Comments on: Hard Times Wreak Havoc On Retirements

CBS Evening News: Nation's Financial Crisis Making It Harder For Retirees To Ease Into Golden Years

[hypnotoad72]

LOL my Mum said something interesting. She said they DON''''T want you to retire - they want you to keep working until you keel over! And sadly, I had to agree with her!

Posted by Demongirl60
------------

I don''t mind working and contributing to society, or even if I work to death, but why not at a decent rate so I and others who like to contribute and be a part get to enjoy life more as well? The so-called "work/life balance".

[jbright9]

I am sixty two. I love my job and I am still working. I took thirteen years off to raise a family and need to continue to work to have enough retirement to survive on.

I am very good at what I do. My problem is that most of my contemporaries have retired and I am asked continually how much longer I am planning on working. A lot of young employees want you out of their way. As long as my health holds up I plan on working at least another five years. I just hope that employers and coworkers will support someone''s right to continue in the work force as long as they are able to do their job.

[panhandlpete]

The seniors of today know how to survive, but it is the younger working class who have some harsh lessons ahead. Just think how much damage this financial crisis would be putting on their future retirement plans had the decider been able to privatize Social Security. This issue will rise again, as it has done many times in the past, and when too many non-paying clients sign on to SS, it will end up in the dust.

Face reality if you are past 65......you ARE retired, or should be, spend your savings and make the most of your time left doing all those things that working prevented you from doing. Now you could run for office, whether local or national, and make aging the "in" thing of our times.

[wl7bzh]

No, Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme. A Ponzi scheme is a criminal plan to sucker people into a high return investment then take off before they realize it is a fraud. Maybe you have an opinion that Social Security represents that, but you are wrong.

It is a plan to transfer income from current workers to current retirees. That is how it started, and that is how it continues. The problem is not the original plan, the problem is the subsequent demographics. Life expectancy increased, forcing an increase in retirement age for full benefits. And, now, the number of new workers is going down, which might affect the ability to pay benefits. However, productivity per worker is also going up, so the goal of preventing poverty in retirees may be possible despite the decrease in worker:retiree ratio that is expected.

Posted by BunchofChemi at 02:39 AM : Oct 05, 2008

Just one problem with your view of social security-That little government slush fund was raided a long time ago and is now backed up by government IOUs in the form of treasury securities.

What foreign governments are now having to face in investment of these IOUs is the principle of "in for a penny, in for a pound". If they pull out now, they lose everything.

As for our current retirees, our children and grandchildren are paying for the SSI retirement.

[obsever2008]

I think my friends that in wall street we have already passed that bear territory and we are now in scorpion and snake territories

[dsr57]

Big deal, keep working and put more in social security. Old AS$ hippy

[smirk5]

"The fundamentals of our economy are strong."
John McCain
Sept. 15, 2008

[nottellin1]

Now those plans are on hold, after the stock market''s nosedive put a huge dent in her retirement savings - Rivman estimates she''s lost around 20 percent from its height.

Oh, oh, 20% from it''s height!!! BFD!!! If she was so concerned about safety she should have had it in CD''s. More risk may or may not mean more reward, it is the chance that one takes. Maybe the Fed will make everyone whole on all their investments.

[oneworldusa]

I used to work in the investment industry. A person of 63 should not have enough in stocks/mutual funds at this stage in life to lose 20% of her retirement assets.

[brownpride46]

OBAMA''s TRILLION DOLLAR PREDATORY LOAN PLAN should work.

trust, but verify.

Google: Obama Sandler

due diligence is your responsibility.

Once Obama''s elected, he''ll be disqualified by brave honest Americans who were DEFRAUDED and unwilling to betray the CONSTITUTION.

Nationwide RIOTS will ensue. The Stock Market will DIE while giving birth to the GREAT DEPRESSION II. President Biden will promptly sell our nukes to Iran for food.

[pirmin3]

People of Amerika have no fear. GW and his buddies on Wall Street will take care of you if you can''t make ends meet. NOT!!

[mrmustard1]

Looks like Walmart will have a plentiful supply of greeters for years to come!

[incog-nito]

Goodnight all. Maybe we can pick up the discussion another time.

[incog-nito]

Like a personal bank account? Is your concern that apes like Bush, Reagan and Junior will raid your savings to fund resource grabs in other nations? I certainly hope you do not propose the looney stock market based "savings" account scheme that Bush was trying to push.

Why not make it law that this fund can not be drawn from to fund graft.

Posted by curse914 at 02:49 AM : Oct 05, 2008

Yes, it''s one of my concerns that the fund is misused. Why not pass a law? If they wanted to they would have done it already a long time ago wouldn''t they? No, what I was thinking of has nothing to do with the stock market. But as it is SS is subject to "looniness" as any other plan.

[incog-nito]

The market knows that having people alive but not at work is inefficient. It is vitally important to lower wages and savings rates so that the average American stays at work until a week or so before death. McCain and Palin will do theit best to help us reach this goal.

Posted by mediawatch50 at 02:40 AM : Oct 05, 2008

I thought that was funny (in a sad sort of way). And that''s why I''m reposting it.

[incog-nito]

Phased in? Do you mean with a surplus of monies? That still would be a transfer of money from one group to support another. Maybe I am not understanding what you are asking. There is always going to be an inherent lag.

Posted by curse914 at 02:43 AM : Oct 05, 2008

What I meant is to phase in a "savings account" plan where people will be paid with their own money at retirement. Of course this still doesn''t help those who happen to live very long.

[mediawatch50]

The market knows that having people alive but not at work is inefficient. It is vitally important to lower wages and savings rates so that the average American stays at work until a week or so before death. McCain and Palin will do theit best to help us reach this goal.

[bunchofchemi]

No, Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme. A Ponzi scheme is a criminal plan to sucker people into a high return investment then take off before they realize it is a fraud. Maybe you have an opinion that Social Security represents that, but you are wrong.

It is a plan to transfer income from current workers to current retirees. That is how it started, and that is how it continues. The problem is not the original plan, the problem is the subsequent demographics. Life expectancy increased, forcing an increase in retirement age for full benefits. And, now, the number of new workers is going down, which might affect the ability to pay benefits. However, productivity per worker is also going up, so the goal of preventing poverty in retirees may be possible despite the decrease in worker:retiree ratio that is expected.

[incog-nito]

curse914: Obviously the "savings" plan wouldn''t work initially because people didn''t have anything saved then. But as it is now there is no reason why it cannot be phased in. Just a thought.

[bunchofchemi]

By the way, it amuses me that Republicans are the ones who wanted to privatize Social Security into the stock market. Here''s my reference, because you won''t believe these numbers: http://www.investopedia.com/articles/financial-theory/08/political-party-democrat-republican-stock-returns.asp?viewall=1
Stock returns under Democratic Presidents: 16% per year
Stock returns under Republican Presidents: 0% per year (both 1927-1998)
Dow Jones Average at Bush inauguration: 10567
Dow Jones Average now: 10325 (Yes, George W confirms the trend!)

So, if you have stock funds, your wise choice would be Obama. Eighty years of history backs you up. I wonder if there is any other factor that so affects stock prices?

Think about it. Over the past 80 years, if you''d only kept your money in stocks when a Democrat was in office, your return would be the same as if it was in the whole time. If you''d moved the money to bonds or a bank account or real estate, you''d be way ahead. Why is anyone a Republican based on economics?