LogFAQs > #880655106

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, Database 1 ( 03.09.2017-09.16.2017 ), DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Are you a millennial and do you have a 401k? (or comparable retirement account)
Dynalo 06/08/17 11:45:56 AM #9:	Mead posted... mastermix3000 posted... I do but from what I've been hearing from the "Older Generation" it doesn't matter since I'm gonna be working for a while anyway (ok it does matter but I'd rather teach full time when I'm old with experience than actually "work") That statement has never really made sense to me. Right now we are paying for all the old baby boomers and once they pass away it seems like social security will be a lot more manageable. Been hearing for years that it won't be around by the time I'm old. I think people just like to spread doom and gloom. The main issue is that people are living for significantly longer than they were when the program was first implemented. It's the same issue a lot of companies (particularly government jobs) are running into with defined benefit retirement plans. These plans were all based on paying out to people for an average of 5-10 years, but now we're paying it out for an average of 20ish years and the number keeps climbing. This won't change when we get older either. The retirees can't outnumber the workers (or frankly, the numbers can't even be close), otherwise the people working will have to pay an obscene amount. These programs aren't designed for you to draw from them for as long as you contributed to it. --- Assassins do it from behind. <cite>Dynalo posted [p:880655106] in Are you a ... [t:75435633]...</cite> <quote><cite>Mead posted...</cite> <quote><cite>mastermix3000 posted...</cite> <quote>I do but from what I've been hearing from the "Older Generation" it doesn't matter since I'm gonna be working for a while anyway (ok it does matter but I'd rather teach full time when I'm old with experience than actually "work")</quote> That statement has never really made sense to me. Right now we are paying for all the old baby boomers and once they pass away it seems like social security will be a lot more manageable. Been hearing for years that it won't be around by the time I'm old. I think people just like to spread doom and gloom.</quote> The main issue is that people are living for significantly longer than they were when the program was first implemented. It's the same issue a lot of companies (particularly government jobs) are running into with defined benefit retirement plans. These plans were all based on paying out to people for an average of 5-10 years, but now we're paying it out for an average of 20ish years and the number keeps climbing. This won't change when we get older either. The retirees can't outnumber the workers (or frankly, the numbers can't even be close), otherwise the people working will have to pay an obscene amount. These programs aren't designed for you to draw from them for as long as you contributed to it. --- Assassins do it from behind.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1