Recent comments in /f/UpliftingNews

Almostawardguy t1_j3tl9as wrote

Just because you don’t have an understanding of the ozone layer, doesn’t mean that other people don’t. This is a very very week argument that you can apply to anything “how fickle we are to think we can truly understand trigonometry”. If you are interested I strongly suggest you start looking up/studying the subject

43

Prunestand t1_j3t38pk wrote

> Well... Personally I'd make better saving and investing the deducted amount, but I do like the safety net as well in case something goes wrong.. It just allows a lot of unemployment and abuse, and is not sustainable with growing population. Which means I'm probably paying for pension that I'll never receive, whereas investing it, it would stay mine..

I'd say it is even worse without a safety net. You literally have to work if your savings is somehow wiped out.

2

Austoman t1_j3t2sjt wrote

So i see no one talking about it.... I know this is posted to uplifting news, but it really isn't. First theres the fact that people are working into their 80s just to survive. Secondly the value of money is way less than people expect.

$100000 isn't anywhere near retirement money. Even if we simply assume he has to pay $10k a year to shelter (rent, property tax, care home expenses, or w.e), he'd run out in less than 10 years due to inflation. Moreover, that's just sheltering expenses. Power, water, food, heat and etc, on average in the US is about 6850/year [1500+600+4000+750] as of 2021 (average costs of each in US). So with that, it's about 17000/year, which gives him less than 6 years before considering inflation, insurance, medical expenses, travel (gas, bus, shuttle) and etc. So yeah 100k funding isnt enough to retire on even at 82 years old. An average person in the US will be forced to spend that within 6 years without considering many normal expenses beyond those needed to survive.

5