Too poor to retire, too young to die (2016)(graphics.latimes.com)
graphics.latimes.com
Too poor to retire, too young to die (2016)
http://graphics.latimes.com/retirement-nomads/
153 comments
I'd tend to agree, many of the critical decisions highlighted make her life much harder than it has to be.
"Organic" labeled food is much more expensive than beans, rice, and basic chicken. She even decides to buy a $21 prime rib dinner from a restaurant! the article mentions that it would be good for 3 meals. $7 per meal is much larger than what it would cost to make that meal yourself from groceries.
I feel for her situation, but it's hard to ignore a lot of the bad decisions she makes.
Another place in the article mentions she got a $300 speeding ticket for driving 43 in a 35. That's a pretty bad mistake to make when you are living on fumes.
"Organic" labeled food is much more expensive than beans, rice, and basic chicken. She even decides to buy a $21 prime rib dinner from a restaurant! the article mentions that it would be good for 3 meals. $7 per meal is much larger than what it would cost to make that meal yourself from groceries.
I feel for her situation, but it's hard to ignore a lot of the bad decisions she makes.
Another place in the article mentions she got a $300 speeding ticket for driving 43 in a 35. That's a pretty bad mistake to make when you are living on fumes.
On the one hand, the "organic" fetish is crazy -- you can eat pretty well at 300 cal/$, but not if you're buying premium vegetables. On the other hand, $300 for 8 over in a 35 is probably the evil result of her city not being able to raise taxes, and being forced to get revenue from more politically-appealing sources that usually shaft poor people. Parking fines, court fees, civil asset forfeiture, tickets for minor traffic violations, etc.
I'd say even driving at all is a mistake if one is trying to save money. Insurance is costly, gas is costly, and so are speeding tickets. I recommend to struggling friends to buy a used bicycle (some non-profits will give bicycles away for free) or to ride public transportation.
What do you imagine the public transportation options truly are in Darien Lake, New York?
She appears to have to park her camper at camp sites, bicycle use might or might not be practical (I suspect bringing groceries back from the store is functionally impossible on a bicycle).
She appears to have to park her camper at camp sites, bicycle use might or might not be practical (I suspect bringing groceries back from the store is functionally impossible on a bicycle).
Housing within bike distance of many jobs is also costly.
Are you suggesting someone her age should bike dozens of miles per day to and from her job? And it's not like spending an extra hour a day on a bus is a great solution, either, possibly 2 hours on days someone needs to go somewhere other than work.
According to the article her friend died, leaving her a $20,000 windfall to buy a car.
> In a rural town it would be enough for a decent living.
It most certainly would not be. Survivable? Probably. Decent? Absolutely not.
And Medicare recipients still have out of pocket requirements, that's the whole reason Medicare supplement insurance exists. The average out of pocket expense for Medicare recipients in 2014 was over $4,000.
Tell someone making $1,400 a month they need to budget $350 a month for health care.
It most certainly would not be. Survivable? Probably. Decent? Absolutely not.
And Medicare recipients still have out of pocket requirements, that's the whole reason Medicare supplement insurance exists. The average out of pocket expense for Medicare recipients in 2014 was over $4,000.
Tell someone making $1,400 a month they need to budget $350 a month for health care.
You can buy a 5BR house in Sibley IA (downtown, walkable to the grocery store and general store) for $330/month in mortgage. Add $350 in health care and you’ve still got $700 per month. Tight, yes, but definitely decent.
$700 to cover food, (gas, car insurance - probably a requirement in Iowa to do more than go to the stores), entertainment, a house repair fund, clothing, electricity/gas/water/sewer/garbage... That $700 is going to be stretched pretty damned thin.
And that's assuming that insurance covers everything health related (it probably doesn't).
And that's assuming that insurance covers everything health related (it probably doesn't).
Instead of splitting hairs on hypothetical budgets, let’s look at it another way. The median HHI is $43,000 and the median household size is about 2.7. (And remember, that is taxed while her SS and pension likely are not.) $17,000 as an individual living alone with no dependents probably puts her at the bottom of the middle 1/3. Middle third in Sibley isn’t just barely surviving. It’s a decent life.
Survivable seems right - but when someone makes all the mistakes she makes, do we think that doubling her income would give her a decent living?
It's hard to budget $350/mo when you spend $121 in a single day on food and entertainment.
Really, though, it seems like quite a few of her problems stem from trying to do this when single, without a roommate. With a spouse or roommate many expenses get halved.
It's hard to budget $350/mo when you spend $121 in a single day on food and entertainment.
Really, though, it seems like quite a few of her problems stem from trying to do this when single, without a roommate. With a spouse or roommate many expenses get halved.
Probably like $2400-$2800 if it's a pension and social security.
> > This lady gets almost $17,000 a year in pension and social security
17000 / 12 = 1416.67
I guess I read it differently:
This lady gets (almost $17,000 a year in pension) and social security
Sorry, your probably right.
This lady gets (almost $17,000 a year in pension) and social security
Sorry, your probably right.
I saw this the other day on Reddit - I feel it's worth the read, and very relevant to this style of "they're doing it wrong" discussion:
https://www.reddit.com/r/personalfinance/comments/7ak7jm/its...
TL;DR: OP shows how a healthy 20-something could quickly overrun a $27,000 yearly income by just living.
https://www.reddit.com/r/personalfinance/comments/7ak7jm/its...
TL;DR: OP shows how a healthy 20-something could quickly overrun a $27,000 yearly income by just living.
> Why do newspapers use as examples people who seem to have done everything wrong? Is it because formerly middle class people are somehow more relatable to the readers of the LA Times than people who never had much of a chance to begin with? What about the poor elderly who never went to business school or were born in an area with few opportunities?
It will come as little surprise to many readers that someone who was forerly poor has remained poor. It is more notable when someone who was formerly comfortable is now barely scraping by. The latter will garner more attention from the audience and potentially will have more impact.
It will come as little surprise to many readers that someone who was forerly poor has remained poor. It is more notable when someone who was formerly comfortable is now barely scraping by. The latter will garner more attention from the audience and potentially will have more impact.
You didn't read the article, because just assuming X amount of money can work for anyone is not even remotely realistic.
She owes $50,000 on her credit cards. Let's assume an 18% interest rate. The minimum she could pay to actually pay off the debt (just enough to even pay the interest) would be $765 per month (54% of her income), which would take 22 years and 1 month to pay off, with $152,024 paid in interest.
She also has a $268 monthly loan payment for her aging rig. That means $1033 a month is going just to debt. And in my area, for someone getting on Medicare with no drug plan, for "original medicare", the estimated annual health and drug costs are $3,880.
So after medicare costs and debt, how much is left for housing, food, transportation, and incidentals, per month?
$60.
She's clearly going to die before she can pay her debt off, so maybe just don't pay the debt and use the $825 total to help pay for housing, food, transportation, and incidentals, all of which are higher when you don't have a residence or stable income. You won't have any credit and the creditors will try whatever they can to come after you, and maybe you can dodge them for a few years until you die.
Can you live off $825 a month? Yes. Will it be decent? Hell no. And if you have any major unexpected bills (such as emergency dental work and repairs on a rig, ballooning past $8000) you're fucked. Which, of course, happened.
She owes $50,000 on her credit cards. Let's assume an 18% interest rate. The minimum she could pay to actually pay off the debt (just enough to even pay the interest) would be $765 per month (54% of her income), which would take 22 years and 1 month to pay off, with $152,024 paid in interest.
She also has a $268 monthly loan payment for her aging rig. That means $1033 a month is going just to debt. And in my area, for someone getting on Medicare with no drug plan, for "original medicare", the estimated annual health and drug costs are $3,880.
So after medicare costs and debt, how much is left for housing, food, transportation, and incidentals, per month?
$60.
She's clearly going to die before she can pay her debt off, so maybe just don't pay the debt and use the $825 total to help pay for housing, food, transportation, and incidentals, all of which are higher when you don't have a residence or stable income. You won't have any credit and the creditors will try whatever they can to come after you, and maybe you can dodge them for a few years until you die.
Can you live off $825 a month? Yes. Will it be decent? Hell no. And if you have any major unexpected bills (such as emergency dental work and repairs on a rig, ballooning past $8000) you're fucked. Which, of course, happened.
> You didn't read the article, because just assuming X amount of money can work for anyone is not even remotely realistic
But we’re talking about the public safety net here, and that’s exactly the assumption you have to make.
She doesn’t need to pay her credit card debt. She can just declare bankruptcy. That’s the point of bankruptcy. She also doesn’t need a vehicle that costs as much as rent in small town America.
But we’re talking about the public safety net here, and that’s exactly the assumption you have to make.
She doesn’t need to pay her credit card debt. She can just declare bankruptcy. That’s the point of bankruptcy. She also doesn’t need a vehicle that costs as much as rent in small town America.
This is like the econ 101 assumptions. The public safety net is not designed for real people.
If she could declare bankruptcy, don't you think she would have? She's 80, she has heard of the concept.
The vehicle is her only shelter. Have you ever tried to pay rent with bad credit and no employment history? Not to mention, please show me a single place in all of the united states where rent is $268 per month and isn't a crack motel.
If she could declare bankruptcy, don't you think she would have? She's 80, she has heard of the concept.
The vehicle is her only shelter. Have you ever tried to pay rent with bad credit and no employment history? Not to mention, please show me a single place in all of the united states where rent is $268 per month and isn't a crack motel.
What do you mean, "if" she can declare bankruptcy? She makes $10/hour part time and all her assets are in a trailer. She is obviously Chapter 7 eligible.
You can rent a studio apartment in Chicago, in an apartment building (not a "crack motel"), for $350/mo. That's an apartment in the middle of a relatively expensive urban area. Clearly, there are non-crack-motel apartments that are significantly nicer than the Chicago apartment further afield.
You can rent a studio apartment in Chicago, in an apartment building (not a "crack motel"), for $350/mo. That's an apartment in the middle of a relatively expensive urban area. Clearly, there are non-crack-motel apartments that are significantly nicer than the Chicago apartment further afield.
If some miracle allows for the debt and loan to disappear, there's just the $323 a month for medical (which is probably not spread out over time, and she would have no credit to buffer it, so she would need savings, which she doesn't have). In theory she could have $1093 to spend on rent, food, transportation and incidentals.
But there are some requirements to file chapter 7:
- First she needs to document all her financial records, which of course she has been doing in expectation of this point in her life
- She needs to hire a bankruptcy lawyer, because otherwise she basically has to become her own lawyer and figure out her state/local bankruptcy laws and steps, which is very difficult for most people.
- Non-exempt property, such as cash, a second car or car she doesn't use for work, is sold to pay the debt. Does an RV you live in count as a car you use for work? if not, there goes her home.
- She has to get time off to go to the 341 meeting and do the mandatory credit counseling and debtor education classes and certification
- Filing for bankruptcy costs between $1,400 and $4,000 on average in filing fees and other costs.
- The whole process takes about six months on average, assuming everything works out.
I would love to know how somebody who's living paycheck to paycheck and can barely afford milk and bread can accomplish this. Clearly there are obstacles that she may not be able to overcome.
But I don't think anyone really cares about reality, looking at the way people in this thread are simply dismissing her using various theoretical devices to prove she simply isn't doing it right. If it were easy or simple to fix her life, she probably would have, because she is much more motivated to have a better life than random people on the internet. (Not that people not choosing to look at reality bothers me - it's people who do not fully understand the situation pretending that they know better that bothers me)
But there are some requirements to file chapter 7:
- First she needs to document all her financial records, which of course she has been doing in expectation of this point in her life
- She needs to hire a bankruptcy lawyer, because otherwise she basically has to become her own lawyer and figure out her state/local bankruptcy laws and steps, which is very difficult for most people.
- Non-exempt property, such as cash, a second car or car she doesn't use for work, is sold to pay the debt. Does an RV you live in count as a car you use for work? if not, there goes her home.
- She has to get time off to go to the 341 meeting and do the mandatory credit counseling and debtor education classes and certification
- Filing for bankruptcy costs between $1,400 and $4,000 on average in filing fees and other costs.
- The whole process takes about six months on average, assuming everything works out.
I would love to know how somebody who's living paycheck to paycheck and can barely afford milk and bread can accomplish this. Clearly there are obstacles that she may not be able to overcome.
But I don't think anyone really cares about reality, looking at the way people in this thread are simply dismissing her using various theoretical devices to prove she simply isn't doing it right. If it were easy or simple to fix her life, she probably would have, because she is much more motivated to have a better life than random people on the internet. (Not that people not choosing to look at reality bothers me - it's people who do not fully understand the situation pretending that they know better that bothers me)
What "miracle"? Chapter 7 will eliminate her debt. That's the point of Chapter 7.
She'll need a professional to file for her, that's true. So, she should do what most people who file Chapter 7 do: use the money (saved gradually) she'd pointlessly burn trying to service the debt to hire someone to file Chapter 7.
In the meantime, she should immediately stop making debt service payments. It does not matter that the process will take 6 months, because her creditors have no practical recourse against her. Watch someone with a six figure income and significant luxury assets simply stop paying credit card bills that are integer multiples of this debt, and see what happens. Hint: the debt decreases as the credit card companies and their collectors realize you've stopped valuing your credit score. They're hoping beyond hope you'll spend some amount of money, any amount of money to avoid Chapter 7, and they will keep hoping for years.
The majority of Chapter 7 bankruptcies are no-asset bankruptcies. People who own homes, cars, and retirement accounts keep them in Chapter 7. A 79 year old woman living in a trailer isn't going to sell anything to retire credit card debt in Chapter 7.
It is not only wrong but borderline irresponsible to suggest that someone in this person's circumstances entertain the idea of sending another dollar to a credit card company. The credit card companies are victimizing her today, and she has a clear means of defending herself. She needs to be informed and counseled to make the decision to avail herself of that defense.
As for "reality", I've managed this process for people. I'm confident what I'm saying is reality, just like I'm confident that you can find a place to live in a "non-crack-motel" for less than $290/mo.
She'll need a professional to file for her, that's true. So, she should do what most people who file Chapter 7 do: use the money (saved gradually) she'd pointlessly burn trying to service the debt to hire someone to file Chapter 7.
In the meantime, she should immediately stop making debt service payments. It does not matter that the process will take 6 months, because her creditors have no practical recourse against her. Watch someone with a six figure income and significant luxury assets simply stop paying credit card bills that are integer multiples of this debt, and see what happens. Hint: the debt decreases as the credit card companies and their collectors realize you've stopped valuing your credit score. They're hoping beyond hope you'll spend some amount of money, any amount of money to avoid Chapter 7, and they will keep hoping for years.
The majority of Chapter 7 bankruptcies are no-asset bankruptcies. People who own homes, cars, and retirement accounts keep them in Chapter 7. A 79 year old woman living in a trailer isn't going to sell anything to retire credit card debt in Chapter 7.
It is not only wrong but borderline irresponsible to suggest that someone in this person's circumstances entertain the idea of sending another dollar to a credit card company. The credit card companies are victimizing her today, and she has a clear means of defending herself. She needs to be informed and counseled to make the decision to avail herself of that defense.
As for "reality", I've managed this process for people. I'm confident what I'm saying is reality, just like I'm confident that you can find a place to live in a "non-crack-motel" for less than $290/mo.
I'm certainly not advocating paying the debt. I'm saying dodge it. But she still will have difficulty saving up for bankruptcy.
With the little money she does get, she has to pay for transportation, food, communication, and health and auto insurance. Assuming she abandoned the RV she could maybe find one of these cheap Chicago sublets (which I assume are not in a food or transportation desert) and start saving money (assuming creditors can't garnish social security or pension). But she would still get hit with the occasional emergency bill, extending the time it takes to save. Once she finally saves enough she can go through bankruptcy and probably be successful. So then she could in theory just continue living in the sublet, or wherever in the country has the cheapest housing, until she dies.
It's not a very promising life to look forward to, and I don't know how many people would really just stop what they're doing and go full-on monk to recover over this kind of long term process.
With the little money she does get, she has to pay for transportation, food, communication, and health and auto insurance. Assuming she abandoned the RV she could maybe find one of these cheap Chicago sublets (which I assume are not in a food or transportation desert) and start saving money (assuming creditors can't garnish social security or pension). But she would still get hit with the occasional emergency bill, extending the time it takes to save. Once she finally saves enough she can go through bankruptcy and probably be successful. So then she could in theory just continue living in the sublet, or wherever in the country has the cheapest housing, until she dies.
It's not a very promising life to look forward to, and I don't know how many people would really just stop what they're doing and go full-on monk to recover over this kind of long term process.
At this point I think we've both disposed of the idea that the $50,000 in credit card debt is the burden it sounds like. I'm mostly writing because, again, I think a lot of people from that generation are loathe to defend themselves against credit card companies through bankruptcy law.
Either way: if she's getting good counsel, she's not paying the credit card companies. They're not getting another dime from her.
Either way: if she's getting good counsel, she's not paying the credit card companies. They're not getting another dime from her.
Hey, that's me! (Six figure income, stopped paying credit card bills.) Aside from the interest that continues to accumulate, you are absolutely correct: the debt does decrease:
At the 7-month mark one of the credit card companies (I owed them $15,000 at 29.9% APR) sent a piece of registered mail: if you send us 3 post-dated cheques for the next 3 months for $1200 each (total $3600), we'll consider the debt paid off.
I ignored them and did a Chapter 13 instead. (Well, the Canadian equivalent).
At the 7-month mark one of the credit card companies (I owed them $15,000 at 29.9% APR) sent a piece of registered mail: if you send us 3 post-dated cheques for the next 3 months for $1200 each (total $3600), we'll consider the debt paid off.
I ignored them and did a Chapter 13 instead. (Well, the Canadian equivalent).
[deleted]
She can't pay back the credit cards. It is a grave mistake for her to even attempt it.
Unfortunately, and I think particularly with norms and expectations from pre-gen-X (and pre-universal-financialization) culture, it's a mistake a lot of people make. It's tragic: these are people who need every dollar they make, shoveling enormous amounts of their capital into a black hole. In reality, attempting to service these debts prolongs their exposure.
It's these sorts of bad decisions that I think Rayiner is referring to upthread. For someone in the financial situation the subject of this article is in, credit card debt should be off the table, full stop.
Unfortunately, and I think particularly with norms and expectations from pre-gen-X (and pre-universal-financialization) culture, it's a mistake a lot of people make. It's tragic: these are people who need every dollar they make, shoveling enormous amounts of their capital into a black hole. In reality, attempting to service these debts prolongs their exposure.
It's these sorts of bad decisions that I think Rayiner is referring to upthread. For someone in the financial situation the subject of this article is in, credit card debt should be off the table, full stop.
>Is it because formerly middle class people are somehow more relatable to the readers of the LA Times than people who never had much of a chance to begin with?
Hit the nail on the head. And not only is it the readers that skew towards middle class but it's the writers as well.
Hit the nail on the head. And not only is it the readers that skew towards middle class but it's the writers as well.
Every author has an audience. Her example is easier for people to understand within her cohort. If they had wrote the story about someone who did not reflect their readership people could view it without any “that could happen to me” thoughts.
Both of my parents are in this situation, and it's only exacerbated by the fact that my mom had to retire due to spinal surgery and my dad has a bad hip injury that he refuses to get surgery for because he fears missing rent. Despite my willingness to help with the rent and bills I can only provide so much as I live in a high COL area as well.
The next 15-20 years are going to be very, very tough for older Americans.
The next 15-20 years are going to be very, very tough for older Americans.
"I can only provide so much as I live in a high COL area as well"
Why are your parents living in a high cost-of-living area?
Wouldn't it make sense for them to move somewhere they could better afford?
Why are your parents living in a high cost-of-living area?
Wouldn't it make sense for them to move somewhere they could better afford?
They could, absolutely. My mother has always dreamed of buying a house in Florida for instance but that would be impossible with their finances.
Both of my parents are immigrants from a small country, they immigrated to NYC because it's one of the few cities in America where other folks from our country settled. Moving would undoubtedly allow them to ease up on rent and cost of living, but it would also move them away from other family members, long time friends, church community, etc.
As mentioned, both are very sedentary due to injury despite the fact that my dad works a grueling job, if they moved away from the community that has supported them for ~30 years I could only see their quality of life worsening.
Both of my parents are immigrants from a small country, they immigrated to NYC because it's one of the few cities in America where other folks from our country settled. Moving would undoubtedly allow them to ease up on rent and cost of living, but it would also move them away from other family members, long time friends, church community, etc.
As mentioned, both are very sedentary due to injury despite the fact that my dad works a grueling job, if they moved away from the community that has supported them for ~30 years I could only see their quality of life worsening.
I hope it's only the next 15-20 years. Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst.
[deleted]
> That rules out cheap but filling Big Macs
Big Macs are neither cheap nor filling. Fast food is extremely expensive. Anyone who’s ever been poor and collected enough to escape poverty understands this. Americans, as parroted by this journalist, don’t know what poverty is. How is it that you have 17,000 dollars per year and still struggle to survive? If you’re poor and eat fast food and keep your home stocked with disposable utensils: you’re hopeless, you're going to be poor forever.
If you’re poor you can’t eat fast food if you want to stop being poor. You can afford dried lentils. Dried beans. Meat when it’s on sale. Apples when they’re 79 cents/lb or when you can get them for free. Americans just don’t know how to live without getting owned by the man. “Poor” Americans are overwhelmingly people who don’t understand home economics and how not to give all their money to rich people. They make one bad decision after the next. It’s a cultural problem driven by the absense of local community, support structure and values.
What’s happened in the past hundred years is that capitalists have played divide and conquer with cultural systems to make people increasingly alone and isolated from one another, less economically viable and increasingly helpless. Cooking—a thing that every person on earth could do for nearly every meal they consumed–became a thing that's difficult. Cooking: Don't Try This at Home. It's simple: Capitalism doesn’t value consumer empowerment. It values consumer servitude. Instead of being raised by grandparents and community members, American children are raised in daycare. Instead of grandparents helping with cooking, working Americans are tasked with preparing food for the family, a task that is impossible. Things you could rely on from family and community are things today you have to get from corporations. We replaced family and community with government and corporations and this is what we got: A culture that says Big Macs are cheap and writes so as a matter of fact in the local newspaper of record.
Big Macs are neither cheap nor filling. Fast food is extremely expensive. Anyone who’s ever been poor and collected enough to escape poverty understands this. Americans, as parroted by this journalist, don’t know what poverty is. How is it that you have 17,000 dollars per year and still struggle to survive? If you’re poor and eat fast food and keep your home stocked with disposable utensils: you’re hopeless, you're going to be poor forever.
If you’re poor you can’t eat fast food if you want to stop being poor. You can afford dried lentils. Dried beans. Meat when it’s on sale. Apples when they’re 79 cents/lb or when you can get them for free. Americans just don’t know how to live without getting owned by the man. “Poor” Americans are overwhelmingly people who don’t understand home economics and how not to give all their money to rich people. They make one bad decision after the next. It’s a cultural problem driven by the absense of local community, support structure and values.
What’s happened in the past hundred years is that capitalists have played divide and conquer with cultural systems to make people increasingly alone and isolated from one another, less economically viable and increasingly helpless. Cooking—a thing that every person on earth could do for nearly every meal they consumed–became a thing that's difficult. Cooking: Don't Try This at Home. It's simple: Capitalism doesn’t value consumer empowerment. It values consumer servitude. Instead of being raised by grandparents and community members, American children are raised in daycare. Instead of grandparents helping with cooking, working Americans are tasked with preparing food for the family, a task that is impossible. Things you could rely on from family and community are things today you have to get from corporations. We replaced family and community with government and corporations and this is what we got: A culture that says Big Macs are cheap and writes so as a matter of fact in the local newspaper of record.
Big macs provide about ~600 calories and 25g of protein for $4. The whole meal is over 1000 calories for $6. It's hard to beat in terms of speed or price. Nutrition? Yeah, pretty low (though it's a good source of iron and Vitamin A).
Sure, I could make a meal with more calories for a little cheaper... but at a high up-front cost in money, and an prep/cook cost in time.
Sure, I could make a meal with more calories for a little cheaper... but at a high up-front cost in money, and an prep/cook cost in time.
Big Macs are shit salty food that doesn’t make you full and spikes your glycemic load so you’re hungry again in 30 minutes.
The American idea that poor people get to organize their time the same way that non poor people get to organize their time is near the core of the problem. The argument that eating fast food saves you time is deeply troublesome because poor people, while disadvantaged in many ways like having to use public transit or not having transit, generally have the lowest premium on time because their time is worthless.
The American idea that poor people get to organize their time the same way that non poor people get to organize their time is near the core of the problem. The argument that eating fast food saves you time is deeply troublesome because poor people, while disadvantaged in many ways like having to use public transit or not having transit, generally have the lowest premium on time because their time is worthless.
generally have the lowest premium on time because their time is worthless.
That is completely backwards. The marginal utility for a poor person working an extra 10 hours a week is massive since it might very well the difference between being able to pay rent or not. The marginal utility for me working an extra 10 hours a week is probably negative since I'm already 'rich enough' to buy everything I need so the extra money doesn't mean that much to me and those extra 10 hours will keep me away from things I care lot more about (like being able to spend an hour cooking for and eating with my family)
That is completely backwards. The marginal utility for a poor person working an extra 10 hours a week is massive since it might very well the difference between being able to pay rent or not. The marginal utility for me working an extra 10 hours a week is probably negative since I'm already 'rich enough' to buy everything I need so the extra money doesn't mean that much to me and those extra 10 hours will keep me away from things I care lot more about (like being able to spend an hour cooking for and eating with my family)
>>Big Macs are shit salty food that doesn’t make you full and spikes your glycemic load so you’re hungry again in 30 minutes.
Even if you eat 1000 calories of pure sugar, there is no way in hell you will be hungry again in 30 minutes.
Even if you eat 1000 calories of pure sugar, there is no way in hell you will be hungry again in 30 minutes.
Where else can I spend $6, and have 1000+ calories available to me the next minute?
Assume I don't have prep time, because I'm not at home, or because I'm already late for my second job in an attempt to provide for myself at minimum wages.
A lot of folks don't have the time or energy to stock up for, prepare and cook proper meals, whether rich, poor, or somewhere in between. Call it a tragedy of the modern times.
Assume I don't have prep time, because I'm not at home, or because I'm already late for my second job in an attempt to provide for myself at minimum wages.
A lot of folks don't have the time or energy to stock up for, prepare and cook proper meals, whether rich, poor, or somewhere in between. Call it a tragedy of the modern times.
Tuna sandwich -- half can tuna, mayo, relish, bread, cheese, 360 calories for about $1.02. Prices and calories derived from serving sizes on the various product labels, looking up the products on walmart.com. Takes about a minute to mix the ingredients together and make a few sandwiches.
Can also bake a potato in the microwave, throw some butter, sour cream, shredded cheese, and seasoning on them. Baked potatoes (or skillet fried, etc) make fairly cheap meals.
Pasta is something that is cheap and easy to make, for time management purposes, boil it while you are taking a shower in the morning. Throw it (along with some tomato sauce) in a ziplock baggie in the morning, take it with you for lunch.
I realize that time is limited esp. if you are working 80 hour weeks at minimum wage. And then there is the time it takes to stop by walmart to pick up the ingredients. However many people that I know that complain about lack of time also spend quite a bit on either watching TV, or taking smoke breaks, or other things that would be better spent on meal preparation instead of running to McDonalds.
Can also bake a potato in the microwave, throw some butter, sour cream, shredded cheese, and seasoning on them. Baked potatoes (or skillet fried, etc) make fairly cheap meals.
Pasta is something that is cheap and easy to make, for time management purposes, boil it while you are taking a shower in the morning. Throw it (along with some tomato sauce) in a ziplock baggie in the morning, take it with you for lunch.
I realize that time is limited esp. if you are working 80 hour weeks at minimum wage. And then there is the time it takes to stop by walmart to pick up the ingredients. However many people that I know that complain about lack of time also spend quite a bit on either watching TV, or taking smoke breaks, or other things that would be better spent on meal preparation instead of running to McDonalds.
> Where else can I spend $6, and have 1000+ calories available to me the next minute?
The supermarket. You’ll have 10-15,000 much better calories, but you’ll have to cook them in water before you consume them.
If you can’t find time to cook and you’re poor, you’ll be poor forever. If you can’t find time to cook and you’re middle class, you’ll be poor soon enough. If you can’t organize your time to run your home economy, you’re going to be poor. Your home economy is the basis of all your wealth. It’s fundamental. If you “don’t have time” for that you’re a slave to The Man, parroting that nonesense for the privilege of eating inferior food other people prepared for you at a huge markup.
> Call it a tragedy of the modern times.
I am! :) It's the tragedy, really.
The supermarket. You’ll have 10-15,000 much better calories, but you’ll have to cook them in water before you consume them.
If you can’t find time to cook and you’re poor, you’ll be poor forever. If you can’t find time to cook and you’re middle class, you’ll be poor soon enough. If you can’t organize your time to run your home economy, you’re going to be poor. Your home economy is the basis of all your wealth. It’s fundamental. If you “don’t have time” for that you’re a slave to The Man, parroting that nonesense for the privilege of eating inferior food other people prepared for you at a huge markup.
> Call it a tragedy of the modern times.
I am! :) It's the tragedy, really.
Dolores passed away earlier this year: http://www.latimes.com/local/obituaries/la-na-dolores-westfa...
Five paragraphs in, the root of many of her problems:
"Her savings long gone, and having never done much long-term financial planning"
Six paragraphs in, the root of elderly problems nation-wide:
"Nearly one-third of U.S. heads of households ages 55 and older have no pension or retirement savings and a median annual income of about $19,000"
Is it possible that the lack of long term financial planning, aka saving money, is the crux of many of these tragic situations?
"Her savings long gone, and having never done much long-term financial planning"
Six paragraphs in, the root of elderly problems nation-wide:
"Nearly one-third of U.S. heads of households ages 55 and older have no pension or retirement savings and a median annual income of about $19,000"
Is it possible that the lack of long term financial planning, aka saving money, is the crux of many of these tragic situations?
A lot of the sources of savings were in houses, which burst in 2008.
> Is it possible that the lack of long term financial planning, aka saving money, is the crux of many of these tragic situations?
What if it is? Even if that were the case 100% of the time, which you and I both know it isn't, the results are still something we have to deal with.
What if it is? Even if that were the case 100% of the time, which you and I both know it isn't, the results are still something we have to deal with.
If the cost of health care isn't fixed soon, no amount of savings will be enough.
At todays prices, as soon as the normal ailments of aging set in, nearly everyone will be drained of savings sooner rather than later.
At todays prices, as soon as the normal ailments of aging set in, nearly everyone will be drained of savings sooner rather than later.
Well, even good financial planning focuses on taking you to 80 in most cases. It also assumes a lot about the future value of your investments - a crash will knock you out for good. It also assumes that the rate of inflation doesn't change, or that your costs of living don't change drastically, or that you don't get a disease which destroys your (and frequently your partner's) savings, whether you survive it or not.
kids, lack of decent income to start with.
"...and faced yet another nasty choice between need and want. Should she go to the dentist, or take a guided tour of buildings designed by her favorite architect, Frank Lloyd Wright? Each cost $100. She picked Frank Lloyd Wright. Her teeth could wait."
Wow, with decisions like that it's no wonder that woman is in a bad position. Honestly, though - am I supposed to feel bad for someone like this? You can bet that if I was barely scraping by I would not be spending $100 on a guided tour of a building, or at a restaurant getting prime rib (something the article mentions she also did). I wouldn't be eating out at all or doing anything that involved any sort of discretionary income because I didn't have any. She doesn't have any but she act like she does. It's not rocket science that the numbers don't add up in the end.
Gee, I wonder...should I go to Peter Luger's for dinner this Friday or pay my gas and electric? Tough call.
Wow, with decisions like that it's no wonder that woman is in a bad position. Honestly, though - am I supposed to feel bad for someone like this? You can bet that if I was barely scraping by I would not be spending $100 on a guided tour of a building, or at a restaurant getting prime rib (something the article mentions she also did). I wouldn't be eating out at all or doing anything that involved any sort of discretionary income because I didn't have any. She doesn't have any but she act like she does. It's not rocket science that the numbers don't add up in the end.
Gee, I wonder...should I go to Peter Luger's for dinner this Friday or pay my gas and electric? Tough call.
At the time the article was written, she was in the last few years of her life.
If they're spent doing nothing but hustling to pay bills, and there is no enjoyment to be afforded outside of that, why bother finishing the last few? Being old sucks enough as it is, with all your faculties failing and everybody abandoning you.
She's dead now. She got to enjoy the museum and a steak while she still had a chance. I don't begrudge her that.
If they're spent doing nothing but hustling to pay bills, and there is no enjoyment to be afforded outside of that, why bother finishing the last few? Being old sucks enough as it is, with all your faculties failing and everybody abandoning you.
She's dead now. She got to enjoy the museum and a steak while she still had a chance. I don't begrudge her that.
I'm not sure there is a name for the GP's 'fallacy', but I think there should be. The idea is that one person in the whole history of the world had the worst, most painful, most terrible, most suffered, most miserable life that ever happened anywhere and for all time. All other people are just griping and moaning; they could have had it worse, so shut-up.
Like, how mean is that thought process? We need to be helping each other out, not comparing the size of our scars and the length of our therapy sessions. So what if someone hasn't had it was bad as you or some hypothetical person? Be kind.
Like, how mean is that thought process? We need to be helping each other out, not comparing the size of our scars and the length of our therapy sessions. So what if someone hasn't had it was bad as you or some hypothetical person? Be kind.
That is the fallacy of relative priation, I think.
Why are we so determined to remove any joy from the lives of the poor? Unless you've exorcised all fun, discretionary activities from your life you're obviously just a bad decision-maker. This kind of thing is about one step from this sort of crap: http://s3.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/article/0/4/8/603048_v2.j...
That link/picture isn't crap, even if it is Fox News. That photo goes to the whole concept of what "poor" actually is. Poor can be defined as relative or absolute. We normally use it in the relative sense, so there are always poor people, but over the last 200+ years the standard of living of even the poorest among us has risen dramatically.
Case in point - how many people who are poor somehow manage to own smartphones? That's basically the updated version of the fridge concept but it is still an extremely valid point. The woman in the article was able to become a "road gypsy". Would that have ever been possible prior to the 21st century in any scenario where she wasn't possibly facing starvation or at least malnutrition as she traveled the country? No.
Case in point - how many people who are poor somehow manage to own smartphones? That's basically the updated version of the fridge concept but it is still an extremely valid point. The woman in the article was able to become a "road gypsy". Would that have ever been possible prior to the 21st century in any scenario where she wasn't possibly facing starvation or at least malnutrition as she traveled the country? No.
Never forget to pay yourself. It is morally crushing to work and work and never have any enjoyment. It's wrong to have the attitude that she makes bad decisions so of course she's poor.
Why is that wrong? Surely I am entitled to my opinion, however judgmental it may be. Also, it's barely an opinion at all. It's practically a fact based on the information in the article alone that a number of extremely bad decisions led to that woman's unfortunate situation.
Let me put it another way - I personally have never met a single person who was responsible, level-headed, and made rational decisions with their money ever wind up in a scenario even remotely like this woman's.
Let me put it another way - I personally have never met a single person who was responsible, level-headed, and made rational decisions with their money ever wind up in a scenario even remotely like this woman's.
> Let me put it another way - I personally have never met a single person who was responsible, level-headed, and made rational decisions with their money ever wind up in a scenario even remotely like this woman's.
What does this prove? Those people wouldn't be hanging out on HN for sure!
Edit: But you're right, you're not wrong for having your opinion.
What does this prove? Those people wouldn't be hanging out on HN for sure!
Edit: But you're right, you're not wrong for having your opinion.
It goes to show that what I said isn't an "attitude" or mindset, but rather a simple observation of reality. Mainly that decisions have consequences. What I said is nothing new, yet you say that it is wrong to have that attitude. Meanwhile basically everything we have ever seen supports the claim that if you prepare and plan for the future you are in nearly every circumstance far better off in the long run.
Well no, it shows that your reality is rather small. Maybe you should meet people outside of the normal circles you hang in. There are plenty of people who are responsible with their monety and yet have been crushed by circumstance.
Article begins with spending $20 on a prime-rib lunch, then complains about not being able to eat....
> “I thought I could handle eating and shopping,” she said, “but lunch put me over the top.”
If lunch put her over the top as she says, why did she buy a $21 lunch? The Ice Tea probably cost at least $3.50.
Let's be real, there weren't two extra meals in those leftovers.
If lunch put her over the top as she says, why did she buy a $21 lunch? The Ice Tea probably cost at least $3.50.
Let's be real, there weren't two extra meals in those leftovers.
It also mentions she won't eat free meals because she considers them unhealthy and eats non-bulk organic groceries...which is typically quite expensive. I guess people consider stuff like that part of their identity?
She's splitting it into three meals.
[deleted]
This and the "retail apocalypse" piece are quite sobering. There are going to be a lot of homeless elderly in the future.
Hum. Potential opportunity: Turn dead malls into senior centers with housing for the elderly.
Not trolling, I think this is really a great idea! Plenty of Malls are dying every year, fueled by the rise of FREE SHIPPING & Prime Amazon and the likes.
I am not an architect, but are malls suitable for this? It seems to me that most of the space inside is too far from windows to get daylight. It would be more like storage for the elderly instead of housing.
Could reuse the land though.
I imagine that built for purpose would be cost competitive with remodeling and adapting aging buildings anyway.
I imagine that built for purpose would be cost competitive with remodeling and adapting aging buildings anyway.
Most malls (at least here in the south) have lots of windows in the roof along the walkways, so maybe that light could be light piped into the living quarters. Sure, it's not windows, but it's natural light to help keep their spirits up.
Nope given the scale of the problem and considering those elderly are voters, you can fully expect the burden to be shifted to the currently working via taxes etc.
Only if nothing is done by society to fix the problem.
How much additional obligation do the rest of us have to people who had their entire child-free lives to save money and didn't, already receive a check from the government every month, and get free health care? Do individuals have no responsibility at all for their own situation?
Yes! You assume she ever had two pennies to push together to put toward saving and that saving would have been enough. All the evidence is to the contrary. Frankly, government spending is completely independent of government income. The government could create whole economies based upon shoveling mountains from one place to another ad naseum without fear of run away inflation or other issues. Some could say that’s what the DOD already does.
It's difficult for me to believe she was in the workforce for more than forty years and never had an extra dollar to save.
Nothing will be done to improve it. That requires decent people. Our civilization is on a hyperbolic trajectory out of decency, disregarding all accumulated wisdom of civilization builders, exchanging it for short-term profit.
Could you be more specific about what "decent wisdom of civilization builders" we've disregarded...?
We completely disregard "evolutionary development" of civilization and replacing it with artificial reductionist constructs without understanding their consequences. Like allowing "unlimited" QA, and expecting money to trickle down, somehow pretending that passing through super-efficient money extractors won't get in the way. Increasing costs/financial burden on regular population while keeping real wages on the level 30 years ago, and then being surprised B2C businesses can't grow anymore or go bust. Pretending that simple performance metrics tell us all we need about economy, while having supercomputers in our pockets we use to take selfies and present our vapid lives. Developing tech that could solve many problems of mankind and turning it instead into enforcers of disgusting ways that didn't work before and in some countries already into tools of ultimate oppression. We are in the initial phase of world-wide civilization collapse, yet we pretend everything is rosy and could go on like this forever (while competent are buying bunkers in New Zealand).
That seems pretty complex for distilled wisdom... ^
IMO we just live in fairly unprecedented times. Most people are still learning how to cope with new technologies and moral norms while trying not to completely throw away sacred traditions.
IMO we just live in fairly unprecedented times. Most people are still learning how to cope with new technologies and moral norms while trying not to completely throw away sacred traditions.
Put your citizens first. Once they are all protected, clothed, fed and sheltered, then and only then should a civilization support others.
She is already getting social security.
Ok. So society has already done a little. And? Obviously, this isn't the solution that has solved the problem without some real changes to social security and/or support systems for the poor. It doesn't change the fact that society still needs to do something.
There are going to be a lot of homeless elderly in the future.
Or if, you know, we had social values where it’s OK to have your children take care of you.
And when your children can't really afford to take care of themselves?
The problem runs way deeper than Oh But The Degeneracy Of The Family can address it.
The problem runs way deeper than Oh But The Degeneracy Of The Family can address it.
Living together takes care of a major expense. There are 125 Million homes in america. There are 0.5 Million homeless.
Maybe we should start a foster-care system for homeless like we do orphans.
I'd bet that < 10% of homeless would be willing to participate even if there were enough households willing to host. But, that doesn't mean we should ignore those 10%.
Elder-care is a whole different story. Especially in later stages of life.
Maybe we should start a foster-care system for homeless like we do orphans.
I'd bet that < 10% of homeless would be willing to participate even if there were enough households willing to host. But, that doesn't mean we should ignore those 10%.
Elder-care is a whole different story. Especially in later stages of life.
There is no circumstance in which elderly living with their children is more expensive than living on their own. Having one rent in stead of two is a huge cost savings.
A larger apartment in the urban area where I live is significantly more expensive than my mother living in a rural area with her family.
Wait. It's not?
Mind if I expound on this?
My mother died in July at 59 from a brain hemorrhage. I took her in 2 years ago, and I paid ~$1000/month for her prescriptions before the ACA kicked in. After it kicked in, her prescription costs dropped (thankfully, as I was going to Canada to get non-controlled prescriptions) but her provider costs increased.
Only because I’m a tech professional in a top earning tier was I able to do this while supporting my wife and daughter. What is the solution for the rest of Americans?
Side note: After her death, I received ~$48k in medical bills that weren’t covered by her health insurance. Bad news for those providers.
My mother died in July at 59 from a brain hemorrhage. I took her in 2 years ago, and I paid ~$1000/month for her prescriptions before the ACA kicked in. After it kicked in, her prescription costs dropped (thankfully, as I was going to Canada to get non-controlled prescriptions) but her provider costs increased.
Only because I’m a tech professional in a top earning tier was I able to do this while supporting my wife and daughter. What is the solution for the rest of Americans?
Side note: After her death, I received ~$48k in medical bills that weren’t covered by her health insurance. Bad news for those providers.
Those debts clear with her estate.
Thanks for pointing that out to people who might not know. I’ve already sent certified letters to all providers that there are no assets, no estate, and no payment will be forthcoming.
So your solution was to shaft the hospitals $48k? Sounds like an applicable solution for the rest of America. This is why healthcare costs are so high.
Wow, that's a really nasty comment. Debts expunge upon the deaths of the debtor. Why would you expect him to pay those debts?
This isn't "why healthcare costs are so high".
This isn't "why healthcare costs are so high".
[deleted]
The health care people in my family call bills like that "the wipe". After death, all of the billing agencies have a go at the estate hoping that in the chaos of the loss, they can soak up what's left of the estate while everyone is distracted.
It's absolutely despicable. More than walking away, very choice words and a lawyer on your side are in order.
It's absolutely despicable. More than walking away, very choice words and a lawyer on your side are in order.
My solution was to follow the law. My mother died in poverty with no assets or estate, therefore her debts die with her.
Next thing you will be telling me is that the CEO of a company should be responsible for company debts?
And those, like the woman in the story, who don't have children?
It depends. Sometimes people can't, and that's about it.
But lately, I have more and more friends that don't want to have children.
The girls are in their 35s and guys in 40s, add or take five.
They share and attempt to behave as if they are in their twenties.
They enjoy the easy Toronto life, spend everything they earn, cluster together with others of similar lifestyle, and reinforce each own egos that they are doing it right.
In a way, we live in amazing times where that is possible. But sometimes, life changes, and at that point, not having family to take care of you, is just bad.
So, for the woman in the story, if bad luck put here there that's sad.
If it was her own choice, well, it is harsh, but not forming and helping a family, as your parents did with you, and helped out their parents, is a selfish act, and I guess the price is similarly horrible.
Edit: Clarity. English is such a weird and misinterpreted language.
But lately, I have more and more friends that don't want to have children.
The girls are in their 35s and guys in 40s, add or take five.
They share and attempt to behave as if they are in their twenties.
They enjoy the easy Toronto life, spend everything they earn, cluster together with others of similar lifestyle, and reinforce each own egos that they are doing it right.
In a way, we live in amazing times where that is possible. But sometimes, life changes, and at that point, not having family to take care of you, is just bad.
So, for the woman in the story, if bad luck put here there that's sad.
If it was her own choice, well, it is harsh, but not forming and helping a family, as your parents did with you, and helped out their parents, is a selfish act, and I guess the price is similarly horrible.
Edit: Clarity. English is such a weird and misinterpreted language.
I'd say raising children to be your caretakers when you're old is far more selfish than simply not having children.
You know, it's not about that. It's family, plural.
Synergy, something more than the parts.
My grandma and grandpa showered together in their 70s as to not break bones in the bathroom.
This is, I imagine, vastly different from what they did there in their 20s.
Each decade brings new challenges and lifestyle.
Man is a pack animal. We need our tribe and our pack.
Choosing to be alone will reap many temporary benefits. However, it's a gamble, as society, and the very core of what drives us, isn't meant to function in isolation.
Life is with other people, and more so with ones that are of your own kind, to face whatever the times may bring.
Take this as you will.
Synergy, something more than the parts.
My grandma and grandpa showered together in their 70s as to not break bones in the bathroom.
This is, I imagine, vastly different from what they did there in their 20s.
Each decade brings new challenges and lifestyle.
Man is a pack animal. We need our tribe and our pack.
Choosing to be alone will reap many temporary benefits. However, it's a gamble, as society, and the very core of what drives us, isn't meant to function in isolation.
Life is with other people, and more so with ones that are of your own kind, to face whatever the times may bring.
Take this as you will.
Wow. Children as a retirement plan. And you are calling people who don't do that selfish?
In some cultures, children are the retirement plan but usually the help is mutual. The children stay with the parents till marriage, the parents help with major purchases, looking after the kids. At some point the children are self supporting and switch roles. The custom of young adults gaining independence early does have a cost.
[deleted]
Social security is a pretty strange program in no small part because it doesn't know what it wants to be. It tries to be everything to everyone -- a mandatory savings program for the middle class, an anti-poverty program for the elderly, a safety net for widows and orphans, and long term disability insurance. It could use a good healthy dose of the UNIX philosophy of do one thing and do it well.
The woman profiled in this article is 79 years old. She gets $1200/month from social security and a $190/month pension. If we as a society think that $1390/month isn't enough to live on and that 79 years ought not to have to work to survive then we should have some program that gives her more than $1200/month.
Maybe that should be a means tested program, though that comes with side effects, or maybe an elderly UBI. Or perhaps you disagree with one or both of the premises -- like that you think that $1390/month is plenty. That's okay too.
My point is that social security with its strange formulas and conceptual inconsistencies isn't some fact of the universe like that the sun will burn out. It is something that we Americans picked and we Americans can change if we decide to.
The woman profiled in this article is 79 years old. She gets $1200/month from social security and a $190/month pension. If we as a society think that $1390/month isn't enough to live on and that 79 years ought not to have to work to survive then we should have some program that gives her more than $1200/month.
Maybe that should be a means tested program, though that comes with side effects, or maybe an elderly UBI. Or perhaps you disagree with one or both of the premises -- like that you think that $1390/month is plenty. That's okay too.
My point is that social security with its strange formulas and conceptual inconsistencies isn't some fact of the universe like that the sun will burn out. It is something that we Americans picked and we Americans can change if we decide to.
They are separate programs though. They just all happen to involve the same expertise and are managed together.
(the things you call mandatory savings and anti-poverty aren't separate things, but it is mandatory because the anti-poverty funding is done on an actuarial basis with the broadest possible base; in any case, you receive benefits based on having paid in, not just because you is old)
(the things you call mandatory savings and anti-poverty aren't separate things, but it is mandatory because the anti-poverty funding is done on an actuarial basis with the broadest possible base; in any case, you receive benefits based on having paid in, not just because you is old)
You only partly receive benefits based on having paid in. You can also receive benefits based on a live, dead, or even ex-spouse having paid in. Or a live or dead parent.
Given that some people don't qualify at all it isn't a particularly well designed anti-poverty measure. You can say that it isn't supposed to be until you are blue in the face, but that's certainly how it was and continues to be sold. Given that if you died at age 60 without a wife or children your estate gets nothing, it isn't a particularly well designed mandatory savings program. That is another way it was and continues to be sold. Given that there's no underwriting it isn't a well designed insurance program (annuity).
Like our tax advantaged retirement savings options -- with its grab bag of different programs -- or Medicare with its bizarre A/B/D distinction (not to mention C) no one would actually set out to design a system like social security. People defend it because it is the status quo and they fear the unknown that admitting ought to replaced would open up.
Given that some people don't qualify at all it isn't a particularly well designed anti-poverty measure. You can say that it isn't supposed to be until you are blue in the face, but that's certainly how it was and continues to be sold. Given that if you died at age 60 without a wife or children your estate gets nothing, it isn't a particularly well designed mandatory savings program. That is another way it was and continues to be sold. Given that there's no underwriting it isn't a well designed insurance program (annuity).
Like our tax advantaged retirement savings options -- with its grab bag of different programs -- or Medicare with its bizarre A/B/D distinction (not to mention C) no one would actually set out to design a system like social security. People defend it because it is the status quo and they fear the unknown that admitting ought to replaced would open up.
> Her monthly income consists of $1,200 in Social Security and a $190 pension, plus pay from her seasonal jobs. She owes $50,000 on her credit cards. There’s also a $268 monthly loan payment for her aging rig.
The situation for her does suck, but seeing profiles like this makes me want to tear my hair out.
If you're trying to service $50,000 in unsecured debt (likely at a 24.99999% interest rate) with less than $2000 in gross income, just declare bankruptcy. You've lost the game of financial planning; continuing to play it just makes sure you remain a loser for the final few years you spend on this mortal coil.
Clear the slate and start over while you still have time. She has nothing to lose (she won't be able to finance a new car, RV or house in her current circumstances either) and a few hundred dollars a month in disposable income to gain. That's around a 25% increase overnight, just by waking up and doing what every corporate citizen in this country does when its own debts get too onerous.
The situation for her does suck, but seeing profiles like this makes me want to tear my hair out.
If you're trying to service $50,000 in unsecured debt (likely at a 24.99999% interest rate) with less than $2000 in gross income, just declare bankruptcy. You've lost the game of financial planning; continuing to play it just makes sure you remain a loser for the final few years you spend on this mortal coil.
Clear the slate and start over while you still have time. She has nothing to lose (she won't be able to finance a new car, RV or house in her current circumstances either) and a few hundred dollars a month in disposable income to gain. That's around a 25% increase overnight, just by waking up and doing what every corporate citizen in this country does when its own debts get too onerous.
> Her monthly income consists of $1,200 in Social Security and a $190 pension
That is a decent salary if she lived in a cheaper state like Mississippi or Kentucky. I realize there are other factors at play here, but its your choice to retire in a ridiculously expensive state like California.
That is a decent salary if she lived in a cheaper state like Mississippi or Kentucky. I realize there are other factors at play here, but its your choice to retire in a ridiculously expensive state like California.
Maybe a new startup with an app could help?
"Post a selfie of feeding the hungry"
"Leftover food spotted on the corner of 5th and Lincoln"
Then sell user data to law enforcement.
"Post a selfie of feeding the hungry"
"Leftover food spotted on the corner of 5th and Lincoln"
Then sell user data to law enforcement.
There's a terribly toxic combination at work here - a demographic bubble, lifespans (but often not productive lifespans) extended by modern medicine, high cost of that modern medicine, declining market value of skills held by the older generation, flat middle-class earnings, near-total elimination of defined benefit programs, and a series of financial shocks eroding the value of stock-market alternatives. The result is akin to an epidemic - millions of older people physically able and likely to live a few more decades, but financially not even capable of making it another year without help. Scary.
The GOP/libertarian answer is likely to be that "too young to die" isn't true. No, they won't come out and say it, but the policies they promote come down to that. "Just die already, it'll be good for the economy (or at least the stock market)." Problem is, they won't die. They'll end up in hospitals more often, or prisons. If you think nobody has deliberately gone to jail just to ensure three squares and health care, think again. Some will end up in their children's homes, which can be great sometimes but is more often a drain on those children's own prospects. Many will end up on the streets. The rich families who send their kids to Washington or Wall Street won't be affected and thus mostly own't care, but it will be a literal disaster for everyone else.
Like it or not, the only real choice is for us as a society to do more to look after the elderly. Not only is it the humane choice, but when you add up all the costs of the alternative that's even worse. And no, we can't rely on private charity to do the job. There's nowhere near enough organized charity for that, and at the individual level very very few of the people affluent enough to offer help will go anywhere near somebody else's poor grandmother. I'm extremely fortunate that I can afford to pay for my mother to be in a nice assisted living facility, but everything below that is a hellhole and my personal solution doesn't scale to all of society.
The GOP/libertarian answer is likely to be that "too young to die" isn't true. No, they won't come out and say it, but the policies they promote come down to that. "Just die already, it'll be good for the economy (or at least the stock market)." Problem is, they won't die. They'll end up in hospitals more often, or prisons. If you think nobody has deliberately gone to jail just to ensure three squares and health care, think again. Some will end up in their children's homes, which can be great sometimes but is more often a drain on those children's own prospects. Many will end up on the streets. The rich families who send their kids to Washington or Wall Street won't be affected and thus mostly own't care, but it will be a literal disaster for everyone else.
Like it or not, the only real choice is for us as a society to do more to look after the elderly. Not only is it the humane choice, but when you add up all the costs of the alternative that's even worse. And no, we can't rely on private charity to do the job. There's nowhere near enough organized charity for that, and at the individual level very very few of the people affluent enough to offer help will go anywhere near somebody else's poor grandmother. I'm extremely fortunate that I can afford to pay for my mother to be in a nice assisted living facility, but everything below that is a hellhole and my personal solution doesn't scale to all of society.
What caught my eye was the $50k in credit card debt, and not explanation as to why. I have to assume those minimal payments are significant and keep growing. Remove that and she could be in much better shape. Obviously not livin' large but at least there's not the stress of $50k hanging over her head.
My other thought was, if possible, why not have a veg garden? As the legend Ron Finley says "it's like printing money."
Sure it take time and effort but if you consider it to be a permanent PT job (that she rarely has) then it could be a big help.
My other thought was, if possible, why not have a veg garden? As the legend Ron Finley says "it's like printing money."
Sure it take time and effort but if you consider it to be a permanent PT job (that she rarely has) then it could be a big help.
This isn't an intergenerational issue. Old people (65+) have something beyond 95% of the money in this world. Todays seniors, as a group, are the most wealthy ever. The "gray market" for anything from drugs to travel is booming like never before. What is needed then is not wealth transfer between generations, such as income taxes paid by the young. What is needed is transfer from the rich elderly to the poor elderly. It is time to means test many of the benefits. If you are earning 200k+ in passive retirement income, your social security can be partially diverted to help those truly in need.
This: She owes $50,000 on her credit cards.
Go to any bank rate calculator[1] and look at what a $50K debt in credit cards does to you. If you learn only one thing from this cautionary tale it should be how expensive credit card money can be.
Without that debt she would not be in great shape but she would be a lot better off.
[1] http://www.bankrate.com/calculators/credit-cards/credit-card...
Go to any bank rate calculator[1] and look at what a $50K debt in credit cards does to you. If you learn only one thing from this cautionary tale it should be how expensive credit card money can be.
Without that debt she would not be in great shape but she would be a lot better off.
[1] http://www.bankrate.com/calculators/credit-cards/credit-card...
This article title sounds like a riff on the Jethro Tull song.
[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8uUh1xsL14
[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8uUh1xsL14
Leave USA...$1000 a month goes a long way in a lot of countries, in USA you'll starve. https://www.kiplinger.com/article/retirement/T037-C000-S002-...
Now I get why a lot of Americans come to Mexico to retire, sure we have a lot of problems over here, but with that amount you will be able to live in a good and beautiful town, maybe next to a beach or in a traditional town like San Miguel de Allende [1] (a lot of old Americans go to retire there), maybe you won't live like a king, but you won't have housing or food problems at all.
[1] http://cdn-image.travelandleisure.com/sites/default/files/st...
I wonder if these kinds of stories will prompt real political will for things like single payer healthcare or a real social safety net.
A "real" social safety net? Is that a joke? As though we already don't have tons of social programs? Sure, the US might not be as insanely generous as some European nations, but the US has medicare, medicaid, food stamps (SNAP), social security, welfare (SSI), disability, housing assistance, CHIP, WIC, ACA subsidies, section 8 housing assistance, home energy assistance, and probably even more I can't think of or don't even know about. The US spends more than $2.3 trillion every year on those programs combined, which comes out to around $7,000 for each and every person in the US (around 330M). That's an absolutely mind blowing number.
Social Security: Last year, 24 percent of the budget, or $916 billion, paid for Social Security, which provided monthly retirement benefits averaging $1,360 to 41 million retired workers in December 2016. Social Security also provided benefits to 3 million spouses and children of retired workers, 6 million surviving children and spouses of deceased workers, and 10.6 million disabled workers and their eligible dependents in December 2016.
Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, and marketplace subsidies: Four health insurance programs — Medicare, Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and Affordable Care Act (ACA) marketplace subsidies — together accounted for 26 percent of the budget in 2016, or $1 trillion. Nearly three-fifths of this amount, or $594 billion, went to Medicare, which provides health coverage to around 57 million people who are over age 65 or have disabilities. The rest of this category funds Medicaid, CHIP, and ACA subsidy and exchange costs. In a typical month, Medicaid and CHIP provide health care or long-term care to about 74 million low-income children, parents, elderly people, and people with disabilities. (Both Medicaid and CHIP require matching payments from the states.) In 2016, 9 million of the 11 million people enrolled in health insurance exchanges received ACA subsidies, at an estimated cost of about $31 billion.
Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, and marketplace subsidies: Four health insurance programs — Medicare, Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and Affordable Care Act (ACA) marketplace subsidies — together accounted for 26 percent of the budget in 2016, or $1 trillion. Nearly three-fifths of this amount, or $594 billion, went to Medicare, which provides health coverage to around 57 million people who are over age 65 or have disabilities. The rest of this category funds Medicaid, CHIP, and ACA subsidy and exchange costs. In a typical month, Medicaid and CHIP provide health care or long-term care to about 74 million low-income children, parents, elderly people, and people with disabilities. (Both Medicaid and CHIP require matching payments from the states.) In 2016, 9 million of the 11 million people enrolled in health insurance exchanges received ACA subsidies, at an estimated cost of about $31 billion.
~$1272/mo per person on social security( around 60 m people)
~868 / mo per person for medicare(57 m)
(both of these they paid all their life into)
~$668 /mo Medicaid and CHIP provide health care or long-term care to about 74 million low-income children, parents, elderly people, and people with disabilities.
~868 / mo per person for medicare(57 m)
(both of these they paid all their life into)
~$668 /mo Medicaid and CHIP provide health care or long-term care to about 74 million low-income children, parents, elderly people, and people with disabilities.
$7k / person is nothing compared to most European countries.
And we still don't have a single payer healthcare system.
And we still don't have a single payer healthcare system.
To be clear - it's 7k for each person in the entire country - not each recipient. So the amount received by the actual people getting the benefits is far, far more than just 7k.
Think about it this way - the average household income is something like 55k in the US. Even if it were just the far lower 7k number, that's nearly 13% of income. That maps out to around 6 weeks of work/income for which the member(s) of that household must work for to then have that money taken by government and given to someone else. And that's the best case scenario, using the lowest number. Households with multiple earners making larger amounts pay an even higher percentage towards all of this.
Think about it this way - the average household income is something like 55k in the US. Even if it were just the far lower 7k number, that's nearly 13% of income. That maps out to around 6 weeks of work/income for which the member(s) of that household must work for to then have that money taken by government and given to someone else. And that's the best case scenario, using the lowest number. Households with multiple earners making larger amounts pay an even higher percentage towards all of this.
>Her savings long gone, and having never done much long-term financial planning
And so again we are expected to pay for the mistakes of others. What incentive is there to save if you know you have a social net to save you anyway?
Yes, I understand, it is a terrifying way to live, I wouldn't wish it on anyone, but if we deincentivize personal responsibility, what stops this from becoming a larger problem? How can this be sustainable?
Edit: please do not mistake my attempt at objectivity for callousness. One must divorce personal feelings of pity and empathy for individuals when discussing matters which affect hundreds of millions of people. There comes a point where there are more people requiring assistance than we are capable of supporting, and part of the solution is to discourage recklessness.
And so again we are expected to pay for the mistakes of others. What incentive is there to save if you know you have a social net to save you anyway?
Yes, I understand, it is a terrifying way to live, I wouldn't wish it on anyone, but if we deincentivize personal responsibility, what stops this from becoming a larger problem? How can this be sustainable?
Edit: please do not mistake my attempt at objectivity for callousness. One must divorce personal feelings of pity and empathy for individuals when discussing matters which affect hundreds of millions of people. There comes a point where there are more people requiring assistance than we are capable of supporting, and part of the solution is to discourage recklessness.
The thing is a lot of people run out of money for many different reasons and a lack of "personal responsibility" is only one of them.
All it takes is one big crash to wipe out years of long term financial planning. Illness of oneself, a spouse, child or parent can easily crater life savings. Sometimes people just live too damn long. And yes, sometimes people lack "personal responsibility."
To some extent, yes, you are expected to pay for the safety net of others. You never know when YOU might need it.
All it takes is one big crash to wipe out years of long term financial planning. Illness of oneself, a spouse, child or parent can easily crater life savings. Sometimes people just live too damn long. And yes, sometimes people lack "personal responsibility."
To some extent, yes, you are expected to pay for the safety net of others. You never know when YOU might need it.
I understand that there are legitimate reasons that someone may need assistance.
My problem is with this nonsensical mentality that, without any actual statistics, people automatically assume that anyone struggling is a victim of circumstance. Or worse, that they have somehow been abused or stolen from by those with money. Which, by the way, I believe I'd a relatively new outlook in the history of the U.S.
The danger is that it encourages people to live haphazardly and in the long run is not sustainable. And, quite frankly, I have no desire to pay for people who lived selfishly in their own time.
My problem is with this nonsensical mentality that, without any actual statistics, people automatically assume that anyone struggling is a victim of circumstance. Or worse, that they have somehow been abused or stolen from by those with money. Which, by the way, I believe I'd a relatively new outlook in the history of the U.S.
The danger is that it encourages people to live haphazardly and in the long run is not sustainable. And, quite frankly, I have no desire to pay for people who lived selfishly in their own time.
There are many nations with a similar level of development and wealth as the United States. How prevalent is this problem in Canada? In Europe?
You propose "personal responsibility" as the solution to this, but does Canada or Europe depend more on "personal responsibility" or less than the US?
You propose "personal responsibility" as the solution to this, but does Canada or Europe depend more on "personal responsibility" or less than the US?
Ayn Rand, arguably a strong proponent of "personal responsibility", required welfare at the end of her life. She made some justifications for how she could live off of welfare but still did it.
When times are personally good it's easy to make arguments about what people should do, but when you're in a situation with no support things feel a lot different.
When times are personally good it's easy to make arguments about what people should do, but when you're in a situation with no support things feel a lot different.
> but when you're in a situation with no support things feel a lot different.
The fact that things feel different in hard times does not change whether objectively they are right or wrong.
The fact that things feel different in hard times does not change whether objectively they are right or wrong.
Are you sure that the problem doesn't actually exist in Europe and Canada? Are you sure it isn't offset by a culture where the young are expected to care more for their elders?
Move to California, stop buying prime rib dinners, and stop complaining.
Why do newspapers use as examples people who seem to have done everything wrong? Is it because formerly middle class people are somehow more relatable to the readers of the LA Times than people who never had much of a chance to begin with? What about the poor elderly who never went to business school or were born in an area with few opportunities?
This lady gets almost $17,000 a year in pension and social security, which puts her just outside the bottom 1/5 of the income distribution. She’s presumably eligible for Medicare. In a rural town it would be enough for a decent living.