Back to work! Retired people re-enter the workplace.

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,559
4
0
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...al_meltdown_retirement

Stock losses take heavy toll on retirement savings By DAVID PITT, AP Business Writer
Wed Oct 1, 5:59 PM ET



So close and yet so far. It's a frustration being felt by Americans who thought the finish line to their working life was almost in sight.

The financial crisis that toppled major Wall Street banks and snarled credit markets around the world has also taken a toll on nest eggs, forcing people to rethink when ? and even if ? their savings will allow them to retire.

More than half of people surveyed in an Associated Press-GfK poll released Wednesday said they worry that they will have to work longer because the value of their retirement savings has declined.

Denise Edwards, 62, now expects to work for at least another decade selling condominiums because of the damage to her and her husband John's retirement savings.

"We just have to work for as long as possible. And we're going to have to count on our (two) daughters," said Edwards, who lives in a Virginia suburb of Washington.

In the last four years, Edward's IRA has hovered at about the same level, and the couple's other savings of less than $1 million have taken a double-digit hit this fall. They also still owe $425,000 on a house with a market value of $650,000.

The meltdown in the markets comes as pensions are being eliminated. The burden is increasingly on individuals to manage their own 401(k) plans and invest in the market.

In 1980, 60 percent of workers were covered by defined-benefit pension plans and just 17 percent relied on defined-contribution plans, such as a 401(k), according to the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College.

By 2004, the numbers had changed dramatically: 11 percent of workers were covered by defined-benefit plans and 61 percent were covered by defined-contribution plans.

"I think what this catastrophe in the financial markets highlights is how vulnerable this approach to retirement makes people," said Alicia Munnell, director of the center. "Their welfare depends on market gyrations. They can be very responsible and still end up being hurt."

Fifty-five percent of people surveyed for the AP-GfK poll said they were worried that the financial crisis would reduce their savings and force them to postpone retirement. The poll, conducted Sept. 27-30, was based on phone interviews with a nationally representative sample of 1,160 adults. It had a margin of error of 2.9 percent.

Investors have endured a rough ride in the market. The third quarter's decline of 4.4 percent marked the Dow's fourth straight quarter of losses ? the longest losing streak since a five-quarter drop that ended in 1978.

And it's not just that their investments have declined by nearly 24 percent since last October. It's the worry that the market won't make up those losses anytime soon.

Morningstar Vice President John Rekenthaler said investors can expect to wait as much as three years to recover the market losses they see in their 401(k) or other investment accounts.

The five bear markets since the 1960s have lasted an average of 3.4 years from the beginning of the decline to recovery, according to Morningstar's Ibbotson Associates.

For some Americans, the solution is to delay the retirement party.

Twenty-nine percent of people in their late 60s were working in 2006, up from 18 percent in 1985, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Over the next decade, the number of workers who are 55 and older is expected to increase at more than five times the rate of the overall work force, the BLS reported.

Cherie Miller, 55, of Crawfordville, Fla., retired a month ago after 35 years in a secretarial job at Florida State University. But she will start a new job next week, working in an elementary school cafeteria, to make ends meet.

Her pension pays about $1,200 a month. But because she's too young for Medicare, and because her husband Robert, 57, is a self-employed golf course equipment repairman, she needs to spend about $1,100 monthly for health insurance.

"That insurance is so high that I'm going to have to continue to work just so I have insurance," she said. "And just the way the stock market is going right now, it's kind of scary."

Miller's pension is split about evenly between a money market account and a conservative fund made up mostly of bonds.

Bryan Hancock, a certified financial planner in Birmingham, Ala., said if investors have a well thought-out investment plan, they shouldn't need a sudden change of course. People who are close to retirement should avoid heavy investments in stocks, he said.

As a result, many advisers say investors may want to revisit their portfolio allocation ? the mix of stocks and bonds ? to assess if it's appropriate for their risk tolerance and the number of years left to retirement.

For 65-year-old John Howe, everything has been called into question.

"Oh, my God, I'm going to have to work until they put me in the hole!'" said Howe, 65, of Kingsville, Texas, joking about the market's historic drop earlier this week.

He had planned to retire in less than a year from his job as chief operating officer of a shipping and storage container company. But Howe and his wife, Linda, a retired teacher, now have reason to question their goal of building a home in Austin.

"The jury's still out," Howe said. "If the market doesn't recover in a year, a year and a half, and our rollovers and IRAs and so on stay down, then that'll be a problem."






What's really scary about this is what would have happened if the Bush Social In-Security plan had passed. Imagine even far larger deficits and even more money wiped out of retirement accounts.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Retirement is a historical anomaly. Given that people are now living into their 80s and beyond, it's just not feasible for massive portions of the population to not contribute anything to the GDP.
 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,559
4
0
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Retirement is a historical anomaly. Given that people are now living into their 80s and beyond, it's just not feasible for massive portions of the population to not contribute anything to the GDP.


I guess in your America we should all just work til we die. Unless you are the super rich?
 

GoPackGo

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2003
6,517
586
126
Originally posted by: techs
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Retirement is a historical anomaly. Given that people are now living into their 80s and beyond, it's just not feasible for massive portions of the population to not contribute anything to the GDP.


I guess in your America we should all just work til we die. Unless you are the super rich?

I guess in your Amerika there is such a thing as a free lunch.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,569
6,711
126
We can only hope that in a few more years your own worthless kids will shoot you when you become more useless.
 

Sacrilege

Senior member
Sep 6, 2007
647
0
0
Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Originally posted by: techs
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Retirement is a historical anomaly. Given that people are now living into their 80s and beyond, it's just not feasible for massive portions of the population to not contribute anything to the GDP.


I guess in your America we should all just work til we die. Unless you are the super rich?

I guess in your Amerika there is such a thing as a free lunch.

Damn those old people, wanting to save money and accept some "Personal Responsibility."

BTW, cute K replacing the C.

Are you a German? Nazi or something?
 

Grunt03

Diamond Member
Jun 24, 2000
3,131
0
0
this is so not funny, I am almost at the 30 year mark in the military and cannot wait until I can retire.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Oh teh noes! The last thing the D's want to hear:
The burden is increasingly on individuals to manage their own 401(k) plans and invest in the market.
The only possible way to salvage the situation is... personal resposibility? Guess we're all screwed. When the government stops buying peoples' votes with all of these ridiculous programs, maybe people will wake up and we can get some responsibility back in government.
 

Special K

Diamond Member
Jun 18, 2000
7,098
0
76
I think many of them are in trouble because their asset allocation is not conservative enough for their age. Someone in retirement should be holding a good chunk of their portfolio in bonds and cash, which helps insulate them against the market's volatility.
 

bozack

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2000
7,913
12
81
umm why at 62 would a real estate agent owe 450,000 on a 650,000 house? sounds a little decadent, and to rely on their two children for support is pretty shameful.
 

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,883
641
126
Originally posted by: Special K
I think many of them are in trouble because their asset allocation is not conservative enough for their age. Someone in retirement should be holding a good chunk of their portfolio in bonds and cash, which helps insulate them against the market's volatility.
Besides not owing $425,000 on a $650,000 house. She only thought she was close to retirement. Of course the media picked her as an example. Nice way to stoke the fires.

 
Oct 30, 2004
11,442
32
91
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Retirement is a historical anomaly. Given that people are now living into their 80s and beyond, it's just not feasible for massive portions of the population to not contribute anything to the GDP.

I think this might prove to be correct, but I wonder, what kinds of jobs will be available for these elderly people and how will they be able to find jobs that are not physically demanding while facing age discrimination? It's hard enough for people in their fifties to find white collar jobs as it is.
 

heyheybooboo

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2007
6,278
0
0
Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Retirement is a historical anomaly. Given that people are now living into their 80s and beyond, it's just not feasible for massive portions of the population to not contribute anything to the GDP.

I think this might prove to be correct, but I wonder, what kinds of jobs will be available for these elderly people and how will they be able to find jobs that are not physically demanding while facing age discrimination? It's hard enough for people in their fifties to find white collar jobs as it is.

""Hello! Welcome to Walmart!""
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Retirement is a historical anomaly. Given that people are now living into their 80s and beyond, it's just not feasible for massive portions of the population to not contribute anything to the GDP.

I think this might prove to be correct, but I wonder, what kinds of jobs will be available for these elderly people and how will they be able to find jobs that are not physically demanding while facing age discrimination? It's hard enough for people in their fifties to find white collar jobs as it is.

There is a push to bring older people in as consultants due to their experience. I expect my generation will work later in life. Our standard of living is much better than the 70 year olds today had at a similar time in their life.
 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,559
4
0
Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Originally posted by: techs
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Retirement is a historical anomaly. Given that people are now living into their 80s and beyond, it's just not feasible for massive portions of the population to not contribute anything to the GDP.


I guess in your America we should all just work til we die. Unless you are the super rich?

I guess in your Amerika there is such a thing as a free lunch.
In Bushes America there is.

 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Being a dick here, but I see no reason an able bodied blue collar adult who's not bothered to save much during his life should expect to sit and chill at 67 for another two decades.
 

DAPUNISHER

Super Moderator CPU Forum Mod and Elite Member
Super Moderator
Aug 22, 2001
31,820
31,892
146
They also still owe $425,000 on a house with a market value of $650,000.
Lost my sympathy right there, that is poor retirement planning imo. I am a 6 p's kinda guy, their situation fails my criteria.
 

chess9

Elite member
Apr 15, 2000
7,748
0
0
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
We can only hope that in a few more years your own worthless kids will shoot you when you become more useless.

LOL!

Don't give my kids any more ideas, moonie!

You are so naughty.

What many people here don't realize (I do because I'm older than dirt.) is that health conditions keep most older people from working. With better medical care, they can stay alive, but not make a meaningful contribution to GDP. Shooting them is certainly an option any civilized country should seriously consider.

-Robert
 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,373
1
0
Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Originally posted by: techs
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Retirement is a historical anomaly. Given that people are now living into their 80s and beyond, it's just not feasible for massive portions of the population to not contribute anything to the GDP.


I guess in your America we should all just work til we die. Unless you are the super rich?

I guess in your Amerika there is such a thing as a free lunch.

In my America, there should exist something in between. In my America, hard working citizens are not promised retirement as long as they make the kinds of decisions for over 40 years which they are told they can count on only to have them taken away last minute and the only response is "tough shit".
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Being a dick here, but I see no reason an able bodied blue collar adult who's not bothered to save much during his life should expect to sit and chill at 67 for another two decades.

Precisely.

Considering that people are completely unproductive for the 18-25 of their life, and living longer and longer means they're unproductive the last 15-25 years of their life (assuming they retire at 65) do people really think the world can continue to support people working less than 50% of their life?
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,569
6,711
126
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Being a dick here, but I see no reason an able bodied blue collar adult who's not bothered to save much during his life should expect to sit and chill at 67 for another two decades.

Being a dick does sometimes consist of not being able to see. If you do blue collar work till your are 67 you may then have some real notion as to how able bodies such people will be. You will also have some idea of the retirement he was promised and just how easy it is to save on his wage.

You may also find out, maybe like Grunt03 up there, what you gave up in the way of opportunities to earn more money for the sacrifice of his life to your country in exchange for a reasonable pension.

Maybe when you get old your children will nationalize your 401Ks to pay the deficit you gave them and kick you to the gutter.
 

Mursilis

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2001
7,756
11
81
Originally posted by: techs
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Retirement is a historical anomaly. Given that people are now living into their 80s and beyond, it's just not feasible for massive portions of the population to not contribute anything to the GDP.


I guess in your America we should all just work til we die. Unless you are the super rich?

No, we should all show up at your house for three hots and a cot, free of charge. A morally superior person such as yourself would never turn away the elderly, now would you?
 

IceBergSLiM

Lifer
Jul 11, 2000
29,932
3
81
They can't go back to work the business doesn't have money for their pay checks. Won't someone tell them.

I don't get what the big hoot is.....if these people were smart they would retire in south America and live like kings with maids and cooks. Why does a retired couple need a 650k house? 650K is a giant home with a maid and cook for 10 years in south america.