[OPE-L:8684] RE: retirement and the working class

From: mongiovg (mongiovg@stjohns.edu)
Date: Fri Mar 28 2003 - 11:49:29 EST

A million bucks would probably yield about $70,000 in income per year, which 
would be supplemented by another $20,000 or so of social security. Since most 
WORKING people don't bring in that kind of money, you've gotta wonder what's 
behind the estimate. The million dollar figure presumes a fairly affluent 
lifestyle: that's what you'd need to live like a middle-manager or a 
university professor after you stop working. Astonishing how the whole "what 
you need for retirement" discourse operates on the assumption that no income 
groups below that level exist or matter.


>===== Original Message From "gerald_a_levy" <gerald_a_levy@msn.com> =====
>The following article claims that many financial planners say
>that "a $1 million dollar nest egg is a bare minimum" amount
>of savings required for retirement for most people in the US.
>Yet, the same article claims that, according to the Employee
>Benefits Research Institute, "more than 75% of people aged
>40 to 59 have less than $100,000 saved towards retirement."
>The advice given in the article is to:
>a) take a part-time job!  Yet, if you take a part-time job to
>be able to supplement your income then you are *not* fully
>b) take out a home equity line of credit.  And, thereby, run
>the risk of losing your home.  Also, for this to be an option
>-- as the article notes -- you would need substantial equity
>in your home.  This is hardly an option for most working-class
>families who either own relatively inexpensive houses or rent
>apartments or houses.
>c) replace your mortgage with an interest-only loan.  Doing so,
>though,  will mean that you won't build equity in your home and
>you are "forestalling the inevitable -- at some point your home loan
>has to be paid off."  Hardly a solution.
>d) "move to a less-costly area"!
>All in all, this advice sounds like "Let them eat cake!".  Realistically,
>it means that most members of the working-class will have to postpone
>their retirement and work more years.  This is especially the case
>because of the great losses experienced in pension funds and
>individual retirement plans in the current recession.  Compounding the
>problem is age discrimination against older workers.  Will this mean
>that in the US workers will to a much greater extent die before they
>are able to retire?
>In solidarity, Jerry

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 29 2003 - 00:00:01 EST