You must be registered to comment and vote on comments.
What does it say about our government when they prosecute businesses for running ponzi schemes, yet they run one themselves? The average retiree in 1960 got back 7 times as much as the average worker today will receive when they retire when you factor in their invested money and interest on that money. The breakeven on the program was a person who retired in the 1990's.
Despite what Rubio & Ryan say, their philosophical austere alternative is social sacrifice and fearing the future. That is unless you are wealthy or inherit yourself to dignity in old age. The decisions are easy to rationalize until it is you or a family member that is broke, disabled, or suffering a serious medical demise in your declining years.
"Most of the pressure on the system comes from the fact that we've had great medical advances and people are living a lot longer than before." Yes, indeed, and many are in Nursing Home warehouses. Just because people are living longer, with artificially enhanced lifespans, doesn't mean a person will be fit enough to actually work until 70 years of age. Further, if you think that the young people are having a hard time finding jobs now, how much longer will they have to wait if the seniors hang on to jobs for many additional years. Also, what makes government officials think that companies will want older workers opposed to younger workers? I'm sure the job prospects will be great for laid-off 65+ year-old workers. All of this points to one fact--do not depend on the government for your retirement.
Your comment is being reviewed for inclusion on the site.
Comments will be reviewed before being published.
425 Portland Av. S.
Minneapolis, MN 55488
© 2013 StarTribune. All rights reserved.
StarTribune.com is powered by Limelight Networks