
For many older Americans, the rat race is over, but inequality isn't - rbanffy
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/10/18/for-many-older-americans-the-rat-race-is-over-but-the-inequality-isnt/?utm_term=.c235d10a6f6c
======
cbanek
> “The big problem in the U.S. is that half of the working population in the
> private sector has no retirement plan available at work — and people do not
> save on their own,” Munnell said.

I'd love to see an article about retirement savings actually go into why
people don't save for retirement. It is almost always brushed aside as a one
liner, blamed on inequality, bad luck, etc.

But there are real reasons, some reasonable, some less reasonable. Unexpected
medical costs can bankrupt someone in days (this is why we believe everyone
should have insurance). School and raising children is expensive.

On the other hand, Americans seem to be chasing the dreams of materialism in
ways I don't think we realize. Ridiculously large houses, new cars (peak auto
anyone?), eating out, and of course who can forget avocado toast. The American
solution is to simply live outside your means hoping times will get better.
Until you can't - then look for someone else to blame.

I wish we would have pieces that wouldn't just be a "look at how bad people
have it" but actually have useful advice to avoid common financial pitfalls
(buying too much house, too little insurance, not having a budget, not having
an emergency fund). This article for example starts at the end "these retired
people have no money and few prospects." What about their lives before this?

------
mankash666
There's one trait America could learn more of from many Asian cultures - the
unconditional support and care for the seniors in the family.

Secondly - working can be a net benefit to one's health regardless of age.
However, it should stem from choice, not need. I wish we cared more for the
elderly

~~~
gumby
> There's one trait America could learn more of from many Asian cultures - the
> unconditional support and care for the seniors in the family.

Can't say I agree that this is a good idea on the micro level (I have one
asian parent and one non-asian parent, currently live in the USA, and do in
fact financially support my parents), which is what I think you are
advocating. I do agree on the macro level.

On the macro side: there needs to be a stronger belief in the interdependency
on all ages on the others. E.g. older, and childless couples should be willing
to pay school taxes (those kids will grow up and be your doctors, etc) and
younger folks should be more understanding that they will need support wen
they are older. There's more of a pervasive "I've got mine jack" mentality
here which I think is socially corrosive, and of which the agism is simply an
example. When your starting position is that a human's value comes from a
_homo economicus_ metric, old people end up judged as parasites.

On the micro side, you can have bad parents, bad kids, childless couples, and
manipulation, guilt, etc, so the system isn't reliable. Unconditionality is
also known in the west, and abandoning it has been a boon: on the "western"
side of my family, in my grandparent's generation, the youngest daughter was
not allowed to marry as her duty was to look after her parents when they
became old. I consider this inhumane.

~~~
Viliam1234
I agree in general that generations should be more supportive of each other,
because most of us will go through all stages anyway. But, as usual, the
problem with redistribution of money is how to set it up to prevent perverse
incentives. (And a higher-level problem is, even if you find the proper
algorithm, how to make it politically acceptable.)

For example, I would like to support the smart and diligent kids that could be
my doctors one day. However, the straightforward approach "tax adults, support
schools, duh" also supports many things I disagree with. First, with more
money flowing to schools, schools simply get more expensive, without
necessarily increasing quality. Second, it makes no difference between useful
education, e.g. the doctors, and useless education, such as... uhm, maybe it
is better to avoid specific examples, but you probably can imagine a few.

Similarly, not all "old people" are the same. I'd rather support a former
doctor than a former criminal, for example.

On the opposite side, the cultural norm of children supporting their parents
also has its problems. Some people may be completely irresponsible, have dozen
kids, abuse them, and then feel entitled to their support. Other people may
contribute a lot to the society, but they happen to be infertile, or their
kids happen to die in an accident.

~~~
gumby
> For example, I would like to support the smart and diligent kids that could
> be my doctors one day...Second, it makes no difference between useful
> education, e.g. the doctors, and useless education, such as...

> Similarly, not all "old people" are the same. I'd rather support a former
> doctor than a former criminal, for example.

That's precisely the problem to be avoided by universal support. Some people
want to make sure artists are supported, some people want to make sure doctors
are, some people don't want their money "wasted" on scientists who don't
believe in the {insert religious book here}, etc.

> And a higher-level problem is...how to make it politically acceptable.

The US social security system is a good example of this: it was made universal
(not means tested) and mocked up to look like an insurance program with the
explicit aim of making people believe that they "paid into an insurance system
so are just getting their money out". Of course it's not really like an
insurance scheme at all, no more and no less than using your current taxes to
build a bridge that will be used for years.

It's quite interesting to read the contemporary (1930s) internal discussions
to see how nakedly they propagandized the description of the system to make
sure it wasn't later killed. It's a great system; shame they had to prey upon
widespread economic ignorance to manage to put it into place.

------
dahdum
Investments compound and retirees have had a lifetime to take advantage of
that, if they chose to save. Not surprising to see that inequality widens as a
result. I don't think it's necessarily a negative as long as basic needs are
still taken care of.

I save aggressively and will certainly be on the high end of retirement
incomes, but I've made the choice to forgo today for tomorrow.

~~~
trentmb
> but I've made the choice to forgo today for tomorrow.

Problem is that choice is a luxury

------
randyrand
You mean how successful we are earlier in life affects how much money we'll
have later in life? This is an outrage. We shouldn't allow people to be
rewarded for their success.

~~~
mikestew
Unless you can point me to where the article suggest anything of the sort, I’m
calling “straw man”. Someone will be along shortly with the appropriate
Wikipedia link.

~~~
dmitrygr
It says it here: _Income inequality in the United States spills over from the
job into the last decades of life_

