If you are a hard worker your entire life but never made enough money...


#1

I have a question, we talk in turms of ripping all the social safty nets from our government as it is redistributing wealth. What do you suggest we do with the following?

-the retail store manager who only earned around 35-40k per year worked long hours and spent his money on his wife and kids but because of the expenses of the family was only able to save a very limited amount of money?

-Elderly who invested heavily in the market their entire lives just to have the market tank when they needed the money they saved the most. Now they don’t have enough capital to last until they die.

-Elderly who worked hard and saved just to get hit by mounting bills from a chronic desease that ends up emptying out his retirement account?

-the plumber who becomes severly injured at 50 and can no longer work his trade.

-the small business owner who put their heart and soul into their business, just to have his business tank at 50 and wipe out his busness and entire savings.

-finally any 50 year old who was laid off or fired for what ever reason and cant find a decent paying job because of their age.

Without SS, LNI, Medicare what do we do with these people when they are no longer able to work? Throw them out into the street as homless people?

These aren’t strawmen these are real hard working americans.


#2

Answered by number.

  1. I have known people in a similar situations who made much less than that, was still able to save and invest, and now have very comfortable retirement funds. It’s called liveing well within your means through sacrafice and not having to keep up with the Jones’.

  2. There is always such risk. However, as one approaches retirement age, you are supposed to shift your investment to the less risky, yet lower return, investments which locks in your prior gains. Staying greedy too long has carries a higher risk.

  3. This is a tough one that most people, even us EVIL and uncaring Conservatives, for which some would allow a safety net. However, there is this thing called catastrophic health care coverage that can be purchased in advance of that. I have been looking into it and, with a little sacrafice, is quite managable and prepares in advance of such things.

  4. Again, he can prepare in advance through proper insurance coverage and investments. However, most most people, even us EVIL and uncaring Conservatives, would allow for a safety net. Conservatives typically have fewer problems with helping people that can’t work as opposed to passing them up and funding generations of lazy leeches through welfare that usually rejects those can’t work.

  5. Businesses carry risk based upon the ups and downs of the market. Now, they also carry risk for simply being a business and are being pushed off of the cliff by the Demoncrats that hate them and think they are all rich and deserve to tank anyway.

  6. That is also a risk for which one can mitigate through proper planning and skill/knowledge development. For example, when I retire, I will actually be semi-retired and will be able to be a consultant based upon the knowledge base that I have been building for the past 30 years. I know retired machinists that work out of their home and subcontract with larger machine shops to make small production runs that are not economically feasible for the larger shop to perform in their own shop. It’s called planning for your future and having a backup plan. You can’t depend on other people to do that for you.

  7. Again, future planning and sacrafice in the present to mitigate such problems in the future. Most people don’t do that and then expect everyone else to pay for their lack of planning. Bad planning on your part does not create a crisis on my part.

  8. I have demonstrated that your points are strawmen. Most can be mitigated via future planning and sacrafice in the present. For the ones that are difficult to mitigate even though that did occur, most people, even us EVIL and uncaring Conservatives, would allow for a safety net provided that they aren’t just your typical welfare leech that never worked a day in their lives or ever intend to do so.


#3

Back before “government safety nets”, there weren’t as many homeless people as there are now.


#4

I wonder how anyone over 65 survived before the benevolent federal government swooped in and saved them all. How come I’ve never read about the massive starvation and homeless problem seniors faced before SS and Medicare came into existence?


#5

Thats true because the average american worker, whether they are high skill or low skill had a company pension to reitre off of. That is gone now.


#6

It was a time where unions were building benfitits for the common workers. It was also a time of major class warfare as the job creaters hired pinkertons to bust up strikes. The union turned to the mob to gain protection from the pinkertons. Also you have to consider in those times families took care of each other. Wasn’t uncommon for families to take care of retirees. and the family living together pulled there resources to survive together as a family. The children would care fore their elderly parents by having them move in with them.


#7

[quote=“cameryxle, post:6, topic:37225”]
families took care of each other. Wasn’t uncommon for families to take care of retirees. and the family living together pulled there resources to survive together as a family. The children would care fore their elderly parents by having them move in with them.
[/quote]THAT’S the key.

Forget unions, pensions, blah, blah, blah.

It was the extended family, an institution that no longer exists (or is rarely found), for several reasons, not the least of which is the nanny state (one which quickly comes to mind, but there are a lot of other reasons too.) You don’t need an extended family any more . . . well, you may wish you had one if the government, and all of it’s “benefits”, goes belly up.

I remember when we used to visit my uncle’s farm in Bedford, PA. His big farmhouse was full of RELATIVES living there because they had no means of survival themselves, etc. They were clothed, and had a tight roof and three squares. My aunt’s table was always full of food (Churned butter, fresh baked bread, and all manner of pies and stuff that today would be outlawed by Bloomberg in NYC restaurants. The cholesterol conscious these days would have had a fit, but all seemed healthy to me . . . probably because they all worked physically hard in the fields. There was no such thing as a “lazy” person . . . you either worked your fair share or got thrown out!)

Those days are gone, mostly, and with today’s standards . . . non-nuclear families, smaller families, etc., I doubt we’ll ever get back to them. But if we could, I think that would be a much more preferable solution than all these government “nets” we have now.

Oh . . . one more thing. Those relatives that were provided for by my uncle had to work their fair share, only enjoyed what conveniences he had (very few, like NO TV), and their clothing was not fancy (not rags, but not the “latest” fashion either.) It always is rather ironic to me that when you see “poor” people today, they have brand new clothes on, are wayyyyyy overweight (suggesting they’re not starving), and own at least one color TV. Poor? Doesn’t look like it to me.

I have some old pictures of my extended family from the days of my uncles farm. Now THOSE were some poor people, but as I said, they had three squares and a tight roof. Today’s social nets provide apparently for much much more than that. Should they? When it’s my taxes that provide the designer clothes, the food stamps, and the color TV’s for the “poor”, I think not.

Nostalgia? Perhaps, but it worked. Can we enable that solution now? Probably take several generations to do it, and the inertia of being “spoiled” by BHO and his kind would probably prevail now.


#8

On average, they didn’t survive before about 1940. ( Life expectancy in the USA, 1900-98 ) When social security was started, not that many people live to* reach 65, and very *few made it past 70. The program worked because a) less than half of the people who paid into it lived to collect benefits, and those that did dropped dead fairly soon thereafter, and b) because each generation got bigger than the last.

Condition a) has changed because of advances in medicine, public health and nutrittion, and condition b) has changed because families have trended smaller for the last few generations…and ~55 million abortions haven’t done anything to help, either. Absent Roe v Wade, there might be as many as 30 million more taxpayers right now contributing to the solvency of SS. That alone wouldn’t be enough, and there are more problems with SS than longer lives and a relatively smaller ratio of contributors to beneficiaries.

Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureaucracy
Parkinson’s Law of Bureaucracy
Moore’s Laws of Bureaucracy


#9

Being a hard worker is a good virtue. However, in addition to the, one must also plan for their own future and not depend upon the government or the rest of us tax payers to do that for you.

I have seen that the author of the OP has no reply for my original response that effectively dismantled his strawman arguments.


#10

That’s because,

  1. He already knew your response, and
  2. Likes to play with scarecrows just so he can watch the straw fly, then build a new one.

#11

I know. At least he didn’t respond with the typical convoluted piles of crap.


#12

You haven’t waited long enough. lol


#13

That’s crap. Corporate pensions and Union ones didn’t become a factor until after WWII in this country… and even then…they were by no means nearly universal. Before WWII…it was up to the individual and family to provide for old age.


#14

Good points. Social Security was started because charity didn’t work, but no one envisioned it becoming the “retirement system” it has now become. It’d get you by, until you died a few years on. Quadruple the population and increase life expectency by 20 yrs, gee, what could go wrong?


#15

I like that, to bad we can’t go back to those days.

I also think the 1960’s and 1970’s kind of killed that era also. The shaggys, free love, bong puffers, and do your own thing people are grandparents now. Its a generational thing. It would be interesting to see how many of you who are retirees would be willing to invite your kids and grandchildren to live with you.

Also thanks to abortion (1973 (thank you retired shaggy generation)), my generation isn’t big enough to support the retired silents and the boomer generations. So my generation and kid’s generation have to dig into our social security contributions to support your retirement.

The only way to support Social Security is by increasing immigration (population) so more workers contribute to the system. So lighten up on immigration, its the least you can do.

So basically you shaggys get the benifit of Social Security while you are retired, you aborted my generation so we don’t have enough people to support it, so now my generation who are paying into the system will lose our benifits at the hands you retired shaggys out there. Thanks pops.


#16

That’s a crock o’ baloney! I’m talking about 'way before that, when it was unthinkable for a company to provide a pension for their employees.

Edit: to my knowledge few companies - especially the non-union ones - provided pensions for their workers. And that was up to the time the government started the handout nonsense.


#17

Oh you mean the industrial revolution. They just died by the time they hit 40-45 from overwork, starvation, and limited medical care. Read some Charles Dickens and others who wrote about that era. if you fell on hard times and couldn’t pay crediters then they just sent mom and or dad to debters prison.


#18

Great response…exactly…so lets boost immigration so the retired shaggys don’t leach off my Social Security contributions.


#19

“Read” - that’s what the younger generation says to those who lived history. You still don’t know what I’m referring to, and I don’t think I could make you understand because you have a mindset that can’t conceive of anything else.


#20

You’re angry because I refuse to fall in line and drink the cool-aid of your party or the dems.

Some people avoid introspection and conscience for their fellow man through materialism and sanctimonious words of independence. You simply reinforce the ideal that the more money you have-> the more money you hoard-> the more you lose your soul- care less about anyone or anything else but your own hoard of gold. You would make a great leprechaun. The classic fabled leprechaun, not the one on the lucky charms box of cereal :yes: