484
submitted 10 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

The great baby-boomer retirement wave is upon us. According to Census Bureau data, 44% of boomers are at retirement age and millions more are soon to join them. By 2030, the largest generation to enter retirement will all be older than 65.

The general assumption is that boomers will have a comfortable retirement. Coasting on their accumulated wealth from three decades as America's dominant economic force, boomers will sail off into their golden years to sip on margaritas on cruises and luxuriate in their well-appointed homes. After all, Federal Reserve data shows that while the 56 million Americans over 65 make up just 17% of the population, they hold more than half of America's wealth — $96.4 trillion.

But there's a flaw in the narrative of a sunny boomer retirement: A lot of older Americans are not set up for their later years. Yes, many members of the generation are loaded, but many more are not. Like every age cohort, there's significant wealth inequality among retirees — and it's gotten worse in the past decade. Despite holding more than half of the nation's wealth, many boomers don't have enough money to cover the costs of long-term care, and 43% of 55- to 64-year-olds had no retirement savings at all in 2022. That year, 30% of people over 65 were economically insecure, meaning they made less than $27,180 for a single person. And since younger boomers are less financially prepared for retirement than their older boomer siblings, the problem is bound to get worse.

As boomers continue to age out of the workforce, it's going to put strain on the healthcare system, government programs, and the economy. That means more young people are going to be financially responsible for their parents, more government spending will be allocated to older folks, and economic growth could slow.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] dhork@lemmy.world 190 points 10 months ago

Why can't they just stop eating Avocado toast?

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 163 points 10 months ago

Boomer mom inherited a house that was paid for, immediately did a reverse mortgage to fund her lifestyle.

Fuck you, mom.

[-] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 64 points 10 months ago

When people pass on generational wealth, I read its usually gone within 3 generations.

Probably not true for billionaire level wealth, but for the people that work up millions or tens of millions.

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 73 points 10 months ago

The worst part, the absolute worst part, is that it's a house my grandmother designed and my great grandmother financed.

4 generations of my family have lived there, and it will be gone when mom kicks off.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] VelvetStorm@lemmy.world 21 points 10 months ago

My wife's grandparents and their parents were very very wealthy but my mil and her siblings have literally waited every cent of it and im talking millions of dollars. One aunt is a forever student, she has never had a job, never earned her own money in any way and has constantly used money for her own education while never earning any degrees. One uncle spent the vast majority on gambling and alcohol.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (21 replies)
[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 113 points 10 months ago

No it isn't. That wave should have already hit. The 2010's called and they want their news item back. The real story is why aren't they retiring?

(Because they don't have a retirement)

[-] neptune@dmv.social 32 points 10 months ago

I think boomers that have high paying and powerful jobs are working longer than ever because they want to. The other side of the boomer wealth inequality, yes, those ones have to.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 31 points 10 months ago

In fact, every time I have seen a thread on the topic of boomers working past retirement because they can't afford to retire on Lemmy so far, someone chimes in about how they're in their late 60s and love their job as a [something rarely unpleasant], so they want to keep working.

As if that's the same as someone in their 70s working the fryer at Burger King.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] whoisearth@lemmy.ca 18 points 10 months ago

I'm 46. When I was in high school we were told "pursue teaching or healthcare because everyone doing it now will be retired".

I didn't pursue either thank god because

  1. They didn't retire
  2. When they did or openings came up they were replaced by low wage immigrants that were willing to get paid less to do the same job with a worse title.
load more comments (5 replies)
[-] buddascrayon@lemmy.world 22 points 10 months ago

I think the point is that we are coming up on the moment when those retirees who didn't retire in the 2010's, because they had no money to retire with and can't live on the joke salary of what social security has become, are all about to be forced by nature and an employment structure that's is hungry for younger talent to actually retire. And we have no infrastructure to handle that.

[-] preppietechie@midwest.social 113 points 10 months ago

The real villains here are the absurdly rich. Especially those who find ways to pay less in taxes.

The top 1% are the problem.

Tax the rich.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] milkjug@lemmy.wildfyre.dev 104 points 10 months ago

I was told this could be all fixed by pulling up your bootstraps and a firm handshake.

[-] Iwasondigg@lemmy.one 34 points 10 months ago

Also no more starbucks and avocado toast. Easy.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] sleepmode@lemmy.world 69 points 10 months ago

"Can I live with you?" I remember my Dad joking. I said, "Maybe you should have thought of that when you kicked me out when I finished high school."

[-] RainfallSonata@lemmy.world 67 points 10 months ago

Look, there was a generation between Boomers and Gen X and the fact that they're now just lumped in together is ridiculous. They're called Boomers because they were born during the baby boom immediately following WWII. That boom did not last 20 years. Actual Boomers have been retired for a decade.

[-] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 57 points 10 months ago

Gen X, always forgotten. Fuckin latchkey kids to the end.

[-] nomous@lemmy.world 27 points 10 months ago

I think a lot of us grew to prefer it that way.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] derf82@lemmy.world 24 points 10 months ago

Someone born in 1950 was only 64 10 years ago. There are plenty of older boomers that have been waiting to retire into their 70s.

Elevated birth rates lasted at the very least until the late 1950s. It was more than just a few years.

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] frickineh@lemmy.world 17 points 10 months ago

The last boomers haven't. The youngest ones will be 60 this year. There are still tons of them in the workforce.

[-] RainfallSonata@lemmy.world 20 points 10 months ago

No, that's what I'm saying. Those turning 60 this year are not Boomers. They are the generation that came between Boomers and GenX. Yeah, even this Wikipedia article lumps them in with Boomers, but they weren't considered Boomers as they were coming of age: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_Jones They shouldn't be now, either. Ask any of them if they consider themselves Boomers.

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] gedaliyah@lemmy.world 59 points 10 months ago

Maybe boomers will finally stop blocking the healthcare reforms that they will desperately need. If they can turn off TV news long enough to see their own problems instead of the made-up problems they are trained to focus on.

[-] SkepticalButOpenMinded@lemmy.ca 48 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I think that, more likely, they'll plump up healthcare services for only themselves. Boomers don't vote against big government social services for everyone, they only oppose it when it's not for themselves. That's why both Republicans and Democrats defend Social Security and medicare for the elderly. Even DeSantis is campaigning on defending SS.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] SpringMango7379@lemmy.world 58 points 10 months ago

My father has Parkinson’s and my mother, who was his primary caregiver, passed a few months ago. They went from being comfortable with their finances and having a small, but nice home, to my father now going into a nursing home and likely lose everything he owns because of how expensive nursing care is. We are looking at $7k a month with zero assistance from Medicare and he has enough money that he doesn’t qualify for Medicaid but will burn through all his assets in just a short time. It’s ridiculous that people work hard and save and it’s all gone in a flash.

[-] fidodo@lemmy.world 26 points 10 months ago

Let the debt die with him. Get that house into a trust, or out of his name however you can. Don't let greedy corporations steal the generational wealth he worked hard for and surely wants to pass on, and not have taken away by the health care industry. A few grand on lawyers and accountants now will save you hundreds of thousands down the line.

[-] Socsa@sh.itjust.works 21 points 10 months ago

Your father needs to put his assets into a trust ASAP then. Once he divests through the trust he will qualify for Medicaid. It's unfortunate that we need to jump through these hoops, but it is what it is.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] hark@lemmy.world 19 points 10 months ago

Sorry to hear about that. This is one reason why I wonder if it's even worth saving for the future. Live the best life you can in your prime years and then let the pieces fall where they may in the end. You'll qualify for more programs if you didn't bother saving anyway.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] set_secret@lemmy.world 56 points 10 months ago

economic growth slowing? sounds like an ok situation to me.

Growth is literally destroying the habitable planet, the mindset of growth needs to stop.

[-] Specal@lemmy.world 44 points 10 months ago

Growth slowing is fine when your economic system doesn't require infinite growth. If we're looking for shrinkage we need to change economic systems... Which I'm personally all for

[-] wowbyowen@sh.itjust.works 56 points 10 months ago

So the top two hundred net worth individuals have amassed 30% of us wealth and boomers hold half the wealth. No wonder young people are suffering...

[-] RestrictedAccount@lemmy.world 50 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I think the point is that those two hundred are Boomers. The rest of the boomers are broke.

[-] Rooskie91@discuss.online 31 points 10 months ago

Yeah it's easy to get mad at boomers. It's also easy to forget that medicare and social security are under attack. The divisionthat matters isn't between generations, it's between the rich and the poor.

[-] the_q@lemmy.world 21 points 10 months ago

Boomers voted to gut the services they need now.

load more comments (11 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] halferect@lemmy.world 46 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Those lazy boomers just don't wanna work any more, my generation (millenial) has at least two jobs and shares a apt with 6 other people. Or why don't they just learn to code?

[-] CeruleanRuin@lemmings.world 35 points 10 months ago

Tax the wealthy more, they won't lose any quality of life whatsoever, and the money they extorted from their fellow humans gets paid back to support them in their old age.

This isn't actually a hard problem to solve if you take greed out of the equation.

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] GrayBackgroundMusic@lemm.ee 35 points 10 months ago

After all, Federal Reserve data shows that while the 56 million Americans over 65 make up just 17% of the population, they hold more than half of America’s wealth — $96.4 trillion.

How is that wealth distributed? What do you wanna bet it's REALLY skewed towards rich people hoarding like old dragons? What's the median, not average, wealth of the boomers?

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] DieguiTux8623@feddit.it 28 points 10 months ago

In my country, 2030 is foreseen as the year the public retirement plan administration system will collapse due to this.

Dismantling public healthcare is a solution our government is already going for to the detriment of everyone (unfortunately) but public retirement plans cannot be changed retroactively to any extent, they are reducing the highest pensions and blocking the rest of them (inflation will de facto lower even the blocked ones) while at the same time increasing the retirement age progressively but still it isn't enough.

We're doomed, no matter how much blood and tears.

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] Nepenthe@kbin.social 26 points 10 months ago

My dad would have been a boomer. Guy did have the advantage of entering the workforce during a time when it was still not only possible but even normal to expect to hold the same job for decades, but that and a kid who cared about him were about all he ever had to his name. And then he lost the job too.

He fought hard as shit, but with zero legs up and several of them permanently down, he never managed anything resembling the life he (or anyone else) hoped for, and after he died, the palliative nurse told his remaining family he was better off.

Being born in a lucky generation makes it easier, but it doesn't guarantee one has it easy. It's not an age group, it's a behavior. Not that we aren't already in the Find Out stage, for that to matter. But the fewer people under the impression all the bad people are going to die out, the better.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] blazeknave@lemmy.world 26 points 10 months ago

Cancer and death wiped out my parents' shit. And apparently several financial crises are all it takes for a small business owner to give up their decades-old life insurance policy to afford food and utilities.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 12 Jan 2024
484 points (94.8% liked)

News

23301 readers
1811 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS