
To retire comfortably, under-40 workers need to seriously bulk up savings - petethomas
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/16/AR2010071606833.html
======
jarek
I realize this probably won't be the most popular of opinions around places
like this one, but the more I think about it, the more I conclude that leaving
everyone to individually save for their own retirement is not the best of
ideas.

There are far too many variables in the system for most people to navigate
successfully for 40 years straight, even if they are earnestly trying. You
could have an extemely well diversified portfolio and still lose money when
The Market as a whole tanks as a result of bad decisions of other people. You
could have money saved up in multiple savings accounts or bonds and be out of
luck when a government you didn't vote for fucks up and causes a period of
hyperinflation. I'm not even mentioning things utterly out of individual
control like a war resulting from an invasion by an aggressive, more powerful
neighbour.

Implementation details such as retirement age are very important, of course,
but a from mile-high view, providing a decent if not extraordinary living
standard to millions of people seems exactly like the type of infrastructure
and public good projects governments are normally the best option for.

/jarek, who nevertheless has more private savings right now than "a quarter of
those surveyed"

~~~
_delirium
That's basically why Social Security was first introduced, and I think it
still makes some sense. Looking at it in the other direction, it's more or
less a fact that a large proportion of people won't save for retirement.
Therefore, you have three choices: 1) a bunch of destitute and possibly
homeless old people; 2) some sort of after-the-fact spending to provide
emergency services/shelter/care for destitute elderly; or 3) some sort of
mandatory pension system to make sure elderly don't become destitute in the
first place.

People generally find #1 unpalatable, so the practical choices are #2 versus
#3: do we set up some sort of general pension system to make sure elderly make
at least a bare minimum income to stay off the streets (currently $20k/yr or
so), or do we instead set aside money to spend on housing and caring for
destitute elderly, e.g. through government-run nursing homes?

~~~
lionhearted
> Therefore, you have three choices:

You missed the one that was used for all of human history:

4\. Family ties, raise your kids well and establish that they should support
you in old age. Bonus: Also gives an incentive to keep strong, healthy
families together.

~~~
pavlov
There's another historical alternative:

5\. When an old person becomes useless, drug him senseless and throw him off a
cliff.

Allegedly this was customary among the ancient Sardinians in pre-Roman times.
The drug they used on the elderly before killing them induced a sinister
grimace, giving root to the expression "sardonic grin":

[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-
news/5344257/Myst...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-
news/5344257/Mystery-of-the-sardonic-grin-solved.html)

~~~
lionhearted
Facetiousness aside, that's a neat anecdote, but the point stands. Original
commentor said there were three options - destitute and possibly homeless old
people, after the fact emergency spending, or some sort of pension system.
That ignores family/community ties, which is in my opinion a much better
solution. You can disagree, but not even presenting it as an option is either
being disingenuous or missing a really obvious potential solution.

~~~
philwelch
The government can't mandate interdependent families and communities. Those
either happen or they don't. They can mandate social security.

Interestingly, the government can also mandate compulsory euthanasia for the
elderly.

~~~
s3graham
> Interestingly, the government can also mandate compulsory euthanasia for the
> elderly.

I can't see it happening with short-term elections to office.

------
watmough
Basically, if you're not either a Wall St trader, or in a government
retirement plan, or a company owner, then you're screwed.

Quote from the article:

"In other words, if you have saved just $25,000 -- and remember, that
describes about half of all workers -- you are less than 2 percent of the way
toward your goal. Your future definitely doesn't include cable."

My situation is that I have diligently saved 12-14% of everything I've ever
earned, in the 12 years I've been in the US, into a 401K.

Sadly in those twelve years, I've endured 2% mutual fund fees and two market
crashes, all of which hit my savings pretty hard. In fact, I lost money after
inflation is taken into account.

So at 42, I basically need to build something I can sell and assure myself of
some income over a reasonable time period. In my case as an engineer, I need
to build a software company.

I also need to stay healthy, live as cheaply as possible, and shed as many
expenses as possible once I get nearer to retirement. Boat or RV living looks
like a great way to do that. Certainly paying the fixed costs of a house or
apartment is going to be a killer for those on a small income.

~~~
brown9-2
I am not a financial advisor, but don't put everything into a 401k. Only put
the minimum required to get your employer's matching contribution (if
anything). But the rest of your intended retirement savings into an IRA, where
you can completely control what your money is invested in.

Hell you are probably better off putting a bunch of money into an index fund
that tracks the S&P500 and paying less expenses than the 401k funds do, for
the same or better performance.

Make sure you are still saving a sizeable amount of money in a traditional,
FDIC backed savings account, for emergencies.

~~~
nostrademons
My 401k _is_ an index fund. Or a couple of them, rather.

I dunno what other people's 401k plans look like, but I've got about as much
flexibility to invest as I do with my Roth IRA, and pay _less_ in fees. A lot
of that's because I knew more about finance when I set up the 401k, so I was
already on the index-fund bandwagon and didn't pick it because, say, my dad
had an account at the same firm.

Fund selection and account type are mostly orthogonal. The reason to decide
between a 401k, IRA, Roth IRA, or individual account are tax and withdrawal
considerations, not investment decisions. Then you make investment decisions
_within_ the account based on where you want your money to go.

~~~
derwiki
Withdrawal options are interesting. I always get conflicting information (from
financial advisors no less!) about the options for early withdrawal from a
Roth IRA. I think I'm finally comfortable (after confirming specifically with
my Roth IRA provider) saying that you can withdrawal from your Roth IRA as
long as it's only capital invested, and not money earned on that investment.

As spammy of a title as it is, Ramit Sethi's "I will Teach you to be Rich"
book is a great no-bullshit look at understanding your personal finances.

~~~
nostrademons
That's my understanding too, for the Roth IRA.

------
sachinag
My startup is working on exactly this problem. Our customer development
reinforces that people - of all ages - know intellectually that they're
supposed to save. But they have no idea how to start, or if they've started,
if they're actually on track to have a decent retirement.

You can request an invite for our preview at <http://www.blueleaf.com> and
shoot me an e-mail to sachin@blueleaf.com with HN in the subject and I'll make
sure you get in before we launch. If there are any pony requests - "someone
should really do [x]" - I'd love those too, even if you're not interested in
our preview.

~~~
mattculbreth
So this is cool, looks like a great app. Will it be as a service only, or will
you offer customers the chance to buy the software and run it on their own
hardware? I for one am leery of giving out all of my financial data.

~~~
sachinag
Webapp only for the foreseeable future. The security/privacy is something
we've spent a lot of time and effort on. (Our CTO is a crypto by trade with a
focus on financial applications: <http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/~cat/> ) Thanks!

~~~
cat
Mint.com has millions of users who have provided that information. That said,
in the medium to long term we're working on a unique solution that will permit
you to keep your usernames and passwords only on your local computer while
keeping the less sensitive data (transaction history, balances, etc.) on our
servers.

------
terra_t
I told the financial adviser that administers my 401K at my current job that
"it's clear that putting money in a 401K makes Wall Street rich, it's not
clear that it's making me rich."

There's a serious breakdown of trust between Main Street and Wall Street, and
it's got (at least) three angles: (i) I'm not confident that money I invest in
retirement plans is going to grow, or even keep it's value, (ii) I'm not sure
that the "system" currently knows how to distribute capital to places where it
will promote prosperous business (if it did, investment funds would be making
money...) and (iii) I'm worried that giving money to Wall Street is like
giving it to an enemy that's going to actively make my life worse: it's going
to go into lobbying to keep Washington D.C. corrupt an ineffective and it's
going to be used as a club to force businesses to eliminate jobs in the U.S.
and ship them out elsewhere.

Given that business, government and such doesn't have a vision that makes
sense five years down the road, never mind 25 or so when I retire, it's hard
to avoid a "carpe diem" attitude and to simply try to minimize your use of
financial services: spend what you make, don't borrow or save.

I've noticed some people here are enthusiastic about index funds; now, "seldom
is heard a disparaging word" about index funds, but personally I think they're
a lot more harmful than hedge funds could ever be.

I mean, index funds just spray money indiscriminantly at companies that are
lucky enough to be on some list. It gives the big shareholders a great
opportunity to collect rents, but it means that investors aren't doing there
job -- why does an investor deserve to get a return on capital? Because they
do some thinking about where they can put their capital to get a good return.
If you don't do that thinking, you don't deserve any return... Just as if if
you've got some job and you don't do your job... You don't deserve a paycheck.

"Bubblenomics" made index funds look brilliant from 1980-1999, but in the long
term, I think mass investement in index funds is one of the major reasons why
Wall Street doesn't work...

~~~
nostrademons
The interesting thing about index funds is that the better they work, the
worse they work. If _everybody_ put their money into an index fund, then
nobody would be actively researching stocks, and the valuations reflected in
the index would be wildly out of whack with respect to the true values of the
stock. But if _nobody_ puts money into an index fund, then we have a lot of
people chasing high returns, a very efficient price-discovery system, and
index funds that should return the exact mean of all your actively-managed
funds.

As a very broad heuristic, I take the size of the financial industry to be a
pretty good indicator of the efficiency of index funds. When the financial
industry is large, you have many eyes actively looking over stocks, an
efficient market, and index funds that should track the performance of the
underlying assets well. When the financial industry is small, you have fewer
eyes keeping an active watch on stocks, and so you're often better off
becoming one of them than sticking everything into a dumb index fund. Right
now, the financial industry is still pretty large.

As another interesting heuristic, I've found that oftentimes the best asset
class to invest in is the one that _everybody_ is _certain_ is a bad
investment. In the early 2000s, that was probably precious metals; in 2007, it
was cash. Both asset classes have zoomed up since then. You don't want to
invest in asset classes that people are actively looking at and decide are bad
investments, though (eg. penny stocks). You want asset classes that people
just take on faith to be bad investments.

~~~
terra_t
I find your arguments somewhat convincing, but I've got the feeling that the
"size of the financial industry" is one of the major reasons why it's not
working. The housing bubble, for instance, shows that it can make very bad
decisions -- I wonder if there is more money seeking a place to invest than
there are places where the money can be profitably invested.

~~~
nostrademons
There was some prominent economist (Greenspan? Krugman?) who agreed with you,
and blamed the recent string of bubbles on a "global savings glut", caused
mainly by Asian development and the high savings rates of the newly-wealthy
Asian middle class.

Anyway, I think there's a lot of truth to that, but you've got to work with
the zeitgeist you're given. When the financial industry is large, index funds
perform well _relative_ to actively managing your own money. They may still
perform poorly on an absolute scale. When capital is abundant, rates of return
for _everything_ go down.

You could also broaden things a bit to look at the economy as a whole. One of
the reasons I'm interested in entrepreneurship is that capital is abundant,
labor is abundant, and so logically the scarce resource would be their
complement: _innovation_. You'd expect rates of return for entrepreneurship to
skyrocket in a low-capital-cost, low-labor-cost environment like today. Which
seems to be the case. Innovation has a high barrier to entry though: you need
to have the skills and foresight to make something happen that wouldn't
otherwise happen. It seems, perhaps, that the best rates of return come from
investing in education in a narrow field of specialty that's broadly
applicable to many emerging technologies.

------
hugh3
This article needs to be printed everywhere, at all times.

I have no idea how some of the people I see every day are going to save up the
$1.5 million (in today's money) they'll need to retire. Half of 'em can't even
pay off their credit card bills every month.

~~~
jsz0
My retirement strategy is to die young. If I start making a lot more money or
my cost of living magically decreases over the next decade I might reconsider
this but otherwise I don't think social security is going to provide any
quality standard of living. If I can't continue to work (which I don't mind
doing) I plan to check out. (sad but true)

~~~
mechanical_fish
Okay, it takes effort to make me suspend my rule against politics on HN, but I
have my limits. If you are some kind of troll, I nominate you for an Academy
Award.

First: Social security is solvent, it will be solvent for years, and to fix it
will require a minor tax increase decades from now. Quit believing propaganda.

Second: Our future budgetary problems are nonetheless real. But they are all
about health care. If you really want to worry about balancing budgets in
2040, worry about that. Social Security is fine and will continue to be fine
unless somebody deliberately fucks it up. (By talking like a fatalist, as you
do, you inadvertently help the cause of the people who are trying to fuck it
up; that is why we are having this little chat.)

Third: The major problem in the USA today is that we have a _massive excess of
productive capacity_. Not only can the country afford to feed, clothe, house,
and entertain you quite nicely, but our biggest problem is that after we did
this we might _still_ have too much capacity. The economy is not well designed
for such a situation, and it needs fixing.

(Aside: The fix is called "stimulus", literally known as "printing money".
People won't spend money? Make them spend it now. Create new money and give it
away; make the old money move by threatening to inflate it away in the future.
That nobody in power understands this, or that they pretend not to, is an epic
failure of education and/or governance; the consequence will be millions of
impoverishments and, likely, early deaths, perhaps even your own. Tragedy
sucks.)

To the extent that the country _does not_ choose to feed, clothe, house, and
entertain you and everyone around you, it is a problem of government,
economics, and politics. It is not that we are physically incapable. It is
that we are not so organized.

The solution is to organize.

Where will "the money" come from? Money is not a physical thing, like
platinum. It's some numbers in a spreadsheet by which we keep score: If your
number is higher, you get to control more about what the economy does.

If you wake up and discover that all the money belongs to a handful of people
who have gamed the ruleset by which money is distributed, and that they are
failing to use their giant pile of money to direct the economy to keep
everyone else fed, clothed, housed, and entertained to the correct extent: You
change the rules, or you stop playing the game.

By many orders of magnitude, the best option is to change the rules. Or,
rather, to change one rule, to turn one knob that was _designed_ to be turned:
Raise taxes on the people with the money.

That anyone _contemplates suicide_ rather than go down fighting for this
simple rule change is a triumph of modern propaganda.

Get up out of the fetal position and be an American, for the love of all that
is holy.

~~~
byrneseyeview
_First: Social security is solvent, it will be solvent for years, and to fix
it will require a minor tax increase decades from now. Quit believing
propaganda._

Solvent in the sense that next month's check won't bounce? Or solvent in the
sense that if it were an independent entity entitled to its current revenue
streams, and nothing else, you'd happily buy someone's future SS income at 100
cents on the dollar?

Or, wait, solvent in the sense that if _I_ had a balance sheet that looked
like theirs, and I made the promises they make, I wouldn't be going to jail?

~~~
dionidium
Solvent in the sense that there's enough money to pay full benefits until the
late 2030's or early 2040's without any changes. And solvent in the sense that
minor adjustments to benefits or taxes will fix it beyond that.

[http://www.brookings.edu/multimedia/video/2009/0514_social_s...](http://www.brookings.edu/multimedia/video/2009/0514_social_security_aaron.aspx)

~~~
byrneseyeview
The accounting profession has created a term for entities that are _almost_
solvent, and can _almost_ pay off their debts. The term is "insolvent."

It's dangerous to have entities for which the clock is running out. What we
should aim for is the opposite: a social security system that's gradually
accumulating assets, and can eventually use that to offload its risks (by, for
example, paying a life insurance company to assume some of its obligations).

That way, 1) we know how much things cost, and 2) our problems are gradually
getting solved. Now, we have the opposite situation.

------
motters
A lot of things are likely to change over the next few decades, so I wouldn't
bank on retiring in the same way that people have done in recent history. The
whole notion of retirement is actually quite a modern concept, which really
only arose within the last century
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retirement>). There's going to be more
automation which will mean that people can work for longer, and I suspect that
the whole notion of what it means to "work" will change.

~~~
exit
> _There's going to be more automation which will mean that people can work
> for longer, and I suspect that the whole notion of what it means to "work"
> will change._

why doesn't automation eliminate the need for work?

~~~
motters
Automation has greatly reduced the amount of agricultural work, and jobs today
which we regard as central to the economy are also likely to be eventually
automated. Probably what constitutes "work" will change, and things we regard
as recreational today may become "work".

------
vaksel
frankly I think retiring in the U.S. just won't be a viable option for many
people...the cost of living is just too high.

I mean think about it....to retire properly, you need to pretty much put away
all your spare money for decades.

What I think will happen, is people will just start retiring to other
countries where the cost of living is so small, that you can live comfortably
on 10-15K a year.

~~~
iron_ball
I've heard that Costa Rica has a thriving American retiree community for
exactly that reason.

~~~
jacquesm
Which in the longer term will drive up the cost of living in Costa Rica.

------
mseebach
The whole thing gets a bit less scary if you decide to retire at 75, rather
than 65, which is not a problem if you take care of yourself, and don't have a
physically demanding job (which most of us don't). You need 1/3 less money and
have ten years longer to get it.

~~~
MikeCapone
You might not have a choice, though. Better be prepared for other scenarios
(bad health, etc).

------
Flemlord
$1.5M is a ridiculously high target. If you retire at age 60, you have a 20
year life expectancy (males) and 24 years for females. With $1.5M you can
spend $50k a year for thirty years without even factoring in continued
earnings on that money or $20k/year in social security payments. Once you do
factor those in, you'll die with more than the $1.5M you started with in
retirement funds.

~~~
tjogin
Right, and you'd have to save over three thousand dollars, every single month,
for forty years, to reach that goal.

~~~
thomaspaine
This math is grossly oversimplified...you're assuming zero interest. I'm on a
train and can't do the math right now, but compounding interest + other
variables like employer 401k contributions, tax shelters, etc make a huge
difference when doing this calculation.

------
code_duck
Maybe someone needs to start paying those under-40 workers what they're worth.
Perhaps salary increases should be considered annually in context of ACTUAL
cost of living increases, not fairy tale inflation figures? Well, executives
are having no problem hanging onto their savings. Actually, oh - they're
hanging on to our savings. Maybe it will start trickling down soon!

------
diN0bot
the hardest part for me to truly believe, since i'm currently in my 20s and
enjoy work, is that i'll _have_ to retire. is it true that when i get old i
won't be able to program/manage or find some kind of reasonably enjoyable and
sustainable employment? will my flaws, such as physical and possibly memory
constraints, out weigh my virtures, such as experience and knowledge? there's
so much unknown to getting old and i am so confident and able right now. do i
really need to be _scared_ of old age?

~~~
tallanvor
It's not about being scared, it's about being prepared. It's about making sure
you have the choice as to whether or not you'll be working when you are 70,
80, 90, or whatever age you start to feel old.

Do you live to work, or do you work to live?

------
exit
doesn't this problem reduce to the availability of labour?

i'd like to see a thorough accounting of how much labour is required to
maintain: our food supply, our residential properties, basic services, etc.

and i'd like to see that compared to current price of these things, to see if
they make any sense.

it makes no sense to me that as we've progressed technologically, it seems to
have become increasingly difficult to survive.

~~~
nostrademons
A lot of this has to do with marginal value. The cost of basic survival has
gone way down - but in the process, it's freed up a lot of disposable income,
so people build bigger, better, and yet less efficient ways of doing things to
soak up that extra money.

Health care's perhaps the biggest example. A hundred years ago, millions of
children died in infancy from things like measles, whooping cough, polio, etc.
Now this has been wiped out by vaccines that cost maybe a day's salary for a
parent (and cost the manufacturer probably pennies to make). Same with
antibiotics.

The money all gets spent on the other end of life. We now have the technology
to keep patients who would've died within the hour alive for months in an ICU.
That costs _millions_ , and doesn't work all the time. But when it does - how
can you put a price on that? What price is there on a father being able to see
his kids grow up, or a grandparent being able to meet their grandchildren?

The same goes for many other areas. We can build 1200-square-feet houses
pretty cheaply. But why bother, when there's some family that's willing to pay
over $1M for that 5000-square-feet McMansion?

I think a lot of the problem is that American culture is so damned
competitive. It's not enough to have _enough_ \- you also have to have more
than the neighbors. There's really no end to this game - it will _always_ be
possible to have something slightly better, it's just that it becomes
increasingly expensive the more you try to squeeze out.

------
marknutter
What if you don't plan to retire? If you're making money doing something you
love (in my case, web development), why would you ever need to retire? To
rest? To do all the things you've always meant to do but didn't make time for
when you were younger? To see the world?

I'd rather do that stuff while I'm young; learn a new language in my spare
time now, start that band now, travel to foreign countries now - hell, I can
do my work there if I need to. I think retiring makes sense for people
slogging it out 40 hours a week at jobs they hate, but it doesn't make sense
for those of us who actually find our work fulfilling.

~~~
hop
Web development may not be around in 20-40 years, certainly not in the way
it's done today. That said, I'm sure that type of technical ability will be in
demand, you may have to learn some new things.

~~~
marknutter
Well, I think the internet will be around in 20-40 years, and if you're not
constantly learning new skills then you're dead in the water anyways. I just
don't see retirement as the goal.

------
christkv
Its great to save up but imagine you get a chronic illness or cancer and you
have a 20% deductible on your insurance. Suddenly your life savings are gone
or seriously reduced.

------
TomOfTTB
First some advice you should take: Check out Bob Brinker
(<http://www.bobbrinker.com/portfolio.asp>)

I don't worry about retirement because when I was 19 years old and working in
the valley I happened to catch his radio show when he said to pull out of the
market. It saved me $20,000 that's still working for me today.

(The 10 year numbers might look low right now but keep in mind the Dow was
DOWN 14% in that same time frame)

Second some advice that's based on my semi-educated opinion: 401(k) is a scam
for anyone under 50. Yes your employer might match it but even the risky
portfolio of a 401(k) is usually very conservative and the guy running it
usually isn't the firm's star (no one ever got rich managing a 401(k)
accounts). If you're over 50 and can't afford to lose the money than go with
that but if you have some time I personally think it's better to take a little
risk and hopefully get a bigger reward.

~~~
gcheong
The big advantage of 401k is that it is a tax deferred account which can be a
good amount depending on your tax bracket. Also they don't have to be limited
to just a small number of funds, some companies also provide the option to
invest on your own( if this is not an option at you company, have a chat with
the person running the benefit plan) and if you leave you can roll it over to
a rollover IRA at any broker you want. Finally, if your company does provide a
match, that is money you are essentially throwing away for what is usually a
very small percentage of your salary.

~~~
watmough
You have written down the generally promulgated wisdom. i.e. what you're being
sold by Wall St and the Government.

However, if you actually need to withdraw any of these savings ahead of time,
you're looking at a 10% penalty. And who's to say that taxes won't have risen
on 'fat-cat' retirees in 10 or 20 years. Why not take the ( _known_ ) risk
now, pay your taxes and have _risk-free_ savings _now_.

What about another market crash?

Can you invest in property, or in metals, in a 401K?

Can you avoid 2% mutual fund fees.

I posted elsewhere in the thread, but think very carefully before pumping a
lot of money into a 401K. 20 years is a long time for the government to keep
the value of money stable, or for Wall Street to not sucker you in a crash, or
for fees to T Rowe Price to eat away your nest-egg.

If I had another opportunity, I'd sock 5% away in a 401K into Treasuries, and
put the rest in cash and metals. There's a reason banks have vaults with gold,
silver, platinum etc.

Answer this question: Do you trust Wall St and the government with your money
for 30 years for the small benefit of maybe a 10% tax saving, or do you
actually want to maintain the control of, and the value of that money, by
paying regular taxes on it now.

------
mrtron
My grandmother is in her 90s and mentally she is at 100%. She gets around a
little slower now.

That is a scary thought for some. She retired in her 50s!

~~~
code_duck
So, maybe she should be working!

~~~
mrtron
She has always been active in the community. Since retiring she has
volunteered at the hospital, nursing homes and in the community 5 days a week.

Combine that with her great-grandchildren and she is working a busy schedule!

~~~
code_duck
No doubt, one doesn't get to that age feeling fine without staying quite
active mentally and physically.

~~~
mrtron
Agreed - If I ever retire from paying work - I will still be working.

------
seltzered
My plan is one mentioned on NPR several years ago: retire, but work part-time
at a grocery store that has insurance benefits.

~~~
gaius
All these clever plans fall apart when everyone does them.

What are the barriers to entry to working part time in a grocery store? What
makes you think you can compete with a teenager who wants that job?

~~~
seltzered
fair enough. I'd still like to do some job that is more socially involved and
keeps me standing up every day, and talking to people. We have a fairly
wealthy guy in his sixties who decided to work as a manager just to have
something to do every day. Along with that my similarly-aged pension-era
parents are starting a business for the first time. My point is that
retirement isn't a requirement for living your older years. If anything
retirement is more of a nascent American concept.

------
known
Or migrate to countries that offer free health care.

~~~
gaius
There's no such thing as "free" - you mean healthcare paid for by their
taxpayers. Who might not be keen on non-contributors showing up and using
it...

------
bluedanieru
Yes save that money and watch it disappear down the rat-hole the next time
some Too-Big-To-Fail bank decides to raid whatever fund you've put it all in.

He's right, of course, that younger people need to save more because
institutions are failing all around us. Too bad he neglects that second
part...

------
known
I think globalization and internet will saturate
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_dream>

~~~
exit
i don't understand what you're saying.

