JohnH wrote:


Remember, the plan is designed not for people in their 50's, but for a
much
younger population. I wish I had been investing 3% of my ss money into
stock
funds since I began paying ss taxes as 17!

***********************

And precisely what portion of the Social Security System, as it
currently exists, prevented you from budgeting 3% of your income for
savings or investment?

Did the rest of your expenses and luxuries consume all of your
disposable income? If you didn't invest 3%, was that the government's
fault? (Careful, you'll start to sound like your own stereotype of a
Democrat) :-)

I was thinking of how tough it must be for people who rely on the
"accumulation" model to retire these days.
It's different for people who establish passive income streams, but
with a retirement "nest egg" invested in
a relatively safe bond fund, etc, wouldn't it take about
$2.5- $3 million in cash to spin off $1500-2000 a week at current
interest rates? It takes at least that kind of income to sustain a
middle class lifestyle- and the typical couple earning enough to
accumulate liquid assets or savings of $3 million may be used to living
at something above middle class.

(High real estate values have created a false sense of security for a
lot of people. In many parts of the country,
million-dollar homes are becoming common- and are nothing all that
exceptional. People conclude they've got a million bucks as they pay
off the mortgage- and maybe they do if they're willing to cash out and
move to a single wide trailer someplace in the Dakotas. For everybody
else, a million of their bucks are stuck in a house.)

I'm not certain that it's reasonable to expect the average couple to
accumulate $3 million in liquid assets, including compoounded interest,
through the investment of 3% of average wages.

People retiring today from an annual salary of $100,000
usually started working in the late 50's and early 60's when one tenth
of that amount would have been considered a very high wage indeed. $500
a month was pretty common money back then. Compounding works most
dramatically on money saved or invested during the earliest years of a
working career, and even if a super thrifty couple managed to save 5-7%
in those days, the sum that has been compounded started off as too
small a number to (a few hundred bucks) to be worth as much as needed
today.

New American employment model might be this:

Rather than work to earn a pension that insures you can quit work but
maintain your lifestyle, work toward developing a career that you truly
enjoy and is personally fulfilling. When the day comes when you turn
55, 60, 65 or whatever and your frinds ask if you're going to sit back
and clip coupons from here to the finish line, you can look them in the
eye and say "I couldn't imagine giving up my job! I enjoy it far too
much to consider quitting." IMO, that may be the secret to a
satisfactory old age..........(but it might be nice to have the
financial resources to get by if it became medically impossible to
continue working)