>He claims it's "ridiculous" to expect people to save responsibly. Yet it happens in east asia, and it happened historically in the west.
Ive worked in east asia. The retirement conditions are attrocious, and grand masses of old people get f... all, or have to work till they are 70+ to the worst McJobs.
Back to the west now:
It's not about "responsibillity" and saving and investing etc.
For one it's about inequality. A $100K a year programmer can think ahead and make "investent decisions" and "savings". A hand-to-mouth low wage worker cannot. This "be responsible" things, basically says "screw them". And no, its no less egotistical and silly when it comes from "I started poor but made it, others are just lazy etc" outliers.
Second, its about power. Again, the upper middle class can negotiate better wages, and better medical coverage or retirement / insurance packages. The poor, not so much. And even less have they the skills to evaluate invenstent options.
Third, a bad turn, a sudden costly illness, a fraud and there goes your retirement fund.
This general attitude reflects bad upon society. It basically amounts to "we're not a real society, we're a every-man-for-himself race, and screw those that couldn't make it". People that don't care if a 70 year old is working every day at a Walmart or begging for change, are not society material, in my European mind.
Excellent response. I would just like to add that I've heard it pointed out many times since the 2008 financial crisis that, e.g., China's extremely high savings rates have been a drag on its economic recovery. The level of consumption required for growth can't happen if the vast majority of your population is neurotically saving every penny for retirement because they know there's no safety net.
Another point that the article makes is that these savers are rarely making "investments" that would meaningfully help the economy down the road (a possible argument against nudging them towards consumption). They're "stuffing it under the mattress," parking it in the safest investments they can find (cf. lower-middle-class America watching Glenn Beck and then rushing off to buy gold from his advertisers). Or at best, they're entrusting it to a "guy" (as described in TFA) who does roughly the same thing for them, while providing a nice placebo effect that makes them believe they're "investing."
For what it's worth, before I was a programmer I was a biology technician, living in Boston (a very expensive place to live) making 32k a year.
I still managed to max out my personal IRA as well as hit the match on my employer's 401k. Sure, I was single and living cheaply...but that's the point. Live within your means and contribute to retirement. You don't need to make 100k.
>I still managed to max out my personal IRA as well as hit the match on my employer's 401k. Sure, I was single and living cheaply...but that's the point.
The point is if you're not making enough money don't have a family? Or choose between family/kids etc and retirement?
I'm not entirely certain of your statement (grammar), but I think it may also argue for not having a family before you are financially capable of having one.
Having a family is a privilege, not a right. You should only have one when you can afford to house, clothe and feed them as well as contribute to your own retirement. You wouldn't take a vacation to Tahiti if you can't afford to buy bread for yourself to eat...why do people think it's ok to raise a family on a salary that is not sufficient?
You got it, pal. You are not the real society. And once the USSR is gone, nothing can limit the corporate greed anymore, so more and more people will be delusioned, separated, fed to machines and thrown away for the sake of the immediate profit.
That would be valid if USSR ever given anything like tolerable life conditions for the vast majority of its population. It didn't. Something that was shit and got worse shouldn't much of a concern.
It did. You are nit even 40% close now to the living standard we had in the USSR. Top notch education for everyone, the best public transit almost for free, more than enough cheap energy, and tech even now beyond your imagination. We even had the better Internet, although not for civilians. And man, our robots had really been on the Moon :-)
Nonsense. I lived in USSR. Subsistence farming was the main source of food - i hardly remember eating anything except bread which would came from the shop, not the family plot. And yes, my parents were Ph.D.s and worked in space program - kind of people that would fly first class would they be in the USA.
We may argue a lot about capitalism vs socialism, but however dire things may end up in the U.S., no American would ever escape on a homemade raft into Cuba.
Ive worked in east asia. The retirement conditions are attrocious, and grand masses of old people get f... all, or have to work till they are 70+ to the worst McJobs.
Back to the west now:
It's not about "responsibillity" and saving and investing etc.
For one it's about inequality. A $100K a year programmer can think ahead and make "investent decisions" and "savings". A hand-to-mouth low wage worker cannot. This "be responsible" things, basically says "screw them". And no, its no less egotistical and silly when it comes from "I started poor but made it, others are just lazy etc" outliers.
Second, its about power. Again, the upper middle class can negotiate better wages, and better medical coverage or retirement / insurance packages. The poor, not so much. And even less have they the skills to evaluate invenstent options.
Third, a bad turn, a sudden costly illness, a fraud and there goes your retirement fund.
This general attitude reflects bad upon society. It basically amounts to "we're not a real society, we're a every-man-for-himself race, and screw those that couldn't make it". People that don't care if a 70 year old is working every day at a Walmart or begging for change, are not society material, in my European mind.