates, all non-discretionary. The point (really anecdotes) that you reference have been around since before 1985 with old people complaining about the spendthrift ways of the younger generation. But the hard evidence is this: despite large rises in productivity, workers are not living as well as they were even thirty years ago. [/quote]

I will. maybe, wrong- insurance is more expensive but real cost of care is proportional except for new technologies that didn't exist then, true because of student loans pushed by govt, wrong, they are lower, higher discretionary now with somewhat lower income. As to productivity, it had almost nothing to do with workers. It was computerization and automation. That has caused some jobs to be negated, but that's always been the case. No elevator operators these days - and those guys had a union. Workers are not living as well because as a general group, the unskilled have less opportunity now than before. Manufacturing used to need unskilled labor and paid well for it. Now robots do that job. You have to have an economic benefit to the employer. No skill, low pay, no pay.

The healthcare issue is one of govt intrusion and technical breakthroughs. It costs a Billion dollars to develop a new med. Much of that is govt testing, etc. Should the company that invests that much make a good return? Or , should they invest in something else? This has drawn costs higher, but we also save millions that would have died 30 years ago. Example, we spend billions on aids research for a drug that wouldn't be needed if people behaved differently. Why should the govt spend billions on a disease that could be eradicated in a generation without medicine.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Nov 5, 2015 04:14PM)
You are sadly mistaken if you believe that everyone who contracted AIDS did so as a result "of their own behavior."

That's simply false.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Nov 5, 2015 04:37PM)
One of my best friends in 1991 contacted AIDS. He was a non drug using heterosexual. He did not frequent prostitutes.

His only behavioral issue was that he was afflicted with hemophilia. He had a knee replacement and they had to give him blood. The blood was infected. He died rather quickly.

Please explain to me which behavior he could have modified that would have changed the outcome?

I can't believe some of the things people say.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Nov 5, 2015 10:49PM)
Not choosing sides here, but maybe the point was that if (other) people had changed their behavior, the blood supply wouldn't have been infected.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Nov 6, 2015 12:21AM)
@ Hermit

So many misconceptions in one post are hard to address at this hour but let's deal with the most fundamental one:
"You have to have an economic benefit to the employer. No skill, low pay, no pay."

There will never be enough "skilled" jobs by definition in a capitalist society. If there were lots of skilled workers, they would no longer command a higher wage. A society that actually cared about its members and not just "the economic benefit to the employer" would see this as a fundamental problem.

Same with the drug companies. "Should the company that invests that much make a good return? Or, should they invest in something else?"

The question, rather, should be, what kind of society asks the above question in a serious way, and why wouldn't that society be considered a failed one? Is the purpose of a society for the benefit of the few or the many?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Nov 6, 2015 12:28AM)
I'd say that American society benefits "many."
Message: Posted by: tommy (Nov 6, 2015 03:51AM)
Is it a secret society?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Nov 6, 2015 08:35AM)
[quote]On Nov 6, 2015, landmark wrote:

So many misconceptions in one post are hard to address at this hour[/quote]


Welcome to my world.
Message: Posted by: ed rhodes (Nov 6, 2015 09:26AM)
[quote]On Nov 5, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
You are sadly mistaken if you believe that everyone who contracted AIDS did so as a result "of their own behavior."

That's simply false. [/quote]

Isaac Asimov.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Asimov
Message: Posted by: RNK (Nov 6, 2015 10:30AM)
[quote]On Nov 6, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
I'd say that American society benefits "many." [/quote]

Exactly! It definitely does. More than any other country in the world!
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Nov 6, 2015 10:40AM)
[quote]On Nov 6, 2015, ed rhodes wrote:
[quote]On Nov 5, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
You are sadly mistaken if you believe that everyone who contracted AIDS did so as a result "of their own behavior."

That's simply false.[/quote]
Isaac Asimov.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Asimov [/quote]
Tom Fogerty

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Fogerty
Message: Posted by: The Hermit (Nov 6, 2015 01:49PM)
[quote]On Nov 5, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
You are sadly mistaken if you believe that everyone who contracted AIDS did so as a result "of their own behavior."

That's simply false. [/quote]

Context People. I don't want to start an AIDS discussion. I was using it as an example of a lot of money going to something that was traditionally treated as an epidemic. I know SOME people have gotten AIDS from no fault of their own. HOWEVER, if you don't use IV drugs or sleep with people with AIDS you don't get it. We spend billions on a disease that is caused MOSTLY by behavior, that in most cases is reckless by any standards. I am not talking about gayness. People that contract it today are almost always engaging in risky behavior.
Message: Posted by: The Hermit (Nov 6, 2015 01:53PM)
[quote]On Nov 6, 2015, landmark wrote:
@ Hermit

So many misconceptions in one post are hard to address at this hour but let's deal with the most fundamental one:
"You have to have an economic benefit to the employer. No skill, low pay, no pay."

There will never be enough "skilled" jobs by definition in a capitalist society. If there were lots of skilled workers, they would no longer command a higher wage. A society that actually cared about its members and not just "the economic benefit to the employer" would see this as a fundamental problem.

Same with the drug companies. "Should the company that invests that much make a good return? Or, should they invest in something else?"

The question, rather, should be, what kind of society asks the above question in a serious way, and why wouldn't that society be considered a failed one? Is the purpose of a society for the benefit of the few or the many? [/quote]

Society is not for the benefit of anyone. Who decides in 'society' who should benefit and why? Your 'clarifications' are loaded with assumptions about roles that may just not exist. What is the basis for judging whether a society has failed and who sets the definition. It seems your retort contains many personal ideas on how to judge the value of things not related or controlled by you.

As to the few or the many, who decides who the many are?
Message: Posted by: The Hermit (Nov 6, 2015 02:22PM)
Landmark, question on society role. In Africa, millions are infected with AIDS because they continue to do behaviors that cause it. There are education campaigns, etc. Is it society's role to protect and/or administer to people that are ill because of their own behavior? Should other countries spend billions on African AIDS when millions continue to engage in activity they are warned about or let them live with the result of their actions? If so, then society is protecting the few over the many.