That’s partly because Americans 55 and older have less time to catch up on retirement savings and recover from housing market losses before they stop working, the Government Accountability Office report found.
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Older Americans' Challenge: No Time To Recover From Recession
The recession and weak recovery have been difficult for all Americans, but a new government report suggests that older people may be particularly vulnerable to the downturn’s worrisome effects on long-term economic security.
That’s partly because Americans 55 and older have less time to catch up on retirement savings and recover from housing market losses before they stop working, the Government Accountability Office report found.
That’s partly because Americans 55 and older have less time to catch up on retirement savings and recover from housing market losses before they stop working, the Government Accountability Office report found.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
If you are 55 or older, you shouldn't have had most of your retirment accounts in stock anyway! Especially after having the chance to sell off when the market was reaching record highs.
Serious question 9:18.
If not in stocks, where should 55+ have their investments? Cash? Bonds? Precious metals? Real estate? In your opinion, where lies safety these days? Thanks.
I love it when the holier-(and much smarter)-than-thou people who often have INHERITED their money and (particularly on the eastern Shore), their land, and their property, or have already retired (before the recession and coporations wiped out their 401(k)'s, money market funds, equity in their homes, and reduced the returned on CD's to 1% or less, lecture us on how we SHOULD have done better. Don't you WISH your parents had left you $2 million and 5000 acres of land and the house? First, you hear EVERY financial advisor saying "over the long run, stock always are the best investment", then you hear Mr Perfect say "why didn't all you (obviously stupid) people sell your stocks?" May he got rich taking a percentage of investments so that, whether YOU won or lost, HE always won.....
Do you people actually educate yourselves or do you do whatever the commercials tell you to do.
Anyone with a lick of common sense knows that bonds, cd's, and the plain ol' savings accounts are the safest investments, which are why they provide so little in interest. If folks were paying attention like they should, they would have sold off their stocks at record highs, then socked the money away into these areas where their record gains would be safe, while accruing minimal interest but no losses. It's not rocket science.
And Imclain, most people who are rich didn't get there because of grandpa's will. Thats a well-known fact for anyone who has taken the time to look it up. It's about making smart moves, as in knowing that stocks are NEVER considered the "best investment" for someone needing that money in a relatively short time frame (55+).
I'll just add that I'm not here to bash folks who are down on their luck. Just that I feel more sorry for those who had a terrible start in life and never made much of anything to sock away, than for those who had plenty to sock away but lost it due to negligence.
>>>Anyone with a lick of common sense knows that bonds, cd's, and the plain ol' savings accounts are the safest investments,<<<
No offense,11:41, but I don't quite agree that investments that don't keep up with inflation are the common sense approach.
12:12, so your only alternatives are to stick it in the mattress and earn ZERO interest or put the money into more risky investments. Either way, don't take on unnecessary risks if you don't have time to recover.
Post a Comment