Low interest rates at the same time baby boomers are retiring

[Charles Kozierok]

But yet people are entitled to all sorts of things are they not?

Not in my opinion.

 

[Doppel]

Many of these seniors are off loading their houses. If interest rates were higher the housing crash would have been far worse. In fact, it's pretty obvious that housing is still on life support and that life support is low interest rates. If they went higher housing would crash fantastically and these seniors downgrading house sizes or moving into other homes would be even more fvcked.

Honestly, I frankly have a lot more sympathy for young people today, who are: SCREWED. Crap tons of debt facing a much worse employment situation.

Save your sympathy, seniors don't need it:

 

[nobodyknows]

Many of these seniors are off loading their houses. If interest rates were higher the housing crash would have been far worse. In fact, it's pretty obvious that housing is still on life support and that life support is low interest rates. If they went higher housing would crash fantastically and these seniors downgrading house sizes or moving into other homes would be even more fvcked.

Honestly, I frankly have a lot more sympathy for young people today, who are: SCREWED. Crap tons of debt facing a much worse employment situation.

Try getting a loan or buying a house when the money market was paying 16%.

How about a link to your graph

 

[glenn1]

It's not all about you. People need a fair return on their cash and they aen't getting it.


The hights rate I see is 1.65% APY. Are you kidding me? If you like low interst then you must like Obama's deficit too.

There's a borrower for every lender; low returns on their cash means lower interest rates on my mortgage and credit cards. Your desire to help one subset of people in the economy (boomers/savers) doesn't mean it's OK to screw over another (younger people/consumers).

 

[Texashiker]

There's a borrower for every lender; low returns on their cash means lower interest rates on my mortgage and credit cards.

According to the majority of people on ATOT, they never pay interest on their credit cards and get a free cruise every year with their rewards points.

But that is all besides the point.

The thing is, the younger generation should be able to afford higher interest rates then the older generation can do without.

I think part of the problem with low interest rates is the banks making loans to people who could not afford to pay the loan back. And now everyone is hurting.

 

[nobodyknows]

There's a borrower for every lender; low returns on their cash means lower interest rates on my mortgage and credit cards. Your desire to help one subset of people in the economy (boomers/savers) doesn't mean it's OK to screw over another (younger people/consumers).

Neither does your desire to help one subset of people over another.

So cut the "free market" BS and explain to me how it's OK for the government to loan out (print) so much money as to screw over the folks who bothered to save money.

 

[Exterous]

emc and cisco have not seen $100 a share in years.

You're right - in fact Cisco has NEVER hit $100 a share. Perhaps you would like to amend your statement with a correct one?

How many people lost their retirement when enron crashed? The investors had been told the company was solid and a good investment.

Then there was the tech bubble a few years ago. When I bought cisco and emc stock both were over $100 a share and had a solid track record.

(snip)

Then there was the housing bubble.

So what are the people supposed to do?

Since you apparently think buying two stocks with outrageous P/E (Cisco hit triple digits a couple of times and got as high as 130 http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-NV961_CSCOPE_K_20110511092054.jpg.) is a good idea I would recommend an index fund. If you had invested $10,000 in Vanguard's VTSMX around the height in Cisco's stock price you'd have somewhere between $14,000 and $16,000 today. If you put in another $10,000 in early 2002 taht return would have doubled

 

[Texashiker]

You're right - in fact Cisco has NEVER hit $100 a share. Perhaps you would like to amend your statement with a correct one?

Nope, because my post reflects the heart of the statement.

A lot of people lost a lot of money from the tech crash a decade ago.

 

[glenn1]

Neither does your desire to help one subset of people over another.

So cut the "free market" BS and explain to me how it's OK for the government to loan out (print) so much money as to screw over the folks who bothered to save money.

I don't think it's OK. I oppose the unprecedented and completely wrong-headed wide open fiscal and monetary policies being run by both the Fed and government. I oppose quantitative easing, the massive deficit spending stimulus, the massive bailouts of favored industries (financial services, automotive, etc), short-term market fixes (e.g. prohibiting short sales, etc), and the regulatory environment of "make it up as you go along" that's prevailed for the last few years. Every one of them has helped foster a Japanese style zombie economy that won't end until the feds and government stop trying to artificially prop up asset values, save people from recognizing their losses, and allow major players to be shielded from their own bad decisions.

 

[wirednuts]

In other words, you save for decades to have a nice retirement, then the banks strangle the return through low interest rates.

exactly why its hard for young guys like me to give a crap anymore about retirement. ive seen and heard of so many cases now where people saved their whole lives only to have inflation, low interest or total loss mitigating all of their efforts.

remember when everyone thought social security was going to go away? theres no chance in hell now, because if it did there would be millions and millions of homeless old folks that arent even capable of holding a job. we would turn into india.

 

[nehalem256]

Nope, because my post reflects the heart of the statement.

A lot of people lost a lot of money from the tech crash a decade ago.

How many actually put all their money in at the exact top of the market?

If I invest $1000. And on paper it goes to $5000. But then crashes to $2000. Did I make $1000 or lose $3000?

 

[Texashiker]

exactly why its hard for young guys like me to give a crap anymore about retirement. ive seen and heard of so many cases now where people saved their whole lives only to have inflation, low interest or total loss mitigating all of their efforts.

If I was in my 20s, and was watching all of this stuff about the housing market crashing, price of student loans, job market, bank bailouts,,, I would probably lose faith in the system.

No wonder the number of boomerang kids is at an all time high.

On the other end of the spectrum we have the retirees barely scrapping by.

 

[glenn1]

You're right - in fact Cisco has NEVER hit $100 a share. Perhaps you would like to amend your statement with a correct one?

No, you're wrong. It's gone over 100 on more than one occasion in fact (link below shows most recent time in March 2000). You're simply not accounting for the multiple stock splits that CSCO has undergone that are normally adjusted on charts.

CSCO historical prices

 

[Exterous]

According to the majority of people on ATOT, they never pay interest on their credit cards and get a free cruise every year with their rewards points.

Every two years. Free cruise was last year and free round trip tickets to England next year

The thing is, the younger generation should be able to afford higher interest rates then the older generation can do without

Given the massive amounts of student loan debt the younger generation is taking on I am not sure thats true. Jack up the interest rates and they are going to be struggling to pay those off - which delays their retirement accumulation period even longer which means we are right back in the mess we have now of people having little to no retirement savings.

A lot of people lost a lot of money from the tech crash a decade ago.

Sure. And a lot of people gained a lot of money in 2002. People lost money in 2003. People gained money in 2004-07, lost money in 08, gained money 10,11,12...

There are ways to make money. I showed you the Vanguard index fund successfully did so. If you want the risk of picking stocks then you better be ready for the consequences (and do a damn better job than picking something with triple digit P/E!). If, instead you want the average returns then use an index fund. I am sorry you want sympathy or expect to make some point about how you picked really shitty stocks and lost money but that was your choice. People who are near retirement should not be 100% stocks or 100% cash. There are numerous examples of diversified portfolios offering above a 10% return since 1975 (even including the crashes!)
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162-37842760/how-to-build-a-diversified-portfolio/?pageNum=7&tag=contentMain;contentBody

 

[Exterous]

No, you're wrong. It's gone over 100 on more than one occasion in fact (link below shows most recent time in March 2000). You're simply not accounting for the multiple stock splits that CSCO has undergone that are normally adjusted on charts.

CSCO historical prices

Good point. My mistake

 

[glenn1]

Good point. My mistake

No worries. It's been so long ago now that your statement was accurate for practical intent.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Not in my opinion.

That is consistent.

Nevertheless things were taken from those who had planned and that is why they find themselves in a less than enviable situation. Corporate pension raiding is the foremost example.

 

[nobodyknows]

I don't think it's OK. I oppose the unprecedented and completely wrong-headed wide open fiscal and monetary policies being run by both the Fed and government. I oppose quantitative easing, the massive deficit spending stimulus, the massive bailouts of favored industries (financial services, automotive, etc), short-term market fixes (e.g. prohibiting short sales, etc), and the regulatory environment of "make it up as you go along" that's prevailed for the last few years. Every one of them has helped foster a Japanese style zombie economy that won't end until the feds and government stop trying to artificially prop up asset values, save people from recognizing their losses, and allow major players to be shielded from their own bad decisions.

Politicians on both sides do it. They just spend the money on different things. Funny how so many people are again worried about the deficit now that the money isn't being spent on war, defense like it was. Coincidence? I think not.

 

[glenn1]

Politicians on both sides do it. They just spend the money on different things. Funny how so many people are again worried about the deficit now that the money isn't being spent on war, defense like it was. Coincidence? I think not.

True, and it's equally frustrating. If spent on infrastructure or direct debt relief for citizens we would have at least had something to show for it.

While the Iraq war certainly appears like a debacle in hindsight, it was certainly a closer decision in the moment (and before we knew the truth about WMD in Iraq). Even now, I see a small sliver of redeeming grace in it - invading Iraq on suspicion of WMDs will mean future invasions on the same premise are probably off the table (sorta like how the decision to nuke Hiroshima might have prevented a full-blown nuclear war later). Think of how much worse it would have been if we'd passed on Iraq and invaded Iran instead on the same reasoning.

 

[wirednuts]

If I was in my 20s, and was watching all of this stuff about the housing market crashing, price of student loans, job market, bank bailouts,,, I would probably lose faith in the system.

No wonder the number of boomerang kids is at an all time high.

On the other end of the spectrum we have the retirees barely scrapping by.

im turning 30 soon. when i started working at 16, the future was so bright. and i chose a skilled trade thinking that would future proof me. then 2006 hit, which was the real start of the economy bubble bursting (housing market). i thought "man this sucks that a few years of my career will basically be put on hold because people are dumb"

then 2008 hit, and that spring i was telling people at work "hey guys, its coming. everyone is going to lose their ass. housing market has been freefalling for 2 years, and now banks have to pay for it, which they wont"

people laughed at me. "this is america, we will always have money". yeah. then october 2008 hit. redemption isnt always sweet that is for sure.

now, like 6 years after my career initially got hit, im to the point where my own union has screwed me over so bad ill never work for one again. if im going to live poor, ill be poor thats fine but im not going to work for a bunch of old incapable jackasses that havent put a toolbelt on in a decade. you guys can have whats left of your union- wisconsin is going to be a right to work state anyway very soon.

 

[wirednuts]

True, and it's equally frustrating. If spent on infrastructure or direct debt relief for citizens we would have at least had something to show for it.

While the Iraq war certainly appears like a debacle in hindsight, it was certainly a closer decision in the moment (and before we knew the truth about WMD in Iraq). Even now, I see a small sliver of redeeming grace in it - invading Iraq on suspicion of WMDs will mean future invasions on the same premise are probably off the table (sorta like how the decision to nuke Hiroshima might have prevented a full-blown nuclear war later). Think of how much worse it would have been if we'd passed on Iraq and invaded Iran instead on the same reasoning.

um... im pretty sure we have had satellites on iraq even before the 80's. i think the government knew full well there was no WMD's there anymore. it was just a very convenient excuse because WMD's equal TERRORISM or at least it seems like it to most people.

 

[Jhhnn]

If I was in my 20s, and was watching all of this stuff about the housing market crashing, price of student loans, job market, bank bailouts,,, I would probably lose faith in the system.

No wonder the number of boomerang kids is at an all time high.

On the other end of the spectrum we have the retirees barely scrapping by.

Well, yeh, but America's wealthiest are doing better than ever, sitting tight on the oodles of liquidity gained in the runup to the housing crash, and to selling short while it did.

Go figure.

 

[Jhhnn]

True, and it's equally frustrating. If spent on infrastructure or direct debt relief for citizens we would have at least had something to show for it.

While the Iraq war certainly appears like a debacle in hindsight, it was certainly a closer decision in the moment (and before we knew the truth about WMD in Iraq). Even now, I see a small sliver of redeeming grace in it - invading Iraq on suspicion of WMDs will mean future invasions on the same premise are probably off the table (sorta like how the decision to nuke Hiroshima might have prevented a full-blown nuclear war later). Think of how much worse it would have been if we'd passed on Iraq and invaded Iran instead on the same reasoning.

Your apologisms make me wanna puke.

A close decision? GWB told his cabinet to find him a way to invade Iraq at their first meeting, per O'Neill, and 9/11 was the way, and an utterly dishonest one at that.

 

[glenn1]

Your apologisms make me wanna puke.

A close decision? GWB told his cabinet to find him a way to invade Iraq at their first meeting, per O'Neill, and 9/11 was the way, and an utterly dishonest one at that.

Go ahead and puke then; your mind is obviously made up and has revised history to suit your position. You're ignoring that at the time Congress passed an authorization of force, UN resolutions were in place allowing the strike, huge public majorities supported action, and there was widespread agreement among most politicians of both sides that a WMD program of some sort was being undertaken. Your side put all its chips on stopping the invasion and lost big, same as the GOP did for Obamacare.

 

[nehalem256]

Go ahead and puke then; your mind is obviously made up and has revised history to suit your position. You're ignoring that at the time Congress passed an authorization of force, UN resolutions were in place allowing the strike, huge public majorities supported action, and there was widespread agreement among most politicians of both sides that a WMD program of some sort was being undertaken. Your side put all its chips on stopping the invasion and lost big, same as the GOP did for Obamacare.

I thought the Democrats voted to authorise the use of force and then flip-flopped on it.

But obviously that was just because Bush cast a spell on them