Short answer: yes Long answer: yyyyyeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesssssssss If human life and society isn't extinguished because of their greed and apathy, they'll be remembered by the whole world the way that...
Short answer: yes
Long answer: yyyyyeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesssssssss
If human life and society isn't extinguished because of their greed and apathy, they'll be remembered by the whole world the way that Germans remember the generation that supported Hitler's rise to power.
The whole article is attacking the institutions - politicians, wealthy, etc. for the problems of the millenials. Yet in her own words: I'm not trying to point any fingers here because I do believe...
The whole article is attacking the institutions - politicians, wealthy, etc. for the problems of the millenials.
Yet in her own words:
In contrast, some of us baby boomers, newly retired, are apparently living in an experiential paradise – cruising the globe, contemplating buying a second home – albeit dazed at how good pensions, secure employment and the fluke of buying at the outset of a period of rapid house inflation has catapulted us so much further, financially, than many of us expected to travel.
I'm not trying to point any fingers here because I do believe there are socially conscious people in every generation (just as there are people who care only about themselves), but when you point the fingers at politicians, which you helped to elect because they chose to serve your purpose (lower taxes), enacting policies which allowed you to gain wealth and separate you from another generation... what are you really accomplishing? It's a seriously roundabout way to avoid responsibility for a story which directly points right back at yourself.
I don't know. I'm an early X-er, grew up in an area where good jobs were nonexistent for a long time, and didn't have a consistent "middle class" income until I was past 40. If it weren't for...
I don't know. I'm an early X-er, grew up in an area where good jobs were nonexistent for a long time, and didn't have a consistent "middle class" income until I was past 40. If it weren't for generational bequests and a few bits of luck, the spouse and I would be eating cat food when or if we retire.
The boomers I know are suffering from grossly overpriced healthcare, loss of wealth in the housing/market crashes, the costs of putting their kids through even state colleges, the costs/effort of providing childcare for their grandchildren, and they're still not retired. If they suffered layoffs, they're unemployable at former wages due to age discrimination.
It's just wrong to participate in this kind of intergenerational blame nonsense - there's a vanishingly tiny few who actually reaped untoward gains, rigged the system in their favor, or had the luxury to influence the political process while failing to prevent the situation we're in. Save your scorn for them.
This is the real answer, really. It's easy to make us fight amongst ourselves based upon our differences. Color, sex, generational characteristics, country of origin, opinions on abortion, on...
This is the real answer, really. It's easy to make us fight amongst ourselves based upon our differences. Color, sex, generational characteristics, country of origin, opinions on abortion, on guns. That's all a charade that's propagated, mostly by conservative politicians who seek to divide rather than unite: all while the wealthy upper class continue to squeeze tighter on those who have less.
Some do, some don't. People are exceptionally bad at saving for retirement when they're not nudged to do so. While many pensions have gone bust, it's nigh impossible to find a job in the private...
Some do, some don't.
People are exceptionally bad at saving for retirement when they're not nudged to do so. While many pensions have gone bust, it's nigh impossible to find a job in the private sector with a pension anymore.
People are exceptionally bad at saving for retirement when they have no income left after paying for basic needs like housing, healthcare, childcare, transit, and food. That's the case for half of...
People are exceptionally bad at saving for retirement when they have no income left after paying for basic needs like housing, healthcare, childcare, transit, and food. That's the case for half of the U.S. population over the past 40 years, and it's absurd to blame them for inadequate thrift.
While that's a fair point, opt-out retirement plans are vastly more successful than opt-in. Even small amounts saved pays off, and when it's already subtracted from your first paycheck before you...
While that's a fair point, opt-out retirement plans are vastly more successful than opt-in. Even small amounts saved pays off, and when it's already subtracted from your first paycheck before you get it, people tend to adjust their living to meet what they earn. Obviously this means next to nothing when you're scraping by on minimum wage and many Americans are and will be.
I was also pointing out that pensions don't exist anymore, nor do benefits like they did in the 60s & 70s when many boomers grew up.
As I said in another post, I don't believe we should be pointing fingers at a whole generation, that's absurd and short-sighted. Just pointing out that there are differences in what was/is available to each generation during different periods in their life.
I agree with you about the psychology of opt-out versus opt-in; where it breaks down is if there's any possibility of early withdrawal. For the most part, even the poorest usually manage to...
I agree with you about the psychology of opt-out versus opt-in; where it breaks down is if there's any possibility of early withdrawal. For the most part, even the poorest usually manage to squirrel away a little money for emergencies. But there are always emergencies - the unexpected doctor visit, car repair, legal fee, rent increase, and so on. If the retirement fund money is accessible, or worse yet, garnishable for debt, the feature might as well be unavailable.
The U.S.A. does have a no opt-out, no withdrawal pension savings fund - it's called Social Security. Every wage earner pays 6.2 percent of income (except the wealthiest - there's an arbitrary income cap after which no additional saving is collected), with an employer match of 6.2 percent, into a national fund.
That's 12.4%, which should provide adequate savings for 15 - 20 years of retirement after 50 years of employment. [Provided the money is collected, managed, and disbursed equitably, and that wages were fair in the first place.] The payments are based on contributions, with some adjustments.
But thanks to decades of propaganda, we also have a political problem with anything called a "tax". If Social Security was actually a tax on individuals (rather than their employers), it would be simple to ensure the permanent solvency of the fund by collecting that 6.2% + 6.2% on all wage income, not just the first $128,000.
What would be a genuine generational failure would be if young people (who aren't yet benefitting from one of the few government programs that really works exactly as designed) failed to show up and vote to preserve the Social Security program, even if they don't think they need to care about it or are already nihilistic about its future prospects. Social Security is why boomers turn out so reliably for elections.
Short answer: yes
Long answer: yyyyyeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesssssssss
If human life and society isn't extinguished because of their greed and apathy, they'll be remembered by the whole world the way that Germans remember the generation that supported Hitler's rise to power.
The whole article is attacking the institutions - politicians, wealthy, etc. for the problems of the millenials.
Yet in her own words:
I'm not trying to point any fingers here because I do believe there are socially conscious people in every generation (just as there are people who care only about themselves), but when you point the fingers at politicians, which you helped to elect because they chose to serve your purpose (lower taxes), enacting policies which allowed you to gain wealth and separate you from another generation... what are you really accomplishing? It's a seriously roundabout way to avoid responsibility for a story which directly points right back at yourself.
I don't know. I'm an early X-er, grew up in an area where good jobs were nonexistent for a long time, and didn't have a consistent "middle class" income until I was past 40. If it weren't for generational bequests and a few bits of luck, the spouse and I would be eating cat food when or if we retire.
The boomers I know are suffering from grossly overpriced healthcare, loss of wealth in the housing/market crashes, the costs of putting their kids through even state colleges, the costs/effort of providing childcare for their grandchildren, and they're still not retired. If they suffered layoffs, they're unemployable at former wages due to age discrimination.
It's just wrong to participate in this kind of intergenerational blame nonsense - there's a vanishingly tiny few who actually reaped untoward gains, rigged the system in their favor, or had the luxury to influence the political process while failing to prevent the situation we're in. Save your scorn for them.
This is the real answer, really. It's easy to make us fight amongst ourselves based upon our differences. Color, sex, generational characteristics, country of origin, opinions on abortion, on guns. That's all a charade that's propagated, mostly by conservative politicians who seek to divide rather than unite: all while the wealthy upper class continue to squeeze tighter on those who have less.
Don't fall for it.
Some do, some don't.
People are exceptionally bad at saving for retirement when they're not nudged to do so. While many pensions have gone bust, it's nigh impossible to find a job in the private sector with a pension anymore.
People are exceptionally bad at saving for retirement when they have no income left after paying for basic needs like housing, healthcare, childcare, transit, and food. That's the case for half of the U.S. population over the past 40 years, and it's absurd to blame them for inadequate thrift.
While that's a fair point, opt-out retirement plans are vastly more successful than opt-in. Even small amounts saved pays off, and when it's already subtracted from your first paycheck before you get it, people tend to adjust their living to meet what they earn. Obviously this means next to nothing when you're scraping by on minimum wage and many Americans are and will be.
I was also pointing out that pensions don't exist anymore, nor do benefits like they did in the 60s & 70s when many boomers grew up.
As I said in another post, I don't believe we should be pointing fingers at a whole generation, that's absurd and short-sighted. Just pointing out that there are differences in what was/is available to each generation during different periods in their life.
I agree with you about the psychology of opt-out versus opt-in; where it breaks down is if there's any possibility of early withdrawal. For the most part, even the poorest usually manage to squirrel away a little money for emergencies. But there are always emergencies - the unexpected doctor visit, car repair, legal fee, rent increase, and so on. If the retirement fund money is accessible, or worse yet, garnishable for debt, the feature might as well be unavailable.
The U.S.A. does have a no opt-out, no withdrawal pension savings fund - it's called Social Security. Every wage earner pays 6.2 percent of income (except the wealthiest - there's an arbitrary income cap after which no additional saving is collected), with an employer match of 6.2 percent, into a national fund.
That's 12.4%, which should provide adequate savings for 15 - 20 years of retirement after 50 years of employment. [Provided the money is collected, managed, and disbursed equitably, and that wages were fair in the first place.] The payments are based on contributions, with some adjustments.
But thanks to decades of propaganda, we also have a political problem with anything called a "tax". If Social Security was actually a tax on individuals (rather than their employers), it would be simple to ensure the permanent solvency of the fund by collecting that 6.2% + 6.2% on all wage income, not just the first $128,000.
What would be a genuine generational failure would be if young people (who aren't yet benefitting from one of the few government programs that really works exactly as designed) failed to show up and vote to preserve the Social Security program, even if they don't think they need to care about it or are already nihilistic about its future prospects. Social Security is why boomers turn out so reliably for elections.
42% of Boomers. 41% of GenXers have no retirement.
https://www.fool.com/retirement/2018/01/29/guess-how-many-gen-xers-and-baby-boomers-have-no-r.aspx