If you read the article it seems to summarize the studies by saying, in sum, if you don't have very much to start with and can rely on Social Security to replace a lot of it, you can look forward to an austere retirement without saving as much as you do now. If you can't rely on Social Security because you haven't much in it or because benefits are likely to be cut or because the Democrats will finally abolish it to cut the deficit (only the Democrats could do that, and Bill C was going to make a try before Monica, ah, destroyed his chances, thank her and the Clinton-haters for that), then the studies are misleading. If you don't want to be poor when you're old, better trying to max out your savings and manage your investments prudently.
--- Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
>
> On Feb 19, 2007, at 2:21 PM, Simon Archer wrote:
>
> > I posted a query about this topic a few weeks ago
> but no bites. Has
> > anyone done some serious (more than google-driven)
> reading into
> > this claim and the recent two or three 'studies'
> that have come
> > out? I would be quite interested, because it is so
> contrary to the
> > accepted wisdom about savings rates and retirement
> demographics/
> > problems. Is it just a debate about what an
> acceptable (deferred)
> > wage might be?
>
> What's the original cite?
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
____________________________________________________________________________________ Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection. Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta. http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/features_spam.html