21
Not planning on retirement is OK
Tim Eavenson
To view this content, Javascript must be enabled and Adobe Flash Player must be installed.
TEXT OF COMMENTARY
Kai Ryssdal: It's early yet to know exactly what the collective loss of wealth is going to mean for us all. But some things are going to have to change, retirements among them. Some people are going to have to stop working later than they'd planned or, perhaps, not retire at all. Commentator Tim Eavenson says he'd be OK with that.
Tim Eavenson: I'm fairly convinced that retirement is a scant possibility for me, but that's not so bad. At age 28, I am fully prepared to work until my dying day. I can't afford to contribute to a 401(k) because I don't have any income left over at the end of the month. I have approximately zero in savings and $200,000 in student loan debt. I do believe that Social Security's going to last a while, but not until I am 75, or 85, or whatever they change the retirement age to by the middle of the 21st century.
Honestly, what I'm hoping for right now -- my best-case scenario -- is that I can make a little more down the road, and pay off my loans before my kids turn 18 so I can get them through college, and sock enough away to become a part-time counsel somewhere when I'm older.
I'm not bitter. Honestly, the concept of retirement seems a little selfish to me. I mean, expecting to retire is a luxury just a few generations old -- it's not exactly the entitlement people like to call it. I would happily give it up in exchange for some other benefits. For example, I would love it if the government could somehow fold Social Security money, if there is any, into funding for single-payer health care. I'd work until my hands fell off if I knew my son could go to the doctor and we wouldn't have to file for bankruptcy.
Plus, if I didn't have to think about affordable health insurance, I'd have more freedom in choosing where to work, instead of my plan now, which is to get into the biggest corporate mega-firm possible so I can insure my family for under $1,000 a month.
I mean, money is meant to be used to make us happy anyway, right? Why would I want to wait until I was in my 70's to be happy? If I ever have enough money to put away, I think I'd put it to use. I'd rather feel the pride of watching my kids graduate, knowing they won't be saddled with the debt that I had. Or take vacations with my wife in our youth. Or actually pay off a mortgage. You know, crazy stuff like that.
Kai Ryssdal: Tim Eavenson is an attorney in Chicago, Ill. He
writes about labor law when he's not lamenting retirement.
Pages
Wow, what a niave and idiotic mindset. I used to think educated people were more likely to make smart financial decsions being one myself. Recent economic events have shown this to be an erroneous assumption however. Mr. Eavenson is typical of the liberal, Obama-loving young professionals who have helped to run this country of course and have no concept of financially responsible behavior. Mr. Eavenson shows his ignorance when he says he wishes the government could fole the socail secuirty money(if there is any) into funding single payer health care. You sir are an idiot.
There is money in social secuirty to fully fund curent entitlements for those in there mid 50's and up, and even after that 75% of full benefits are funded for younger benficiaries. If the govt. sells the bonds it is holding in trust for social secuirty, the program will be fully funded until around 2037, so yes Timmy there is a Santa Claus. This money is allocated to social security, not helthcare, so no despite your brilliant plan we cannot fund socialist healthcare through social security. I would think an attorney would have more common sense and better research skills.
I agree with the author.As a 21 year old trying to pay for college without loans,its a mathematical given that if you're in the hole by $100,000 to a bank in non-dischargeable debt saving any money will be nigh-impossible.I wouldn't be surprised if his monthly 200K student loan payment is more than the car or rent note-and you can't skip that bill.
Since you must take more schooling to earn the degree that pays more,its an increasing function.Bottom line is,my generation's retirement funds are spent on college tuition.
I commend the author on seeing the financial reality of his situation,and that he is still determined to live his life as he sees regardless.Too many of my peers owe 2 BMW's worth in debt and still think they're going to retire with no plan and no clue.
And I'm desparately trying to keep my $7000 in student loans from growing any larger.
Its intriguing how the wealthiest nation taxes its youngest and brightest with a life sentence of debt.Its not a feeling that the boomers can understand if they haven't attended university recently.
I agree with the author.As a 21 year old trying to pay for college without loans,its a mathematical given that if you're in the hole by $100,000 to a bank in non-dischargeable debt saving any money will be nigh-impossible.I wouldn't be surprised if his monthly 200K student loan payment is more than the car or rent note-and you can't skip that bill.
Since you must take more schooling to earn the degree that pays more,its an increasing function.Bottom line is,my generation's retirement funds are spent on college tuition.
I commend the author on seeing the financial reality of his situation,and that he is still determined to live his life as he sees regardless.Too many of my peers owe 2 BMW's worth in debt and still think they're going to retire with no plan and no clue.
And I'm desparately trying to keep my $7000 in student loans from growing any larger.
Its intriguing how the wealthiest nation taxes its youngest and brightest with a life sentence of debt.Its not a feeling that the boomers can understand if they haven't attended university recently.
It is this man's thinking why we as a society are in the debt we are in on a personal basis. I prefer to save and invest my money...why? I dont like wasting my money on stuff I will eventually sell at a garage sale for pennies on the dollar and/or have to carry around until I die. I've been doing/thinking like this since age 22 and now have more money at 26 then most people 20 years my senior. Remember every dollar you make you have a choice, save/invest or spend. The choice is yours, just like your life.
I am very dissapointed in Marketplace for running this story. If a 28 year old lawyer can't save for retirement, what hope do the rest of us ever have? Marketplace should be encouraging young Americans to save for retirment in all markets. I don't think Social Insecurity will be their for us Gen Xers. Maybe it will pay for food or your rent. Not a pleasure to retire on.
I think, with a budget most can save for the future. It is hard to believe he doesn't have any saving on his lawyers salery. I would guess he needs to live within his means, as we all should. I would reccomend he read Dave Ramsey's books or better yet listen to his radio broadcasts. Here are the basics,
*$1,000 to start an Emergency Fund
*Pay off all debt using the Debt Snowball
*3 to 6 months of expenses in savings
*Invest 15% of household income into Roth IRAs and pre-tax retirement
*College funding for children
*Pay off home early
*Build wealth and give!
*Invest in mutual funds and real estate
If normal middle class people can follow this plan I know a lawyer could follow this plan and plan his life and live with intent.
It seem a bit odd to ask a 28 year old about retirement plans. At 28 I didn't really comprehend retirement. I'd only recently made it off welfare. However, by the time I was 30 I started planning. I stuck with things I understood and could control myself. It has worked out pretty well and would work again for people in that age range. Buy rental housing where the rents will make the mortgage payments and manage the properties yourself. It is a 2nd part time job, but not too bad if you stick to safe neighborhoods. If you start at 35, the 30 year mortgage will be paid off by the time you hit 65. I figured that values would track inflation and the rents from 6 paid-for units would cover us in retirement. I never got on the cash out re-fi wagon. Even in the go-go times, I worked toward having everything paid for.
We've had a wrench thrown in our plans with my husband's layoff at 58, but the mortgages are now quite small so we will muddle through somehow.
listening while driving home for family practice- where patients are working in factories 10-12hr per day, 6-7d a week
if they can't put up with it- therefore
50yr or older management doesn't care
overuse injuries- sooo- this young man
is nice but not in factory world- he is lucky
I believe many of you have lost sight of what Tim is saying here. many are projecting what i can only assume is their own set of difficulties onto his long term plan, and *of course* that wont work. If he worked in a coal mine it *would* be silly to suggest he could work there till he died of old age (of course he'd probably never reach "old age" working in a coal mine but thats aside the point). Tim has chosen a profession that is likely he can sustain well after he becomes physically frail. and while it is true that line of work is not open to everyone, the person working a minimum wage job didn't pay $200,000 to do so. Ms. Sterns seems to be embittered by watching her own retirement disappear, that is something that both Tim and i (age 26) would rather avoid seeing. she claims that our inexperience with cancer, arthritis and the like make us "too young for this topic." but i propose that perhaps she is too old for this topic. the perils brought on by the "entitlement generation" are the torture stake my generation must bear. personally i think it is a noble and honorable thing to have committed ones self lifelong to their profession. i can recall both a personal Doctor and a Plumber who worked well into their late 80's. the Doctor had plenty of wealth to retire on if he so desired, but he LOVED what he did. he HELPED others and did not selfishly deny my family his decades of experience by retiring. the plumber was not a rich man but he was not destitute and had more vitality than most people in their 60s. oh, and heres the point, both of them were happy! i don't feel i can speak for Tim, but for my part, its not in me to reap what i did not sow, and i don't think that i am paying for the work of previous generations be cleaning up their mess, not by paying them to sit on their laurels because by some twisted sense of entitlement they somehow 'deserve' it. before Social Security people worked till they died or till they could work no longer, and then their family took care of them, thats true social security. i will work till i die or my family must care for me and i have confidence that my family will want to take care of me because i'm not chasing retirement, i'm chasing a happy family.
"My first reaction is to confirm something I have noticed in my ten years in Washington, DC, that the current college-aged generation has borrowed a lot to finance their very expensive higher education..."
This is the crux if you ask me. After racking up 77K in student debt, I advise every young adult I meet to take a full time position doing ANYTHING for a major corporation full time. Let them offer health insurance and pay for your education. I did it the stupid way by working part time with no benefits and making ends meet with crap pay and student loans. I used to joke that I had decided to buy an education instead of a house, a bit more relevant for Tim.
And as for SS, anyone our age (I'm 30) ought to know that we are paying for our grandparent's medicaid today, not our future safety net. In my family, retirement means you physically can't work anymore, so I can understand why some people misunderstood what Tim was getting at. I have also met boomers that were able to put away the recommended million or two - although I wonder how they are doing now. But I have to agree, I have and will continue to take lesser paying jobs if they offer better benefits. Although, I have made room to contribute 1% to the 401k. And really Tim, I proimise, you won't miss that little bit. Let your company match you, let it build up on its own, it even decreases your taxes. If you don't you are just throwing away the only free money in the country.
In response to some of the earlier posted comments, I do not find Tim Eavenson's opinions to be naive or too early formed. Why should we leave an older generation of workers to speculate about the state of retirement in 40 years? Rather people entering the work force in their 20's and 30's should be contemplating the future-- their future-- of retirement and health care.
Pages
