The Money Mustache Community
Around the Internet => Antimustachian Wall of Shame and Comedy => Topic started by: igthebold on July 05, 2012, 06:43:31 AM
-
http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/retirement/story/2012-06-26/how-many-years-do-baby-boomers-need-to-keep-working/56018244/1
I know we've seen stories like this before, but here's the sad reality for people who aren't willing to say, "no," to themselves until they're forced to.
-
In general, people have two options if they're not ready for retirement. They can work longer or save more. "I don't think people can save a lot more," Munnell said.
Working people have a lot of expenses, including raising children, saving for college and paying for cars, mortgages and health insurance.
Oh my god, what a colossal misunderstanding of how personal finance works. Your income does not 'just cover' your expenses such that if you're really lucky you can save a percent or two of your income. If you live that way, you are choosing to buy so much house, car, and college that you spend 98 or 99% of what you make. Seeing this in personal finance reporting absolutely drives me crazy, but I guess reporters want to tell people the news they want to hear.
-
Seeing this in personal finance reporting absolutely drives me crazy, but I guess reporters want to tell people the news they want to hear.
Can you imagine a mainstream news source saying, "Americans aren't willing to do what it takes to provide for themselves during retirement?" :P
-
Seeing this in personal finance reporting absolutely drives me crazy, but I guess reporters want to tell people the news they want to hear.
Can you imagine a mainstream news source saying, "Americans aren't willing to do what it takes to provide for themselves during retirement?" :P
That wouldn't be the big problem if mainsteam financial news suddenly decided to be honest.
It would be that they'd alienate their advertisers.
They'd have to be honest and tell people to avoid they bloodmoney suckers, but have you seen who advertises in (for example) Money Magazine?
High expense mutual funds, scummy annuities and life insurance companies, overpriced "advisor" companies, etc.
There would have to be articles saying "Don't purchase anything from our advertisers," and how long could you run a business like that?
-
That's a good point. They have to keep repeating that conception of things to keep both their audience and their advertisers. How long would they last? A month.
-
It would be that they'd alienate their advertisers.
This column was originally written for the Detroit Free Press, so while I'm sure there are advertising pressures, they probably aren't nearly as strong of a factor in a general newspaper as they would be in Money magazine. I actually wonder how much of the attitude is not even a conscious decision by the author, versus a simple reflection of her own perspective. She might *be* one of those people who doesn't save much and will have to work until she's 70, so it's natural for her to assume that's "normal" (especially since it *is* "normal"!)
Her last couple months worth of columns don't reveal her to be particularly sophisticated about money. She has two columns about CDs vs. none about equities. And one of the more revealing quotes from her:
I pulled out an old wooden box from my closet the other day and showed it to my husband. Many years ago, my Dad once put a ridiculously large sum of money in that box and left that box at my house out of the blue.
He thought it was funny because he knew I'd see that box as a piece of old junk.
Sorry to say, I'm not sure where the money ended up. I saved some at the bank and spent the rest but don't ask me on what.