MIriam,
you ended your message with:
"It is
Got that so very right.
ironic that the medical/pharmaceutical industrial complex has found ways to
prlong people's lives, but our society has not found ways to make people
without sufficient financial resources, feel secure and well cared for in
those extended lives.”
The problem of how the elderly will be cared for is also a function of the
kind of society we live in. There was a time when the husband in a family
was the bread winner. The wife was at home, caring for the children. As the
children grew older and the wife had more time, she might become involved in
volunteer work in the community. At the point at which an elderly parent
needed care, she was available to assume that responsibility. Often,
children were accustomed to grandmothers and grandfathers living with their
family. Now, both spouses work. And I don't believe, not for one second,
that this is because every woman sees working away from her home as
liberation. Usually, she continues to shoulder the majority of home
responsibilities in addition to her outside work, not always, but usually.
There is no one at home to care for an elderly parent now-a-days. A friend
of mine told me that even if she should wish to, she could never move in
with her son and daughter-in-law because they have "downsized", sold their
house and moved to a two bedroom condominium. That second bedroom is
available to their son who has some kind of neurological disability and may
not be living independently for a long time. The old age home that is an
integral part of the Lake Woebegone community, no longer exists. It is
ironic that the medical/pharmaceutical industrial complex has found ways to
prlong people's lives, but our society has not found ways to make people
without sufficient financial resources, feel secure and well cared for in
those extended lives.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Sunday, January 10, 2016 11:22 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Wall Street Journal Says $19,000 a Year Is
Adequate Middle-Class Retirement Income
Miriam,
You have clearly described the situation faced by our nation's elderly
working class retirees.
More than once Cathy and I have commented that we could not afford to live
in the retirement facilities where we serve many of our clients.
Of course, most of our clients are struggling to stay in their homes or
apartments, with support from Care Givers, because they cannot afford to pay
the cost of assisted living. And you put your finger on the concerns
regarding the sort of Care Givers provided to the average retiree. Out in
the Rehab Field, we look around at the multitude of people who worked their
entire lives, raised good families, paid their taxes, supported the never
ending War Effort, in short, they did everything they were expected to do as
Good Americans. And once they are retired and look for some real support
from the very government they spent their lives supporting? "Sorry, you
don't qualify." What you described, Miriam, will be the fate of each one of
us. Unless we have some millionaires on the line.
Carl Jarvis
On 1/9/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Actually, you can't pick an amount and talk about some mythicalsituation? Lots of compromise.
average retired person, and state with assurance, what income that
person requires to live. People's situations change. People live in
different areas of the country and expenses vary from area to area.
Right now, I am struggling with how to plan for my living situation
and care with the income I have and it's certainly more than $19,000.
But I live on Long Island which is an expensive place to live. My
physical capacities are diminishing at a disturbing rate.
I have very little eyesight left and although I know that all of you
are living competently with no vision at all, I have lived, making the
most of a small amount of vision for years and years. I have some
skills with which to compensate as vision goes. But adjusting at 78 is
not like adjusting at 30 or even 50. And the quality of rehab services
for the elderly blind is so poor here, that there's no point in
bothering. But it's not just vision.
It's other things like osteo arthritis and scoleosis which are
increasingly disabling me. And I won't even go into the other
conditions. So I know that I can't live alone in this apartment much
longer without some kind of assistance. I have to make choices because
I do not have disability insurance and my income won't cover the kind
of help I'll need. At some point, if I play the game, do all the
unpleasant legal financial manipulation, I can get community medicaid.
That means having an underpaid, overwhelmed stranger in my home to be
of assistance to me who may or may not have enough security and well
being in her own life, to be concerned about my well being. Someone
with my physical issues who has a lot of money, can employ people to
care for her, can choose those people and pay them the full amount
that the home health agency is paid. Remember, if Medicaid pays the
agency $30 an hour, the home health aid is paid only $10 and she
doesn't have the usual fringe benefits of other workers because that
was a bargain made by FDR way back when. But if one has money, one can
pay someone enough so that she doesn't feel exploited and that will
be reflected in the care that she provides. Most assisted living
settings here, a fancy name for institution, charge more annually than
my annual income. Most of them are for profit corporations. But even
the not for profit institutions charge a lot and that is for basic
care: a place to live and food. If you need additional help, the fee
goes up. So you can end up paying $7,000 or $8,000 a month in this
area. Continuing care communities are better, especially not for
profit communities. But you pay an up front amount to get in, usually
the amount that you get when you sell your home, and then you pay a
fee each month. But you go in while you're still able to live
independently in an apartment and then as you deteriorate, you move to
assisted living, and then, finally, to skilled nursing. That was my
initial plan, but it was foiled. So, what happens to someone in my
Or
someone whose income is $19,000 annually and who can't afford all of
the medication he may need, the supplemental medical insurance, or the
copays, and wose money may not cover rent and food? Car maintenance? Gas?
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Saturday, January 09, 2016 3:20 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Wall Street Journal Says $19,000 a Year
Is Adequate Middle-Class Retirement Income
Joe, your point is clear. Far more retired and disabled people are
existing at below $19,000 a year. What burns the hair in my nose is
the idea that some slick Know Nothing gets space in a national
magazine to peddle manure.
First, I still refuse to call the broad Working Class, Middle Class.
Middle
Class has always been a myth, and a means by which the Ruling Class
divided us and often turned us against one another. But the thing is
this, there is no fixed dollar amount that will provide all retired
Working Class folks a comfortable living.
Of course it may be implied in this Wall Street article, that we
retired folk ought to all go out and find a one bed room apartment in
the Ghetto, although some of those Slum Lords charge far too much for
their dumps. How dare some rich Bastard decide what the average
retired Working Class American can live on.
In my professional opinion, $40,000 comes closer to what retired
Working Class Americans should have in place as a solid income floor.
Then folks could actually spend some of it on stuff other than food
and shelter, and help our sagging economy.
Carl Jarvis
On 1/8/16, joe harcz Comcast <joeharcz@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On the other hand, and not being snarky, I mean it here many of us
currently
live on much less. Again not being snarky here but simply pointing
out the facts And yes I think that $19,000 per year is far too low. I
really do, but
would love personally to have that much per annum.
It would be a marked increased in my personal standard of living let
alone hundreds of others I know who make less than that.
I hope all catch my point here.
Shit I know of many and know personally many who don't make that much
per year while working. Thus the high poverty rate in this county
(Genesse County, Michigan).
BTW I work full time in a variety of capacities. I just don't get
paid one thin dime for my work which includes full time advocacy,
legal work and parental care giving.
But, the state sure finds ways to extract its pound of flesh from me
with its retaliatory treatment of me and others relative to my
whistleblowing and
my bogus arrest for exercising or trying to exercise my First
Amendment rights and my rights under the ADA/504.
Again I turned down "disorderly conduct" for the September 17 ADA
"Celebration" fiasco here in Michigan on our State Capitol grounds.
I'm not
guilty of that either. But the State of Michigan is guilty of
violations of
all PWD civil rights and, in fact Snyder is guilty of creating more
PWD with
his exposure of thousands to lead poisoning in Flint.
Bottom line is the wrong people are often charged with crimes and/or
are in
jail/prison.
Sorry for the ramble here, but I've already spent a few thousand
dollars in
direct payments or in costs to fight, on principle, charges that
should have
never been made in the first place.
And in fact I'm not the criminal here but, rather, in documented
fashion, state actors here are so.
And, once again I agree that $19,000 per annum isn't enough to live
appropriately with.
It sure isn't enough for the people in nearby Flint Michigan to
personally remediate the plumbing to their homes or other abodes for
the dasterdly and
infamous man-made disaster to its whater system. That is for sure.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Carl Jarvis" <carjar82@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, January 08, 2016 11:50 AM
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Wall Street Journal Says $19,000 a
Year Is Adequate Middle-Class Retirement Income
Andrew Biggs should be the poster boy for the 1%.
Biggs demonstrates total ignorance, and total contempt regarding the
Real World faced by middle and working class retirees. We could
send Biggs long lists of reasons why $19,000 a year is not a
comfortable income, but he really doesn't care what we think. His
wagon is hitched to the 1% Corporate folks, who would starve to
death on $19,000 a year.
Carl Jarvis
On 1/7/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Published on Alternet (http://www.alternet.org) Home > Wall Street
Journal Says $19,000 a Year Is Adequate Middle-Class Retirement
Income ________________________________________
Wall Street Journal Says $19,000 a Year Is Adequate Middle-Class
Retirement Income By Dean Baker [1] / Beat the Press January 6,
2016 While economic debates can often get into complex questions of
theory or statistical methods, many hang on more simple issues,
like the right adjective. We got a great example of one such debate
in a Wall Street journal column [2] by Andrew Biggs, an economist
at the American Enterprise Institute and former Deputy Commissioner
of the Social Security Administration under President George W. Bush.
Biggs looks at some recent evidence, most notably a new study from
the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), and dismisses the idea that
there is a retirement crisis. At the center of this assertion is
the CBO projection that a typical household in the middle quintile,
born in 1960, can expect to get $19,000 a year from Social Security.
Biggs sees this $19,000 as replacing 56 percent of pre-retirement
income and says this is not far from the 70-80 percent usually
viewed as adequate. He then touts data on total retirement savings
and pronounces everything as okay.
If we step back from replacement rates, we can ask a rhetorical
question, is $19,000 a year a middle class income? Odds are that
most people would not consider $19,000 a reasonable income for a
middle class household, hence the basis for the claim about a
retirement crisis. Biggs does point to the record amount of
retirement savings. This is indeed good news for those who have
these savings, but unfortunately most middle class households don't
fall into this category.
According to the Federal Reserve Board's 2013 Survey of Consumer
Finance [3], the average net worth outside of housing equity for
the middle quintile of households between the ages of 55 and 64 was
less than $55,000. This includes all IRAs, 401(k)s and other
retirement accounts. This will translate into roughly $3,000 a year
in additional retirement income, bringing this middle income
household's income up to $22,000 a year.
Biggs looks at this and says everything is just fine and we should
be looking to cut Social Security. Those raising concerns about a
retirement crisis do not see $22,000 a year as a middle class
income. We are just arguing about adjectives here, there is not
much disagreement on the situation.
Dean Baker [4] is the co-director of the Center for Economic and
Policy Research [5] (CEPR). His most recent book is Plunder and
Blunder: The Rise and Fall of the Bubble Economy [6]. He also has a
blog, Beat the Press [7].
Share on Facebook Share
Share on Twitter Tweet
Report typos and corrections to 'corrections@xxxxxxxxxxxx'. [8]
[9]
________________________________________
Source URL:
http://www.alternet.org/economy/wall-street-journal-says-19000-year
-
adequate
-middle-class-retirement-income
Links:
[1] http://www.alternet.org/authors/dean-baker-0
[2]
http://www.wsj.com/articles/new-evidence-on-the-phony-retirement-cr
i
sis-1451
952646
[3] http://cepr.net/documents/wealth-scf-2014-10.pdf
[4] mailto:cepr@xxxxxxxx
[5] http://www.cepr.net/
[6]
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0981576990?tag=commondreams-20/ref=nosim
[7] http://www.cepr.net/index.php/beat-the-press/
[8] mailto:corrections@xxxxxxxxxxxx?Subject=Typo on Wall Street ;
Journal Says $19,000 a Year Is Adequate Middle-Class Retirement
Income [9] http://www.alternet.org/ [10] ;
http://www.alternet.org/%2Bnew_src%2B
Published on Alternet (http://www.alternet.org) Home > Wall Street
Journal Says $19,000 a Year Is Adequate Middle-Class Retirement
Income
Wall Street Journal Says $19,000 a Year Is Adequate Middle-Class
Retirement Income By Dean Baker [1] / Beat the Press January 6,
2016 While economic debates can often get into complex questions of
theory or statistical methods, many hang on more simple issues,
like the right adjective. We got a great example of one such debate
in a Wall Street journal column [2] by Andrew Biggs, an economist
at the American Enterprise Institute and former Deputy Commissioner
of the Social Security Administration under President George W. Bush.
Biggs looks at some recent evidence, most notably a new study from
the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), and dismisses the idea that
there is a retirement crisis. At the center of this assertion is
the CBO projection that a typical household in the middle quintile,
born in 1960, can expect to get $19,000 a year from Social Security.
Biggs sees this $19,000 as replacing 56 percent of pre-retirement
income and says this is not far from the 70-80 percent usually
viewed as adequate. He then touts data on total retirement savings
and pronounces everything as okay.
If we step back from replacement rates, we can ask a rhetorical
question, is $19,000 a year a middle class income? Odds are that
most people would not consider $19,000 a reasonable income for a
middle class household, hence the basis for the claim about a
retirement crisis. Biggs does point to the record amount of
retirement savings. This is indeed good news for those who have
these savings, but unfortunately most middle class households don't
fall into this category.
According to the Federal Reserve Board's 2013 Survey of Consumer
Finance [3], the average net worth outside of housing equity for
the middle quintile of households between the ages of 55 and 64 was
less than $55,000. This includes all IRAs, 401(k)s and other
retirement accounts. This will translate into roughly $3,000 a year
in additional retirement income, bringing this middle income
household's income up to $22,000 a year.
Biggs looks at this and says everything is just fine and we should
be looking to cut Social Security. Those raising concerns about a
retirement crisis do not see $22,000 a year as a middle class
income. We are just arguing about adjectives here, there is not
much disagreement on the situation.
Dean Baker [4] is the co-director of the Center for Economic and
Policy Research [5] (CEPR). His most recent book is Plunder and
Blunder: The Rise and Fall of the Bubble Economy [6]. He also has a
blog, Beat the Press [7].
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
Report typos and corrections to 'corrections@xxxxxxxxxxxx'. [8]
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.[9]
Source URL:
http://www.alternet.org/economy/wall-street-journal-says-19000-year
-
adequate
-middle-class-retirement-income
Links:
[1] http://www.alternet.org/authors/dean-baker-0
[2]
http://www.wsj.com/articles/new-evidence-on-the-phony-retirement-cr
i
sis-1451
952646
[3] http://cepr.net/documents/wealth-scf-2014-10.pdf
[4] mailto:cepr@xxxxxxxx
[5] http://www.cepr.net/
[6]
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0981576990?tag=commondreams-20/ref=nosim
[7] http://www.cepr.net/index.php/beat-the-press/
[8] mailto:corrections@xxxxxxxxxxxx?Subject=Typo on Wall Street ;
Journal Says $19,000 a Year Is Adequate Middle-Class Retirement
Income [9] http://www.alternet.org/ [10] ;
http://www.alternet.org/%2Bnew_src%2B
