But, this is the "live for the now" society where many spend every penny rather than save for the day when they get laid off.
You tell 'em!
Not everyone is as fortunate and perfect as you seem to be.
By 59 he should have saved enough so that he could retire.
Or
By 59 he should have developed a useful skill that employers would want and be willing to pay for.
Too bad, so sad.
Thank you Hillary.
Get real. When I'm 59 I'll still have a kid in college. Not everyone can be in a position to retire early.
LOL that could be me you are telling off as well.
I knew we should never of had the kids, Joking, but they do eat up the budget.
But probably not enough to pay for college for a child or children from a second marriage, or just "surprises" from a first or later than usual marriage. Or for grandchildren, or children of family members being raised by this man. You haven't a clue what his real situation is.
Being laid off at almost 49 myself, (after 21+ years with the same company, a result of Clinton sizing of the military), I can tell you that it's an emotionally wrenching experience. I can also tell you that it's a financially debilitating one, even when one finds a new position, after months or years of under or unemployment. In my case, it's resulted in a second house payment, earlier apartment rent. And now a third house payment, somewhat but not totally offset by rental receipts on the second house. (I bought it after nearly 6 years of renting, and after being assured that my position was "safe" for a few years at least. Well the position was safe, but I got transferred 2.5 hours away. I had owned the house for about 9 months and it would have cost a pretty penny to sell it, and I thought wrongly that it would rent easily and stay rented most of the time, so as to preserve my down payment rather than lose it to a realtor commission.(Heck the realtor who would have been the listing agent told me it wasn't wise to sell it at that time).
In retrospect, yes. But our economy depends on the purchases of those who failed to plan their careers effectively.
If all this country can say to laid-off workers is "too bad you can't find a job, you should have planned better," I guarantee you there will be a revolt as disgruntled, out-of-work have-nots overthrow their corporate overlords.
It won't be pretty, and it won't be good when it happens - but if corporate America and the Establishment don't wake up to the fact that it is unsustainable to pay executives ridiculous golden parachutes while expecting the worker bees to work for peanuts, then an economic revolution is inevitable.
America's working class puts up with a lot, what with unemployment, low wages, out-of-control health care costs, and the like. Eventually, the workers of the world will unite. It won't be pretty when they do. Unless Corporate America wakes up and rediscovers the concept of nobless oblige, then some sort of Communism will be inevitable.
Market capitalism isn't free. Corporate responsibility is the price for keeping communism at bay. Call it enlightened self-interest. If corporations keep screwing 59-year-old retirees, eventually the workers will say "Enough."
I don't know what your smoking, but I'd like some. This isn't 1958 anymore. Talk about being out of touch with reality and the cost of modern living. I don't know any one that's 59 that most likely has children that are in college that "should have enough so that he could retire". Get a grip!
Bingo! Never trust in anyone to "owe" you a job, a retirement, insurance, and so forth. There is only one person who has your own best interest in mind: you.
My father ran through his savings due to 3 hospitaliztions in 5 years (diabbetes-related) and hasn't worked since september. (more medical problems)
Throw in a ICU visit, and a 2 week stay in the hospital with no insurance, and it pretty much ruins you financially. Fortunately, I am able to help fiancially during this difficult period.
Perhaps, but not everyone can/wants to retire at 59. It's not that old, perhaps he still has kids in college. Plenty of people actually like to work and want to, well into their 60s and 70s. This is not like years past, when you were more than likely going to be dead by 65 or 70. Many are living well into their 90s and beyond. 30-40 years of retirement takes ALOT of money and is a long time to remain idle, as well.
Bing! Bing!
The I've got mine club just dropped in, welcome.You people make me sick.
Now all you poor people out there stand by for a lesson on what you should have done.
Yup. Been there done that. I quit work at the end of 1994 at age 50. Haven't worked a day since. With a good plan, anyone can do it in 15-20 years. Always pay yourself first...it's about capital and preserving it..
I could not agree more.
This is the exact situation we are finding most "boomers" in and then they expect the government to support them.
Hope he's not crying into his $5.00 latte at Starbucks.
You got that right... especially in west Plano (Texas). There was an article in the Dallas Morning News about a year and a half ago talking about how many folks in that zip code are leveraged to the hilt. I believe one of the quotes from the article mentioned that if these folks were picked up and turned upside down, not even a penny would fall out of their pockets.
Keeping up with the Joneses... ain't it a beeeotch.
You read a few paragraphs on this man and make a judgment as if you're lord and master? I know many people in his age bracket who as the article says "have been thrifty," and thought they were investing wisely -- were planning on retiring until the stock market took a dive a few years back -- they're still working -- and like me -- will most likely be working the rest of their lives. It's the brave new world -- some win (sometimes at the expense of others) and some lose. Frankly, I admire this man and woman for continuing to work at whatever work they can find.
"By 59 he should have saved enough so that he could retire. Then it wouldn't really matter if he were laid off. His savings should have been enough for your food, clothing, health insurance, and whatever fun he wants to have. Your home should be paid off by then."
~~~~~~~~~~
That is cold response, since you have no idea of the circumstances of this man's life. If you have been fortunate enough to have lived your life with no unexpected health costs and if you are not responsible for the help or care of family members and if you have never been broadsided by any kind of unexpected tragedy, then I am delighted for you. But for you to state that "by 59, he SHOULD have saved enough" for an unexpected downsizing is assuming much that you do not know.
Just wondering your age. You do not seem to realize that everyone's life experiences are not the same.