Listen to what Yuval Harari author of Sapiens has to say in his "End of Death" interview on theedge.com.. inequality becomes more profound to the 'divine' (not his word) , as the rich can buy longer youth spans + longetivity!
2
I'm amazed at the people who are blaming the low-income woman in the article for her "poor choices." Everyone makes bad choices from time to time, but the well-off can better afford to. Put another way, the poor pay a much higher price for their poor choices. Sadly, I think what's described in the article will only become exacerbated with time. College is MUCH less affordable now than it was when the two women in the article attended. They probably would have come out with debt had they attended in 2015--debt they would have carried into their child-bearing years, when it would be time to save for THEIR kids' college. (And I know more than one divorced mother whose ex refused to contribute to the kids' college.) It was much easier for previous generations to save money for retirement. Millennials and Gen-Xers are likely making/will make some bad choices, just like all the other generations, but they will pay a higher price.
16
Paula Span sets -- and meets! -- high reader expectations. Another excellent article, much food for thought here. So interesting! Read and consider. (Abundant ethical implications here as well!)
7
Could Ms. McNeely live with, as opposed to near, her daughter?
Living alone is costly; it is a luxury unfathomable throughout most of human history and even throughout most of the modern world. Both sets of my grandparents' families had a history of multiple generations living under one roof, the one with enough money and the one with very little. Both families also rented rooms to elderly single women, to college students or persons in transition for periods of time. Their version of AirB&B over 100 years ago. Likely those Italian and Irish immigrants had no choice, but the tradition has persisted to the present generations. I witness the same kind of thing among my Polish and Ghanaian in-laws and in the families of my Central American neighbors. We don't have grandmom or a maiden aunt struggling to eat in a neighboring state, we make a place for her in our home.
I floated that question rhetorically, but as a practical matter she should consider it. As difficult as it may be to move at age 67 with emphysema, it will only be more difficult in 5 years or in 10 years. The future gets here eventually, even if we aren't ready for it.
Living alone is costly; it is a luxury unfathomable throughout most of human history and even throughout most of the modern world. Both sets of my grandparents' families had a history of multiple generations living under one roof, the one with enough money and the one with very little. Both families also rented rooms to elderly single women, to college students or persons in transition for periods of time. Their version of AirB&B over 100 years ago. Likely those Italian and Irish immigrants had no choice, but the tradition has persisted to the present generations. I witness the same kind of thing among my Polish and Ghanaian in-laws and in the families of my Central American neighbors. We don't have grandmom or a maiden aunt struggling to eat in a neighboring state, we make a place for her in our home.
I floated that question rhetorically, but as a practical matter she should consider it. As difficult as it may be to move at age 67 with emphysema, it will only be more difficult in 5 years or in 10 years. The future gets here eventually, even if we aren't ready for it.
13
The main difference here is that Carol Rosen married a wealthy man and was able to improve her life through that marriage. You don't say what her degree was but I am guessing it was art-related and hardly able to support the affluent life she is living now. I wish the article had highlighted the lifestyle and life choices of a woman who managed to live and retire well based solely on her degree and career choices instead of one who happened upon a wealthy man. Is it 2015 or is it still 1955?
As for Susan McNeely, I imagine that healthcare is a big concern but Medicaid (reading between the lines) covers her costs so she doesn't have to worry about getting her meds. I wish her well.
As for Susan McNeely, I imagine that healthcare is a big concern but Medicaid (reading between the lines) covers her costs so she doesn't have to worry about getting her meds. I wish her well.
21
I am not sure how this is inequality? To me, inequality implies that something is not fair (e.g. equal). However, these two women just made different choices in their lives (one stayed in college, did not have kids, got married and stayed married, worked a non-menial job, did not make any bad decisions, the other dropped out of college, married, had kids, divorced, made some bad business decisions (failed bar/restaurant) and maybe smoked (since she ended out with emphysema) and this was the resulting outcome for each of them. The outcome for each is simply the cumulative effect of a lifetime of decisions (both good and bad).
13
Staying married is often not a choice. You are blaming the victims of an unfair system. You missed the whole point of the article.
29
The point of the article was to point out the differences between pay. Tristin Goode did not confuse that point. However, TG pointed out that life is about choices. And, some prepare for the future while others do not. LIfe happens; however, the choices we make are important. In this article between the two people, one chose to spend money on alcohol and cigarettes, etc. while the other made different choices. When someone prepares for retirement, they should not be held to the choices of the person who did not.
2
as a middle-class guy who was orphaned at 15 but inherited enough, I have carefully invested over my lifetime to now have enough for a comfortable retirement for me and my partner
being childfree is one obvious factor - most folks with kids scoff at the idea of ever being able to afford to retire - each kid could approximate a million in retirement funds lost
other folks I talk to tend to be - too hard, I don't like maths, short-term thinking, hope to win lotto, can't be bothered, budgets are boring, how come I've got no money - lack of discipline/planning/willpower - combined sometimes with lower intelligence so it all looks too scary and just hope for a pension of some sort without ever actually doing the math
my neighbour retired - went to a bank financial planner who drew up a great plan for them - only cost them $7000 - and will probably burn their funds up by the time they qualify for an age pension - not a great lifestyle to look forward to then
being childfree is one obvious factor - most folks with kids scoff at the idea of ever being able to afford to retire - each kid could approximate a million in retirement funds lost
other folks I talk to tend to be - too hard, I don't like maths, short-term thinking, hope to win lotto, can't be bothered, budgets are boring, how come I've got no money - lack of discipline/planning/willpower - combined sometimes with lower intelligence so it all looks too scary and just hope for a pension of some sort without ever actually doing the math
my neighbour retired - went to a bank financial planner who drew up a great plan for them - only cost them $7000 - and will probably burn their funds up by the time they qualify for an age pension - not a great lifestyle to look forward to then
4
This article reinforces my belief that schools (6-12 grades) should be mandated to teach a series of courses called Life examining the financial effect that our life choices have on our lives; education, work, pension, marriage, divorce, children, politics, community, all combine to affect the quality of our lives, especially when we're old(er). While my income was never high enough to allow me to have any significant savings my pension and Social Security will net me a nice increase over my last years of income. This is nice, but I could have had a really nice retirement had I just finished college (a lesson for all you youngsters reading this...you know, anyone under 50)!
14
And they should also teach debt education in school, that's sorely needed in this society.
5
I truly agree with you! As a person in her early twenties, I wish that this was a mandatory course while I was still in high school. "How to better invest in YOU"! Definitely something that the schools systems today in America should consider in order to better prepare future generations and hopefully impact the economy in a positive manner.
4
Rich people do rich people things. They save and live below their means. My father in law, no college, not even sure if he has a highschool diploma, grew up in a poor immigrant farm family, worked a blue collar job (no crazy income but did work overtime), lived at home for 10+ years as an adult, lived on nothing, and SAVED, SAVED, SAVED. Even after he married, the family spent very little money and lived on much less than he made (my husband had to reuse his paper lunch bag). They purchased 2nd hand clothing, etc (and my FIL continued to SAVE). Now he is 88 and has money. Most people don't want to live that way, instead they spend. He lives in a house he purcahsed 40+ years ago and it still looks similar to how it looked 40 years ago. But he has money (a lot). There are many stories of people becoming rich after decades of living below their means and saving. He also liked to exercise. People end up where they are (rich or poor) most often (not always) through choices they made.
19
A lot of immigrants could teach American consumers a lesson or two about not giving in to the social pressure to consume, consume, consume.
3
Luck has a great deal to do with outcomes too, Your beloved FILmight have been hit by a drunk driver one day and had medical bills that took away his life savings. Don't be so unkind when it comes to the "choices" people make. There are as many circumstances as there are people. Be thankful for your FIL's good luck.
20
Remember that the growing gap in inequality with age is based on a mathematical MODEL for those born in 1960. Most of those folks are still alive, so the model has yet to be confirmed as matching reality. That will take decades.
It would be useful to understand how life expectancy is calculated, and what the actual spread of numbers will be. Even under ideal circumstances, not everyone will die at the same age; there will be a broad range of ages at which people die. There's got to be overlap between the numbers for those who are poor and those who are better off. I'm just curious what the values would look like on a graph. As was said in the article, averages hide a lot of information, and policies shouldn't be made based on averages.
It would be useful to understand how life expectancy is calculated, and what the actual spread of numbers will be. Even under ideal circumstances, not everyone will die at the same age; there will be a broad range of ages at which people die. There's got to be overlap between the numbers for those who are poor and those who are better off. I'm just curious what the values would look like on a graph. As was said in the article, averages hide a lot of information, and policies shouldn't be made based on averages.
4
It is all about the "choices" in life one makes.
4
Instilling in young people the value of money and the need for it in their old age would be a partial solution to the problem of hardship later in life. As Dr. Orszag mentions, people are failing to invest at younger ages and missing opportunities. Healthy lifestyles would also help.
4
He was talking about *the country* investing in education and health care at younger ages, Charles, not just individuals.
2
As a Boomer, I know a few Boomer women who did not want to work, even after their children were in school full time. These are the same women who never wanted to go to college, not even a one year certification program, as they thought that 'everything would work out in the end'.
It did not and now they are old and poor and still working in menial jobs, because you either work hard when you are young or you will be working until you die.
There is a big difference between being young and poor and old and poor and young women need to understand that they themselves - not a man, not their children, not the government - must take responsibility for their financial status. Maybe it should not be this way, but to pretend it is not is how so many older women wound up in poverty.
It did not and now they are old and poor and still working in menial jobs, because you either work hard when you are young or you will be working until you die.
There is a big difference between being young and poor and old and poor and young women need to understand that they themselves - not a man, not their children, not the government - must take responsibility for their financial status. Maybe it should not be this way, but to pretend it is not is how so many older women wound up in poverty.
19
Could not agree more! I'm a boomer and my father taught me from the time I was a toddler it was my responsibility to take care of myself and I did. Went to college and grad school, worked for 35 years- saved money, married 32 years, raised a son, etc. Retired now and quite comfortable fortunately, trips to Europe, etc, but I studied and worked hard all those many years while many didn't! Thanks again, Dad!
5
The key differences are the following:
1. One married someone who would be financially well-off; the other didn't.
2. One remained married; the other divorced.
3. One was working class and tried to achieve the American dream, only to fail because of forces beyond her control; the other had a "job," but relied on her husband's income for her lifestyle.
The article only makes life decisions and circumstance seem, to some, worthy of punishment.
1. One married someone who would be financially well-off; the other didn't.
2. One remained married; the other divorced.
3. One was working class and tried to achieve the American dream, only to fail because of forces beyond her control; the other had a "job," but relied on her husband's income for her lifestyle.
The article only makes life decisions and circumstance seem, to some, worthy of punishment.
23
As a caregiver who took care of a grandfather in my parent's home, a paternal grandmother (Alzheimers) in my own home, another grandmother who lived on limited income, and now my in-laws in nursing facilities, I believe that I have some foundation in which to weigh in on this debate.
My grandfather, paternal grandmother, and my in-laws were (are) self pay due to savings. My grandfather was a farmer but managed to save enough to pay his nursing care when the time came. My paternal grandmother was very frugal, limited spending to experiences and not materials items and did not drink or smoke. She paid for her own care in a nursing facility when the time came; she was a piano teacher; her husband a salesman. My in-laws declared bankruptcy; lost their home and income and had to start over again after their children were grown. They managed to save enough money that they are self-pay in a nursing facility - one a teacher later in life; the other an architect who was ill early in his 'senior' years. The grandmother on limited income spent money to 'keep up with the Jones'; hence, she counted on others to pay her way while continuing to play a large share of her SS on lottery tickets.
Life is about choices.
Although I believe that family takes care of family, I also believe that I should not have to pay for those who did not save or, who did not make good choices in life.
Yes, some never made much money. However, those are the people receiving state subsidized nursing care.
My grandfather, paternal grandmother, and my in-laws were (are) self pay due to savings. My grandfather was a farmer but managed to save enough to pay his nursing care when the time came. My paternal grandmother was very frugal, limited spending to experiences and not materials items and did not drink or smoke. She paid for her own care in a nursing facility when the time came; she was a piano teacher; her husband a salesman. My in-laws declared bankruptcy; lost their home and income and had to start over again after their children were grown. They managed to save enough money that they are self-pay in a nursing facility - one a teacher later in life; the other an architect who was ill early in his 'senior' years. The grandmother on limited income spent money to 'keep up with the Jones'; hence, she counted on others to pay her way while continuing to play a large share of her SS on lottery tickets.
Life is about choices.
Although I believe that family takes care of family, I also believe that I should not have to pay for those who did not save or, who did not make good choices in life.
Yes, some never made much money. However, those are the people receiving state subsidized nursing care.
2
I so hate everyone piling on the criticism. What's done is done. Not everyone makes great choices 100% of the time, you don't know the back stories etc. Bottom line is, living only on SS is tough. It's a reality for many many people. They paid taxes all their lives so they are not moochers.
22
Concerning Mrs. McNeely...is her income too high for Medicaid? If she qualified they would pay for all Medicare wouldn't they? If not she would probably be better off with AARP Medicare Advantage. If she was married at least 10 years she might do better with Social Security through XDH
3
The article presents a good argument for not capping the Social Security wage level since the well-off receive SS benefits for a much longer time. I hdn't thought of it that way before.
19
Too many older people are retiring far too early and grabbing a significantly reduced Social Security benefit at age 62. Much of the inequality results from bad decisions.
3
The author fails to consider that the lower-wage workers get substantially more from SSI on each dollar contributed basis than the high-wage workers. That the high-wage workers tend to better educated and make better lifestyle decisions is the crux of this story - so what is new about this????
9
Start by increasing the minimum wage. When I was 35, I was making $85, 000 a year in a union protected job. That industry fell to technological advances. I'm 62 now and I make $11.30 an hour. Yes, I have a small 401k and I am accumulating money towards an eventual SS income, but my current monthly income affords me a rented room and a long commute. Chronically looking for a better job, but a woman at 62 in this country is lucky to have any job at all. My biggest financial stumble was due to a medical emergency that occurred when I was uninsured. These are the kind's of choices along the way that really aren't so much choices as they are 'life happens'. I'd love to see a more empathetic society. One that understands that life can be tough, that no one is immune. Try seeing yourself in others and stop judging. Planning is all well and good, but it's not a guarantee.
27
Why the heck have I been working so hard all my life? I am a frugal person. im not buying luxury goods. I know of plenty of people who are collecting various government benefits while working off the books and they STILL dont save the windfall ir even use it redponsibly. they drive bucer cars than me and walk around with Louis Cuitton handbags. Clearly I am a chump.
I work so that I can provide for myself with a secure retirement, not be a burden on my kids, and to give those kids the best possible start in life by providing good nutrition and quality education. When did we start punishing self-sufficiency?
I work so that I can provide for myself with a secure retirement, not be a burden on my kids, and to give those kids the best possible start in life by providing good nutrition and quality education. When did we start punishing self-sufficiency?
4
Thank you for this wonderful column highlighting cumulative inequality among the elderly. It is a phenomenon that is only going to become more evident in coming generations of older Americans. Though many readers would like to blame individual choices for disparate outcomes, there are structural inequalities that shape both opportunities and choices and that are difficult to overcome. With the growing gap in wages and access to private pension benefits between the top and bottom earners in America and changing family patterns (divorce, single motherhood) that are more likely to impact people at the low end, we are going to see many more sick and poor women like Ms. McNeely in coming cohorts of retirees.
7
Drug abuse, alcohol abuse, and smoking are far more prevalent in lower-income communities. All three are major contributors to differing life spans, but of course two of the three are not mentioned in this story. Instead, it is focused to pushing the Democrat party narrative of income inequality. Even though the poor smoke much more than the middle class, the Democrat party that is supposedly for the poor pushes cigarette taxes that have made cigarettes over $6 per pack in my area. I understand that in the left wing big cities they are much higher. Mrs. McNeely, as a free person, has made her choices. I have sympathy for her, but more government transfer payments are not the way to go.
8
It's still true: It's better to be rich and healthy than poor and sick.
15
Is inequality new, a bad thing in itself, or the main economic problem we face? No, no, and no! See http://worksnewage.blogspot.com/2014/01/inequalitys-not-real-problem.html.
2
Fortunately or unfortunately we eventually experience the result of our life decisions both large and small. Choose wisely.
4
Sigh! Yes, the smart and enterprising make more money than the stupid and lazy. That's not income inequality, that's reality.
2
Shocking, surprising even: if you make a good income during your working life, you'll be better off when you're old! Inequality persists, instead of magically disappearing.
Here's some practical advice-- don't open a bar and restaurant, ever; but certainly not unless you have a lot of capital.
Here's some practical advice-- don't open a bar and restaurant, ever; but certainly not unless you have a lot of capital.
7
I take exception to the idea that Mrs. Rosen "inherited money from her husband". My spouse always made more money than I did, but, because of that, my own income was very heavily taxed, both directly through Form 1040 and through an additional Federally-mandated Expected Family Contribution for college expenses. Even now, with no earned income, I cannot move my 401(k) savings to an IRA, because that would result in some or all of it being heavily taxed due to Roth IRA/Traditional IRA pro-rata conversion rules, again because of my spouse's income. The income and financial standing of the lesser earning spouse is always affected by the income of the other spouse, and, in many cases, a high-earning spouse means that a person cannot bring home much after-tax income from a paying job. In the meantime, the high earner often has to work longer hours or travel extensively, so the other spouse must assume more of the responsibility for childcare and home management, in addition to whatever paid work that person does that is highly taxed. While some of us have been more fortunate than others, we may have had more responsibilities than they, and our individual ability to earn income has been impaired, despite our potential.
Regarding Mrs. McNeely, she seems to have made some poor choices. This is coming from someone who also dropped out of college, but finished my degree at 30, when I had five children. The ill-considered actions of others are not the fault of people like Mrs. Rosen.
Regarding Mrs. McNeely, she seems to have made some poor choices. This is coming from someone who also dropped out of college, but finished my degree at 30, when I had five children. The ill-considered actions of others are not the fault of people like Mrs. Rosen.
28
CM - I agree. Any money earned in the marriage belongs to both people. A spouse shouldn't 'inherit' money from their spouse.
4
"Fault" or merit is not germane. The point is that income strongly influences longevity, however it is acquired or lost or never acquired. The related question posed by the article is whether policy makers should be so quick to cut safety net programs.
2
If you think you are hard done by via the federal tax code and the Social Security / Medicare system, try being a single, childfree cash cow.
Anyone who says SS isn't a redistributive welfare system has never contemplated the survivor benefits, the minor caregiver and disability benefits, the stay-home non-contributing spouse benefits and the multiple-dipping allowed by former marital partners on a sole account. While meanwhile we single childfree pay the same contributions as anyone else while occurring ZERO liability for any of those programs. Nor can we designate a beneficiary in the event we die prematurely.
Meanwhile my brother-in-law will have himself, two ex-wives and my sister all collecting on his SS account in retirement -- four people coasting along on the basis of one contributor's account, thanks to the marital privilege.
Anyone who says SS isn't a redistributive welfare system has never contemplated the survivor benefits, the minor caregiver and disability benefits, the stay-home non-contributing spouse benefits and the multiple-dipping allowed by former marital partners on a sole account. While meanwhile we single childfree pay the same contributions as anyone else while occurring ZERO liability for any of those programs. Nor can we designate a beneficiary in the event we die prematurely.
Meanwhile my brother-in-law will have himself, two ex-wives and my sister all collecting on his SS account in retirement -- four people coasting along on the basis of one contributor's account, thanks to the marital privilege.
6
Even affluent retirees are not in a great position. The stock market can plummet, or crooks can steal your money. Many who thought they would enjoy a nice retirement are now struggling. Once you have stopped working, there is no way to recover from a major loss.
Only when you reach age 85, and still have a couple million bucks left, can you say you've made it.
Only when you reach age 85, and still have a couple million bucks left, can you say you've made it.
30
Ms. McNeely made poor decisions as a college student, and suffers the consequences. If her emphysema is from smoking, she used money that was in short supply to ruin her own health.
She gets financial support from the government.
She gets financial support from the government.
16
So much empathy!!!
9
I agree about smoking, but we do not know under what circumstances she quit college. Perhaps she could no longer afford it, or life presented more urgent challenges which required immediate attention. I, for one, based on this scant information, will not pre judge.
3
Yes, and? Should she be left to die?
6
The ideas presented here are valid, and well made. I'd like to point out as well, all along the life-course we are presented with "choice points" and they are accumulative...
Thanks for another thought provoking post.
Patrick Roden
aginginplace.com
Thanks for another thought provoking post.
Patrick Roden
aginginplace.com
6
Unfairly accumulative is the point. Don't blame the victims. "Among those born in 1960, however, men in the highest earning bracket will receive $132,000 more on average than those in the lowest; the highest-earning women will receive $28,000 more."
1
One thing that caught my eye was not being able to move "near her daughter", but maybe the solution is to move in with her daughter. Doubling up has financial as well as emotional benefits.
21
Not every apartment has room for Mom to sleep on a davenport.
1
The daughter probably has her own financial obligations and family to take care of. Planning on living with your kids and having them take care of you shouldn't be a retirement plan.
5
Paula, isn't the 99 percent/1 percent thing damaging across the board? In the conditions of the very old.... in the education of the very young.....in the juxtaposition of more and more homeless people, living in the shadow of shining new condos where apartments cost 10s of millions? Fixing the larger inequity would also fix many of the sub-categories.
22
Why not make it simple Mr Orszag - don't do anything - and leave it the way it is - its called social security "insurance" (SSI) for a reason - look it up!
3
Being rich has always been good for your health. Middle and low income? Not so much. All of you will get old. Not all of you will have a lot of money when you do. Better elect people who will stand up for a decent standard living for all the elderly, not just the rich.
79
I just read Australia has maybe the largest middle class - i.e. comfortably off percentage of the population - just dropped off the world's highest median (half the population have less, half have more - much fairer than average which is skewed by a few billionaires) wealth.
Sorry to here about the US - sounds like it started with Reagan with tax cuts for the rich - too bad about the poor there - nice place to visit but I wouldn't want to live in the US.
Sorry to here about the US - sounds like it started with Reagan with tax cuts for the rich - too bad about the poor there - nice place to visit but I wouldn't want to live in the US.
3
Not much has changed for women: marrying well is the best guarantee of financial stability. Ms Rosen's higher lifetime income has little to do directly with her college degree since she didn't work, but rather it maintained or increased her class standing so that she could marry a physician. Very disheartening that Ms McNeely has financial hardship in spite of working all those years. We need to address the income gap more aggressively! This article demonstrates the end game of decades of inequality.
72
This is Ian's wife.
The choices you make in life extend to who and when you marry. I came from a family who couldn't afford college, but I worked hard and received scholarships. I met my husband in graduate school.
His income level allowed me to stay home and raise our children. I would never have quit college to marry.
Show me a woman in poverty, and I'll show you many bad decisions on her part.
The choices you make in life extend to who and when you marry. I came from a family who couldn't afford college, but I worked hard and received scholarships. I met my husband in graduate school.
His income level allowed me to stay home and raise our children. I would never have quit college to marry.
Show me a woman in poverty, and I'll show you many bad decisions on her part.
8
Ms. Rosen did work. She designed museum eXhibitions.
5
she didn't work?
"worked as a designer of museum exhibitions "
Sounds like a job to me
"worked as a designer of museum exhibitions "
Sounds like a job to me
10
A just society would be one that works toward the universal access of its constituents to basic needs like food, shelter, healthcare and education. And even when those needs are met, there will always be inequality in how we eat, the size of our homes, our quality of healthcare and the amount of education we get. And that's probably a consequence of how we are raised (environment), our ancestry (genetics) and plain old serendipity or misfortune. In the end, inequality is a fact of human existence.
16
In the spirit of this article we are reminded there will be NO social security COLA in 2016 - a true crime for all and a blight on our society.
27
Are the same criteria used for 2016 as were used in years where there was a COLA increase granted? If so, I don't see the gripe let alone the "crime."
2
Count your blessings. SS payouts never go down, as salaries can, and will predictably continue for the rest of your life, unlike employment. Unlike working folks, more of your income will not be taxed each year to pay for those SS benefits.
2
Life is not fair. So? Everyone should have a bed, shelter from the elements, food to eat and access to medical care and basic clothing. Beyond that you're on your own.
16
Not everyone has that.
2
Does everyone have that?
1
This is so important, but so many who are likely to be closer to Ms McNeely's situation vote again and again against themselves, in support of political demagogues who who are attacking Social Security and Medicare both.
Altho' these are just two examples by anecdote, I also think that the fact that Ms. Rosen inherited something - from a parents and then her husband - reflects how wealth - and it doesn't have to be a huge amount - tends predict future status. And Ms. McNeely is divorced -- being single also has a dramatic impact on the ability to save for the future and weather life's expenses.
“Any policy argument based on an average is going to be misleading." That's an important takeaway to understand how numbers can be misused to support damaging policies.
Altho' these are just two examples by anecdote, I also think that the fact that Ms. Rosen inherited something - from a parents and then her husband - reflects how wealth - and it doesn't have to be a huge amount - tends predict future status. And Ms. McNeely is divorced -- being single also has a dramatic impact on the ability to save for the future and weather life's expenses.
“Any policy argument based on an average is going to be misleading." That's an important takeaway to understand how numbers can be misused to support damaging policies.
76
This is getting so tired. Yes, lets have equal incomes. Doctors should make the same amount as janitors. Problem solved.
19
There's a lot of space between 'doctors making the same as janitors' and everyone being able to grow old at a reasonable standard of living and care.
17
You must realize that no one is saying a doctor should be paid as much as a janitor. That is a strawman argument used to dismiss the reasonable and rational policy changes that need to occur to make our economy and our system more supportive of humans.
24
I met a doctor once, who could not stop complaining about how little he earned these days. It was much better in the old days he said bitterly.
Then he left his waterfront house in a Porsche Carrera.
So yes... let's pay janitors what we pay doctors. Perhaps they won't whine so much.
Then he left his waterfront house in a Porsche Carrera.
So yes... let's pay janitors what we pay doctors. Perhaps they won't whine so much.
23
"Among those born in 1960, however, men in the highest earning bracket will receive $132,000 more on average than those in the lowest; the highest-earning women will receive $28,000 more." This was eye-opening; is it correct? If so,I wonder why there is such disparity between what the men and women receive, especially given that women on average live longer than men, and thus would receive more benefits during those extra years. Lower earnings? Men are sicker than women?
33
If men are X=highest earning bracket, and Y=lowest earning bracket, the difference in SSI received by X compared to Y is $132K. In other words, Y receives ySSI and X receives (y+132K)SSI.
If women are A=highest earning bracket, and B=lowest earning bracket, the difference in SSI received by A compared to B is $28K. B receives bSSI and A receives (b+28K)SSI.
We don't know what either 'y' or 'b' are, so we can't compare them.
If women are A=highest earning bracket, and B=lowest earning bracket, the difference in SSI received by A compared to B is $28K. B receives bSSI and A receives (b+28K)SSI.
We don't know what either 'y' or 'b' are, so we can't compare them.
1
Lower earnings. Yes, how is that a surprise?
2
Inequality is often a life choice. Quit school. get married young, get divorced, overeat, smoke, perhaps drink too much etc. Yes, some of this is related to your social environment but a lot is choices made at a crucial time, 10-20 years.
The next thing is what to do? does making these bad choices make you deserving of a miserable old age? I say No. If we can give billions to corporate charity-welfare, allow useless weapons for trillions, engage in wars to support the Arms industry we can also assure our citizens have food and shelter in their older age.
The next thing is what to do? does making these bad choices make you deserving of a miserable old age? I say No. If we can give billions to corporate charity-welfare, allow useless weapons for trillions, engage in wars to support the Arms industry we can also assure our citizens have food and shelter in their older age.
126
Inequality is just as often a result of others' bad life choices. One's parents are alcoholics. One's spouse suddenly decides to find himself and divorces the person who put him through graduate school. One's boss goes to a seminar and comes back a raging bully who causes an illness and hospitalization for sudden surgery. Then there's the inequality that results from sheer greed: the 1% need or feel entitled to another house, another trip, and with just a little downsizing of their workforce or moving jobs to countries with effective slave labor, they find they can get that. No one deserves the current misery, either in work life or in the unequal old age that it is buying us, even those of us working two jobs to help purchase all those goodies for the blithely entitled class.
94
It's a life choice? Let's be honest, the single largest determinant of who is on the high side of the inequality equation is who your parents are.
Maybe we should implement a lottery to decide which deserving person will inherit a rich guy's fortune, instead of his or her children (who would also enter this lottery on an equal footing with all others).
Maybe we should implement a lottery to decide which deserving person will inherit a rich guy's fortune, instead of his or her children (who would also enter this lottery on an equal footing with all others).
5
Social Security and Medicare should look at both income and assets before providing benefits. There is no reason whatsoever that anyone with millions in the bank and ongoing income over 6 figures should get subsidized medicine and a monthly benefits check. And payroll taxes (SS & FICA) should not have an income limit.
Of course, the reason it's not set up that way is because those people would direct their monies into whatever party would terminate benefits for everyone - currently that's about 70/30, Rep/Dem.
Of course, the reason it's not set up that way is because those people would direct their monies into whatever party would terminate benefits for everyone - currently that's about 70/30, Rep/Dem.
37
As someone with a decent income and receiving Social Security -- yes, there is absolutely a good reason. IF you say that those above a certain income should not receive Social Security THEN you are employing a means test and THEN
Social Security becomes a welfare system. The beauty of Social Security is that it IS a welfare system, low income people get FAR MORE per buck put in than those who pay the maximum. I think Social Security is a WONDERFUL system that allows old people who were working poor some dignity. Yes, I could do without it but if you turn it into straight welfare you really risk destroying the whole system.
Social Security becomes a welfare system. The beauty of Social Security is that it IS a welfare system, low income people get FAR MORE per buck put in than those who pay the maximum. I think Social Security is a WONDERFUL system that allows old people who were working poor some dignity. Yes, I could do without it but if you turn it into straight welfare you really risk destroying the whole system.
24
People who pay into SS have every right to get that money back.
And if you want no limits on payroll taxes then I assume you are also ok with no cap on benefits.
And if you want no limits on payroll taxes then I assume you are also ok with no cap on benefits.
25
Tom, Social Security is based on how much you paid in over your working life. You may not like that system but it's the one Congress gave us and thus benefits should NOT be income based (unless you have a way to refund all those payroll taxes to the "rich'' people who will otherwise lose what they invested.) As for Medicare, again by law, it is guaranteed health care for those over 65. That it is the age it was presumed we would lose employee based benefits. And it costs more, out of pocket, with every passing year. If you want to fix Medicare, change what it covers. Right now you can have brain surgery, say, at 96 regardless of your chances of survival. But you can't have a home health aide or a nursing home bed. Duh.
44
I see this on the streets of NYC every day. The contrast is brutal. Thin, trembling, ragged old women tottering along on canes or battered walkers vs. well dressed, beautifully groomed women waving down cabs. It's very very sad because as you point out, it's not only the present lack of income, but the cumulative effects of years of poor eating, inadequate medical care, and the stress of poverty.
141
Republicans would call that "survival of the fittest." They seem to think poorer people get what they deserve.
27
and smoking.
5
It's interesting that there's no mention of Ms. McNeely actually moving in with her daughter in CT. We have reached such a dystopian point in our societal ethics that it seems like having the elderly live with their families is considered more onerous and horrific than leaving them to languish and die in poverty.
We teach the young to despise the old, then we wonder why the old (which we will all become, and rather quickly) have such tragic, ugly ends.
We teach the young to despise the old, then we wonder why the old (which we will all become, and rather quickly) have such tragic, ugly ends.
61
We don't know anything about Ms. McNeely's daughter or her situation. She may be living in a one bedroom apartment, or she may be taking care of a sick husband. She may have adult children living with her.
52
Mrs. McNeely told me that she very much values her independence and wants her children to live her own lives, JD. She'd probably also dispute your characterization of a "tragic, ugly" older age.
15
Many older people do not want to move in with their adult children, despite the fact that their children would welcome them.
13
Another factor for people who have economic struggles is the cumulative years of stress of dealing with not having enough money. I have seen many people in my work place struggle with stress as they try to hold it together with a limited income. Thank goodness they can lean on friends, family and often, their churches, for support. It's not as bad when you're young, and have the energy and optimism of youth, but as you age and deal with health issues and the reality of never having enough, it wears you down and becomes increasingly difficult to handle. The current economy does not help, with increasing in the cost of prescription drugs, deductibles and soaring cost for housing.
133
My health insurance deductible in 2016, will be $6,000 per year and that is after paying $5,640 in premiums. Well, for me to go to the clinic means that I will have to pay all of it out-of-pocket. So, unless I am really ill, I don't go in. If you add to that the costs of food, taxes, etc., living can wear you down. Additionally, I care for my 93 year old mother who lives with me. There is stress in this equation and I, too, am growing older. I am college educated and I work. Woe to those that just barely scrape by. They need understanding and support and not social ostracism.
60
Nova, your comment really resonates with me. I have a full-time job and a $3,000 deductible. The really unfortunate thing about that is that, as with you, it discourages me from going to the doctor unless I'm seriously ill - whereas if I were to go for preventive care, it would save my insurer, my employer and me a pretty penny. If I had a more high-paying job, I could probably afford to live longer, to paraphrase the article.
4
"“That’s largely explained by differences in starting and quitting smoking,” Dr. Lee said."
Nearly 3 times more people in the lowest income levels are smokers, compared to the higher income levels.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/105550/among-americans-smoking-decreases-inco...
About 50% of smokers will suffer from COPD and all face higher risks of cardiovascular disease and cancers, tuberculosis, eye and auto immune disease. (CDC)
Total cost of smoking is between $1.1 and $2.0 million in a lifetime on tobacco products. (USA Today)
The total cost of smoking to the US economy is $300 billion every year.
There are a lot of opportunities to reduce inequality at later ages, including resetting and adjusting minimum wage for inflation, eliminating predatory for-profit colleges and expanding rather than curtailing Social Security.
But smoking is the single greatest determinant of life quality and expectancy and financial stability. States lag in spending tobacco litigation money on anti-smoking campaigns. Making young people aware of the devastating effect smoking can have on their lives is a great way to reduce inequality.
Nearly 3 times more people in the lowest income levels are smokers, compared to the higher income levels.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/105550/among-americans-smoking-decreases-inco...
About 50% of smokers will suffer from COPD and all face higher risks of cardiovascular disease and cancers, tuberculosis, eye and auto immune disease. (CDC)
Total cost of smoking is between $1.1 and $2.0 million in a lifetime on tobacco products. (USA Today)
The total cost of smoking to the US economy is $300 billion every year.
There are a lot of opportunities to reduce inequality at later ages, including resetting and adjusting minimum wage for inflation, eliminating predatory for-profit colleges and expanding rather than curtailing Social Security.
But smoking is the single greatest determinant of life quality and expectancy and financial stability. States lag in spending tobacco litigation money on anti-smoking campaigns. Making young people aware of the devastating effect smoking can have on their lives is a great way to reduce inequality.
83
How about prohibiting tobacco production and sale (other wise known as trafficking)?
That obvious solution to the misery and cost caused by tobacco has been around since the first Surgeon General report.
Funny how it isn't mentioned.
That obvious solution to the misery and cost caused by tobacco has been around since the first Surgeon General report.
Funny how it isn't mentioned.
11
How about prohibiting tobacco production and sale
Well, you know how that would work out. Organized crime and black marketing would flourish (even more than they already do) and people would be put in jail for possessing cigarettes. How about instead: enforcing laws against sales to minors, raising taxes on the purchase of cigarettes and restricting the number and type of stores that are allowed to sell them so it is inconvenient to obtain cigarettes. For example, why should cigarettes be sold at grocery stores, as they are now?
Well, you know how that would work out. Organized crime and black marketing would flourish (even more than they already do) and people would be put in jail for possessing cigarettes. How about instead: enforcing laws against sales to minors, raising taxes on the purchase of cigarettes and restricting the number and type of stores that are allowed to sell them so it is inconvenient to obtain cigarettes. For example, why should cigarettes be sold at grocery stores, as they are now?
1
Full disclosure - I have been a smoker for 47 years, currently not suffering, as far as I can tell from a smoking related disease. Currently trying to quit.
I can't believe this stuff is still legal.
I can't believe this stuff is still legal.