Gyroscopic Investing

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102729377

Yikes!  Scary.

And the ones who have savings mostly don't have much:
"Even among those who do have retirement savings, their nest eggs are small. The agency found the median amount of those savings is about $104,000 for households with members between 55 and 64 years old and $148,000 for households with members 65 to 74 years old. That's equivalent to an inflation-protected annuity of $310 and $649 per month, respectively, according to the GAO. "

I almost couldn't believe the chart on this link that shows that the top 1% own 35% of the nation's wealth while the bottom 40% hold 0%... 

Pitchforks came to mind...

http://tablet.washingtonpost.com/rweb/b ... story.html

PP67 wrote: I almost couldn't believe the chart on this link that shows that the top 1% own 35% of the nation's wealth while the bottom 40% hold 0%... 

Pitchforks came to mind...

Why would that surprise you?
(Note, I agree that pitchforks are likely coming... but not out of any unfairness.)

The top 1% of anything is outrageously rewarded compared to the rest of the distribution. Extreme talent in any form is not rewarded on a linear scale.  It is exponential.  Arts, Athletics, Business, War, Politics, Beauty ...  Pretending otherwise is to ignore history.

Likewise, the bottom end of the scale is also rewarded exponentially - but in the other direction.

There is no "fair".  There is no even playing field - or even linearly proportional to ability.  It is exponential.  This is the way the world works - across many domains and species.

And yes, I imagine that it will not progress peacefully.

You are exactly correct Mark. Thats always been my observation too.

I read somewhere recently that 50%-70% of post-65 year olds will have to keep working until they are 80 years old just to make ends meet.

It's obvious that we can't just project past/present sentiments into the future.  So much will radically change starting with solar power, self-driving cars, biotech healthspan extension, robot caretakers, human automation redundancy, prestige decentralization of professional jobs, etc..

[align=center][img width=800]http://i58.tinypic.com/ofxwj.jpg[/img][/align]

This just isn't fair. I sure hope Obama can fix this before he leaves office.

The figure doesn't surprise me. Some people just prefer living for today and giving no thought for tomorrow. My 37 year-old son is one of them. If you are a Bible believing Christian you can even make the case that Jesus taught that in the sermon on the mount. Others just don't have very much to save.

Through a series of unfortunate events I was at near zero myself when I was 55. Fortunately, I have a skill that can earn a good salary and I married a woman with the same advantage and I'm closing in on the 7 figure club 11 years later - so I'm living proof that it can be done even if you get started late.

madbean2 wrote: Through a series of unfortunate events I was at near zero myself when I was 55. Fortunately, I have a skill that can earn a good salary and I married a woman with the same advantage and I'm closing in on the 7 figure club 11 years later - so I'm living proof that it can be done even if you get started late.

My hero! 

madbean2 wrote: Through a series of unfortunate events I was at near zero myself when I was 55. Fortunately, I have a skill that can earn a good salary and I married a woman with the same advantage and I'm closing in on the 7 figure club 11 years later - so I'm living proof that it can be done even if you get started late.

Wow! That is amazing.

Good for you madbean!

I wonder about these statistics though...where do they come from?  If they are judging by retirement accounts, then the stats are wildly misleading.  People tend to change jobs frequently and leave a trail of 401K accounts behind them, plus even with one employer you can end up with multiple accounts.  Many of these may well have zero or small balances, but it doesn't mean that the owner has skimpy retirement savings.