10,000 Boomers Hit Age 65 Every Day Now

[MoltenRock III]

Starting the other day, January 1st, 2011 baby boomers started turning 65 at the rate of 10,000 everyday. Every day more and more of the 79 million baby boomers start drawing down Social Security monies, as well as Medicare monies.

By the time the new 2012 budget kicks in for the government on Oct. 1st this year, an additional 2.7 million Boomers will be on the government dole. Do you think the USA will have significant Social Security / Medicare reform this year? Or will the can be kicked down the road another year or two? 3 years? 5+ years?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/01/us/01boomers.html?src=me&ref=general

 

[rareboy]

Nope.

We're going to bankrupt the system.

Oh wait a minute.

Instead of blowing through trillions on military shit, maybe the economy will shift toward services for the older people.

And since the money is all flow through, it will employ all the young people and keep the wheels of the economy going.

And since services for the seniors will become increasingly high priced it will empty out all the money in their savings and retirement accounts.

Phew.

And you all thought it was only gloom and doom.

 

[mark1111]

I say, Push the greedy bastards off a cliff.

 

[rareboy]

Oh and did I mention that the price of real estate will likely drop like a stone as seniors die and are institutionalized; thereby leaving millions of apartments and houses vacant?

Oh and as we bail out of the equities markets, the price of shares will continue to only reflect the pace of inflation. Except for any of the growth indudtries focussed on the over 65's.

Hint to the securities and banking industry though.

Don't fuck with the old people anymore. Because the run they put on the stock markets and the banks the next time you concoct something like the last bubble, you'll all be sitting there with sweet fuck all until you figure out a new way to scam the under 50's again.

We're still sitting on most of the equity in the west and we'll rip your beating heart out and eat it in front of you the next time around.

 

[T-Rexx]

Soylent green.

 

[rareboy]

Hey kids. Don't be so quick.

Boomers are the only chance most of you will have of making a good living until you can get out there and have a huge number of babies that will once again drive the economy all the way to the bank.

Otherwise the numbers and the demand just won't be there. There aren't enough gen x'ers or zed'rs.

 

[Kulindahr]

I read a piece Thursday which argued that this isn't that big a deal, that most boomers will be waiting until after the 65 figure to retire -- many by choice, more thanks to this economy. Social Security doesn't pay enough to retire on (less than a minimum wage job in most cases), so they'll keep working.

Maybe the biggest worry of younger folks should be that it will be harder to get jobs, with millions of boomers not retiring but competing for jobs -- and bringing astronomically more experience with them.

 

[Kulindahr]

Hey kids. Don't be so quick.

Boomers are the only chance most of you will have of making a good living until you can get out there and have a huge number of babies that will once again drive the economy all the way to the bank.

Otherwise the numbers and the demand just won't be there. There aren't enough gen x'ers or zed'rs.

If our economy depends on an ever-expanding population, we're doomed.

 

[Telstra]

Starting the other day, January 1st, 2011 baby boomers started turning 65 at the rate of 10,000 everyday. Every day more and more of the 79 million baby boomers start drawing down Social Security monies, as well as Medicare monies.

By the time the new 2012 budget kicks in for the government on Oct. 1st this year, an additional 2.7 million Boomers will be on the government dole. Do you think the USA will have significant Social Security / Medicare reform this year? Or will the can be kicked down the road another year or two? 3 years? 5+ years?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/01/us/01boomers.html?src=me&ref=general

what is the average life expectancy ?
They won't be here much longer ... more houses for other people ?

 

[Kulindahr]

what is the average life expectancy ?
They won't be here much longer ... more houses for other people ?

The average life expectancy at age 65 is 10.3 years for men, 12.4 years for women.

source

............

 

[Kulindahr]

Social Security depends on it...

Social Security as presently run in its sloppy corrupt form by people too unimaginative to see alternatives and too cowardly to implement them anyway depends on it.

 

[Telstra]

^ oh, they only have 10 more years to live.
They should enjoy what ever they feels like doing ...

 

[Kulindahr]

^ oh, they only have 10 more years to live.
They should enjoy what ever they feels like doing ...

Unfortunately, as the source article pointed out, you can't assume that's your life span -- there are lots of seniors out there now just barely scraping by because they went with the financial planners who said, "Let's say you live to be 85"... and 85 came and went, and their retirement funds are gone.

Financial guy here said plan for three times your expectancy. And that generally means don't retire till you're at the maximum age, which IIRC is 72 at the moment.

So lots of older, more experiences people will be staying in the work force, meaning younger people will be having a much, much harder time finding jobs, meaning the employment situation won't be improving as fast as the numbers of people turning 65 might suggest... and so it goes.

 

[MoltenRock III]

Social Security as presently run in its sloppy corrupt form by people too unimaginative to see alternatives and too cowardly to implement them anyway depends on it.

You do realize that the cost to administer social security is under 1% currently right? In 2009 it cost only $6.2 billion to administer the program. That % is far, far, far, below any 401K or private retirement scheme. You're off your rocker on this one Kuli.

http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/ans...ost-to-administer-the-social-security-program.

 

[Telstra]

Unfortunately, as the source article pointed out, you can't assume that's your life span -- there are lots of seniors out there now just barely scraping by because they went with the financial planners who said, "Let's say you live to be 85"... and 85 came and went, and their retirement funds are gone.

Financial guy here said plan for three times your expectancy. And that generally means don't retire till you're at the maximum age, which IIRC is 72 at the moment.

So lots of older, more experiences people will be staying in the work force, meaning younger people will be having a much, much harder time finding jobs, meaning the employment situation won't be improving as fast as the numbers of people turning 65 might suggest... and so it goes.

I think old people should move to poor countries like Asia, Africa .. etc.
Much cheaper cost of living, plenty of people their to look after them, more fun ... etc.
Their savings should lasts until they die.

 

[Kulindahr]

You do realize that the cost to administer social security is under 1% currently right? In 2009 it cost only $6.2 billion to administer the program. That % is far, far, far, below any 401K or private retirement scheme. You're off your rocker on this one Kuli.

Which has what to do with what I said?????

I think old people should move to poor countries like Asia, Africa .. etc.
Much cheaper cost of living, plenty of people their to look after them, more fun ... etc.
Their savings should lasts until they die.

That's a prescription to get people to die faster.

Most people don't do well, snatched up and moved away from their roots. The people who run the retirement community where my mom was briefly -- and they have hundreds of these places across the country -- are aware of this sad statistic. It's a reason they offer assistance in choosing what to bring from one's years-long home when 'joining' the community.

But there are substantial retirement areas in Mexico for this very reason -- and the Mexican government is very accommodating, keeping a hands-off approach so their new residents can have places that are much like home, from their own houses to the corner market to the way the place is policed [after all, they want their nice, quiet, elderly types to keep on living and spending U.S. dollars].

 

[Telstra]

Which has what to do with what I said?????



That's a prescription to get people to die faster.

Most people don't do well, snatched up and moved away from their roots. The people who run the retirement community where my mom was briefly -- and they have hundreds of these places across the country -- are aware of this sad statistic. It's a reason they offer assistance in choosing what to bring from one's years-long home when 'joining' the community.

But there are substantial retirement areas in Mexico for this very reason -- and the Mexican government is very accommodating, keeping a hands-off approach so their new residents can have places that are much like home, from their own houses to the corner market to the way the place is policed [after all, they want their nice, quiet, elderly types to keep on living and spending U.S. dollars].

I don't think so.
How many times did their relatives come to visit them ?
Once a year at best or less. Living in luxury in a poor country is not a big deal.

 

[Kulindahr]

I don't think so.
How many times did their relatives come to visit them ?
Once a year at best or less. Living in luxury in a poor country is not a big deal.

Visiting relatives have little, if anything, to do with it.

Living in luxury in a retirement home is less of a "big deal", but people die of the radical change of environment, anyway.

I used to volunteer at nursing homes. I saw people move in, whom I'd already been visiting at their own homes, and watched them wither away because they were in an alien environment. That they were surrounded by their own things, and didn't have to cook or do laundry or anything else for themselves, they got worn out daily just dealing with the radical change. Talking about it with the director at the retirement community here, I heard the same thing: most people start to fade faster when moved out of their familiar environment.

For the ones who don't -- the ones who just forge ahead anyway, the ones who've traveled a lot and so deal with diversity, the ones who thrive on change, the ones who've had many homes so it's no big deal -- it's not a bad idea. But for those to whom the corner grocery, the park down the street, the church around the corner, the squeaky faucet, the rumbling furnace, etc. etc. etc. have become their "nest", radical change is a threat to health.

Now, if they could take their houses....

 

[MoltenRock III]

Which has what to do with what I said?????

You said:

"Social Security as presently run in its sloppy corrupt form by people too unimaginative to see alternatives and too cowardly to implement them anyway depends on it."

How can you consider an under 1% administration fee "sloppy"? It's the pinnacle of efficiency. Again, most 401K and retirement schemes take 1.5% to 3.5% to administer. George W. Bush's non-starter of privatizing Social Security would have allowed for up to 2.5% administration fees, nearly three times the cost of the current system.

Additionally, calling the employees "cowards" when the entire program has been mandated by law of what Social Security can invest in seems pretty silly. The system has to buy T-bills from the government.

That's a prescription to get people to die faster.

Not that I particularly agree with Telsta, but you're making a huge assumption here. It's just as likely they live longer. You're reacting emotionally, not logically. If it were based in logic, you'd have lots of cites, quotes, and links proving your point.

 

[Kulindahr]

You said:

"Social Security as presently run in its sloppy corrupt form by people too unimaginative to see alternatives and too cowardly to implement them anyway depends on it."

How can you consider an under 1% administration fee "sloppy"? It's the pinnacle of efficiency. Again, most 401K and retirement schemes take 1.5% to 3.5% to administer. George W. Bush's non-starter of privatizing Social Security would have allowed for up to 2.5% administration fees, nearly three times the cost of the current system.

Why are you dragging in administrative fees????

Additionally, calling the employees "cowards" when the entire program has been mandated by law of what Social Security can invest in seems pretty silly. The system has to buy T-bills from the government.

Right -- like I said, sloppy and corrupt.

But nowhere did I mention employees.

Not that I particularly agree with Telsta, but you're making a huge assumption here. It's just as likely they live longer. You're reacting emotionally, not logically. If it were based in logic, you'd have lots of cites, quotes, and links proving your point.

No, I'm operating on facts, as supplied by health care officials, folks who run a nation-wide retirement community system, and a couple of articles I've read about retirement. Dad's doctors told mom he would live longer if we didn't move -- one reason the house didn't get sold when it could have for half a million (and now won't sell for a third of that).


People "should" retire where and when they please; wishing them off to other continents strikes me as just wanting to get them out of the way.