So Japan's experience teaches us, according to The New York Times. Excerpt:
Economists blame this slow spending on widespread distrust of Japan's pension system, which is buckling under the weight of one of the world's most rapidly aging societies. That could serve as a warning for the United States, where workers' 401(k)'s have been ravaged by declining stocks, pensions are disappearing, and the long-term solvency of the Social Security system is in question."My husband is retiring in five years, and I'm very concerned," says Ms. Masaki's mother, Naoko, 52. She says it is no relief that her husband, a public servant, can expect a hefty retirement package; pension payments could fall, and she has two unmarried children to worry about.
"I want him to find another job, and work as long as he's able," Mrs. Masaki says. "We must be ready to fend for ourselves."
Does anybody under 50 really believe that they'll see a penny of Social Security? Why wouldn't you be frugal?
Still trying to wrap my mind around the idea that saving and spending sensibly is a bad thing...
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Dave Ramsey says that sure, in the short term, saving more and spending less is rather tough on the economy, but in the long term it creates a more stable economy. And what stock market doesn't like stability?? Save all you want, people. I just wish DC would understand that spending what you don't have is bad; and that China isn't going to buy our treasuries forever. What happens when they call the loan?
Junk the entire thing and let families take care of their own.
You're suggesting that we junk the nuclear family in favor of the extended family, in which mom and dad are now responsible for their parents as well as their kids. Bye-bye Cleaver family, hello Real McCoys!
I just want to make sure I understand your solution, which is a return to the social order of the 1900s, not the 1950s.
And, of course, since the advent of blended families and serial monogamy we'll have to sort out which kids are responsible for which parents and, for those who never had children or siblings, which cousins are responsible for them.
Karth, you genius! You've just created a job stimulus for lawyers all over America as we litigate to make sure we know who is responsible for whom! ;-)
The Not-So-Stupid Chris @ 9:52 PM writes:
“You're suggesting that we junk the nuclear family in favor of the extended family, in which mom and dad are now responsible for their parents as well as their kids. Bye-bye Cleaver family, hello Real McCoys!
I just want to make sure I understand your solution, which is a return to the social order of the 1900s, not the 1950s.”
As it stands now, parents are being held responsible for the support of someone else’s parents as well as their kids. That’s just nonsensical, not to mention immoral in the most basic sense.
“And, of course, since the advent of blended families and serial monogamy we'll have to sort out which kids are responsible for which parents and, for those who never had children or siblings, which cousins are responsible for them.
Karth, you genius! You've just created a job stimulus for lawyers all over America as we litigate to make sure we know who is responsible for whom! ;-)”
Actually, I’ve long advocated the enactment of Elder Support Laws. After all, we hold parents legally responsible for the support of their dependent children, so why not have children support their retired/elderly parents ? As far as potential litigation is concerned, I don’t really think it would lead to that much new litigation. The law in most states can allow for recognition of de facto parent-child relationships that do not necessarily involve biological relations. It wouldn’t be that much of an extension for that caselaw to be analogized to run in the other direction as well.
If that makes me a genius....well, it’s just another cross I must needs bear.
Your servant,
Lord Karth
Your Name
Funny- These people who are running around screaming "Social Security will fail" were doing the same thing about three or four years ago, and at that time their solution was to privatize Social Security and give the money to the Bernie Madoffs and the Lehman brothers and their ilk. What is their solution this time?
I'd like to hear this too. What is the solution?
The 'privatize' people can never again have any sort of credibility, as if we'd done exactly what they asked, transfer large amounts of SS to the stock market, when they asked in 2002 or so, we'd have absolutely no savings at this point.
Lord Karth
My solution remains the same as it always has been: Eradication. Junk the entire thing and let families take care of their own.
Well, we've discovered stocks are a bad idea. Perhaps they could invest in real estate! I've heard the value of that always increases.
...what? Too soon?
If nothing else, such a policy has the virtue of being honest. The current setup is nothing more than an intergenerational act of financial war.
No, what the Republicans are doing, by constantly threatening it, is 'financial war'. Continually funding a safety net that all elderly Americans can use is not a intergenerational war.
The fact that the government keeps borrowing from social security has nothing to do with social security. You want to stop that, feel free. But stop pretending out-of-control spending is social security's fault.
That's like blaming a retirement savings account for the fact you keep borrowing from it to take trips to Vegas, and your solution is to...not have a retirement savings account. Um, yeah. Clever plan.
And, incidentally, predicting a large amount of inflation while saying 'You should provide for your own retirement'...um, how, exactly? Precious metals? (Let's hope there's not a revolution in how to mine them, dropping their values greatly, over the next 30 years.) Magic non-inflationary money?
Lord Karth,
While I strongly support reinvigorating the idea of families taking care of each other across generations, Elder Support Laws are a terrible way to go about doing that. We need to use the bully pulpit in politics and the pulpit in churches to teach people this is the right thing to do. But coersion would lead to a lot of injustices, and a lack of a cheerful and willing spirit about it--even patricide and matricide to get rid of the burdens.
I financially support my mother--who isn't even 60 years old but she's in poor health and has been unemployed the better part of the last 5 years--because my father cheated on her, squandered family savings, and wasted even more money fighting against any kind of fair divorce settlement. Should I be required to support him too when he can't care for himself? You can guaranty that would get litigated, and half of American families are in similar broken home situations. In a society where support from your grown children is encouraged but not a right, it would encourage parents to avoid this kind of homewrecking that could get them disowned by their children.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.