The Extinction of Retirement

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
109,373
11,436
113
Low Earth Orbit
For the better part of a century the foundations for a semi-comfortable retirement for many Americans have rested on the financial pillars of rising real estate and equity prices, positive real interest rates on savings, the continued solvency of public and private pension plans, and the reliability of national entitlement programs (Social Security, Medicaid). But in the last few years, the economic sands have fundamentally shifted and these pillars are no longer sturdy, some have cracked completely. For many Americans, the traditional idea of a comfortable retirement, filled with golf carts, cruises, and fishing trips, is going the way of the dodo bird.

Over the last decade incomes and job growth have stagnated, causing savings rates to drop. According to Jim Quinn author of the Burning Platform, 60% of retirees have less than $50,000 in savings. Such sums won’t last very long, especially when consumer prices are up 3.6%, import prices are up 12.5% and commodity prices are up 35% year over year. What’s worse, any savings placed in a bank will pay next to zero interest and will likely not even pay for the fees associated with the account. With cash savings essentially non-existent, the other pillars of income take on paramount importance. But these former bastions of financial security are being washed away by a torrent of red ink.

For years the essential Ponzi-like structures of Social Security and Medicare were concealed behind positive demographics. But once taxes collected from current payers fall short of the required distribution owed to current recipients, the ruse will be laid bare. That day is now in the foreseeable future. With insolvency a real and present danger, at least a consensus is now forming that Social Security must be structurally altered if it is to survive.

According to the Social Security Administration, in 2008, Social Security provided 50% of all income for 64% of recipients and 90% of all income for 34% of all beneficiaries. With these numbers, it’s not hard to see how even small cuts will spark big protests. Now try cutting the $20 trillion prescription drug program and the $79 trillion Medicare entitlements and watch the political sparks fly! However, given the realities, it’s hard to see how the program can escape deep cuts.

In the past many retirees could count on accumulated stock market wealth to help fund retirement. Not so much anymore. As of this writing, the S&P 500 is now no higher than it was in January of 1999. For over 12 years the major averages have gone nowhere in nominal terms and have declined significantly in real (inflation adjusted) terms. The dreams of becoming rich from investments have crashed along with Pets.com and Bernie Madoff. Then there is always the supposedly safest asset of all—a retiree’s home.

Despite a misguided faith that real estate prices could never fall, they have done just that…with a vengeance. According to S&P/Case-Shiller, the National Home Price Index has declined some 30% to levels not seen since the middle of 2002. And prices are still falling, with the rate of decline accelerating. The National Index dropped 4.2% in Q1 of 2011, after dropping 3.6% during Q4 2010. This means that only those retirees who have owned their homes for at least 10 years have any hope of selling at a profit. Ownership of significantly longer periods may be needed to have built up significant equity.

That leaves public and private pension plans. But here again there are serious issues. Let’s just look at state public pension shortfalls. According to the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, “States report that their public-employee pensions are underfunded by a total of $438 billion, but a more accurate accounting demonstrates that they are actually underfunded by over $3 trillion. The accounting methods that states currently use to measure their liabilities assumes plans can earn high investment returns without risk.” Huge returns without risk? Bond yields are the lowest they have been in nearly a century! What world are these states living in? With few options, the states will undoubtedly look to the Federal government (taxpayers) for a bailout. Failing that, cuts are inevitable.

The sad facts are; Americans are broke, the real estate market is still in secular decline, stock prices are in a decade’s long morass, real incomes are falling, public pension plans are insolvent and our entitlement programs are structurally unsound. If the pillars that seniors have relied on in the past fail to miraculously regenerate (and there is certainly no reason to believe they will), all that most retirees will have will be freshly printed greenbacks that come from a never ending policy of federal deficits and an obliging Federal Reserve.

Unfortunately, the inflation that will result from such a policy will sap most of the purchasing power that those notes possess. In other words, for most people retirement is now an illusion, and many Americans will find themselves working far longer, for far less real compensation, then they ever imagined. The quicker we realize this, and plan accordingly, the better off we will be.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
For the better part of a century the foundations for a semi-comfortable retirement for many Americans have rested on the financial pillars of rising real estate and equity prices, positive real interest rates on savings, the continued solvency of public and private pension plans, and the reliability of national entitlement programs (Social Security, Medicaid). But in the last few years, the economic sands have fundamentally shifted and these pillars are no longer sturdy, some have cracked completely. For many Americans, the traditional idea of a comfortable retirement, filled with golf carts, cruises, and fishing trips, is going the way of the dodo bird.

Over the last decade incomes and job growth have stagnated, causing savings rates to drop. According to Jim Quinn author of the Burning Platform, 60% of retirees have less than $50,000 in savings. Such sums won’t last very long, especially when consumer prices are up 3.6%, import prices are up 12.5% and commodity prices are up 35% year over year. What’s worse, any savings placed in a bank will pay next to zero interest and will likely not even pay for the fees associated with the account. With cash savings essentially non-existent, the other pillars of income take on paramount importance. But these former bastions of financial security are being washed away by a torrent of red ink.

For years the essential Ponzi-like structures of Social Security and Medicare were concealed behind positive demographics. But once taxes collected from current payers fall short of the required distribution owed to current recipients, the ruse will be laid bare. That day is now in the foreseeable future. With insolvency a real and present danger, at least a consensus is now forming that Social Security must be structurally altered if it is to survive.

According to the Social Security Administration, in 2008, Social Security provided 50% of all income for 64% of recipients and 90% of all income for 34% of all beneficiaries. With these numbers, it’s not hard to see how even small cuts will spark big protests. Now try cutting the $20 trillion prescription drug program and the $79 trillion Medicare entitlements and watch the political sparks fly! However, given the realities, it’s hard to see how the program can escape deep cuts.

In the past many retirees could count on accumulated stock market wealth to help fund retirement. Not so much anymore. As of this writing, the S&P 500 is now no higher than it was in January of 1999. For over 12 years the major averages have gone nowhere in nominal terms and have declined significantly in real (inflation adjusted) terms. The dreams of becoming rich from investments have crashed along with Pets.com and Bernie Madoff. Then there is always the supposedly safest asset of all—a retiree’s home.

Despite a misguided faith that real estate prices could never fall, they have done just that…with a vengeance. According to S&P/Case-Shiller, the National Home Price Index has declined some 30% to levels not seen since the middle of 2002. And prices are still falling, with the rate of decline accelerating. The National Index dropped 4.2% in Q1 of 2011, after dropping 3.6% during Q4 2010. This means that only those retirees who have owned their homes for at least 10 years have any hope of selling at a profit. Ownership of significantly longer periods may be needed to have built up significant equity.

That leaves public and private pension plans. But here again there are serious issues. Let’s just look at state public pension shortfalls. According to the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, “States report that their public-employee pensions are underfunded by a total of $438 billion, but a more accurate accounting demonstrates that they are actually underfunded by over $3 trillion. The accounting methods that states currently use to measure their liabilities assumes plans can earn high investment returns without risk.” Huge returns without risk? Bond yields are the lowest they have been in nearly a century! What world are these states living in? With few options, the states will undoubtedly look to the Federal government (taxpayers) for a bailout. Failing that, cuts are inevitable.

The sad facts are; Americans are broke, the real estate market is still in secular decline, stock prices are in a decade’s long morass, real incomes are falling, public pension plans are insolvent and our entitlement programs are structurally unsound. If the pillars that seniors have relied on in the past fail to miraculously regenerate (and there is certainly no reason to believe they will), all that most retirees will have will be freshly printed greenbacks that come from a never ending policy of federal deficits and an obliging Federal Reserve.

Unfortunately, the inflation that will result from such a policy will sap most of the purchasing power that those notes possess. In other words, for most people retirement is now an illusion, and many Americans will find themselves working far longer, for far less real compensation, then they ever imagined. The quicker we realize this, and plan accordingly, the better off we will be.

For people with a little investment savvy there was a huge opportunity in '08-'09, but alas more people lost ground than gained during that time. If you are into equity markets you BUY when prices are low. :smile:
 

Kreskin

Doctor of Thinkology
Feb 23, 2006
21,155
149
63
Something has to give with our expectations too. When US Social Security was introduced in 1935 it was a feat just to live that long let alone draw it for income for the next 25 years.
 

Cliffy

Standing Member
Nov 19, 2008
44,850
192
63
Nakusp, BC
Since my bush hippy days, being a conscious person, I could not morally support a system of investing in pipe dreams based on speculation. I still feel that way. The way I see it, the sooner this economic system self destructs the better.
 

YukonJack

Time Out
Dec 26, 2008
7,026
73
48
Winnipeg
There is absolutely no reason why the retirement age should not be at least 75 years.

The age 65 was set up by Bismark in Germany in the late 1800's. Since then life expectancy and health care and awareness rose dramatically.

Just from my own personal experience, I would have been perfectly happy to work longer, but since I had the misfortune to have to report to an insufferable jerk, I decided to retire one year early, thinking that I would have to retire in a year, anyways, so why bother to work for a jackazz. The following year the Ontario government rescinded compulsory retirement at age sixty-five. Had I known that when I packed it in, I would have endured and asked for a transfer, and, Heaven knows, may still be happily working to this day.

Those who hate their job, want to leave it. I was lucky to always have loved what I was doing, except when I was forced to be in the union.
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,337
113
Vancouver Island
Hard to believe but true. The ever richer socil programs have killed the goose that laid the golden egg. Except for government employees who are entitled to their entitlements and retire at 55 courtesy of the college grad that is trying to pay off a student loan working at rotten ronnies.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
Hard to believe but true. The ever richer socil programs have killed the goose that laid the golden egg. Except for government employees who are entitled to their entitlements and retire at 55 courtesy of the college grad that is trying to pay off a student loan working at rotten ronnies.

Think of how many college grads would have to work at McDonald's if the retirement age were to jump by ten years, and the high school students who would be competing with college grads to help fund their own post-secondary endeavors.
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,337
113
Vancouver Island
Think of how many college grads would have to work at McDonald's if the retirement age were to jump by ten years, and the high school students who would be competing with college grads to help fund their own post-secondary endeavors.

If the generation that is slightly ahead of me and your parents hadn't killed off all the manufacturing jobs in N America while wading in the public trough college grads would not have to survive by working in fast food joints but could have real jobs.Basically those born from around 1930 to 1952 had the best of all things.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
If the generation that is slightly ahead of me and your parents hadn't killed off all the manufacturing jobs in N America while wading in the public trough college grads would not have to survive by working in fast food joints but could have real jobs.Basically those born from around 1930 to 1952 had the best of all things.

Well, I have a real job...what's done is done, to be frank I'm actually fine with raising the retirement age, but a huge jump is unjustified. The IMF has looked at what countries are doing, Australia increased their retirement age by two years. If instituted by all developed nations, this would be enough to stabilize pension spending as a percentage of GDP at 2010 levels by 2030. Then maybe another 2 years, or more if needed down the road. Increments are far better than shocks to the system...
 

CUBert

Time Out
Aug 15, 2010
1,259
2
38
Canada
Yeah while we're working longer hours than ever before and less money and less benefits let's raise the retirement age now too, we're not big enough slaves imo. Let's raise it the retirement age to 90.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
There is absolutely no reason why the retirement age should not be at least 75 years.

The age 65 was set up by Bismark in Germany in the late 1800's. Since then life expectancy and health care and awareness rose dramatically.

Just from my own personal experience, I would have been perfectly happy to work longer, but since I had the misfortune to have to report to an insufferable jerk, I decided to retire one year early, thinking that I would have to retire in a year, anyways, so why bother to work for a jackazz. The following year the Ontario government rescinded compulsory retirement at age sixty-five. Had I known that when I packed it in, I would have endured and asked for a transfer, and, Heaven knows, may still be happily working to this day.

Those who hate their job, want to leave it. I was lucky to always have loved what I was doing, except when I was forced to be in the union.

To be quite frank I'd had quite enough of work by age 50 and was sure as hell glad to retire two months shy of my 56th birthday. :lol:

If the generation that is slightly ahead of me and your parents hadn't killed off all the manufacturing jobs in N America while wading in the public trough college grads would not have to survive by working in fast food joints but could have real jobs.Basically those born from around 1930 to 1952 had the best of all things.

That is true. :smile:
 

cranky

Time Out
Apr 17, 2011
1,312
0
36
There is absolutely no reason why the retirement age should not be at least 75 years.

The age 65 was set up by Bismark in Germany in the late 1800's. Since then life expectancy and health care and awareness rose dramatically.

Just from my own personal experience, I would have been perfectly happy to work longer, but since I had the misfortune to have to report to an insufferable jerk, I decided to retire one year early, thinking that I would have to retire in a year, anyways, so why bother to work for a jackazz. The following year the Ontario government rescinded compulsory retirement at age sixty-five. Had I known that when I packed it in, I would have endured and asked for a transfer, and, Heaven knows, may still be happily working to this day.

Those who hate their job, want to leave it. I was lucky to always have loved what I was doing, except when I was forced to be in the union.

Alright! Another Rolling Stones World Tour......wuhooooOOOOOO!!!!!! :)

...............................................................

I once heard that the average life expectancy of a CP Rail worker that works a full carreer to the age of 65 is about 2 years. I think we need to make it clear to some companies that the lives of their employees does not belong to them. If someone hires on at age 19, they deserve early retirement. imo, change the stats first, if you want to change the early retirement plans.
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
146
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
Yeah while we're working longer hours than ever before and less money and less benefits let's raise the retirement age now too, we're not big enough slaves imo. Let's raise it the retirement age to 90.

Ok then, stop working.... You can live in a cardboard box and dumpster-dive for food just to spite society.

That'll show 'em!
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
109,373
11,436
113
Low Earth Orbit
There is no law demanding you stop working at 65 nor is there a law that says you have to tell your employer how old you are.

If you want to work, work.
 

Cliffy

Standing Member
Nov 19, 2008
44,850
192
63
Nakusp, BC
And, I'm pretty sure they can retire early if they want to. It's not slavery.
Most people are slaves to the system and can't afford to retire even after 65. I retired from the rat race at 26 in order to be free. Never felt poor or that I was missing anything. Haven't had TV since then - haven't missed anything. Always had a warm roof over my head, food in my belly and clothes on my back. Some people just don't have an imagination. I am highly entertained by my own mind and I rather enjoy the insanity that is all around me, called civilization.
 

cranky

Time Out
Apr 17, 2011
1,312
0
36
Cliffy, i find your comment about retiring at 26 intriguing. Please share more with us, i would be very interested in learning and adapting your strategy on that one.

If you have alot tosay, why not start a new thread, this is good stuff. Thanks in advance