[lbo-talk] Social Security - NYTimes

Wojtek S wsoko52 at gmail.com
Wed Apr 6 10:32:43 PDT 2011

I think the main culprit is this proposition: " 51 percent of households are at risk of not being able to maintain their pre-retirement living standards after retirement."

This is a standard pep talk of retirement fund peddlers, which in my opinion is total bullshit. It is quite possible to cut down wasteful expenses without reducing the quality of life. I have been practicing it for a while. I think the main concern of these assholes is not the well being of the retirees, but maintaining wasteful consumption levels. If seniors dumped their suburban MacMansions and SUVs and moved to urban apartments and start taking the bus, consumer spending would go down.


On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 8:52 AM, Steve Bruns <sdbruns at telus.net> wrote:
> So the reason people claim SS at 62 is because they're anxiety about the
> future of the system not because they are broke and can't find a job?    SS
> cuts are necessary to make" policymakers, investors and the bond markets"
> feel better.  And this is the wisdom from the director of the Center for
> Retirement Research at Boston College.
> full at
>  http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/05/opinion/05munnell.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha212
> Steve Bruns
> Kelowna, BC
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk

More information about the lbo-talk mailing list