Articles written like this make me incredibly angry. Stop reading headlines and audit your news.<p>1. The entire basis of this "news" is a study which is cited exactly <i>nowhere</i> in the article. There is a passing reference to a "new study" by the "Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis." They don't even give a partial author list, let alone a title!<p>2. This is the study in question.[1] I had to dig this up on my own by piecing together specific claims with the name of the research organization and searching for them. The study appears to be closer to policy advocation than new research.<p>3. The author is a business management consultant who cites <i>himself and his company</i> for data contributing to the article, with no alternative supporting source ("Managing Defined Benefit Plans"). If there's a bias here it doesn't seem to be explicitly called out.<p>I can't comment on the core findings of the study, but I find its presentation and reporting in this article to be disingenuous and poorly supported. I'm deeply skeptical of the headline's claim given the incredibly politicized nature of the topic, the utter lack of critical analysis and the (intentional or merely incompetent) obfuscation of source material.<p>If you're going to start a discussion about economic policy or financial trends, please find and submit the original study. This article is just noise - it's barely capable of engaging with its source material. Why is a CNBC article on HN instead of the primary source?<p>___________<p>1. <a href="https://www.economicpolicyresearch.org/images/docs/research/retirement_security/Downward_Mobility_in_Retirement_P_N.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://www.economicpolicyresearch.org/images/docs/research/...</a>
Warning: anecdote incoming!<p>I’m not sure being under the federal poverty line (or 2x cutoff as this article used) means the same thing at retirement age.<p>My mother, for example, has a monthly post-tax income of $1,400 or just under $17,000 per year. She must be poor right?<p>However, she owns her home outright. So her total reoccurring monthly expenses are around $1,200. That includes property tax, condo fees, health insurance premium, food and gas for the car. She has a very comfortable life. She would certainly not call herself poor.<p>She can basically live off her pension without touching the equity in her home or the savings she has (unless it’s for something important like travel).<p>A lot of people in retirement are no longer relying on income, instead they are taking money out of savings as well. Not sure if this paper accounted for that.
What is "at risk"? A married couple is going to be getting over $4000/mo in Social Security, mostly tax free. Outside of a few metros, it's hard to see how that leaves one impoverished. The Baby Boomers are the whiniest generation ever.
Wait, this is sensationalized. Within the article the quote is "Roughly 40 percent of Americans who are considered middle class (based on their income levels) will fall into poverty or near poverty by the time they reach age 65..." And their definition of near poverty is twice the poverty level? If I can live comfortably on less than 75% of that in LA, I don't see how that could be considered poverty. The 2.6 million, which I assume implies 12% of middle class is what slip below the FPL.
The savings rate in the US has fallen continuously since 1906 when Insurers were prevented from cheating Tontine Pensioners out of their savings. Instead of selling Tontine Pensions honestly going forward, they switched to selling life annuities which were far more profitable for the Insurers.
The solution is to bring back the savings products customers want to buy (Tontines Trusts) but without the rent-seeking financial institutions.