Here’s a plan: fine the brokerage houses and their CEOs that did this and replace some of the money those of us who have played by the rules lost.

Start with Henry Paulson.

Remember deregulation? Remember ownership society? The problem with all this is that we brought it on ourselves because of greed. Those who were close to retirement were willing to go along because they thought they had it made. Those who were younger believed the farce that the market will keep going and they will have more than their fathers did, so social security was for the wimp.

We voted for what we got. No body should cry now, because we all voted with our wallets as well and called our CEOs heroes and almost worshiped them. GREED

Kind regards

It is true that privatization of retirement plan makes investors want corporations to earn bigger profits because that translate to higher gains in the mutual funds in their retirement portfolio. Unfortunately, most of us don’t understand the economy. Even Greenspan said that he made a mistake by assuming the free market will correct itself.

Like Noam Chomsky said: “The philosophy for the corporation-run society like U.S. is ‘tough love’; meaning love for the privileged and tough for everyone else. The majority of Americans don’t like to be taxed, but they would like services provided. Many of us are too weak to face up to the facts that someone will need to pay for the needed services and protection, the same mentality we have been living our lives; ‘buy now, pay later’.

Many, like Joe the Plumber, fantasize making big money in near future and buy into the fear of taxation. Without balancing the budget, and our medicare and medicaid needs, our children and grandchildren’s future is even a lot bleaker than ours. Most of us don’t save enough for retirement and don’t know enough to invest to ensure a retirement that the old secure pension used to provide.

Thank Goodness that our Social Security system is not privatized.

What about the value of ‘Experience’? One thing that has been worrying people is the large number of ‘Boomers’ that are going to be retiring and taking their cumulative experience OUT of the job pool. Won’t this crisis by keeping these people in the job market longer provide some upside by keeping that pool of experience available?

Over and over again, Tom Ashbrook keeps repeating that we were all told to put all of our savings into stocks, and as a result of that bad advise, now we have all lost big time. Would someone PLEASE tell that man that he is full of beans?

No responsible investor or investment counselor advised anyone to put all their savings into securities. Over and over again, the message had been to BALANCE your holdings, to adjust your risk depending upon how close to retirement you are, and NEVER to put any assets into stocks which you could not afford to lose on a 5-10 year time horizon.

Once again, this host reveals himself to be sensationalistic and wrong on the facts. So someone give him a chill-pill, inform him so that he does not sound foolish, and please get some balance and reason on that side of the interview desk.

Just wondering where people are supposed to find jobs to return to work? I’ve been laid off since April and am approaching 60 years old.

Save? Get a job? In which world do your guests live?

I would like to know why the speakers blithely assume that everyone will be able to work longer in order to maintain an income level that allows them to add to retirement savings and maintain a decent standard of living.

Aside from those whose work is too physically demanding to continue ad infinitum, in many fields workers start encountering pressure to leave because their years of experience have become too expensive for their employers. I know several people in their fifties (mostly in those supposedly high-demand tech fields) who have been out of work for not months but years and unable to find employment anywhere near their previous pay level.

Interesting that this morning’s guests mentioned that many people in their mid-50’s have not saved 250K plus in their 401K’s, as they should have. Their point apparently was that people have not been diligent in their retirement savings. What I didn’t hear is that many in their mid-50’s might have had this…last year before the crash. So much for diligence.

From a Generation X perspective, I am both sympathetic and not to the misery of Baby Boomers whose stocks crashed recently. If they were nearing retirement, weren’t they supposed to move most of their portfolio to bonds and more conservative investments?

Baby Boomers have always wanted and expected it all. This sense of entitlement really pumped the economy for 30 years. We still live in an extremely rich society. This bust will swing back to boom. We need patience, steady heads and discipline.

It also bothers me that moving in with your kids is seen as humiliating, rather than a potentially strong opportunity to create an anchor in family life during these turbulent times.

I’m bewildered that moving in with the kids is depicted as an awful, undignified, uncivilized (?) thing. I am a thirty something, my parents spend about half the year with us - and it is wonderful. My own kid loves it, I have help with childcare and the home while I work. It takes a village to raise a child…

Robin’s call is right on the money. The entire world has changed radically.

I believe Teresa is wrong regarding the PBGC obligation. If Disney goes out of biz (I know they won’t), pensions are reduced (maybe significantly) by the PBGC. She makes it sound as though pension amounts won’t change.

It seems to me that the US has been keen on outsourcing services such as financial management, clothes making, food production, electronics manufacturing, entertainment, etc. Many communities do not have the skillsets to support the needs of their citizens. Perhaps with the recession, we can rethink some of these outsourcing choices. Maybe we can work on building more sustainable, resilient communities, put people to work, and learn new skills that have more to do with day to day living and our personal relationships.

This seems like an opportunity to consider what kind of communities we’d like to live in, and perhaps the age of McMansions and grandeur can shift toward better human relations that bring people together in decision-making responsibilities. Time to strengthen the democratic spirit.

That’s not to say this won’t be a terribly difficult period. It poses numerous challenges and hardships.

During the campaign I had many heated discussions with a friend of mine. One of them involved his charge that “the Democrats are going to go after our 401k plans”. I ridiculed this, and said that this was a fringe idea that would never seriously be considered, because if the Democrats ever passed it, they’d be voted out as fast as they were voted in.

Well, now I am shocked that this idea is being seriously discussed on a show like “On Point”. I still maintain that it would be political suicide to pass such a plan, and I would certainly be strongly against it. Talk about betrayal - this would be a major betrayal.

We live in a world where are just too many people, smart people, and dumb people and stupid people, so what are the chances that you, “YOU” are needed to keep the human gene pool alive and thriving. Let me break it to you , you are a nobody, you are nothing, you are not needed, no matter your looks, your degrees, your job status, you are excess garbage. Yeah it sucks, I know!

Over the world, millions of jobs are being lost as we speak,( as you read this). So once again you must disabuse your self of the idea that the “rich” create jobs. If that were true then we should have jobs a plenty, so where are they?

The stock market is casino, rigged for insiders. Historically, reforms are implemented, and then later unwound. The market could crash again in 40 years after Amy has been saving in it for her whole life.

I got out in June ‘08 and haven’t lost a penny. Buyer beware. Don’t invest in things you don’t understand.

This is all a wakeup call for America. We need to all be better savers, and the country as a whole needs to invest in infrastrucutre, science, engineering, and education. Values need to change. Approach the stock market with great caution.

As people are saying, we may have to (want to) reframe “retirement.” Does the old Madison Avenue image of moving to Florida and playing golf on environmentally-incorrect courses, taking expensive cruises, etc. define the retirement that we all want? Many Baby Boomers were Flower Children and lived alternative lifestyles. Maybe we can apply some of that 60’s creativity to our retirement lives? Maybe living on less and living more creatively is not a bad thing?

Hello,

I’m an artist, 61, have worked on my art for 37 years, have no retirement, will get little soc. sec. Own my house, have a little savings, my husband laid off (he’s 51 and cannot find work; he is a manufacturing engineer).

Any advice would be helpful.

Further…the arts are the first thing to suffer in terms of sales, so what about we who are artists and have been all our lives?

thanks,
mona

Good morning - why is there no suggestion, that when someone is nearing retirement, they start moving out of stocks and mutual funds, and start laddering CDs? And why aren’t CDs encouraged as SUPPLEMENTS to company 401Ks? - of course, there’s inflation, etc., as a reason not to - BUT there’s no loss in principal as a major positive!!

Mohammed- I’m sorry you are so bitter. Your life must be very difficult now. Hopefully it will turn around for you soon.

I’ve been doing some research on this dilemma for a few years now. What I have found to be the most significant departure point between the first wave of Boomers (1946-1954) and the tail-enders, like me, (1955-1964) is the size of the average household.

People born after 1955 are more likely to be divorced or never married. This accounts for 52 percent of females, currently aged 51, to be single and living alone.

Given the dim prospects of finding a mate at this point in life, we have to tough it out alone with high inflation and low wages.

A website for retailers, Stores.org, puts this phenomenon in rather cynical marketing terms: “For retailers foundering in the current economic slowdown, a smart strategy would be to target these single boomers.”

I submit that we have already been “targeted” by older boomers who, historically, don’t like to share and have very conservative political views. A nasty, downwardly mobile scenario waits in the wings for those of us who are barely hanging on with “single serving” this and “solo-pack” that.

Clearly, anybody who has ever lived alone knows how expensive it is to purchase food for one. The corporate marketing number-crunchers know this very well and ratchet up the advertising and retail prices aimed at the single boomer.

We are being bled dry. No wonder your guest projects a declining American life expectancy. Who wants to live in a cold, uncaring world where you are just a number on a chart geared towards taking away every nickel you make.

Women must congregate in housing and learn to share
food and other goods with each other. The men, I fear, are just too spoiled to consider this as a viable solution to survival during a “depression.” They call it “socialism” and affix a pejorative meaning to the term. Single Boomer Women must learn that our very survival depends upon “socialism” of this type.

May we all live long and prosper, by any means necessary.

It’s ironic that now, more than ever, the market is truly deciding things in the US. Consumers don’t trust those who’ve been running companies for their own personal gain rather than for the sake of good business; nor do they trust the government that washed its hands of fits regulatory responsibilities.

Now the economy is crumbling before our hands, and pundits talk about the need for consumers to start spending again, to get the market going. I think we’re ignoring the very clear message that the market is sending to corporations and government alike: forget about the human capital involved, and I’ll eventually slow to a standstill.

People like to point fingers at Wall Street but I believe the real problem is the international banking cartel-controlled fractional reserve banking system, whereby money (loans) are systematically created out of thin air, driving inflation (as Ron Paul calls it, “a hidden tax”) and we haven’t even started talking about interest. This cannot ultimately underlie a civilized society. What we have is every man for himself.

Learn more at zeitgeistmovie dot com.

Energy Efficiency should be considered as an investment choice.
Imagine not having to pay utilities ever again. It has been possible for decades to build/retrofit a house so it uses less energy than it can make from the sun. The investment is guaranteed to pay back in savings. A dollar spent on efficiency has the best payback.

I’m 64, retired and doing fine. I don’t know where your host got his idea what “following all the rules” means.

I saved every month and diversified my investments across asset classes. I invested in stocks, bonds, insured savings, paying off my mortgage and inflation protected Treasury bonds.

Today, my stocks are worth more than what I paid for them, because I bought them over three and one-half decades of dollar cost averaging. The rules any prudent saver follows include diversification and starting early and saving steadily. I can personally attest to the fact that following these basic rules lead me to a comfortable and secure retirement that is not threatened by recent stock and real estate market losses.

Once again Tom has found a guest, Glenn R., who is another Stepford wall st. drone spouting the same b.s. Last Monday it was “Professor” Porter now this guy. Glen wrote a book and does a column for retirees? No doubt aimed at the folks who worked on “the street”.

Note to EIO. Not only did I not vote for any of this, I have been trying to convince people for years of the folly of the course we were on! I believe it is called “Howling in the wilderness”. (Or Pi..ing in the wind).

The events of the last couple of months and “our govt’s response brought to mind something I learned during my years in corporate America.
Six phases of a Project: Enthusiasm, Dissillusionment, Panic, Search for the guilty, Punishment of the innocent, Praise & honors for the non-participants. Or some variation of it.

Most of us are out of luck. Hope you all have a plan B. Mine is a 9mm slug. Don’t want to be a burden. Especially to those who “Support the War and our Troops”, but don’t want to pay any taxes because it is “un-American, un-patriotic and Socialist”

Jerry B.

We voted for what we got. No body should cry now, because we all voted with our wallets as well and called our CEOs heroes and almost worshiped them.

What exactly did we vote for? Be specific.

The Bush plan to privatize Social Security was voted down. The elimination of private pensions was done by corporations, not voters, and the fact is that the majority of workers never had a private pension plan in the first place.

Basically some rich powerful men in several industries - banking, investment, and the auto industry come to mind - made reckless, irresponsible or stupid decisions and millions and millions of innocent Americans suffer. Do you think the deciders will suffer? Even if he’s forced out of GM, will Rick Wagoner ever worry about his rent or health insurance?

Today WBUR had a report on how much faster college presidents’ salaries have been rising that the economy. Boomers putting their kids through college can reflect on that when the layoffs come.

I’m amazed at how docile Americans are! If this were France there would be barricades and blood in the streets of Paris! In any other country there would be riots, demonstrations and a radically new government. Here we re-arrange the deck chairs and take one small step to the left, and shrug our shoulders. Does this willingness to get trickled-down on reflect American religiosity of something?

Listening to your program today brought to mind another program aired just a few weeks ago about voting machines and how some people found the electronic voting machines confusing. Now imagine those people who found putting their finger next to their candidate’s name difficult being presented with decisions about Roth IRAs, mutual funds and CD’s…

Now for the reality check. If the big guys on Wall Street with the degrees in economics have made bad decisions, then how in the world can Bush expect the “Joe the Plumbers” of the world to do any better? The truth is that the “ownership society” is really a huge gift to business so they don’t have to foot the bill for benefits any more while making the public think they were doing them a favor.

Today, my stocks are worth more than what I paid for them, because I bought them over three and one-half decades of dollar cost averaging. The rules any prudent saver follows include diversification and starting early and saving steadily.

But you also had the advantage of lucky timing. If you look at the stock market and compare it to GDP growth over that period, the Dow got bid up excessively, as you can see by noting that it wasn’t just stock prices, but P/E’s that went way up over that period. Average S&P500 P/E ratios between 1974 and 1984 were below 10. By the late 90’s they were over 20 (30’s and 40’s in many sectors). In addition to that you had the good sense to invest just before a debt-fueled growth mania gripped the economy and drove actual earnings way up.

There’s no reason to assume people will go that crazy again, which means that the nominal growth in the stock market will not exceed the nominal growth in the economy. (but notice that I said “nominal”)

Presumably you’re now mostly out of the stock market and into TIPS, to protect you from when the government tries to monetize/inflate its way out of this mess in another year or so.

Ms Ghilarducci brought up the point of allowing people as young as 55 to buy into medicare for health coverage. Sounds wonderful, after all its other people’s money. But the facts do not support the promise. Medicare is near bankruptcy, is rife with fraud, not from hospitals and physicians but from service and product providers. Medicare severly under-reimburses for all care. I am a physician and I am forced to accept from Medicare 20 to 30% of my typical insured reimbursement, and that insured payment is 50% of my charged fees, and by law we can not charge the patient more than Medicare will pay. If everyone over 55 was covered by Medicare the majority of physicians would have to refuse to accept it as the reimbursement does not even cover costs. Physicians are less than five percent of the Medicare budget. Most of Medicare’s money goes to things like hip replacement which Medicare pays the manufacturer approximately $5000 for the implant, that very same implant, from the same supplier, is less than $1000 in India. This is the type of problem that if adequately addressed has the potential to pay for all of the health care for all Americans.�

Women must congregate in housing and learn to share food and other goods with each other. The men, I fear, are just too spoiled to consider this as a viable solution to survival during a “depression.” They call it “socialism” and affix a pejorative meaning to the term. Single Boomer Women must learn that our very survival depends upon “socialism” of this type.

I was with you up until that sexist nonsense at the end.

As a 55 y.o. (happily married) man I would love to be part of a more inclusive community than the isolated suburban lifestyle we have now. I enjoy growing some of my own food, and heating my house with wood from my own property. But we’re too bohemian to have much in common with our suburban neighbors. Living alone is not only expensive but it’s lonely and unsafe for an older person.

Besides our day jobs my wife is a musician and I’m an artist and we know of intentional retirement communities in other parts of the country comprised of artists, musicians, and such. That sounds like a good thing for the future.

I love On Point, but I think I’m going to tune out for a while. Tom, I admire and respect you, but the tone of your show is increasingly sounding like, “OMG, we’re all gonna die!!!!” Yes, it’s serious out there. Yes, we’re in danger, but I’m tired of the over-the-top, let’s-scare-em energy that seems to be part of most first hour shows. These days your show is not far off from the decibel level of the right culture wars–only a different politcal flavor.

Picking up a little on what Linda P wrote — the financial crisis for retirees is also an opportunity. An opportunity for creative thinking, and new connections with community. I realize many people are suffering, and don’t want to sound Pollyannish. But what was so great about playing golf all the time anyway? What keeps people going is being engaged in life, not just being hedonistic. I believe there are many ways to harness the hard times for better living. Just one way is home sharing (I work for a home sharing program, Home Share of Central Vermont). Home sharing makes life better, and can help seniors actually live longer — and, in some cases, have the dignity of dying at home instead of in institutions. If more retirees turn to home sharing instead of golf courses, they may well live fuller, richer, happier lives.

Think bigger!

PS, this is also good for the environment. Shared use of existing houses instead of one person having multiple houses.

I’m an American who’s lived since 2004 in Iceland, and the recent financial meltdown here (caused by overborrowing on a scale that would make Americans jealous) may make most of you tune me out on financial matters, so proceed at your own risk.

One thing I really admire about the retirement system here (at least in principle) is a concept that I never hear mentioned in America.

By Icelandic law, every worker must contribute 4% of their gross income to a retirement account in their name. Their employer chips in another 6%. (We don’t pay any social security tax, as in the US.) The difference between this retirement account and a 401(k) is that the account is professionally and privately managed by a government-recognized pension manager.

This way, each person saves for retirement in an account in their own name. But they don’t need to manage the money themselves, as they do in a 401(k). Asking each individual to manage their own retirement savings, unless they are professionally qualified, is irresponsible in my opinion. We don’t ask people to fix their own cars or do their own surgeries, and investment management also takes years to learn. The American 401(k) system leads to debacles such as the Enron employees who had substantial amounts of their retirement money invested in the stock of their employer’s company.

But perhaps even more importantly, professional managers have access to investments, like venture capital and private equity funds, that individuals investing on their own behalf never could access.

I do have problems with the way the Icelandic pensions have invested in practice, but I think that in theory this kind of mandatory, professionally managed system might make sense for America as well.

I have a friend who is in his mid 50’s works for a large investment company. He recently lost 90%, yes 90% of his retirement as he was vested in the company.

As I listen to this smug SOB Glenn Ruffenach I have a very strong desire to smack him up side his head.

It wasn’t long ago that voices of financial reason, similar to the ones who are spreading the alarm on your show tonght, were telling us that we could expect an average 8 percent return (over time) in the stock market. By making us feel immune to the poverty that so affected our grandparents, the “industry” lulled us. We should have paid more attention to our depression era forebears when they said “You don’t get something for nothing.”

Imagine where we’d be if privatization of Social Security had occured.

As a CPA with diverse clientele, I have often wondered why social security is not means tested. I have often felt it unjust, when some of my clients rely only on their social security income, while other clients bank their social security income for their grand childrens’ college education. Doesn’t it make more sense that the safety net of SS income be for the people who need it?

Joe

Today was a good day, which means I felt more hopeful than not despite a long and futile job search — until I turned on the radio. So I came here from a powerful sense of frustration and found that Linda had already said what I wanted to: “I love On Point, but I think I’m going to tune out for a while.. .These days your show is not far off from the decibel level of the right culture wars–only a different political flavor.”

This is not a plea for Pollyanna-ism. But the combination of Tom’s gleeful fervor about how awful things are coupled with the conventional wisdom parroting of Mr. Ruffenbach stirs fear and adds no wisdom to the conversation.

Isn’t that what your show aims to do–add light, not just heat?

For that, at least, we can thank Ms. Ghilarducci.

As a Financial Advisor, I was astonished that neither your guest nor any callers, (at least in the part of the program that I heard), acknowledged that proper financial planning requires that, as investors approach within three or more years of their retirement, at least a three year portion of their estimated expenses should have been moved to very conservative, stable accounts, like money markets.

The idea is that within most three to five year periods there will be some times when the market will be up, and allow for favorable transfers of bits of their investments into stable “safe” investments.

What should have been transferred would allow the person to cover their expenses for the following three plus years. In the meantime, they can then afford to wait until the next up market period to transfer the next bit of their money to the stable account.

It is obviously very dangerous and not advisable for anyone to leave ALL of their money in those volatile (though usually higher earning) accounts right up to the point of retirement. If they do, they are very likely to get caught short, even under more normal times.

Someone wrote we are being bled dry and that is true. Will taxes go down? No. And look at the taxes we all pay. We are still paying full property taxes on houses that have lost value. We never own our homes, but rent them from the state.
The first thing to do is to make sure the elderly can’t be put out of their homes. There should come a time when people no longer pay every increasing property taxes. Enough is enough.
And where did all the money go? Somebody made out in this situation. I agree with what someone else wrote. Find the people responsible and get the money back, let’s bring back indentured servitude. They were greedy and now they should make amends.
Someone else wrote about grouping together and I think that is a good possibility. I have no children, no one to move in with. What am I to do?
As for not giving SS to people who have bothered to save, that is unfair. I have paid SS taxes my entire working life and saved. So now I am to give that up to someone who hasn’t saved? Someone who bought a huge house and couldn’t pay for it? Someone who took trips and bought fancy cars? BS I say!
All these people who bought these houses way over their means and are being bailed out should be ashamed. Greed is a big problem here as well as pride. And remember that saying about pride going before a fall? So now I will pay for the mistakes that these folks made and probably be taxed to death for it.

By Icelandic law, every worker must contribute 4% of their gross income to a retirement account in their name. Their employer chips in another 6%. (We don’t pay any social security tax, as in the US.)

I don’t see how 10% is enough to retire on and have a comfortable, pleasant retirement, How old are Icelanders when they retire and how long to they live? With modern lifespans we can expect out retirement years will be almost as long as our working years. And it’s a MYTH that life is cheaper when you’re retired - in many ways it’s more expensive!

The difference between this retirement account and a 401(k) is that the account is professionally and privately managed by a government-recognized pension manager.

I do have problems with the way the Icelandic pensions have invested in practice, but I think that in theory this kind of mandatory, professionally managed system might make sense for America as well.

If we’ve learned anything from this recent debacle, it’s that the “professionals” are clueless. I know plenty of individuals (including myself) who consistently outperform the average professionally managed mutual fund. My own rollover IRA portfolio is a mix of stocks and bonds. But I have a Vanguard “blended” mutual fund with a similar investment objective in my 401(k) and my wife has a Fidelity one in hers and I consistently outperform both.

Both Bloomberg and CNBC like to fill their webpages with commentary, predictions, and general punditry from all sorts of professional investment analysts and fund managers. Go there any day and you will see every possible prediction and advice - “buy oil”, “stay away from oil”, “we’re near a bottom”, “the Dow will fall another 20%” “the government will monetize this and cause crushing inflation”, “watch out for upcoming DEflation”, etc, etc, Et Cetera!

If the “professionals” would just manage the ECONOMY properly, so we don’t get these insane bubbles and collapses, then I’m perfectly capable of managing my retirement portfolio. What makes portfolio management hard for novices is all the hedging and options you have to do to protect yourself from the insane volatility. If the professionals did their jobs properly we wouldn’t be getting oil swinging from $146/bbl to $56/bbl over a 4 month period, Or the dollar going up and down like an ECG, or sudden spikes in the LIBOR.

This is not a plea for Pollyanna-ism. But the combination of Tom’s gleeful fervor about how awful things are coupled with the conventional wisdom parroting of Mr. Ruffenbach stirs fear and adds no wisdom to the conversation.

I disagree.

I don’t think most people even now realize how bad things are. When you look at the mountain of debt overhanging our economy, the utter unpreparedness of the Boomers to retire; the evaporation of our core competitive industries, and the strong opposition to things like national health insurance here that other advanced societies take for granted, I think people still need to be shaken awake.

This whole thing is going to get a lot worse before it gets better. But the majority of people still think this is just another recession and if we tough it out for a few more months we’ll be back to running up the ol’ credit card and out from under that underwater mortgage before we know it.

What fascinates me is that the “experts” continue to be lost in space. On the show they talked about how many economists STILL think that the boomers can just work a few more years to solve the problem, despite good evidence that it’s almost impossible to hired at 60, nevermind 65 or 68. These are the “experts” making public policy!

I’m sorry that the reality upsets you and Linda P but until we face the truth we’re not going to be able to make needed changes.

As a 55 y.o. (happily married) man I would love to be part of a more inclusive community than the isolated suburban lifestyle we have now.

Peter, start exploring co-housing, if you haven’t already. There may be one in your area, and new ones are being formed too. There’s a green co-housing in the planning phase in Boston.

Who is going to bail out the people lose almost 50% or more of their life time retirement saving? Why when some people worry about the UAW workers gone out of jobs, who else is not victims of this whole financial mess?

It feels like every industry is black mailing the government and the tax payers. Especially to those ones have not contributed to this mess. As a citizen put 20% down on my house, and has earned equity on my house, I can’t even foreclose my house if god forbid I lose my job and had no choice but to give up my house, I am going to end up be the BIG loser. When and where the hell is justice??

It really feels like those companies asking for bailouts pointing the gun at you saying “look, if I go down, you are going down with me”. What do you do at this point?

All I can say we have been ripped and raped by whole bunch of low life and human trash.

This country basically is encouraging people how to be greedy and irresponsible and still be rewarded.

As a citizen put 20% down on my house, and has earned equity on my house, I can’t even foreclose my house if god forbid I lose my job and had no choice but to give up my house, I am going to end up be the BIG loser. When and where the hell is justice??

Don’t hold your breath.

This is what I meant earlier when I said that in many other countries there would be barricades in the road, blood in the streets, and systemic change. But not in America. Even in the depths of the Great Depression where there was 25% unemployment and 40% drop in industrial production, there was only a small upsurge in socialist politics, but no new political parties took the stage.

My theory is that it has something to do with America’s extreme religiosity, but I’m not sure what. A fatalism that God has preordained this? A belief that God, and not man, will correct it? An expectation that justice will come in Heaven so we can wait out earthly injustice?

Or maybe it’s our brand of individualism. The same thing that makes us believe that anyone can grow up to be President or a billionaire also makes us think that the INDIVIDUAL is always responsible for his fate, so of course, it can’t be “the system”.

Whatever it is, it’s a great marvel and wonder how much Americans are willing to be trickled-down on.

I’m amazed at how docile Americans are! If this were France there would be barricades and blood in the streets of Paris! In any other country there would be riots, demonstrations and a radically new government. Here we re-arrange the deck chairs and take one small step to the left, and shrug our shoulders. Does this willingness to get trickled-down on reflect American religiosity of something?

What? And miss the next Patriots/ Celtics/
{favorite team} game and the latest episode of American Idol? You must be quite mad to suggest that. Priorities, my friend.

Besides, which political party would support the views of people marching in the streets, when both of them are corrupt, beholden to corporations and lack moral courage? I doubt that the French Socialist party will contest elections here in the US. The Democrats didn’t even impeach Bush-Cheney when all it takes is a simple majority (I was surprised to find this - I thought maybe they’d need 2/3 majority) in the House, which they had for two years, and probably someone like Ron Paul (and like-minded Republicans in the House) would have supported such a move.

Or maybe it’s our brand of individualism.

If I had money, I’d bet on this one.

I’m sorry that the reality upsets you and Linda P but until we face the truth we’re not going to be able to make needed changes.

Oh, the reality upsets everyone. No one can hide from it even if you want to. No one is objecting to a thoughful, complete presentation of a particular point of view.

What’s getting to many of us(speaking for friends of mine as well) is Tom’s day in and day out “gleeful tone.” If you can’t hear that, then your reality is indeed different than mine.

Peter, reality DOES upset me. I’ve played by the rules and been a good and frugal “girl” and made decent choices (at the time)and now I’m sinking fast because of the decisions OTHER PEOPLE have made — and because the advice to work harder to get a job, despite qualifications and character and energy and yadda yadda yadda, just doesn’t work in the reality out there.

You and I agree that things will get worse before they get better. But I’m not counting on “them” to make it better. “We” need to do that. And in order to have the courage and imagination, we need to hold ourselves apart from crushing pessimism.

That’s not foolish. It’s realistic.

Rounding the final turn in the race for the hearts and minds of lovable losers everywhere, the Wall Street Journal–continuing to hoodwink its hapless minions into throwing one more roll of the dice while acting as apologist-in-chief for its high-flying boardroom members–has now taken an indisputable lead over its nearest competitor, the Racing Greensheet Close behind in third place is the California Lottery Board which was founded on the myth that it would help schools. Is it shocking, then, that WSJ staffers would write a “how-to” book on retirement financial planning (as though the rich would need it) and then go on radio touting laissez-faire capitalism and the NYSE as the financial rock behind retirement bliss for the little guy? Only if you think Phineas T. Barnum had originally set up his Greatest Show on Earth as the fund raising arm behind Little Sisters of the Poor.

It’s one of the oldest investment axioms I know of, and I know of quite a few: “Never invest more money in equity markets than you can afford to lose.” Not coincidentally, this kind of investment advice is eerily similar to that given to the first-time visitor to Las Vegas: “Never take with you any more money than you can afford to leave behind.”

When are we going to start seeing through the smoke? Investors have lost $7.2 trillion since the market topped on Oct. 9, 2007, according to USA Today. And this still says nothing about how the small investor really loses big time–fund managers’ fees. But beyond all this, there was enough wrong-headedness in the WSJ writers’ position on the future of retirement in America–as I mix my metaphors–to drive a truck through, not the least of which was, “It’s always possible to get caught in a down market.” Well, that’s exactly the point. You can find yourself drawing to an inside straight also, even when you swear it’s something you’ll never do.

“Don’t give up on equity markets,” was the WSJ’s final position, which is the equivalent of saying, “You can still beat the odds.”

Sure you can. And black’s always a winner, too. The point that needs to be driven home really, really well is this: Once you admit that some people who are invested in equity markets could be caught in a severe market downturn precisely at the wrong time, such as an approaching retirement, then this is a retirement plan that cannot be called anything besides gambling. The counter argument always cites the “spread,” as in, “Well that only affects a small percentage of people at any given time.” Let me ask you this, you WSJ gurus: How would you feel about it if you woke up one morning and found yourselves among those “small percentage” individuals? Aren’t you falling prey to the universal human failing that goes, “It will never happen to me. . .that’s always someone else’s problem?”

This is the lesson *not* taught by your mother. It is *never* just someone else’s problem because when disaster strikes others, you are diminished by it also. “No man is an island,” said the poet.

Seek not to inquire for whom the bell tolls.
It tolls for thee.

We need to create low cost, sustainable, high quality lifestyles for an aging society. What if a person who is 50 years old, could live an engaging, meaningful lifestyle for $20K per year? I can hear the skeptics through the internet now: I hear-”this is not possible” ; “this guy must be on crack” “He must want to live in a box in the street.” “I am not moving to some slum area in southeast Asia.” Wrong on all counts.

It requires no up front financial investment.
You learn new things, stay current, upgrade your skills, you remain part of the future.
It is a social environment, where you and others will work on solving the problems of the world.
You will make new friends and establish relationships that may last 30 or 40 years.
You can, through your experience, contribute to making the experience for others better.
You will work, perhaps 20 hours per week, with 2 or more months of vacation.
You will get health insurance for less that $1000 per year.

Figure it out yet? Read on.

I have an engineering degree and an MBA. I am unemployed, but was making around $100k for the past decade. I chose a career path of manufacturing. Farming went away and so has manufacturing. 60 years ago, 40% of the population was farming(now 2%) and 26% were in manufacturing, (8%) now and rapidly declining. These careers have been replaced with “knowledge work”, Government, Education, Health Care, Non Profits.

There is this “assumption” , a paradigm that you need to have 70% of your current income to retire. So, for example, with an income of $100,000K per year, I would need retirement income of $70,000 per year, or savings of $1,750,000 to sustain my life. Let’s do the math again, with a $20K/yr cost of living. Now I need $500,000 to retire. Now that’s more like it. I see some hope. Now let’s say I earn $10/hour and work 20 hours a week for for 40 weeks a year. ($8,000/yr). Now I need $12,000/year ($20K-$8K). This means I need $300K to sustain this. It’s looking better all the time.

Where is this life of $20K per year? On Public University Campuses. Take a look at
http://professionals.collegeboard.com/profdownload/trends-in-college-pricing-2008.pdf
This includes room, board, transportation, health care, books, entertainment, everything. Granted, tax payers are paying for a significant portion of the public university cost. Should they? I think yes. It is strategic in nature. Either pay me now, or pay me later, in social entitlements. It has the same purpose of “creating a future” workforce. If a boomer uses this option, he will remain functional, working and contributing for perhaps another 30 or 40 years of his/her life.
They will live longer, and healthier, more relevant lives.

My current life is full of waste- a 4 bedroom home, that I don’t need, because may kids are launched. I, like the other 50% of my age group are divorced. So here I sit in my castle, wasting $40,000 per year to keep something I don’t want, adds little value to myself or society. I have a responsibility to reduce my consumption, to “right size” for my life. I needed the things I have before, but not now. A university lifestyle consumes less. There is less consumption through shared housing, shared transportation, shared utilities, that all reduce consumption. It is ethical and moral to do this.

But won’t they through you out after 4 years? or maybe 6 or 7? Probably, to make room for youth. A University’s mission is to educate youth, it is not a social institution. But it has become a business, and a business has a social responsibility. If a student is contributing, keeping operating costs for the university low, and working on innovative programs to solve the problems of the world, improving the brand of the university, would they really want to let you go?

There are barriers to entry, either through entrance exams, or other university cultural paradigms. Perhaps educators do not want to have students in their lectures that have experience in the real world.

I invite you to continue this discussion at a collaborative google site http://sites.google.com/site/boomersuniversity/financial-plan I am working on. I look forward to your insights.

I do not know why every one is crying and outraged about this, the American CEOs’ are living high and will retire comfortably. We all know they are the only ones that matter and are the most important people in the whole world. The labor peons are replaceable and are meaningless so they do not count at all. The investors voted and supported the board of directors (other high paid CEOs) that appointed the CEO and his/her pay and over compensated benefits, so that must be the morally right thing to do.

It does not matter if the ceo’s income could have paid for the retirement plans of the all the labor force, or paid for leas layoff people, they are gods among men.

Just caught the podcast, I’m surprised no one mentioned this so far:

The right-wing blogs and financial talk radio have been demonizing Teresa Ghilarducci for the past few weeks.

She testified to congress, and as she said on the air, the 401k program has problems. This is being spun as “the new socialist congress is going to confiscate your 401k.” You’d never know from the rhetoric that she was just one of many to present her views.

Personally, I’m mostly sympathetic to her plan, but only if it is administered by a non-government entity, perhaps by investing in TIPS.

People are missing the point. RETIREMENT IS NOT A GOD-GIVEN RIGHT. And this is where peoples thoughts about Social Security have gone off the track. S.S. was formed to keep people who were too old to work from starving. Previously we had been putting them in the Poor House and since we were supporting them anyway why not make working people pay for their care through S.S. payments.

This is where S.S. has gone off the track. S.S. should not be thought of as “retirement” income but only as subsistence income if they are not able to work. People are no longer too old to work at 65 (or 66 or 67) and the benefits are more than subsistence (my wife and I receive nearly $30,000 per year).

If people can save enough to retire at 65 (or 55 or anything else), they can go right ahead but people who don’t save enough shouldn’t expect to retire. Stopping work because of health problems is something else but not just to retire to a life of leisure.