Posted on 06/24/2006 11:14:12 AM PDT by Incorrigible
BY TERESA DIXON MURRAY
This nation faces a massive economic crisis -- indeed a social catastrophe -- that some experts even say will be among the worst the country's ever seen.
Much has been said about how the looming retirement of 76 million baby boomers will stampede Social Security, which is expected to start running out of money in 11 years. We almost joke about senior citizens eating dog food. Maybe that joking is the only way we can keep from crying.
But Social Security is just one piece of a cruel puzzle. It's not until you look at the big picture that you realize how dire the crisis is. The pieces won't fit together without a lot of pain and anguish for a lot of people.
If you think it's time to stop reading, this is a wake-up call you can't afford to ignore.
By nearly every expert's forecast, half to three-fourths of the next few generations of retirees will live on the edge financially or in desolate poverty.
Today's children and most of today's workers almost certainly will pay steeply higher taxes to cover promises to retirees. Taxes will rise while workers are told they need to save more and work into their 70s to avoid the plight.
"The cupboard is bare compared to what we've dreamed of," said Phil DeMuth, a California investment adviser. He's co-written books with commentator Ben Stein. His newest is "Yes, You Can Still Retire Comfortably: The Baby-Boom Retirement Crisis and How to Beat It." But beating the crisis, he says, involves choices such as delaying retirement and tapping home equity.
"It's a terrifying problem," DeMuth said. "Politicians don't want you to think about it. Your employer doesn't want you to worry about it. ... It's very depressing, and it's not going to get any better."
By most estimates, about a fourth of future retirees will be in good financial shape. They have significant savings, insurance, pensions, good health and are married and own their home, said John Rother, director of policy and strategy for the AARP in Washington.
Another fourth face an impossible future because of little savings, no home, no insurance and no spouse, he said.
The remaining half will be "on the edge," he said. Best case: Many will struggle. Worst: Most will collapse financially.
Study after study shows roughly the same bleak outlook. An analysis this month by the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College found that, under the best assumptions, 43 percent of households will have trouble making it in retirement. That assumed people worked until at least 65 and lived partly off the value of their homes. And it didn't add health-care costs, which researchers said were too unpredictable to even estimate.
"Unless Americans change their ways, many will struggle in retirement," said Alicia Munnell, director of the study.
Cleveland certified financial planner Ken Robinson is just as grim. "We need to get ready for parts of America to turn Third World and where you need your extended family to support you financially," Robinson said. "I hope I'm wrong, but I don't see us on a course that protects us from that."
Survival for Paula Tinsley, 53, of Maple Heights, Ohio, will mean delaying retirement until she's about 80. That's when she'll pay off the house she and her 70-year-old husband bought three years ago.
Tinsley, a manager of a Shell convenience store in Willoughby, Ohio, has a small 401(k) and small pension. "If I had it to do all over again, I would have started saving earlier," she said. She'll depend heavily on Social Security -- which is the most prominent part of this crisis.
Social Security is on course to start paying out more than it takes in by 2017. The money built up before then will be gone in 34 years, just about the time today's 30-somethings start reaching in their mailboxes for a benefits check.
Even now, Social Security pays an average of only about $12,000 a year to a retiree.
The Medicare system that retirees rely on for health coverage starts to run out of money this year. It'll go broke in 12 years.
"We may have already committed more physical resources to the baby boom generation in its retirement years than our economy has the capacity to deliver," Alan Greenspan said last year, when he was chairman of the Federal Reserve.
Pension plans, which about 40 percent of today's retirees rely on, are crumbling. While about the same percentage of people are covered by some kind of work-related retirement plan today as in years past, the type of coverage has changed. Only 25 years ago, 80 percent of private-sector workers in retirement plans had pensions. Today, that's only one in three, with most of the rest instead given the chance to save in an individual investment plan.
Even workers who have pensions are at risk, given how many plans have run into trouble.
Personal savings will be even more important to future retirees, but last year Americans spent more than they brought in -- meaning no savings -- for the first time since the Great Depression.
A third of all workers aren't saving a dime toward retirement, according to the Employee Benefit Research Institute. Most who are saving don't have nearly enough. Among workers 55 and older today, 52 percent have less than $50,000 saved for retirement, the institute found. (You need $350,000 to $400,000 at retirement to have an income of $30,000 a year.)
Only a fourth of workers 55 and older have $250,000 or more. If that much money sounds good, stomach this: It's projected that a 65-year-old needs $210,000 in savings just to pay for out-of-pocket medical expenses and supplemental insurance.
Maybe dying early doesn't sound bad about now.
But wait: The typical man who makes it to 65 has a 50 percent chance of living until age 85. A 65-year-old woman has the same chance of living until age 88.
That's 20-plus years of a life that's far from the warm-and-fuzzy images of spending our golden years traveling and playing golf.
The game plan for many is to work into their 70s or 80s. Those will be the lucky ones. About 40 percent of people retire involuntarily because of illness or layoff.
Social Security is 40 percent of the income of today's retirees and the only income for one in five retirees today.
How did we get to this horrifying point? It's the convergence of five phenomena -- all of which were preventable or, at least, foreseeable:
-- The flood of baby boomers and a slowing birth rate since. Between now and 2030, the number of people over 65 will double. The number of new workers paying into Social Security and Medicare will increase only 20 percent.
-- Longer life spans. Life expectancy is about 13 years longer for children today than when current retirees were born.
-- A stock market that lost value for three straight years -- also a first since the Great Depression.
-- Procrastination by political leaders. Washington saw the warning signs in the 1970s and 1980s, but passing the buck has always seemed easier than real solutions.
-- Procrastination by individuals. Experts have begged us to spend less and save more. But the median retirement account holds $10,000 -- barely more than the average household has in credit card debt.
Between 1946 and 1964, the number of U.S. births soared. Instead of two children for every woman on average, there were three or four.
Births declined rapidly after 1964, when birth control pills became widely available and women entered the work force in greater numbers.
Since then, the birth rate has been about half as much as at the height of the baby boom. That means fewer new workers to support Social Security for the growing number of retirees.
Meanwhile, old people are living to be really old.
The age for receiving full benefits like Social Security and Medicare had always been 65. That was no big deal at first, because until 1950 the average life expectancy for male babies was less than that.
Now life expectancy is 75 years for men and more than 80 for women. Credit medical advances as well as healthier lifestyles.
All this adds up to far more people living in retirement. In 1950, Social Security had 16 workers paying in for every retiree. Now, the ratio is three workers for every retiree. By 2030, it will be 2-to-1.
Unless benefits are cut sharply, which isn't expected, workers will lose a bigger chunk of their paycheck to support retirees, said Matt Moore of the National Center for Policy Analysis. "People in their 20s and 30s will be most affected."
Social Security always has collected more each year than it pays out. But the government borrows from that surplus to pay for other things. When Social Security starts paying out more than it collects, it will need money back. The government will have to raise taxes or borrow more. Or it could cut benefits.
To fix the problem now through the bluntest methods, we would have to either raise Social Security taxes 16 percent or cut benefits 13 percent, said Bob Rosenblatt, a former journalist who focused on retirement issues and is now with the National Academy of Social Insurance in Virginia, a nonpartisan group of more than 700 experts in government benefit programs.
The longer we wait, the more drastic the fix.
Most experts believe Social Security will get fixed, no matter how bitter the medicine. If you look really hard, you can find a couple of other rays of hope.
-- For retirement-age boomers who want to keep working, there should be jobs available. Today, there are more people who want to work than there are jobs. By 2014, it'll be the other way around, the government says.
-- Younger workers save more than their parents did at the same age.
-- More people overall are saving money than a decade ago. Among workers of all ages, the percentage who have something saved for retirement has increased from 57 percent in 1994 to 70 percent in 2006.
Fat lot of good that saving did for some people. Just when the first baby boomers were within 10 years of retirement, the stock market tanked. Not only did most investors suffer 30 percent to 50 percent declines (which they haven't fully recovered since), but economists and financial planners were spurred to rethink projections.
For stock investments, they used to forecast annual returns of 10 percent to 12 percent a year. Now, most project 7 percent to 9 percent, said economist LeRoy Brooks of John Carroll University. "That's a huge difference," he said.
This is bad for pensions and individual investments.
Brooks calculates that a 30-year-old could invest $840 a year at 12 percent and have an income of $50,000 a year in retirement. But if the return is only 8 percent, she'd have to invest $2,700 a year to get that same income.
The same principles apply to pensions, so many employers are caught without nearly enough money in their pension funds based on lower earnings projections. That includes the government. Standard & Poor's said federal employee pensions are short about $4.5 trillion. Taxpayers could be forced to pay that bill.
John Strangfeld, vice chairman of Prudential Financial Inc. in New Jersey, believes many pension plans will be in trouble in the next 10 to 20 years. The trail already includes IBM, General Motors, Hewlett-Packard, Sears, Delta Airlines, Polaroid and Goodyear.
Mark Iwry, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington, said shutdowns or freezes are rare and most pensions are going along OK. What worries him, though, is that the freezes -- in which workers no longer accumulate pension benefits, though they may be instead given the chance to save in a 401(k) -- have spread from sick companies to healthy ones.
And many pension plans could go bankrupt. The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., which insures workers whose company plans go bust, could be under a "mega-threat," Iwry said, because it wasn't designed to bail out whole industries.
Retirement experts are most vocal and exasperated about what Washington hasn't done.
Once it became obvious 20 or 30 years ago that the birth rate was slowing and life expectancies were increasing, researchers waved warning flags. Changes could have come then with minimal pain.
Brooks, the economist from John Carroll, said politicians "have been playing to the populace by giving them what they want. People always say they're paying too much in taxes and so we cut taxes. They say they want more benefits, so we increase benefits."
Any solutions now will be extremely painful and unpopular, but politicians need to face the crisis, he said.
Americans who are angry about the government's role should look in the mirror.
With one out of three people not saving anything toward retirement, and most of the rest not saving enough, we must be waiting for the retirement fairy.
Saving for retirement is a fairly new phenomenon. As a society, we're just not good at it, said Kevin Myeroff, a certified financial planner and author of the 2001 book "Countdown to Retirement."
What we are good at: spending.
"We carve out so much of our money for things we didn't used to need," said Robinson, the Cleveland planner. "Is it so hard to imagine life without TiVo?"
For those who don't have the money, it's easy to reach for the credit card. Charge-card debt (an average of $9,300 per household) has hit millions of people.
Myeroff isn't sure what it will take for Americans to face reality. "People think this is all just going to work out," he said.
It's now obvious it won't, Brooks said.
"We've known this for decades," he said. "We're getting closer and closer to the day of reckoning."
June 23, 2006
(Teresa Dixon Murray is a reporter for The Plain Dealer of Cleveland. She can be contacted at tmurray@plaind.com)
Not for commercial use. For educational and discussion purposes only.
We're not talking about "owing." We are talking about how a good caring traditional family works. Gratitude and respect between generations.
Like I said before, griping about social security problems and blaming it on baby boomers is unwarranted.
I know. Yet this is often given on this board as the explanation for why liberals insist on engaging in this type of immoral behavior. Somehow when a "conservative" does the same thing, that argument does not hold.
I am an atheist myself, so the derision was mostly sarcastic.
I have my retirement set up. I'm helping care for aging parents.
Same here, on both accounts. Being the devoutly Christian liberal Democrats that they are, my parents did not manage to save a dime their entire lives due almost entirely to a long string of poor life choices.
Check the chart at post #158.
Huh?
If you refer to another poster, it is good manners to place his/her name in the "to" box, so he/she can reply to your post.
Won't help you so much when you can't see or run;-) I actually find it appalling that 3 or 4 of my gen have suggested "The Modest Proposal". One thing I can say for us, some of us have become very upset over the prospect of virtual slavitude. Solutions? I have none. One thing I can add, when welfare reform hit, around 70% of the children in my city were reclassified as disabled, elligible for ss payments.
Huh?
Yep! Abortion was legal in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and other states in the 60s. WWII generation women in their 30's at the time were having abortions.
How does religion come into play here? Or politics? Some people make poor choices simply because they make poor choices.
You most certainly are a Gen Xer! Anyone born between the death of President John F Kennedy and the second Inauguration of President Ronald Reagan is a Generation Xer!
It is my understanding, some of them receive social security payments as well.
Cry me a river. I'm a hell of a lot younger than you and I'm already halfway to that figure. And I will likely never see a dime.
Even if I don't need it, I'll take it to spite the selfish generation that you are a member of.
I expected nothing more from you.
The generation of never having made a sacrifice to the country or apparently to family. Keep crying and whining, you have no moral high ground to stand on.
What, you think the military is populated with foreign mercenaries? I volunteered to be a grunt (Army), and certainly not for personal gain. It cost me physically too. And I supported my (liberal) parents and siblings financially for a number of years as well -- it wasn't my parents that helped pay for the college of my younger siblings.
You are suffering from John Kerry-ism, that navel-gazing "I have sacrificed more than any man alive and therefore demand respect" delusion of importance. Let me guess: you served in Viet Nam.
If you were paying attention, a lot of the younger generations are not asking for special consideration, they are merely asking to be left alone so that they can save for their own retirements and provide for their own families.
…but our goal is to spend all of our money and enjoy it.
I don't know about other states, but abortion wasn't legal in NYS until 1970.
1945-1964
A "good caring traditional family" does not extract money from its children at the point of a gun. If the family was all it claims to be, it would not be necessary either.
Like I said before, griping about social security problems and blaming it on baby boomers is unwarranted.
I don't blame the social security problems on the Boomers -- it was headed for disaster long before -- but I do blame them for both ignoring and aggravating the problem. GenY is just screwed now anyway you slice it because too many people want to use their political power to fight over scraps from busted system.
I would happily give up everything I have paid into SS -- a considerable sum in my case -- for the option of opting out. The problem is that many older people absolutely refuse to dissolve the system at a loss, even those that have put less into it than I have. This has to be done at some point no matter what and the money has already been spent.
I am willing to accept the loss of my 6-figure contribution to permanently stop this travesty, but it seems that few people are willing to make the sacrifice for the sake of their children.
Huh? It was AFAIK.
Hello,
Thanks.
Glad to be here, MOgirl
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.