Hacker News Reader

Comment by user5994461 | Hacker News Reader

A lot of people in their 50's don't need to work. As long as they bought their home when it was affordable, they are fine. Some have sizable assets that the younger folks can't dream to achieve in their lifetime.

They won't accept work for less than premium wages, don't need to.

That being said, I admit that there is also another part of the population who is struggling and desperate for work at any price.

Last but not least there is the question of what is premium wage. In London for instance, a lot of folks over 30 moved to contracting where they can charge a good daily rate, without the hassle of whiteboard interview, overtime or politics. You'll see many companies (see the HN who is hiring) allegedly struggling to recruit at their great wages, but the truth is that employees have moved out to greener pastures for twice the money.

View on HN

> A lot of people in their 50's don't need to work.

I must travel in lowly circles.

I suppose the distribution is extreme on both sides. Either you accumulated assets from early on and you're golden, or you're still struggling with rent and no pension in sight.

Um, what?

Like, cashflow at 50 with 3 kids is important.

Yeah, you've saved for retirement at ~65ish, but you have 2 kids in college with one on the way up, plus a mortgage, plus just regular life stuff. That's not an unreasonable scenario at all.

Like, do you live in a first world nation? Honestly, the paradigm changes a lot in the 3rd world and your confusion would be more appropriate in Chad or something.

(In Chad, average age of first birth is 18, so you'd reasonably be a grand parent by 50, plus cost of living is very low)

I live in a first world nation. College education is free, allegedly.

If you have kids before your thirties, they will all be +25 when you are 55. They most likely finished college, they probably left the family home.

In the US college is NOT free, and that's 330 million people living here.

It seems like there's way more on the low side than the high side, at least looking at Table 1 (below) from this PDF from the GAO:

https://www.gao.gov/assets/680/670153.pdf

Edit: below, the table contents

               Households age 55-64 with        Households age 55-64
               no retirement savings            with retirement savings


  Percent of house-        41%                        59%
  holds age 55-64

  Median net worth        $21,000                   $337,000

  Median non-retirement    $1,000                    $25,000
  financial resources

  Median income           $26,000                    $86,000

  Home ownership rates     56%                        87%  

  Percent who own a home   22%                        27%
  that is paid off

  Percent with a           32%                        45%
  defined benefit plan

So, that's 25% of people having no rent to pay.

Then an additional 50% who have a home but still a mortgage to pay. The statistics don't say when mortgages will end, so we can't do any meaningful analysis on the majority.

There are more people on the low side, not WAY MORE contrary to your statement.

Too bad we don't know when they will pay off. A friend of mine just bought a house for $250k from someone who bought it in 1998 for $70k - 6 months before selling they refinanced for $225k. (this is all public information if you go to the right courthouse - he knows this because it is in the title).

Which is to say there are some people who don't have their house paid off yet, but will have it paid off before they retire, and then live rent free (but with other bills and taxes). There are other people who will not have anything paid off.

So, um, where you live once you pay off your house everything else is free and you no longer require an income?

>>A lot of people in their 50's don't need to work. As long as they bought their home when it was affordable, they are fine

That is the EXTREME minority of people over 50, at least in the US

>I admit that there is also another part of the population who is struggling and desperate for work at any price.

I would not say they are "desperate for work at any price." but most people over 50 need a fair wage for work, and by fair wage I mean a wage comparable to younger people as well

There are a few people. Not very many. Most people in their 50s have very little savings - http://www.rothira.com/average-retirement-savings-age-2017 has a nice breakdown - baby boomers average could live at most 6 years on their retirement savings - assuming the eat rice and beans...

My dad was in fact laid off at 50. Everybody knew he was very careful to save a lot of money, so they always said "but you must have enough money saved away to retire by now". His response was always "yes, but I don't have enough money to get to retirement". In the 15 years between 50 and 65 his money is expected to double twice which makes a big difference to his retirement income. If he had started drawing at 50 would have much less money to work with. He needed a job to pay bills.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com