That's what a Los-Angeles Times article is saying, but I'm not convinced. Boomers will continue to work past 65, and they may want to remain active and never retire. So, if they still have income coming in, they will not need to draw down their assets.
Will aging boomers draw down their investments?
- Thread starter Vancouverite
- Start date
I can see that with North America losing their industries to free trade agreements they have managed to sell people on the idea that data is the future and making things are not that important so now we all have the chance to find out what third world living is like.
As soon as free trade agreements are cancelled demand for local made good will return along with the jobs.
.
.
As soon as free trade agreements are cancelled demand for local made good will return along with the jobs.
.
.
Last edited:
That's what I plan to do - work until I can't work anymore. I'm thinking it'll be based on reduced hours over time then full retirement. I can't imagine not working at all for any extended period of time. Whenever hubby got transferred and I had to give up my job, I was unemployed for as long as 9 months - almost went "batty" and drove hubby crazy too. He was so relieved when I finally got a job. As I'm getting older, I find that has not changed, especially since I enjoy (for the most part) what I do.
JMO
JMO
The demand is for inexpensive goods, it doesn't matter where it's made, as long as Walmart has it cheap.
If everyone had good paying jobs like they pay in industries then buying things would not be a problem.
The elderly will keep on working because they lost most of the RRSP and other investments in the 2008 crash. If you own a house or are renting, there is no way you can survive on CPP and OAS even if you shop exclusively at Wally World and Canada Tired.
I still remember the mutual funds craze where one was told that mutual funds to better because the fund managers know what they are doing.
That explains why all the highly paid auto workers in Oshawa shop at Walmart. Or they did when they had jobs.
Partly true Cliffy, but that just demonstrates how important it is to have fixed income investments in your portfolio..........at our age should be 50-60%. Fixed income investments weren't adversely affected in 2008, giving the investor the opportunity of cashing them in at that time to buy equity investments at bargain basement prices.
True enough. My portfolio was hardly affected by the downturn. In fact it bounced back within two years and is now higher than it was.
I do have a problem, however, with the Cons push to extend the retirement age to 67, and that is that a few years ago there was a push to get older workers to retire and make way for younger workers in order to reduce unemployment. It seems that this move by the Harper government is aimed in the opposite direction.
Yeah, I'm of two minds about it all, but I don't think we can ignore the fact that in a generation the average period of drawing the OAP has probably jumped from 5 years to 20 years, so SOME KIND of change is needed.