Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
United States Businesses

Millions of Americans Nearing Retirement Age With No Savings (cbsnews.com) 425

Millions of Americans nearing their golden years are still financially unprepared for retirement. From a report: According to U.S. Census Bureau data, 50% of women and 47% of men between the ages of 55 and 66 have no retirement savings. According to AARP, nearly 57 million Americans work for an employer that does not offer a retirement savings plan.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Millions of Americans Nearing Retirement Age With No Savings

Comments Filter:
  • What these people do have is home equity.

    No matter what anyone in the financial press says, government is going to bailout housing, if that market continues to slide much below pre-pandemic levels.

    Its the safest bet in the world. The US has no other plan for dealing with this. Until all the boomers are in the ground and a large portion of the Xs are their next to them, this will be policy. After that not sure but there is at least 20 years ahead of us where residential real-estate in all but the dingy-est

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      The problem is that the property pyramid scheme has to come crashing down at some point.

      From Gen X onwards, each generation has had to rely more and more on help from their parents, and now Gen Z are finding that their parents already used up all the inheritance money and are stretched too thin to do much for their kids.

      Combined with an increase in buy-to-let among older people looking to supplement their pensions, home ownership among Gen Z is much lower. Generation Rent.

      Of course all the good pension plan

      • Inheritance money??? Where the hell do you live?? The 70s were economic ruin in the US. Most of us genX saw our parents accumulate tons of credit card debt during the 80s. Many honestly figured it didnt matter because WWIII was right around the corner. I was born in 71 and we were considered middle class. There was a lot of budget cutting and that wad the time America had to shift to 2 income households. By the time I enlisted and was stationed in WA in 92, I saw the emergence of 3 income families as a resu
        • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          Maybe it's different in the UK. A lot of Gen Xers around here inherited money, sometimes in the form of property.

        • Where the hell did you live? Things were different in the midwest. I'm struggling to think of anyone whose mom worked. The only women workers I knew were our teachers (there was only one male at all in my elementary), and unmarried women, including many of my older relatives. I didn't live in some rich enclave; my mother was divorced and we lived on welfare.

          Even when my mother did marry in the late 1980's, my step-father bought a house on his own wage as a general laborer. My mother eventually did start wor

          • You may not be aware but it's not the 1970's anymore and your experience may not be what on the whole a lot of families experience today. We can all trade anecdotes but my parents also purchased a home in the 1970's and even inflation adjusted the cost to purchase that same house today is 2.5x what they paid, the market is way different. Even with the higher interest rates of the time thats a steep barrier to cross and now with interest rates back to what we should consider "normal" it's even more out of

    • by GlennC ( 96879 ) on Thursday March 02, 2023 @10:45AM (#63335519)

      And what makes you think that these people own houses?

    • multinationals buying houses to rent or turn into AirBnBs (or just sit on so they can drive up prices, like Zillow did/does) is what's driving the price.

      This has happened before and when it did the gov't created programs to force homebuilders to build lots of affordable housing. Stuff like Levittown [bloomberg.com]. The houses were smaller, but were on large plots of land so homeowners quickly added more rooms. This is how Americans build wealth, by owning a home so that the larges expense (housing) is taking care of.
    • Actually most of them do not have home equity. Those that do are also the ones who most likely have retirement savings, having equity in your home shows you have some financial discipline. Most of these people rent or are mortgaged to the hilt and refinance constantly taking money out of their home.

  • This has been a secret shame of many babyboomers for years. Even (and often especially) babyboomers in upper management and even executive positions at companies. That's one of the main reasons why they haven't retired already, because they can't. They are upper management, but they simply can't quit because they have almost no assets besides their own homes that they live in. They are stuck working until they physically cannot.

    • This isn't about upper management types. All of them that I know can retire anytime they want. I don't know why they don't, maybe they don't have hobbies, which is how they worked their way up, by not having a life. Those that do retire often come back part time or as consultants, or even start new careers. They aren't content to take it easy.
    • by ranton ( 36917 )

      I have never seen any studies showing that those with high income are having similar problems with retirement savings as those with lower incomes. There may be some who don't have enough savings to maintain a $500k+ annual income in retirement, but they likely at least have a few million in the bank.

      The unfortunate truth for those in senior management is they only got there by foregoing family and hobbies by spending all their time working instead. They don't have anything else in their life other than thei

      • by dmay34 ( 6770232 ) on Thursday March 02, 2023 @12:21PM (#63335963)

        There may be some who don't have enough savings to maintain a $500k+ annual income in retirement, but they likely at least have a few million in the bank.

        Yeah, you can disbelieve it if you like, but most people that have made $500k+ still don't have enough to retire on. This is partially because of their lifestyle expenses, but also because they just spent all of that $500k. It's more famous with sports athletes that make multi-million dollar contracts that are then broke after just a few years of retirement, but the same thing happens with many high salary white collar guys. It's surprisingly easy to spend $500k per year and not actually save all that much.

        (Most people that have retired were able to do so because they have a pension and didn't have to do the hard work of saving money themselves.)

    • This has been a secret shame of many babyboomers for years...

      And yet, as a boomer, I've been hearing this story since I graduated high school. You could have written this story in 1990. In fact, I'm pretty sure it was, including the parts about how SS was going to fail any minute so I shouldn't plan to get any SS payments.

      (I think SS is still a problem, not because an on-paper trust fund will be exhausted but because we won't want to raise taxes enough to make the promised payments.)

      The advice at the time is the same as now: save as much as you can, take advantage of

  • for the Republican party to raise the retirement age for Social Security and Medicaid again. I hear their targeting 69 now!

    Seriously though, just because people are living longer doesn't mean they're physically capable of working longer. Nor does it mean anyone will hire you. Age discrimination is real and almost impossible to prove.

    But as people age they tend to vote Republican, thinking the leopard will never eat their face. And for a lot of them, especially the boomer generation, they'll die befo
  • When did "retirement" become a thing that everyone can and should do? I'm "retirement age", have savings, have no desire to "retire".

    Retire and do what exactly? Play golf? Watch the grass grow? blech

    I like being productive, I like working, and I will do it as long as I am able to. Heck my mother was still working when she called out sick from the hospital at age 90. She knew she was dying and told them "I can't make it, I think this is it".

    • I’m decades away from retirement and I would do it tomorrow and be just fine. I have plenty of hobbies and interests to keep me busy. Everything from working on the yard to maintaining my vehicles to building circuits in my electronics lab. There’s millions of books out there to read and many places to travel if you don’t like sitting.

      • by leonbev ( 111395 )

        Travel is super-expensive nowadays, though. I think that my retirement funds would disappear in 5 years if I took more than 2 or 3 trips a year that required flying somewhere.

  • One good start is to REMOVE the cap on income that is subject to SSI tax, but keep some cap on what you can pull out. Yes, truly rich people can still get SSI, but it will be capped as if they earned a much lower amount. This isn't about the individual, it's about society.

    i.e. If you make $1,000,000 annually and still have significant assets when you are retirement eligible, you contribute the SSI tax on $1,000,000, but when you retire you can only draw on benefits for contributions as if you only put in

    • What is an SSI tax? I had to look that up to make sure I wasnt the one hallucinating. Do you realize social security tax (OASDI tax) and SSi are two different things? SSI is for seniors or disabled people who are destitute and have low or no income. It is not based on how much you paid into it. Anyway, I get your point and you’re right but isnt that the same as just adding a new tax bracket for the wealthy?

      • Yes, again, I was over simplifying and knew someone would provide more information. I didn't want to write a novel and posted my comment tomorrow after more researching to provide the necessary background in links people may or may not click.

        Most people are simply going to know it as "Social Security" or "Social Security Insurance".

  • Soylent Green will be People, it seems.

  • The blame game in this place is staggering!! Everyone's fault except your own! It's those nasty Republicans, or Boomers or just anyone you don't like!

  • by PuddleBoy ( 544111 ) on Thursday March 02, 2023 @11:03AM (#63335609)

    I fear that most people reach adulthood without anyone ever having The Talk with them. No, not about that. About their long-term financial health.

    It need not be a long class that lasts a year, but I get the impression that little, if any, class time is spent showing students the benefits of taking steps to safeguard their retirement before they reach 65.

    And that's not just 'putting a little aside'. All the choices you make in life contribute to where you stand once you hit 65 (or 70, or whatever). Did you splurge on a boat, or a sports car, or lots of vacations? Or, to be frank, a large family?

    Financial health is not a partisan issue - it can affect everyone. (speaking as someone who really didn't start planning until my 50s)

  • by gweihir ( 88907 ) on Thursday March 02, 2023 @11:04AM (#63335613)

    Because such an abysmally bad state of affairs is unacceptable in the 2nd world and does not happen in the 1st world.

    • You absolutely are talking Third World, and you're going to get modded into oblivion for daring to say so. When it comes to willingly lapping up their own country's propaganda, a lot of Americans aren't any different from a Russian peasant. In the Great White North, as far back as the 60s we used to joke that Chekov from Star Trek should have added "Y'all" to the end of his incessant claims that, "It was bigger/inwented first/done better in Russia".

  • by Qbertino ( 265505 ) <moiraNO@SPAMmodparlor.com> on Thursday March 02, 2023 @11:14AM (#63335655)

    Just watched Nomadland [wikipedia.org] the other week. Awesome movie. Can totally relate, although I'm not a US citizen but live in Europe. It's a perfect summary of the situation and very well done.

  • Tens of millions of people in the third world are approaching "retirement age" with no savings.

    The difference is that they don't see retirement as a necessity and will often keep on working as long as they are able. When they can't work their families will take care of them. They might be the last generation for whom this is possible. With increasing labour mobility those families are becoming more dispersed, so this is a crisis for future governments.

    Unfortunately, their governments don't have the resourc

  • by hdyoung ( 5182939 ) on Thursday March 02, 2023 @11:23AM (#63335699)
    social safety net. If you worked full-time for most of your adult life, social security will provide an income of around 20k per year. Medical care comes from Medicare or, if you're truly broke, Medicaid.

    Half have zero savings? Wow. Well, they aren't gonna have cushy retirement, complete with a nice sports car, lots of eating at restaurants, swanky digs in NYC or LA, and several trips and cruises per year.

    To most people on this forum, this sounds like a fate worse than death, but the truth is that it's well above the poverty level. You find a cheap apartment in a small US city located in flyover country. You know, one of the places that DOESNT regularly make the evening news, where prices are still reasonable. Yes, plenty of these places exist, despite all the news about how apartments in the best parts of the best cities are sooOOOooo expensive. And you live out your retirement. Vacations happen once every few years, and only if you seriously save for it. And maybe, just maybe, you DONT FULLY RETIRE, unless you absolutely cannot work.

    If you have no savings, never worked, and have no family or friends to fall back on? That's a different story. You are well and truly at the bottom of the heap. Our system will keep you alive, but nothing more.

    This is why neither political party is going to cut social security, medicare or medicaid. There would be a LOT of grandmas and grandpas out on the streets.
    • by serafean ( 4896143 ) on Thursday March 02, 2023 @01:18PM (#63336285)

      > You find a cheap apartment in a small US city located in flyover country. You know, one of the places that DOESNT regularly make the evening news, where prices are still reasonable. Yes, plenty of these places exist, despite all the news about how apartments in the best parts of the best cities are sooOOOooo expensive. And you live out your retirement. Vacations happen once every few years, and only if you seriously save for it. And maybe, just maybe, you DONT FULLY RETIRE, unless you absolutely cannot work.

      I get that you're suggesting this for the caste of retirees with no savings, but oh boy...
      What you describe is borderline ostracizing these people. Picking up and moving elsewhere, at 60? Severing all local social connections built over decades? To some that is indeed worse than death...

    • by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Thursday March 02, 2023 @03:25PM (#63336929) Homepage Journal

      It's pretty hard to live on 20k even where it's relatively cheap. Most of the places where rent is still cheap are absolute shitholes, too.

      It's well past time to eliminate the contributions cap on social security.

  • by w3woody ( 44457 ) on Thursday March 02, 2023 @11:24AM (#63335707) Homepage

    I'm always suspicious of news articles that report some bad thing happening in society--but which fails to link to the underlying data. In this case, the article links to an earlier news article on CBS's own news site talking about preparing for retirement, and links to a site that plans trips for women [kindredwom...velers.com]--but does not link to the Census Bureau site, despite the fact that all such reports are provided and are easy to link to.

    So I went spelunking, because I'm always curious about such things.

    The best I could suss out with a few minutes searching was this article: Who Has Retirement Accounts? [census.gov], which, interestingly enough, limits the survey to participation in 401(k) (and similar defined-contribution plans), IRAs, and "defined-benefit" retirement plans--traditional pension plans. And yes, the savings rate is dismal, with some 40+% of boomers not having a retirement account at all.

    But... the definition here is "owns a retirement account"--that is, a tax-exempt deferred savings or defined-benefit pension plan designed for retirement savings. It does not survey overall savings. Now, the number of people who have a "retirement savings account" that is not a tax-advantaged retirement account--say, they own a bunch of shares in E-Trade, or they have equity in a house they plan to tap at some point--are not being counted in this survey.

    It could be the percentage of people who don't have a retirement account but who has other savings is minuscule. But the point is, we don't know. And the CBS News article linked at the top is singularly unhelpful.

    Worse, I can't help but think that this article, giving scary statistics but without a link to the Census Bureau's data sets (all of which are easy to browse and even contain APIs so that you can build your own synthetic data sets if you're so inclined) is designed more to sway public opinion than to inform.

    It may be the public opinion they're pushing--that so many people don't have a safety net that any attempts at restructuring the safety net of Social Security would be heartless and cruel--may be the correct one. But we don't know. And we can't know given the way the survey was performed, nor will the average person know to search the Census Bureau's own web site to find out more.

    Stuff like this bothers me, because I can't help but think such articles are manipulative, rather than informative.

    In my own case, I do have a SEP, and my wife has a Roth IRA. If we were to be surveyed about the amount of money we have in those retirement accounts--people doing the survey would hold us up as examples of two people who would be severely impacted by Social Security reform, because we don't have anywhere near enough money in those two accounts to even think of retiring. On the other hand, we also have two non-tax advantaged stock accounts (one with E-Trade, one with UBS) which accounts for 95% of our net wealth (not counting the equity in our house). Personally I think we're okay, even if our tax-advantaged savings is laughably small.

  • All over significant parts of the Free World, pension plans have disappeared and wages have stagnated as corporations gradually hollowed out and captured democratic governments. The biggest difference now outside Europe is how much of the tattered social safety net remains in various countries to save aging post-Boomers from destitution. Large scale homelessness and starvation are still waiting down the road, but not that far.

  • And... (Score:4, Informative)

    by kenh ( 9056 ) on Thursday March 02, 2023 @01:31PM (#63336349) Homepage Journal

    Do they smoke?
    Do they have a $1K internet terminal in their pocket?
    Do they buy a new car every three years?
    Did they sign a 15 or 30 year mortgage in the past few years?
    Did they work for an employer that offered a 401K program they choose not to contribute to?

    People make choices, then, when their choices don't work out, look to others to bail them out of their chosen situation (See "College Debt Cancellation).

    Workers in the US pay into Social Security, and other social safety nets, but the problem is too many people thought SS was a retirement plan, when it is little more than a "supplemental" plan, like SNAP benefits. SS was never intended to fund 100% of a person's living expenses, yet like clockwork, we see celebrities, politicians and activists take the SNAP challenge and try to live on SNAPs "Supplemental" payments (Reminder - the "S" in "SNAP" stands for the word "Supplemental").

You are always doing something marginal when the boss drops by your desk.

Working...