• guyrocket@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Life expectancy for men = 73.2 years in the USA.

    So if I retire at 66, I can expect about 7.2 years of retirement. That would even be 1 year before my social security retirement age of 67. And I will have worked 52 years to achieve that retirement (I started a part time job at age 14). Work 52 to get 7.2.

    Not exactly a great deal, is it? Shouldn’t retirement be at least a decade?

    • ATQ@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      If you want the government to pay for your “retirement” then the retirement age is 66. But you can retire literally whenever you want as soon as you have the resources. Which might be in your late 40s or early 50s depending on education, career, and personal goals.

      Also keep in mind that “life expectancy” is an average that is reduced by men that die from car accidents, strokes, and whatever else much earlier than 66. The life expectancy of a 60 year old male in the US is 80.

            • ATQ@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Did you expect that younger generations would just inherit all their wealth? I’d have thought that this kind of landed gentry outlook wouldn’t be what a tankie like yourself would promote. Instead, due to the linear nature of time, young people of every country in every stage of human history generally have less wealth than their elders. Because they’ve had less time to accumulate it. What part of that are you struggling with?

                • ATQ@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Awwwwh, don’t have a link for hurt feelings huh? I accept your apology. 😂🤣😂

                  • darq@kbin.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    How obnoxious. Doubly so because there is no way you don’t actually know what the above commenter is referring to: that the average Millennial or younger person has had a significantly more difficult time accumulating wealth than Boomers did at similar points in their lives. So you are aggressively misinterpreting them, then acting smug about your own misunderstanding.

                  • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmygrad.mlOP
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    You’re as smug as you’re ignorant which is part for the course for a child who runs around bleating about tankies. The reality of the situation is that younger generations cannot expect to attain the same level of wealth as older generations. This isn’t about their current level of wealth, but the overall wealth they can expect to attain throughout their live. This is a direct result of the fact that people are only barely making enough to make ends meet as I explained earlier, and which your peanut sized brain clearly failed to process.