Boomers' Billion-Dollar Bonanza: The Unseen Hoarding Behind Millennial Struggles

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the person above: where I live, there are a lot of older boomer women who have literally never worked a day in their lives. they spend their days going to bible studies and out to eat, swimming at the y and bragging about their grandchildren. I had never read an obituary before for someone who had never worked. They are strange.

So yes, I do think it's wrong that the government provides free healthcare to women who have never worked a day in their lives, while children go without. I don't buy the argument that everything every boomer has is because they earned it, and that they have earned so much more than the rest of us.

and suggesting that since they suffered we should suffer to sounds a bit like those people that try to justify fraternity hazings. Just make the system better. don't think that because you put up with it, we should put up with it too.

How is that different from wealthy Millennial women who don't work because their husbands make a great deal of money. They do exist all across the affluent spectrum of DC.

I must say your post reeks of jealousy. I can read between the lines. Which is funny given that swimming at the Y and going to Bible studies is very middle class, not affluent. And I'm sure there's a regional factor at play, especially if in the South.

And when you say you have never read an obituary before of someone who'd never worked, I find it surprising given it was the *norm* for middle class women not to work until the 70s and even in my 80s-90s childhood, a good percentage, typically around 25% if not a bit more, of married women with children didn't work.

+1
None of the college educated moms I knew growing up worked until they got divorced.

If you look into the history of social security, when it was enacted there were a lot of destitute elderly women who basically relied on their families for support. Men used to die much earlier and women couldn't work (my grandma was fired from being an accountant in the 1950s when she got pregnant and never again could get hired once they knew she was married and had kids).

But now??? I'm angry that women who don't work are eligible for half their husband's social security. I understand that they'll get his SS when he dies, but why should they get anything that they didn't put into. Working 40 quarters isn't much. If you didn't need money to survive on when you were working age, why should you need more when you're older?

I think you don't understand what the social contract was in the near past. I grew up in a small town, and no woman I knew who had no children or grown children worked. I can think of two of these women who taught for a year because the school system found it self suddenly was caught short and hired them to fill in the gap. But that is it.

Basically, women took care of the home and men worked outside the home. In our particular small, town, this applied across all classes--no hired help from the less well off, for example. It was just not a thing.

OK but it's not a thing now. SAHMs are making the choice to stay home. It's very valid, but I don't think everyone else should fund their SS. If you don't need money to work, you don't need money to retire on.

So if you raise your own kids, clean your own house, and prepare your own food instead of outsourcing it to other women, you don’t get SS? Work is still work. It only counts if you do it at someone else’s house?

Jesus, i'm a NP but when someone makes this argument about social security, it's not even worth engaging.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the person above: where I live, there are a lot of older boomer women who have literally never worked a day in their lives. they spend their days going to bible studies and out to eat, swimming at the y and bragging about their grandchildren. I had never read an obituary before for someone who had never worked. They are strange.

So yes, I do think it's wrong that the government provides free healthcare to women who have never worked a day in their lives, while children go without. I don't buy the argument that everything every boomer has is because they earned it, and that they have earned so much more than the rest of us.

and suggesting that since they suffered we should suffer to sounds a bit like those people that try to justify fraternity hazings. Just make the system better. don't think that because you put up with it, we should put up with it too.

How is that different from wealthy Millennial women who don't work because their husbands make a great deal of money. They do exist all across the affluent spectrum of DC.

I must say your post reeks of jealousy. I can read between the lines. Which is funny given that swimming at the Y and going to Bible studies is very middle class, not affluent. And I'm sure there's a regional factor at play, especially if in the South.

And when you say you have never read an obituary before of someone who'd never worked, I find it surprising given it was the *norm* for middle class women not to work until the 70s and even in my 80s-90s childhood, a good percentage, typically around 25% if not a bit more, of married women with children didn't work.

+1
None of the college educated moms I knew growing up worked until they got divorced.

If you look into the history of social security, when it was enacted there were a lot of destitute elderly women who basically relied on their families for support. Men used to die much earlier and women couldn't work (my grandma was fired from being an accountant in the 1950s when she got pregnant and never again could get hired once they knew she was married and had kids).

But now??? I'm angry that women who don't work are eligible for half their husband's social security. I understand that they'll get his SS when he dies, but why should they get anything that they didn't put into. Working 40 quarters isn't much. If you didn't need money to survive on when you were working age, why should you need more when you're older?

I think you don't understand what the social contract was in the near past. I grew up in a small town, and no woman I knew who had no children or grown children worked. I can think of two of these women who taught for a year because the school system found it self suddenly was caught short and hired them to fill in the gap. But that is it.

Basically, women took care of the home and men worked outside the home. In our particular small, town, this applied across all classes--no hired help from the less well off, for example. It was just not a thing.

OK but it's not a thing now. SAHMs are making the choice to stay home. It's very valid, but I don't think everyone else should fund their SS. If you don't need money to work, you don't need money to retire on.

So if you raise your own kids, clean your own house, and prepare your own food instead of outsourcing it to other women, you don’t get SS? Work is still work. It only counts if you do it at someone else’s house?

SS isn't welfare. It's money you put into SS and then you get pay outs when you retire. It's not something from nothing.

So yes it only counts if you do it for money. (Side note- as a working mom I clean my own house and prepare my own food. My kids are in school, so I'm raising them too I guess. They aren't in aftercare)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the person above: where I live, there are a lot of older boomer women who have literally never worked a day in their lives. they spend their days going to bible studies and out to eat, swimming at the y and bragging about their grandchildren. I had never read an obituary before for someone who had never worked. They are strange.

So yes, I do think it's wrong that the government provides free healthcare to women who have never worked a day in their lives, while children go without. I don't buy the argument that everything every boomer has is because they earned it, and that they have earned so much more than the rest of us.

and suggesting that since they suffered we should suffer to sounds a bit like those people that try to justify fraternity hazings. Just make the system better. don't think that because you put up with it, we should put up with it too.

How is that different from wealthy Millennial women who don't work because their husbands make a great deal of money. They do exist all across the affluent spectrum of DC.

I must say your post reeks of jealousy. I can read between the lines. Which is funny given that swimming at the Y and going to Bible studies is very middle class, not affluent. And I'm sure there's a regional factor at play, especially if in the South.

And when you say you have never read an obituary before of someone who'd never worked, I find it surprising given it was the *norm* for middle class women not to work until the 70s and even in my 80s-90s childhood, a good percentage, typically around 25% if not a bit more, of married women with children didn't work.

+1
None of the college educated moms I knew growing up worked until they got divorced.

If you look into the history of social security, when it was enacted there were a lot of destitute elderly women who basically relied on their families for support. Men used to die much earlier and women couldn't work (my grandma was fired from being an accountant in the 1950s when she got pregnant and never again could get hired once they knew she was married and had kids).

But now??? I'm angry that women who don't work are eligible for half their husband's social security. I understand that they'll get his SS when he dies, but why should they get anything that they didn't put into. Working 40 quarters isn't much. If you didn't need money to survive on when you were working age, why should you need more when you're older?

I basically haven’t worked since kids were born and after they hit college I ran a private charitable foundation with family money (thanks to good investing). Guess what? When I die several millions go straight to the government in death taxes; way more than I’ll ever take out.

You run a private charitable trust? Sounds like poor planning if you will potentially owe so much in estate taxes. Those millions you claim should be in the charitable trust.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the person above: where I live, there are a lot of older boomer women who have literally never worked a day in their lives. they spend their days going to bible studies and out to eat, swimming at the y and bragging about their grandchildren. I had never read an obituary before for someone who had never worked. They are strange.

So yes, I do think it's wrong that the government provides free healthcare to women who have never worked a day in their lives, while children go without. I don't buy the argument that everything every boomer has is because they earned it, and that they have earned so much more than the rest of us.

and suggesting that since they suffered we should suffer to sounds a bit like those people that try to justify fraternity hazings. Just make the system better. don't think that because you put up with it, we should put up with it too.

How is that different from wealthy Millennial women who don't work because their husbands make a great deal of money. They do exist all across the affluent spectrum of DC.

I must say your post reeks of jealousy. I can read between the lines. Which is funny given that swimming at the Y and going to Bible studies is very middle class, not affluent. And I'm sure there's a regional factor at play, especially if in the South.

And when you say you have never read an obituary before of someone who'd never worked, I find it surprising given it was the *norm* for middle class women not to work until the 70s and even in my 80s-90s childhood, a good percentage, typically around 25% if not a bit more, of married women with children didn't work.

+1
None of the college educated moms I knew growing up worked until they got divorced.

If you look into the history of social security, when it was enacted there were a lot of destitute elderly women who basically relied on their families for support. Men used to die much earlier and women couldn't work (my grandma was fired from being an accountant in the 1950s when she got pregnant and never again could get hired once they knew she was married and had kids).

But now??? I'm angry that women who don't work are eligible for half their husband's social security. I understand that they'll get his SS when he dies, but why should they get anything that they didn't put into. Working 40 quarters isn't much. If you didn't need money to survive on when you were working age, why should you need more when you're older?

I think you don't understand what the social contract was in the near past. I grew up in a small town, and no woman I knew who had no children or grown children worked. I can think of two of these women who taught for a year because the school system found it self suddenly was caught short and hired them to fill in the gap. But that is it.

Basically, women took care of the home and men worked outside the home. In our particular small, town, this applied across all classes--no hired help from the less well off, for example. It was just not a thing.

OK but it's not a thing now. SAHMs are making the choice to stay home. It's very valid, but I don't think everyone else should fund their SS. If you don't need money to work, you don't need money to retire on.

So if you raise your own kids, clean your own house, and prepare your own food instead of outsourcing it to other women, you don’t get SS? Work is still work. It only counts if you do it at someone else’s house?

SS isn't welfare. It's money you put into SS and then you get pay outs when you retire. It's not something from nothing.

So yes it only counts if you do it for money. (Side note- as a working mom I clean my own house and prepare my own food. My kids are in school, so I'm raising them too I guess. They aren't in aftercare)

But they are entitled to their husband's SS. That's the point. They have been working all along anyway despite the idea that they just sat around not needing their money. Their household is just structured different than yours.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this a DCUM bubble thing where they are under the impression that all the boomers are rich? Nationwide, the average retirement savings is pretty poor, something like $200k. Which I guess is fine for a while if you have a paid off house and get SSI but sooner or later the bottom falls out because getting old is expensive.

Are you looking at average retirement savings for all people? Of course it's lower -- if you include 30 and 40 years old, they haven't been working as long and it brings the average way down. But they aren't Boomers and they aren't about to retire.

The average retirement savings among people 55-64 years old is around 540k. For people 65 to 74, it's 609k. And that's average. Many people have much more. And it doesn't include wealth tied up in paid off houses that have appreciated considerably in the last 30 years.

Of course there is a spectrum for every generation, but the idea that Boomers are, as a group, struggling financially, is false. It's not a "DCUM bubble" thing. Boomers are pretty well off across the country, in part due to structural factors that benefitted them greatly in terms of building wealth.

And the fact that getting old is expensive is also why a lot of people don't expect to see this wealth transfer to younger generations. Boomers are living longer but also spending a lot more on old age, more money on medical interventions to improve quality of life, more money on homes and travel, more money on hobbies. My grandmother lived in a small assisted living apartment, paid for by her modest savings, social security, and Medicare, for the last 20 years of her life. She had no care the last 10 years. My parents and their siblings live in large homes, have multiple cars, are living much more expansive lives.

Again, not just a DMV thing. Boomers as a group are doing very well.

Nope.

https://thehill.com/business/personal-finance/3991136-nearly-half-of-baby-boomers-have-no-retirement-savings/

“Average” retirement savings is meaningless. 40% of people retiring have nothing at all. The average of actual accounts might be $500k, but the median is only about 1/3 of that. The super wealthy top 5% drastically increase the average.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the person above: where I live, there are a lot of older boomer women who have literally never worked a day in their lives. they spend their days going to bible studies and out to eat, swimming at the y and bragging about their grandchildren. I had never read an obituary before for someone who had never worked. They are strange.

So yes, I do think it's wrong that the government provides free healthcare to women who have never worked a day in their lives, while children go without. I don't buy the argument that everything every boomer has is because they earned it, and that they have earned so much more than the rest of us.

and suggesting that since they suffered we should suffer to sounds a bit like those people that try to justify fraternity hazings. Just make the system better. don't think that because you put up with it, we should put up with it too.

How is that different from wealthy Millennial women who don't work because their husbands make a great deal of money. They do exist all across the affluent spectrum of DC.

I must say your post reeks of jealousy. I can read between the lines. Which is funny given that swimming at the Y and going to Bible studies is very middle class, not affluent. And I'm sure there's a regional factor at play, especially if in the South.

And when you say you have never read an obituary before of someone who'd never worked, I find it surprising given it was the *norm* for middle class women not to work until the 70s and even in my 80s-90s childhood, a good percentage, typically around 25% if not a bit more, of married women with children didn't work.

+1
None of the college educated moms I knew growing up worked until they got divorced.

If you look into the history of social security, when it was enacted there were a lot of destitute elderly women who basically relied on their families for support. Men used to die much earlier and women couldn't work (my grandma was fired from being an accountant in the 1950s when she got pregnant and never again could get hired once they knew she was married and had kids).

But now??? I'm angry that women who don't work are eligible for half their husband's social security. I understand that they'll get his SS when he dies, but why should they get anything that they didn't put into. Working 40 quarters isn't much. If you didn't need money to survive on when you were working age, why should you need more when you're older?

Why does it make you angry? Men are eligible for the same program, it's just that very, very few men wind up not working at all while their wives support them. Why? Because men generally aren't homemakers and don't raise kids. They don't offer that value to a family to where it would make sense. But if they could convince a woman that that have that value, they too could get their wife's SS.

It's a program that acknowledges that it takes more than an income to make a family work. Children don't raise themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the person above: where I live, there are a lot of older boomer women who have literally never worked a day in their lives. they spend their days going to bible studies and out to eat, swimming at the y and bragging about their grandchildren. I had never read an obituary before for someone who had never worked. They are strange.

So yes, I do think it's wrong that the government provides free healthcare to women who have never worked a day in their lives, while children go without. I don't buy the argument that everything every boomer has is because they earned it, and that they have earned so much more than the rest of us.

and suggesting that since they suffered we should suffer to sounds a bit like those people that try to justify fraternity hazings. Just make the system better. don't think that because you put up with it, we should put up with it too.

How is that different from wealthy Millennial women who don't work because their husbands make a great deal of money. They do exist all across the affluent spectrum of DC.

I must say your post reeks of jealousy. I can read between the lines. Which is funny given that swimming at the Y and going to Bible studies is very middle class, not affluent. And I'm sure there's a regional factor at play, especially if in the South.

And when you say you have never read an obituary before of someone who'd never worked, I find it surprising given it was the *norm* for middle class women not to work until the 70s and even in my 80s-90s childhood, a good percentage, typically around 25% if not a bit more, of married women with children didn't work.

+1
None of the college educated moms I knew growing up worked until they got divorced.

If you look into the history of social security, when it was enacted there were a lot of destitute elderly women who basically relied on their families for support. Men used to die much earlier and women couldn't work (my grandma was fired from being an accountant in the 1950s when she got pregnant and never again could get hired once they knew she was married and had kids).

But now??? I'm angry that women who don't work are eligible for half their husband's social security. I understand that they'll get his SS when he dies, but why should they get anything that they didn't put into. Working 40 quarters isn't much. If you didn't need money to survive on when you were working age, why should you need more when you're older?

I think you don't understand what the social contract was in the near past. I grew up in a small town, and no woman I knew who had no children or grown children worked. I can think of two of these women who taught for a year because the school system found it self suddenly was caught short and hired them to fill in the gap. But that is it.

Basically, women took care of the home and men worked outside the home. In our particular small, town, this applied across all classes--no hired help from the less well off, for example. It was just not a thing.

OK but it's not a thing now. SAHMs are making the choice to stay home. It's very valid, but I don't think everyone else should fund their SS. If you don't need money to work, you don't need money to retire on.

I'm a working parent, but find it disheartening that caretaking kids/elderly parents and a home is still so undervalued in our society. And there are many moms that choose to SAH because the costs of quality childcare are equal to or more than what they make. Maybe in your circle it's all rich families that have a SAHP but that is not the case for many.

Also, times HAVE changed- most SAHMs I know in my generation (Gen-X) worked for a few years before having kids, it's not like they went straight from HS/college to being a SAHM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the person above: where I live, there are a lot of older boomer women who have literally never worked a day in their lives. they spend their days going to bible studies and out to eat, swimming at the y and bragging about their grandchildren. I had never read an obituary before for someone who had never worked. They are strange.

So yes, I do think it's wrong that the government provides free healthcare to women who have never worked a day in their lives, while children go without. I don't buy the argument that everything every boomer has is because they earned it, and that they have earned so much more than the rest of us.

and suggesting that since they suffered we should suffer to sounds a bit like those people that try to justify fraternity hazings. Just make the system better. don't think that because you put up with it, we should put up with it too.

How is that different from wealthy Millennial women who don't work because their husbands make a great deal of money. They do exist all across the affluent spectrum of DC.

I must say your post reeks of jealousy. I can read between the lines. Which is funny given that swimming at the Y and going to Bible studies is very middle class, not affluent. And I'm sure there's a regional factor at play, especially if in the South.

And when you say you have never read an obituary before of someone who'd never worked, I find it surprising given it was the *norm* for middle class women not to work until the 70s and even in my 80s-90s childhood, a good percentage, typically around 25% if not a bit more, of married women with children didn't work.

+1
None of the college educated moms I knew growing up worked until they got divorced.

If you look into the history of social security, when it was enacted there were a lot of destitute elderly women who basically relied on their families for support. Men used to die much earlier and women couldn't work (my grandma was fired from being an accountant in the 1950s when she got pregnant and never again could get hired once they knew she was married and had kids).

But now??? I'm angry that women who don't work are eligible for half their husband's social security. I understand that they'll get his SS when he dies, but why should they get anything that they didn't put into. Working 40 quarters isn't much. If you didn't need money to survive on when you were working age, why should you need more when you're older?

I think you don't understand what the social contract was in the near past. I grew up in a small town, and no woman I knew who had no children or grown children worked. I can think of two of these women who taught for a year because the school system found it self suddenly was caught short and hired them to fill in the gap. But that is it.

Basically, women took care of the home and men worked outside the home. In our particular small, town, this applied across all classes--no hired help from the less well off, for example. It was just not a thing.

OK but it's not a thing now. SAHMs are making the choice to stay home. It's very valid, but I don't think everyone else should fund their SS. If you don't need money to work, you don't need money to retire on.

I'm a working parent, but find it disheartening that caretaking kids/elderly parents and a home is still so undervalued in our society. And there are many moms that choose to SAH because the costs of quality childcare are equal to or more than what they make. Maybe in your circle it's all rich families that have a SAHP but that is not the case for many.

Also, times HAVE changed- most SAHMs I know in my generation (Gen-X) worked for a few years before having kids, it's not like they went straight from HS/college to being a SAHM.

This. I am Gen X and I worked for 14 years before becoming a SAHM, did so for 2 years, and now work part time. We aren't rich and me staying home, and now staying part time, is absolutely a function of the cost of childcare -- this makes more sense for our family financially. Covid also forced our hand on this a bit, which is true for other families I know too.

One of the most stressful things about becoming a SAHM and even now working part-time is knowing I cannot save for retirement, personally, in the same way I was before. You really have to trust your spouse in this situation, and be in it for the long haul, because it is a financial risk to stop working. And when you stop working *in order to* work in the home, providing childcare and housework and other unpaid work to enable your family to function, you become very critically aware of what protections you have and what you don't have. I am fortunate that my DH has always taken the perspective that the money he earns is earned jointly, since if I wasn't doing what I do at home, he would have to hire someone in order to continue working. Someone has to take care of children.

So the idea that someone would be resentful of a SAHM for claiming her spouse's SS, as she's legally entitled to do? It's just ignorant. You think someone who raised kids and took care of a home for 30 years should just be destitute, and should have no claim to the money her spouse was able to pay into the SS system because he had a SAHM who took care of his kids and home? Sorry, you're wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To the person above: where I live, there are a lot of older boomer women who have literally never worked a day in their lives. they spend their days going to bible studies and out to eat, swimming at the y and bragging about their grandchildren. I had never read an obituary before for someone who had never worked. They are strange.

So yes, I do think it's wrong that the government provides free healthcare to women who have never worked a day in their lives, while children go without. I don't buy the argument that everything every boomer has is because they earned it, and that they have earned so much more than the rest of us.

and suggesting that since they suffered we should suffer to sounds a bit like those people that try to justify fraternity hazings. Just make the system better. don't think that because you put up with it, we should put up with it too.

There is nothing strange about not working. This was the social norm until society forced us all to work our butts off and make home life stressful. The social norm of women not working had its pluses and minuses, but it in no way meant someone was lazy or worthless. Let them enjoy their grandchildren and the Y, sheesh

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
SS isn't welfare. It's money you put into SS and then you get pay outs when you retire. It's not something from nothing.

So yes it only counts if you do it for money. (Side note- as a working mom I clean my own house and prepare my own food. My kids are in school, so I'm raising them too I guess. They aren't in aftercare)

It’s a government program that is set up like every other government program - lawmakers, bureaucrats, etc decided who is eligible.

Raising successful children is necessary for the continuity of our country. After all, these children are going to be the future spenders and tax payers.

Someone is the government must agree with that train of thought and allowed the non-earning spouse (it can also be dads - gasp!) to collect on the earner’s income records.

“Be nice to your children, for they will decide what nursing home you go in.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the person above: where I live, there are a lot of older boomer women who have literally never worked a day in their lives. they spend their days going to bible studies and out to eat, swimming at the y and bragging about their grandchildren. I had never read an obituary before for someone who had never worked. They are strange.

So yes, I do think it's wrong that the government provides free healthcare to women who have never worked a day in their lives, while children go without. I don't buy the argument that everything every boomer has is because they earned it, and that they have earned so much more than the rest of us.

and suggesting that since they suffered we should suffer to sounds a bit like those people that try to justify fraternity hazings. Just make the system better. don't think that because you put up with it, we should put up with it too.

Along these lines, I think it's gross when there are Boomers are getting benefits and Social Security AND sitting on paid off houses, but they forced their own kids to borrow money for college. I know people who had their kids take out loans to attend in-state colleges because they had not saved a penny for college educations, but then 10 years later those kids are still paying down those loans while their boomer parents are retiring. It does not compute.

It's so weird to me that Boomers have so much wealth but we still have so many people with education debt, including people from MC or even UMC backgrounds (so not poverty). Why didn't some of that money go to pay for college for their kids??? To me that's one of the main things I'm working to pay for.

My boomer parents simply did not understand why college cost so much and why we didn't qualify for more aid. It took them completely by surprise that the expected family contribution per month was more than their mortgage. They just didn't keep up with the times and didn't think it was something you needed to save for until it was too late. Whereas we opened 529 accounts for our kids as soon as they were born.

Same. My parents had no idea and I wound up self funding my education, including with loans, and it took me forever to pay them off.

But annoyingly, my parents (who are genuinely rich now -- they are comfortably millionaires) STILL don't understand the cost of education. We opened a 529 for our kid right after she was born and my parents have never contributed to it. I mean, I guess they aren't required to, but I think it's weird. They claimed they couldn't pay for my college because they didn't realize it would cost so much, but now they are rich and still aren't really interested in investing in education. Their choice, I guess.

But it's stuff like this that gets Boomers a rep for being selfish and short-sighted.

I have news for you. Even with a million or two or three, your parents may legitimately worry about outliving their savings.

[Anonymous]

BOO HOO

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the person above: where I live, there are a lot of older boomer women who have literally never worked a day in their lives. they spend their days going to bible studies and out to eat, swimming at the y and bragging about their grandchildren. I had never read an obituary before for someone who had never worked. They are strange.

So yes, I do think it's wrong that the government provides free healthcare to women who have never worked a day in their lives, while children go without. I don't buy the argument that everything every boomer has is because they earned it, and that they have earned so much more than the rest of us.

and suggesting that since they suffered we should suffer to sounds a bit like those people that try to justify fraternity hazings. Just make the system better. don't think that because you put up with it, we should put up with it too.

Along these lines, I think it's gross when there are Boomers are getting benefits and Social Security AND sitting on paid off houses, but they forced their own kids to borrow money for college. I know people who had their kids take out loans to attend in-state colleges because they had not saved a penny for college educations, but then 10 years later those kids are still paying down those loans while their boomer parents are retiring. It does not compute.

It's so weird to me that Boomers have so much wealth but we still have so many people with education debt, including people from MC or even UMC backgrounds (so not poverty). Why didn't some of that money go to pay for college for their kids??? To me that's one of the main things I'm working to pay for.

My boomer parents simply did not understand why college cost so much and why we didn't qualify for more aid. It took them completely by surprise that the expected family contribution per month was more than their mortgage. They just didn't keep up with the times and didn't think it was something you needed to save for until it was too late. Whereas we opened 529 accounts for our kids as soon as they were born.

Same. My parents had no idea and I wound up self funding my education, including with loans, and it took me forever to pay them off.

But annoyingly, my parents (who are genuinely rich now -- they are comfortably millionaires) STILL don't understand the cost of education. We opened a 529 for our kid right after she was born and my parents have never contributed to it. I mean, I guess they aren't required to, but I think it's weird. They claimed they couldn't pay for my college because they didn't realize it would cost so much, but now they are rich and still aren't really interested in investing in education. Their choice, I guess.

But it's stuff like this that gets Boomers a rep for being selfish and short-sighted.

I have news for you. Even with a million or two or three, your parents may legitimately worry about outliving their savings.

dp.. yea, I do this. It's a result of growing up poor. I will probably put a bit of money into my grandkid's college but I certainly won't be fully funding it. I would hope my kids would see that as a gift of generosity and not as an expectation, like the ^PP seems to do. You certainly come across as bitter about your parents not helping you pay for kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the person above: where I live, there are a lot of older boomer women who have literally never worked a day in their lives. they spend their days going to bible studies and out to eat, swimming at the y and bragging about their grandchildren. I had never read an obituary before for someone who had never worked. They are strange.

So yes, I do think it's wrong that the government provides free healthcare to women who have never worked a day in their lives, while children go without. I don't buy the argument that everything every boomer has is because they earned it, and that they have earned so much more than the rest of us.

and suggesting that since they suffered we should suffer to sounds a bit like those people that try to justify fraternity hazings. Just make the system better. don't think that because you put up with it, we should put up with it too.

How is that different from wealthy Millennial women who don't work because their husbands make a great deal of money. They do exist all across the affluent spectrum of DC.

I must say your post reeks of jealousy. I can read between the lines. Which is funny given that swimming at the Y and going to Bible studies is very middle class, not affluent. And I'm sure there's a regional factor at play, especially if in the South.

And when you say you have never read an obituary before of someone who'd never worked, I find it surprising given it was the *norm* for middle class women not to work until the 70s and even in my 80s-90s childhood, a good percentage, typically around 25% if not a bit more, of married women with children didn't work.

+1
None of the college educated moms I knew growing up worked until they got divorced.

If you look into the history of social security, when it was enacted there were a lot of destitute elderly women who basically relied on their families for support. Men used to die much earlier and women couldn't work (my grandma was fired from being an accountant in the 1950s when she got pregnant and never again could get hired once they knew she was married and had kids).

But now??? I'm angry that women who don't work are eligible for half their husband's social security. I understand that they'll get his SS when he dies, but why should they get anything that they didn't put into. Working 40 quarters isn't much. If you didn't need money to survive on when you were working age, why should you need more when you're older?

I think you don't understand what the social contract was in the near past. I grew up in a small town, and no woman I knew who had no children or grown children worked. I can think of two of these women who taught for a year because the school system found it self suddenly was caught short and hired them to fill in the gap. But that is it.

Basically, women took care of the home and men worked outside the home. In our particular small, town, this applied across all classes--no hired help from the less well off, for example. It was just not a thing.

OK but it's not a thing now. SAHMs are making the choice to stay home. It's very valid, but I don't think everyone else should fund their SS. If you don't need money to work, you don't need money to retire on.

I'm a working parent, but find it disheartening that caretaking kids/elderly parents and a home is still so undervalued in our society. And there are many moms that choose to SAH because the costs of quality childcare are equal to or more than what they make. Maybe in your circle it's all rich families that have a SAHP but that is not the case for many.

Also, times HAVE changed- most SAHMs I know in my generation (Gen-X) worked for a few years before having kids, it's not like they went straight from HS/college to being a SAHM.

This. I am Gen X and I worked for 14 years before becoming a SAHM, did so for 2 years, and now work part time. We aren't rich and me staying home, and now staying part time, is absolutely a function of the cost of childcare -- this makes more sense for our family financially. Covid also forced our hand on this a bit, which is true for other families I know too.

One of the most stressful things about becoming a SAHM and even now working part-time is knowing I cannot save for retirement, personally, in the same way I was before. You really have to trust your spouse in this situation, and be in it for the long haul, because it is a financial risk to stop working. And when you stop working *in order to* work in the home, providing childcare and housework and other unpaid work to enable your family to function, you become very critically aware of what protections you have and what you don't have. I am fortunate that my DH has always taken the perspective that the money he earns is earned jointly, since if I wasn't doing what I do at home, he would have to hire someone in order to continue working. Someone has to take care of children.

So the idea that someone would be resentful of a SAHM for claiming her spouse's SS, as she's legally entitled to do? It's just ignorant. You think someone who raised kids and took care of a home for 30 years should just be destitute, and should have no claim to the money her spouse was able to pay into the SS system because he had a SAHM who took care of his kids and home? Sorry, you're wrong.[/quote]

+100
Everyone always goes with the "it takes a village" thing yet that village never seems to include the SAHP's steady and significant contributions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not only were mortgage rates extremely low until recently, some of us boomers were at home buying age when mortgages were at 18%. I remember being ecstatic to refinance at 7%.

Was going to post the same!