Thu
Mar 7 2013
11:20 am

Time Magazine takes a look at a new report from Deloitte showing that most people don't have a retirement plan (58%), many think it is futile, some plan to continue working past retirement, and some will postpone retirement just to keep health insurance.

There's also a general lack of trust toward financial service providers, and frustration with stock markets and low interest rates. Many are depending on Social Security (22% among those zero to five years away from retirement).

The Time Magazine article...
The Deloitte report...

Treehouse's picture

Yup

That's my plan! No retirement.

Tamara Shepherd's picture

*

Bird_dog's picture

Ouch and Yikes!

I have a friend who is still supporting her children/grandchildren and working - with Lupus... Spent all their retirement/savings on late husband's lengthy illness... I suggested she start living now on what her SS will be and save the rest... But those cute grandkids and wayward adult children are draining her emotionally and financially... She thinks she will never be able to retire.

We are a year away from Medicare - and only insured for a major hospital bill above a 10K ded. Other than that, we downsized from the beginning and are, well, basically, cheap. And enjoy investing and managing our own savings - which should provide our needs in retirement. At my age, I have just recently accepted that I can't match the "market" returns because my allocation is designed to lower the risk in a downturn. duh!

bizgrrl's picture

But those cute grandkids and

But those cute grandkids and wayward adult children are draining her emotionally and financially.

I seem to encounter this more frequently. Is it really a good idea?

Tamara Shepherd's picture

*

It's generally a necessary idea.

"Three generation" households headed by grandparents often arise out of financial necessity, while "skipped generation" households headed by grandparents (in which the parent is missing altogether) often arise out of the parent or parents irresponsibility.

Population Reference Bureau says that in 2010, 5.4 million children--or 7% of all children--lived in such households.

I know both sorts and, yeah, that affects a senior's ability to live on his/her retirement income, too.

bizgrrl's picture

I'm afraid I have the lack of

I'm afraid I have the lack of trust problem. My greatest fear is not being able to keep health insurance until I can get on Medicare.

fischbobber's picture

Lack of Trust

I'm not sure if that is a problem or just smart prudent living.

I worry about my 401K going bust before I reach 59 1/2 and I can pay off my house. I no longer worry about being rich, or even upper middle class, I just want something I can call my own to show for my life's work.

This ain't the America I grew up in.

Tamara Shepherd's picture

*

Well, I have this sage advice for any couple thinking of waiting until they're "a little older" before starting a family:

Be sure to add 21 years to your present age and make certain that your plan won't result in your trying to accelerate the payoff on your home, while making "catch-up" deposits to your retirement accounts, while footing some or all of those costs for your college students! And don't forget that their cars/car insurance/car repairs become part of your budget right about then, too!

The mister and I love our kids, but it would have been swell to have had them ten years earlier. We were ages 37 and 40 at the birth of that second one...

Tamara Shepherd's picture

*

Curious to know just how atypical the mister's and my parental experience is, I just found this 2009 report, Age of First-Time Moms Going Up.

Excerpt:

...the proportion of first births to women 35 and older has increased nearly eight times since 1970, the researchers say.

We were ages 32 and 35 with our first.

jbr's picture

Want more retirement security? Move to Slovenia

From NBC News ...

The United States ranks 19th worldwide when it comes to retirement security, according to a new analysis of worldwide economic and other data.

The Natixis Global Retirement Index puts U.S. retirees in a more precarious position than retirees in Western European countries including Norway, Switzerland and Germany, which have strong social programs providing health care and retiree benefits. But the analysis finds that the U.S. also lags countries including Israel, Japan, Slovenia and the Czech Republic.

Want more retirement security? Move to Slovenia

Stick's picture

Can you elaborate?

Can you elaborate?

Stick's picture

Wow... I had no idea. Thanks

Wow... I had no idea. Thanks for the information.

Tamara Shepherd's picture

*

More on the incidence of kids living with a grandparent (which may or may not mean that grandparent is "raising" the kids), this time from a 2011 U. S. Census study reliant on 2009 data (pdf page 4):

In 1991, 5% of white kids, 15% of black kids, and 12% of Hispanic kids lived with at least one grandparent.

In 2009, 9% of white kids, 17% of black kids, and 14% of Hispanic kids lived with at least one grandparent.

These higher percentages reported by the Census Bureau are closer to what my personal guesses might have been, based just on folks I know.

Provided each generation is carrying its own weight and the situation isn't one of one generation taking advantage of the other generation's kindness, I think it's kinda cool that multi-generational families are on the rise.

Used to be the rule rather than the exception?

bizgrrl's picture

The Wall Street Journal on a

The Wall Street Journal on a report released by the Employee Benefit Research Institute.

57% of U.S. workers surveyed reported less than $25,000 in total household savings and investments excluding their homes. Up from 49% in 2008.

Only about half of the 1,003 workers and 251 retirees surveyed said they were sure they could come up with $2,000 if an unexpected need were to arise in the next month.

The portion of private-sector U.S. workers covered only by so-called defined-benefit plans fell to 3% in 2011 from 28% in 1979

bizgrrl's picture

If only 3% of private-sector

If only 3% of private-sector workers have access to defined-benefit plans, then is it reasonable for taxpayers to continue paying for public-sector workers to have access to defined benefit plans?

Tamara Shepherd's picture

*

I've prevously made the same argument, to the effect that it isn't reasonable to extend the benefit to public sector workers when it's not generally available to private sector workers, until jbr gave me more to chew on.

He essentially suggested (some months back) that if we don't defend this benefit for public sector workers, we only make more difficult the fight to ever restore the benefit to private sector workers.

His was a valid point, of course, and it's weighed on me ever since. What to do?

bizgrrl's picture

I don't see the benefit ever

I don't see the benefit ever returning to the private-sector. I could be wrong.

Tamara Shepherd's picture

*

I'm afraid you're right.

I've just grown quieter on the subject, I guess, because it pains me to feel that I've said or done anything to hasten the benefit's demise.

Worrisome...

fischbobber's picture

Reasonable

It's as reasonable as a parent letting their child live after all their neighbors decided to kill theirs.

Years ago when deciding what kind of person I would choose to be I saw this maxim;

If something's right and nobody's doing it, it's still right and if something's wrong and everybody's doing it, it's still wrong.

Pension plans work if you keep the fox out of the henhouse.

R. Neal's picture

Can I put my money there?

Min's picture

Thanks are owed to one William R. Snodgrass.

Who set in place the fiscally conservative framework that has made Tennessee the state it is today, with a stable, well-funded pension and the lowest per capita debt in the country.

And the legislature is prepared to spit on his legacy.

jbr's picture

I am not sure of the exact

I am not sure of the exact income levels, but for example, if you are a family of three with a household income of say $36k or less, it seems like the existence of a 401k isn't particularly helpful. And only gradually beneficial as the income level rises. Depending on their circumstances.

Tennessee has a avg household income of around $43k and 3 in the household (2.5 on the US Census fact sheet).

I think Ted Benna uses a too extreme example regarding the single mom. There is much less extreme of circumstances and a larger number of people that will not benefit from 401k's adequately, if at all, to supply a reasonable amount of income in retirement.

Ted Benna, inventor of 401k in US News article ...

The group that really benefits from a 401(k) are those earning from $30,000 to $200,000. The top people will get taken care of regardless. The bottom group—a single mom earning $20,000 with two or three kids and no health insurance—a 401(k) isn't going to work for her.

401k's father wants to hit reset

Tennessee Living Wage calculator

R. Neal's picture

Another problem is the limit

Another problem is the limit on contributions to IRAs and 401Ks. They are too low. Not that many working people can afford to hit them, but still.

Wealthy people have all sorts of ways to shelter income. Working people should have the same opportunity with no limit on tax deferred contributions to retirement savings.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

TN Progressive

TN Politics

Knox TN Today

Local TV News

News Sentinel

    State News

    Wire Reports

    Lost Medicaid Funding

    To date, the failure to expand Medicaid/TennCare has cost the State of Tennessee ? in lost federal funding. (Source)

    Search and Archives