Traditionally, retiring entails leaving the workforce permanently. However, experts found that the very definition of retirement is also changing between generations.
About 41% of Gen Z and 44% of millennials — those who are currently between 27 and 42 years old — are significantly more likely to want to do some form of paid work during retirement.
…
This increasing preference for a lifelong income, could perhaps make the act of “retiring” obsolete.
Although younger workers don’t intend to stop working, there is still an effort to beef up their retirement savings.
It’s ok! Don’t ever retire! Just work until you die, preferably not at work, where we’d have to deal with the removal of your corpse.
So much propaganda in this article.
Knowing you won’t be able to retire, and making plans accordingly, is acceptance of the situation.
It’s not a fucking preference.
I could see some people wanting low level jobs in their retirement because they don’t know what to do with their time otherwise.
But it should absolutely not be a requirement.
For sure.
A some people do just like to work.
But I think most people would prefer to do their own things, work on their own projects and hobbies, instead of someone else’s.
Acting like it’s a preference to work past retirement, instead of a the financial reality for most of us, is such a load of horseshit I was tempted to write a complaint to the editor that this wasn’t published as an opinion.
deleted by creator
Was this in 2008?
Definitely. When I was a teenager this retired guy Al worked at chick fil a with me, not because he needed to but he wanted to. He had a cushy position too. He would just go talk to customers and make sure they had refills and stuff. Great guy, taught me a lot about life.
“soft life” is a lifestyle that embraces comfort and low stress, prioritizing personal growth and mental wellness.
What a fucking garbage take.
This isn’t a lifestyle. This is how life used to be for most people.
Lol even the summary says what they really mean
3 in 4 of Gen Z would rather have a better quality of life than have extra money in their banks, a report by Intuit shows.
“3/4 of gen z know that the world is probably gonna be pretty fucked up when they reach retirement age, so they’re doing their best to live an ok life before that happens”
Literally all of the climate change stuff they said was going to happen 50 years from now is happening now. So yeah I’m going to be 70 years old fighting for scraps with a billion refugees in lower Canada. Why the fuck shouldn’t I make sure I have fun now? The odds of getting enough money to get out of that situation are vanishingly small so fuck it.
So sick if seeing these articles framing “millennials/gen z killed xyz” as a preference or a want.
Remember when we killed the diamond wedding ring industry? We can’t pay our rent ffs.
That industry deserved death tbh, and so does the diamond mining industry in general
They used to advertise a diamond engagement ring as costing ‘three months’ salary’ since that was painful, but affordable.
Who can afford to sacrifice one month’s salary anymore?
This is it, right here. I’m a little older than the age range listed in the article and I literally became a nurse with the explicit expectation that I will have to work until I can’t stand up anymore. At least this pays well and gives me lots of options for working environments that might be a little more compatible with old age.
But the idea that I’ll ever be able to not work AND also afford healthcare? Impossible. Not going to happen. Might as well accept it.
Maybe, just maybe, Gen-Z is not saving as much for the future because (1) they have less money to save due to inflation, and (2) they don’t foresee a viable future. These reasons can also explain the parenthood rate dropping lately.
Main reason I never had kids was I was screwed over by just about everything financially. Student loans, housing/“financial crisis”, medical system, deck stacked against self-employment, predatory credit cards. Great job, USA. Then the same cunts who did that bemoan low birth rates and cry about immigrants.
There are TOO MANY procedures/fees/tax/unsafe ways to lose everything you have or be in a position where you will never be able to live without constantly being demanded to provide more work/cash/time.
Agreed, life wasn’t this shakey in the past. Depression era: certainly, but it was caused by the same BS we are dealing with now. For example, it’s amazing that medical bills are a leading cause of bankruptcy and thus degradation of quality of life in the US, and there’s little will among politicians or citizens to do much about it. You could save up enough money to retire, even have good insurance, and then be screwed because you or any member of your family had a severe illness or accident, and lose everything.
Even if you make it to 65, Medicare Hospice at the end of your life is designed to wipe you out. So no inheritance…
Right, The hope for Gen X/Z has been “just wait until until your boomer parents die! Then you can have a normal life!” and then it’s oh, sorry, guess you have $4 million in medical bills if they don’t just die instantly.
Despite all that, things are overall better than previous generations. There is and always has been bad news. Life has always been a constant string of disasters, yet when you pause for a moment to reflect you realize that despite the bad news, overall it wasn’t that bad.
In many countries, yes. People in India and China for instance are on average more likely to not be in severe poverty and subsistence vs 40 years ago, though western-style modernization has caused it’s own problems. However most people are less well off in the US than we were in the 50s-90s. Reagan economics seems to have been ‘wait, why are we letting the middle class exist? We could just keep all their money’. Seriously though i was completely fucked over by what I mentioned and it’s only based on luck that I’m not homeless.
Most people in the Us are better off than the 50’s-90’s. They may feel worse off, but that is not an objective measure.
There are lots of objective measures.
is one for you.The argument of people being ‘better off’ now is that technology is better and more available. It is much cheaper to buy a big 4k flat panel tv now than a black and white tv with four channels and no remote back in the 50s. We have the Internet, smartphones, better health care, video games, music, streaming services, cheap air travel, food from all over the world, robot vacuum cleaners, air conditioning etc. etc.
What we don’t have so much of is cheap housing, good secure jobs, any reasonable degree of income equality etc.
deleted by creator
Right, so my question is whether quality of life or satisfaction has improved. I’d say it has not.
Go find old newspapers and read letters to the editor. The exact problems were different ,but the same ideas .
Sure. That is the position I was speaking from.
Are you fucking high?
Unlikely. Getting high is more often associated with realizing that shit is fucked.
When people could afford a decent home on a single job paid minimum wage? Not so sure.
If you were white, sure. Less likely otherwise.
Okay, fair point that racial equity and access to opportunity has increased significantly in most of the country. Gender equality has come a long way as well, though it’s also a “ha ha you have to work now too and your family is still worse off than it was, good luck with paying for day care”
Which was a huge bullshit injustice which need correcting and hurt a lot of people.
But now we’re at the point where skin color doesn’t matter in this scenario. Only bank balances matter. And you probably don’t have a high enough one to afford a house no matter what color your skin is.
I saw a report that someone my age will need $3m to retire at 65. The average total income from 22-65 for people my age is around $1.4m. So I guess we never get to retire.
I saw a report that someone my age will need $3m to retire at 65. The average total income from 22-65 for people my age is around $1.4m. So I guess we never get to retire.
Compound interest might get you to that goal, maybe, if you start saving now.
The “start saving now” part is the bit that fucks most people.
When over half of Americans live paycheck-to-paycheck, saving is not even a possibility.
It seems that a lot of things in the US are carefully designed to keep you in servitude to your current employer, which I find a little ironic coming from the land of the free.
Where I live, Australia, employers are required to put in approx 10 percent of an employee’s full time wages into a superannuation fund. This is linked via reportable wages to the tax office and companies will eventually find themselves under a lot of unpleasant attention from the Australian Tax Office if they don’t make regular payments for you.
This is basically “invisible” to workers, it’s essentially factored into the cost to have an employee by the business.The superannuation fund can be a “default preferred” one selected by the business, or an employee nominated one, and you can transfer/roll over your accumulated funds between any superannuation fund you like as you hop between jobs. You can draw from it in some specific dire circumstances, but usually you can only access it at retirement age.
For most Australians it ticks over in the background by itself. Most super funds easily beat inflation by a fair margin most of the time, and definitely in the long term. The tax office keeps track of balances for you and gives you an easy way to see what’s where and the option to roll any scattered amounts into your current main superannuation fund.
You can also contribute extra to your super fund and there are tax benefits if you do. The government actively encourages investment in super, because that way they don’t have to provide much in the way of old age pensions come 2050 or so when all workers will have some sort of decent retirement amount.
Is there any form of “mandatory” saving like that in the US? I know you guys have company pension plans of some sort, is there a government version?
That’s essentially what social security is (except you can’t access it until retirement), but it’s constantly being attacked with death by a thousand cuts, so most people under 50 don’t really expect to see much of a return.
It’s pretty much the opposite in Australia with our setup. Those starting work now will end up with the required 3-ish million at retirement if they work the standard average job here for most of their life.
But I think what you refer to as “social security” is the government “aged pension” here which is about $550 a week or so. That’s enough for a pensioner to live a very modest lifestyle here if their accommodation has been sorted previously.
It’s also suffering the same kind of squeeze you mention and is means-tested on a sliding scale so the more you can afford not to have it, the less you get of it.
Right now most boomers are on the aged pension to some degree because superannuation schemes here only really kicked in during the last 15-20 years of their working lives so they didn’t have much of a balance.
Probably in the next 30 years or so only the truly destitute will be able to get it and the rest of us will have to rely on what we’ve saved.
Do you get the pension if you don’t put into the system? I was self-employed for years, and didn’t pay into the social security system for those years because I really couldn’t afford to since my business was so modest and I was the only employee. So my SS payout will be minuscule, whereas my wife, who has worked for public libraries since leaving university, will get a small but useful if not survivable check every month. So basically if you don’t pay in, you don’t get to have a retirement pension from the government.
I’m lucky because I stand to inherit a sizable amount of money when my mother passes away that I can save for retirement, but most people aren’t that lucky and will have to live on scraps.
If inflation is as high as it currently is compared to the collected interest it does not matter how much compounding is done, the buying power of that savings will flatline. Add to this equation the need to eat and live now, the amount most put away is minimal and when something comes up even those meager savings are wiped out.
The math in most households is not working out. Debt is becoming peoples rainy day fund, people are unable to even pay their property taxes with the now insufficient government minimum pensions (and a lot of people don’t think these pensions will even be there when they are eligible). This leaves people selling things (reverse mortgage, downsizing, moving to lower COL areas, etc) taking on debt to live now and generally giving up.
If you put away $50 a week for 10 years you end up with (based on a generous average 2% rate) $28,554.34. This seems like a good amount but keep in mind that you put $26,000 into this. That $2554.24 does not beat the loss of buying power over 10 years. You need much closer or better returns vs inflation for this to work in your favour. I was once told that you would be better off buying some raw metal like lead, or copper as the return on simple materials at least keeps up with costs.
You’re absolutely right, but I’ll just point out that superannuation (pension) funds in Australia are hitting 8 percent annual returns over a 30 year timeframe. You need a broader investment base to do that, and that’s hard for individuals to do by themselves. How do you diversify your $50 a week investment to maximise return? You can’t.
Here, superannuation funds do all the heavy lifting for you, it’s mandatory for employers to put a nominal amount of each pay into one. There are no minimum investment amounts with them and fees are waived if the balance is below a few thousand, so even if it’s $10 a week you get something back eventually.
So it’s possible to have it work if your government sets things up right.
Oh I am not saying people should be the ones wholly responsible for their retirement portfolio, and congrats for having a competent government pension option. I would love to have access to something better then the market equivalent of roulette.
Hell in Canada the pension plan (that you can not get enough to live off at the moment) got a stunning 1.3% return this year. And unlike other plans you need to pay extra for 40 years to get additional funds at the end (no one I know of even thinks of doing this). And some parts of the county want to spin off there own pension plan (Alberta) even though most expect it to perform worse (due to a smaller investment base and using a bad private firm to run it).
savings interest rate was less than 0.1% for about the last 10 years so even thats not looking too solid
There is no magic number you need. $3m will get you some lifestyle. You could retire at 40 with only $300k if you want to live the lifestyle that means (move to very low cost of living area where you walk to groceries). And there is a good chance social security will continue to provide a minimal income once you reach whatever age.
Not enough income to live indoors, but income nonetheless
I know places in the us where it is enough. Towns with populations of 500 are generally cheap. Not much to do in them.
You’re right. In a 1 bedroom in a rural city in a low cost of living state living as a freegan who never needs anything like medications you might be able to live off that.
I for one think that the situation with social security is that my parents and grandparents took one of the best things my country ever did, robbed it blind, and pissed all over it. Fuck. That. Shit.
And yeah I’m prepared to work the rest of my life until I get too old to work and then die homeless. That’s not what people should live like. We had something beautiful and let it fall into disrepair
I said you could. That you wouldn’t want to is my point.
Let’s say optimistically that you die at 70. That’s 30 years living on 300k, so 30k per year on rent, food, utilities and medical. You could live indoors for that amount in some parts of America in 2023. But what about in 2053? Inflation could have a huge impact on your cost of living and if you’re already living close to the bread line it’s hard to find savings anywhere. You could put your money in stocks but likewise you’re at the mercy of the market. It might be fine but if the market tanks when you’re 65 you could be in big trouble.
$300k ÷ 30yr = $10k/yr
To put it in perspective, working minimum wage ($7.25/hr) full time would earn around $15,000 in a year.
Historically no young generation has saved a lot. It is when you get older you realize how much it matters.
People who grew up in the Great Depression did. Silent generation remembers that…
Also Millennials are (historically) huge savers from living through multiple downturns.
are currently between 27 and 42 years old — are significantly more likely to want to do some form of paid work during retirement.
Want is not the right word there, and it completely changes the message. This is a fucking hit job, trying to convince people that company executives stealing pension plans, and a failed society that abandons its elderly, is something young people desire.
As a person over 40 years old, let me be clear: I never want to work.
I would have retired 20 years ago if I could. I will never understand people that say they don’t know what they’d do with themselves in retirement. What unimaginative and boring people they must be. I have a thousand interests I can’t fully pursue because of work obligations.
Let me be clear: I want to retire, and I want to do so under ten years from now.
This was my stepdad, always said that. I just would tell him “whatever you want.” And it wasn’t for a lack of hobbies, he has plenty. I just don’t understand the mindset of people that want to “work.” Like, I love making things and “working” on my own things, but never have I gone to work and happy to be there. To work for a manager that micromanages me, another manager who want me to falsify records, (that btw it won’t come back to him but to me,) a GM who would put undo pressure on you to stay longer then you were scheduled. Fuck that place. Nothing made me happier when my situation changed and didn’t need to pick up extra hours. Six hour mark rolled around and I was out. I’d take that time go to the gym, go on a bike ride, go rock climbing, go paddle boarding because I sure as hell enjoyed working on myself more then I ever did at any job. And to work so hard for so little, damn if America isn’t just on large pyramid scheme.
I’m one of those people. If not pointed in a specific direction by someone else I’ll just aimlessly do nothing but kill time for months on end. I have a couple interests, but nothing that could keep me occupied for an extra 40 hours a week.
This isn’t to say I love working, but I don’t hate it either. I’d rather have work than no work, even for the same amount of money.
Just do shit until you say “hey that was nifty” or run out of money. Whatever comes first.
As someone between 27 and 42, I love getting shit accomplished but I have never in my life wanted to work
Want is not the right word there, and it completely changes the message.
Or perhaps it’s the right word, because it completely changes the message in precisely the way they intend.
It’s certainly the intended word. But it’s not “right” by any reasonable metric of correctness.
In older vocabulary, “want” was actually the stronger form of “need”.
Perhaps we’re returning to tradition in more ways than one?
deleted by creator
what the fuck is up with all these pansy-ass terms suits keep coming up with? “quiet quitting” and now “soft saving”?
fuck this marshmallow flavoured cyanide bullshit
It’s a way to turn people off of what they really mean.
“Quiet quitting” is just doing your job. Trying to make it seem like breaking your back to help someone profit is the minimum to do unless you want to be branded a quitter.
“Soft saving” is apparently the requirement of working til your dead because no one gets paid enough to…hard save…I guess.
No no, they don’t die, they “soft live”.
yes i definitely didn’t know that
now go find literally anyone else to explain the obvious to
Ask a question, albeit rhetorical. Get answer that seems to agree with your stance.
Be a dick about it.
You got many friends?
Also thanks for explaining them, I had no clue what soft saving meant.
it tracks that this place is home to the socially unaware and the illiterate
do you seriously just go through comments sections without reading the article? fuck, critical thinking is a lost art.
dodge
This is gonna be a bitter pill to swallow, but yes, everyone else in the thread is literally a bunch of brain-dead NPCs who expect the good life they want to be handed to them and don’t want to accept that this slave racket that masquerades as a society never will.
They have no independent traits at all: no critical thinking, no initiative, and here’s the kicker:
You’re never going to convince them to cultivate those skills, and pressuring them to do it will only make them gang up on you and try to harm you.
Humans are just disgusting. Don’t waste your time with them.
Read in the best announcer voice in your head: “D-d-d-d-douchebag!”
Killer Instinct announcer voice works best for stuttered utterances.
Neither of those terms were developed by suits. They both were popularized in the Gen Z social sphere, namely TikTok, and then well after they went viral and had plenty of adherents, started being picked up in the normal media cycle of regurgitating whatever is happening on social media and seeing what sticks.
They’re both just a rejection of “old” cultural norms, in this case specifically a rejection of “hustle culture” and to a lesser extent the FIRE (i.e. early retirement) movement, both of which had their heyday on the internet many years ago.
And like…this shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone. Gen Z is typically much more concerned about mental health (focus on now) than prior generations, has a very doom and gloom outlook for the future (focus on now), and is the first generation to be raised by people who didn’t tell them “just work hard and you’ll be fine eventually” (focus on now). Is it any surprise that they’re less forward looking? What do they have to look forward to? Call it cyanide if you want, but while I don’t necessarily agree with it, it certainly feels like a natural development to me.
what the fuck is up with all these pansy-ass terms suits keep coming up with? “quiet quitting” and now “soft saving”?
It’s their attempt at managing the narrative in their favor.
did some idiot confuse “worried we will have to work until death” with “wanting to work until death”?
get fucked capitalist class. the minute I can afford not to work I will stop. the problem is you guys fucked the system so hard that it seems that point is so far away, or not attainable at all.
I feel so sorry for the retired boomers on good pensions in their big houses with nothing better to do than wish they were working again
end rant
did some idiot confuse “worried we will have to work until death” with “wanting to work until death”?
Yes, the OP and everyone else slurping up this rage bait. The article does not say they “want to work until death”. It also doesn’t say shit about “capitalism celebrating” anything. This is presenting survey results and generational trends. Guess what, Gen Z is a little different than millennials, and different still from Boomers (though they appear to have some in common with the consumptive, “me generation” that Gen X was broadly painted as). This shouldn’t be revolutionary. They don’t save as much as millennials because millennials lived through multiple rough markets, and entered the workforce during a historic downturn. They care (even) less about work because they are much more focused on mental health. These are super, SUPER broad strokes, but we’re talking about national level surveys. Why everyone is getting their undies in a bunch over this is absurd. No one is saying anything is good or bad. It just is.
This honestly sounds like propaganda trying to convince people this is a thing.
Like “quiet quitting”, which is, in reality, just doing your job and not going above and beyond because it doesn’t benefit you…
This honestly sounds like propaganda trying to convince people this is a thing.
IMO it’s exactly that. They hardly bring up any other external influences on people’s income in the article, just a paragraph or two very deep in the article.
It insinuates really hard that people have the money to spend but just don’t want to spend, a subtle “killing the messenger” of people being lazy and greedy.
news is profit driven, so it literally always has someone’s agenda behind it… (e.g. always propaganda) this appears to be corporate flavored
You definitely have a point which is why I try to avoid it most days.
news is profit driven
Watch the PBS News Hour show.
It’s also available on YouTube.
Speaking of YouTube, ‘Breaking Points’ is also a really good channel to watch for news.
Wow. I’ll look into it. Ty
This is some straight up Manufacturing Consent shit that’s designed to make you think being poor and working until you fucking die on the assembly line and have to have your corpse dragged into the dogfood machine by the other wage slaves was your idea.
This is some straight up Manufacturing Consent shit
This message is being projected to the leaders of Capitalism, not the workers. It’s being said to the wrong audience.
If so, it seems like it’s a wasted effort.
The leaders of capitalism are just “capitalists.” And they don’t read CNBC. This is an article written for middle-class office drones, because it’s one of the few websites that isn’t blocked by the company firewall that has something approximating entertainment on it.
The leaders of capitalism are just “capitalists.”
By the leaders of capitalism one could mean the CEOs and/or upper management, the c-suite, etc.
And they don’t read CNBC.
They sure watch it though, as well as the Sunday morning shows.
This is an article written for middle-class office drones, because it’s one of the few websites that isn’t blocked by the company firewall that has something approximating entertainment on it.
They’re usually too busy to watch videos on their web browser at work because they are trying to keep the place from burning down project wise, but sure, it could be for them as well.
It is, and what’s unfortunate is that on a long enough timeline, it works.
- open mouth
- insert rich people
- chew vigorously
- swallow
Forgot the guillotines silly!
They didn’t need guillotines in Holland.
One thing worth noting that’s tangentially related: the reason Social Security faces solvency concerns is not that they couldn’t anticipate the Boomers’ retirement, but because under Boomer management, wages (which are the basis for Social Security’s funding) have been suppressed, particularly on the low end of the wage scale.
They saw the Boomers coming a mile away. What they didn’t see coming was that they’d flatline the minimum wage and kill off unions
That and the Boomers modified social security to cap contributions for high income earners. If we removed that cap the issues with solvency get mostly solved.
Omg, I hadn’t thought of that. Social security is taxed from income, American wages have been stagnant since the 70s.
Generation Ladder Pull
I have no idea where they pull these statistics from. It’s increasingly sad that we should get more time off as labour gets automated and cheaper, not less.
I do the manual labour while machines paint and write poetry, this is not the future I expected.
My retirement plan is a cave in the hills, growing my own food on guerilla gardens until I’m eaten by wolves.
Hi, it’s me, Wolves
Can I join
No. I’m a hermit. Nobody can join me. Find your own cave.
Well, we could meet up every 10 years, swap stories about caves. It’s good fun.
I too have decided to look to the past. I’m raising an AI that will hopefully be able to provide for me in my old age
If that doesn’t pan out, I’m going to try to join a pack of wolves
Here’s a study of work hours from medieval times until now, by my favourite YouTube channel, Historian Civilis: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hvk_XylEmLo
Had to bail at the first YT ad, so I’ll finish on Piped. My first take is that even though I get paid for eight hours, I work very similarly as the Stone Age worker in bursts. Some days I’m not working very hard and some days I am. I usually try to ensure I get something done over the course of the week, but it doesn’t always work out. Shrug. I don’t lose any sleep over it.
Most people are using that extra productivity to have more toys. Houses are much larger than 70 years ago. People now commonly have AC in the house. Most people have a phone/computer in their pocket (the video phone of 1950s science fiction not only exists, and it isn’t a room sized machine but something even kids have in their pocket). You don’t have to - get rid of the phone and you save a lot of money per month - but most people have chosen not to. Maybe they just feel forced to, but it is still a choice and there are a few people who by not having them prove it isn’t forced.
What world do you live in where you can get by living like a hermit in the woods?
You may be okay with having a shitty existence but I certainly am not. Shaming people for having AIR CONDITIONING in a time where we are encountering record high temperatures, the likes of which are killing people? Fuck you pal, all the “advice” or “wisdom” you think you’re spewing here is nothing but garbage.
GUYS GET IN HERE. THE SECRET TO SUCCESS IN AMERICA NOW IS TO STOP PARTICIPATING IN SOCIETY.
Come on man…
get rid of the phone and you save a lot of money per month
?
Have you tried living without a phone? This is very hard to pull off in America. You need an email address. Ok, fine, you say, but that doesn’t mean you need a phone. Okay, so you need to pay for home internet and have a PC? Still a cost here.
No, you say, walk/drive to the library every time you need to check your email. Every time you need to use a website to make an appointment or fill a form out. Every time you need to check google for information (by the way, I have saved thousands of dollars by googling things, I am sure you have, too).
There’s still a cost here - time. Many people who have smartphones in America don’t have home internet.
You still need a phone number if you’re employed. I’m sure there are jobs that will put up with not being able to contact you, but good luck with that, I’m sure they pay well. You’re paying for a dumb phone or a land line either way.
And you’re right, it is a choice. I choose to participate in society, and that pretty much requires the internet. I choose not to live naked in the woods, surviving on what I forage like a bear.
By making that choice you pay the price. I knowany people without a phone, they live in a different society. Most are old.
Most are old
Bingo!
Try balancing a job and kids, reaching companies and schools without a smart phone. It will cost you time if you can’t just reach into your pocket. Example, schools in my area put school closures on Facebook and through email. Guess you could listen to the radio if you didn’t have access. Or watch the news on TV (Oh, actually, TV is a luxury, nevermind, much less useful. I don’t have TV, don’t have time to watch or the money to waste on cable).
Smart phones are not an expensive luxury anymore, they’re a tool. They’re a tool that the younger, employed and child-raising part of society is assumed to have. I’m not saying you can’t do it, it’s just, well… Hope your kids can adjust to college life if they haven’t been exposed to tools like easy access to the internet. Their peers will probably have smart phones, at least as teenagers/young adults. Doesn’t bode well for them. You can get a cheap smart phone, even used iPhones aren’t always that expensive, though I think androids are far more economical.
The person you’re replying to is a moron, basic maths tells me they’re wrong. My phone costs £400/year, let’s round that up to £500 for ease of calculation (less once the handset is paid off, but I’ll give them the best possible argument). Living in a 3 bed semi, nothing fancy, decent area. Currently my house would cost £200-250k, I’ll take the lower end, again benefits their argument. At £500/year it would take 400 years for me to save for my home. Not a big fancy home, a relatively small starter home. My smart phone is not the reason I can’t afford a bigger house.
Yea I know, lmao. I work with people who think that some people don’t deserve smart phones. It’s cathartic to argue about it on the internet.
Wouldn’t a radio also be a luxury? Should we be spending money on anything other than ramen and a rug to sleep on?
Excellent point. Radios are clearly pushing it, I’m sure some of them cost like $20. People can just learn how to do without!
By making the choice to not have a job since you don’t have a phone, you’re not going to be able to buy those toys. Or afford rent. Homeless people have phones because they need them to work the minimum wage jobs they’re forced to work just to be able to sleep in their cars.
Out of touch
A soft lifestyle? And to think this whole time I thought it was just called “being poor and underpaid”
Generally the people being discussed in this article are not poor and underpaid, but rather prefer work-life balance to be heavily slanted toward “life” and “experiences” rather than “work as much as possible to make as much as possible.”
Generally the people being discussed in this article are not poor and underpaid
From the article, buried inside of it…
Additionally, inflation makes it harder for people to cover their expenses or save, Koehler said.
A report by Blackrock shows that in 2023, only 53% of workers believe they are on track to retire with the lifestyle they want. A lack of retirement income, worries over market volatility and high inflation were some of the reasons cited for a lack of confidence about retirement among workers.
I know the article insinuates it, but I don’t think we can assume that people can afford more but just don’t want to spend more, to protect their lifestyle.
I believe it’s more of people want a better lifestyle and they’re not getting paid enough for it, that they’re expecting the same lifestyle that the previous generations had, and are not being selfish and asking for more than others had.
Yeah! They should be raising themselves up by pulling up those bootstraps. That’s the way anyone can reach a higher socio-economic status. America!! /s
This really has nothing to do with “bootstraps” which is a satirical metaphor (originally satirical) about climbing from poverty.
I don’t get the privilege of owning a home, why should I get to retire? 🤷♀️
I don’t get the privilege of having a life, why shouldn’t we get to work till death?
Who need a life if you’re working all the time? If you were serious about retiring you’d work yourself to death to get there!
From the article…
According to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, Americans are saving less in 2023. The personal saving rate — the portion of disposable income one sets aside for savings — was significantly lower at 3.9% in August, compared to the 8.51% average in the past decade, according to data from Trading Economics which goes as far back as 1959.
Additionally, inflation makes it harder for people to cover their expenses or save, Koehler said.
A report by Blackrock shows that in 2023, only 53% of workers believe they are on track to retire with the lifestyle they want. A lack of retirement income, worries over market volatility and high inflation were some of the reasons cited for a lack of confidence about retirement among workers.
It really just is time for companies to pay more money to their employees, to share the wealth better, back like how we used to.
It’s wild to think that in the past only one person would have to work and a couple would be able to afford a house and raise a family. I can’t see how that can be done in today’s world.
Someone dig up FDR and ask him the redo the ‘New Deal’.
Additionally, inflation makes it harder for people to cover their expenses or save, Koehler said.
I feel like this is the most significant piece of information in the entire article and it just skims over it. People aren’t failing to save because of lifestyle choices. They’re failing to save because groceries for 1 person costs like 200 bucks a week in some cities. Shit is more expensive than ever before, and things like home ownership, which is historically THE default hedge against inflation, is outside the grasp of pretty much anyone below 40 who isn’t a doctor or working in a similarly lucrative field.
Man, I remember when I was a kid groceries cost $100~$200 for a family of 4 for a week, and some of that food (like bags of chips) would get spread out over multiple weeks. 11-year-old me couldn’t believe that my parents spent that much on food but wouldn’t get me a $40 lego set.
I think the formula for minimum wage should be as follows
Minimum wage adds up to enough per month that the average number of hours worked times the minimum wage are large enough for the national average for rent to make up at most 40% of a minimum wage worker’s budget.
If a county (or equivalent subdivision) has a higher average rent than that average, the minimum wage there is the same formula but for that higher average rent instead of the national average.
If there’s a discrepancy between where someone lives and where they work, their minimum wage is the higher between the two.
The only modification I think it’d need is maybe finding a scientific way to replace monthly rent with “average monthly expenditure” so that folks getting billed for medicine aren’t being screwed over, but frankly a country that can get the above proposition done is probably one that made UHC happen too anyways.
Also just to keep those landlords from thinking they can get wise, rent can only be raised on lease renewal, and only by as much as the reported inflation rate at the time of lease renewal. Also, constructive eviction to try and get around this is a felony and you lose all rights to own housing property other than your own home ever again.
Also, constructive eviction
Constructive? Elaborate?
this is a felony and you lose all rights to own housing property other than your own home ever again.
I think that’s a step too far, and wouldn’t(?) pass muster, legally.
A felony would come with high penalty fees to pay, and could be enough of a deterrent.
If you’re unfamiliar with the concept of constructive dismissal, it’s where an employer skirts termination laws by doing shit like booking the employee on all the worst hours or piling on tasks or moving their office space to somewhere far away or unpleasant to make work so unbearable that they quit. In parts of Canada that’s illegal and you’re required to pay out as if you’d fired them anyways if it’s shown you did that.
Constructive eviction would be the same idea, not forcing an eviction before date because they want to spike the rent, but instead scheduling a shitton of construction and maintenance and other shit that make the place unlivable until the tenant eventually has to break the lease to be able to find anywhere else to get a consistent night’s sleep.
Landlords were pulling it all over the dang place during the COVID eviction holds.
Also, not being able to own or manage housing property other than your personal residence seems like a perfectly apt punishment for someone who’s demonstrated quite blatantly that they’re the worst kind of scumlord to trust with people’s housing rights.
If you’re unfamiliar with the concept of constructive dismissal, it’s where an employer skirts termination laws
Thank you for the education. I had not heard of that tactic described using that term before.
Also, not being able to own or manage housing property other than your personal residence
IANAL, but that seems to cross a legal ‘free will’ line that most people wouldn’t want to cross.
Other forms of punishment without losing ownership would be the more established go to alternative.
Wow what a boomer article. Most young people just don’t expect the current systems and institutions to last that long. Millenials have lived through several financial crises and economic downturns with no chance for improvement in sight. It just gets worse until the generation responsible for it dies out.
So I’d much rather live in the now making memories of adventures and good times with friends & family as long as i’m able to, than have a bit more money in the bank that won’t be worth shit when i’m old. Peace of mind is great and all but the future is an illusion you can never fully prepare for.
Wow what a boomer article.
No, that’s a capitalist “greed is good” article in disguise.
Some of us Boomers actually wonder WTF the ‘New Deal’ went, and lament it’s loss for our grand/children.
Seriously, stop buying into and dividing up one side that would stand together against that kind of thing.
Why should people push for traditional pensions? I don’t want to be stuck at a crappy job just because leaving would reset my retirement clock. It’s the same reason healthcare shouldn’t be attached to the employer either.
Yes, a universal pension system is the solution.
The problem is the alternative has become 401(k)s, which can be wiped out of the market does badly. This requires government intervention to be fixed, but the will is not there.
If my calculations are correct, my cheeseburger and pizza diet will kill me around the time I want to stop working. That’s my retirement.
Na, medical care and medicine are better than they’ve ever been. They’ll save you from your heart attack and you’ll spend the next 3 decades paying for heart medication.
Removed by mod
Why wait when you could just achieve your goals today?
A bullet would be cheaper and less painful, honestly
If my calculations are correct, my cheeseburger and pizza diet will kill me around the time I want to stop working. That’s my retirement.
A better retirement plan would be Costco hot dogs.
Who am I skimping out on cheeseburger money for?
Who am I skimping out on
The Unknown Ones.
It’s like a version of The Whale where he doesn’t have a daughter and isn’t depressed from his gay lover dying, but just depressed because of general socioeconomic conditions and the overall shitty state of the world.
