Why are people obsessed with putting $$ in retirement?

[Anonymous]

Because you will likely be living for 20-25 years without a paycheck. Please don't ask me to pay for your retirement as well as my own. Social Security is rarely enough.

[Anonymous]

It seems totally reasonable to think that savings are weighted towards the top of the distribution. But I'm not sure that changes the facts.

Also US Social Security is the most generous of all the rich world public pensions. The Canadian equivalent of SS pays out approximately 13,000 CAD/year and the UK public pension is 100 GBP/week.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP is at least partly right. The Economist recently ran a cover story about a worldwide savings glut - never in the history of the world have people saved as much as now. And all these savings create a hunt for yield, which is part of what has bid up housing markets in the rich world - think Sydney, London, SFO, Toronto, etc. This is sort of why interest rates are so low. Too much supply of capital has bottomed out the demand (interest). This is the systemic side of things.

At a personal level you also require far less money than you think. And if you are willing to work until 70 you are golden.

Link? I'd be surprised if the said this was the case across the board for all segments of the population. With the increasing concentration of wealth at the top, I have no problem believing that global savings has increased because the wealthy have more money to save than they did before, and people/companies are getting stingier about making investments for the long-run rather than returning profits to investors. But there's no way anyone's going to argue that the average middle class family with a couple of kids who debates whether to take the little bit left over every month and put it towards students loans or into retirement (and is foregoing a college fund in the hopes their kids will get scholarships or can work their way through school) is saving too much.

Also, at least in the U.S., the dwindling social safety net means people need to save more for their retirement than they used to. It's not just the loss of pensions, it's the very real concern about whether there will be anything meaningful in the way of social security and medicare/medicaid to help support us in retirement that we can't just assume will work itself out. Of course we need to save more than our parents did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. My point is that people obsess over retirement and don't enjoy their hard earned money while they are young. I understand putting away money for retirement, but just not most of it. Saving can make a person miserable.

This is a straw man argument. No one is telling people to save most of their money. I think a healthy floor is about 20% savings overall, with fluctuations for the heavy daycare years, paying off student loans, etc. Mostly the advice is the save a manageable amount, try to bank salry increases and never leave matching contributions from donors on the table. As you age, you look into the balance of traditional 401k, Roth 401k, traditional/Roth IRAs, 529s, etc.

^^Sorry, meant employers not donors.

+1

[Anonymous]

I’m 30 and I have no faith the government will be able to keep Social Security solvent in its current form (or at all). There are so many unknowns. So, I’m counting on myself as my only source of retirement. It sucks to think that way when you have no choice but to pay into a flawed system but there you have it.

[Anonymous]

SS will be around for sure. It has the best finances of any public pension system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It seems totally reasonable to think that savings are weighted towards the top of the distribution. But I'm not sure that changes the facts.

Also US Social Security is the most generous of all the rich world public pensions. The Canadian equivalent of SS pays out approximately 13,000 CAD/year and the UK public pension is 100 GBP/week.

Source? This link is from 2013, but it puts the U.S. at 31st out of 34 OECD countries for benefits as a percentage of earnings. U.S. workers get 41% on average, U.K. is a little behind at 37% but Canada is ahead at about 51%. All three are at the low end of the range, though, with much of Europe being far ahead of us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems totally reasonable to think that savings are weighted towards the top of the distribution. But I'm not sure that changes the facts.

Also US Social Security is the most generous of all the rich world public pensions. The Canadian equivalent of SS pays out approximately 13,000 CAD/year and the UK public pension is 100 GBP/week.

Source? This link is from 2013, but it puts the U.S. at 31st out of 34 OECD countries for benefits as a percentage of earnings. U.S. workers get 41% on average, U.K. is a little behind at 37% but Canada is ahead at about 51%. All three are at the low end of the range, though, with much of Europe being far ahead of us.

Forgot the link: http://www.businessinsider.com/almost-every-other-advanced-country-has-higher-relative-social-security-benefits-than-the-us-2013-12

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:SS will be around for sure. It has the best finances of any public pension system.

You must be another clueless 32-yr old.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:...Because after you stop working, the paychecks stop. The money you put into a retirement fund is for you to live on for the rest of your life after you stop working.

what about social security?

Both parents worked very good jobs and the SS they receive is mediocre at best.

Something tells me you're too young to have received your first estimated SS payment sheet from the Gov. At what age does that first come now? I know you get one at 30 as that was the last I received. Wait until you get that letter and see if something happened today, how much you'd get in SS.

You get your estimate when you hit 40 quarters. So i was about 30.

We actually got a lot in social security. DH and I each got $2400 and $2600 respectively and we're middle earners (160k). We were shocked at how high it is because everyone complains.

[Anonymous]

http://fortune.com/2017/09/25/retirement-savings-too-much/

[Anonymous]

I wish I'd been a little more "obsessed" with saving when I was younger... Sigh

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is it inane question day?

+1

[Anonymous]

Here's a UK link, the most you can get is 122 GBP/week. https://www.gov.uk/state-pension

For US SS, the maximum possible benefit for a worker retiring at age 66 in 2011 is $2,366 USD.

Which is clearly multiples of the UK payout.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here's a UK link, the most you can get is 122 GBP/week. https://www.gov.uk/state-pension

For US SS, the maximum possible benefit for a worker retiring at age 66 in 2011 is $2,366 USD.

Which is clearly multiples of the UK payout.

Why is this relevant? The UK has a totally different health care system, tax structure, etc. I’m not sure how this is supposed to prove any sort of point.