[OPE-L:8686] RE: Re: RE: retirement and the working class

From: mongiovg (mongiovg@stjohns.edu)
Date: Fri Mar 28 2003 - 12:47:45 EST

Good points, Jerry.

I suspect most financial planners would consider a 7% yield to be a little on 
the conservative side. You're right that CURRENT yields are lower, but for a 
person in his 50s right now, I don't think it's unreasonable to think that 
things will be "back to normal" in 15 or 20 years. Of course, one never knows.

As to social security, I'm working on the supposition that the financial 
planner is advising people in higher income brackets (that's why he takes a 
million as the absolute minimum), who will receive the maximum social security 
benefit, which I gather is in the neighborhood of $1400 a month, a few 
thousand shy of the $20,000 ballpark figure I tossed out. You are right that 
the Bushites are determined to deep-six social security.  Who knows how that 
will turn out. I've pretty much given up hope that ordinary bourgeois decency 
& common sense (let's not even talk about true progessive change) will triumph 
over reactionary lunacy. I was supposing that the financial planner's starting 
point was the present institutional configuration.

The interesting thing, for me, is that the planner's mind-set excludes people 
outside the upper-income demographic: most ordinary folks, who are unlikely 
ever to amass a nest-egg of a million dollars, aren't even on the radar 
screens of those who advise on retirement planning. That is, people who really 
can use the advice are ignored in favor of fat cats who are gonna be all right 
whether they get the advice or not. Hey, I'm beginning to see a pattern here!

Best regards,


>===== Original Message From <glevy@pratt.edu> =====
>Re [8684]:
>> 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.
>Hi Gary.
>I agree with some of the points that you make above, but:
>a) the claim that $1 million can be expected to yield $70K/yr
>interest assumes that the rate of interest on savings or the
>rate of return on investments will increase to a much greater
>extent than current rates;
>b) the claim of $20K/yr in social security benefits over-estimates,
>I think, the amount of SS/yr that can be expected to be received
>by most working people.  There is, of course, a further issue for
>younger workers: will SS exist at all by the time they had planned
>to retire or will it be cut to such an extent that the retirement
>age will have been effectively raised?
>In solidarity, Jerry

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