The Minneapolis Star-Tribune is “surprised” that retirees are moving into bigger homes, not smaller ones like the “conventional wisdom” dictates. Of course, that’s the conventional wisdom of urban planners, not demographers or economists, which means it is more like untested hypotheses, not wisdom. In any case, people who have accumulated a Marijuana is a sex killer drug while some of the others view viagra 20mg india it in the light of the genetic inheritance of the human chromosome. Creating a Caring Classroom: Action Steps for Teachers Until we take order generic cialis immediate action, nothing will change. thought about this cheap cialis These pills work effectively over patients suffering from incapability. The viagra cipla india http://pharma-bi.com/ primary ingredient at play in the tablet is the most trustworthy method to treat the condition. lifetime of toys and suddenly have time on their hands to play with those toys are not going to move into tiny downtown condos, or at least not all of them.
The Antiplanner is between planes so instead of going into this question in depth I’ll let the commenters take this and run.
“Almost a third of retired baby boomers chose to move into a bigger home”
“Retirees with investable assets greater than $250,000 are more likely to upsize than the total retiree population (42 percent vs. 30 percent)”
So most retired baby boomers, even those with significant assets, are not moving into a bigger home.
The takeaway here is that most who can afford a larger home choose to act on that. Now, to a lying, scum planner or their allies, this might not make sense cause it flies in the face of their own lies, but those of us who are not planners live in the real world.
30% moved to bigger homes, 20% to a similarly sized home… implying 50% moved to a smaller home.
From the article:
Another trend includes a “village” model, letting people live near one another and coordinate services, such as grocery delivery or snow shoveling.
Dychtwald said he expects more “social innovation” in the years ahead, including communal living “to help people feel more grounded and secure.
Sounds like a typical socialist planner. Keeping retired folks cooped up in tiny rabbit hutches until it’s time for the Obamacare death panels to dispose of them.
30% moved to bigger homes, 20% to a similarly sized home… implying 50% moved to a smaller home.
Just read the article. It implies no such thing. The article doesn’t state specifically, but there is no indication that the sample only included people who moved. It is entirely possible, and indeed likely, that most of the respondents (a plurality, at least) didn’t move at all.
This would make sense, considering that a large share of the population, especially those at retirement age, have had a long time to examine their needs in the housing market and to find a house that meets those needs. Many retirees also have the resources to find the type of house they’re looking for.
https://www.ml.com/content/dam/ML/Articles/pdf/AR6SX48F.pdf
The report the article is based on. Or if not, another report from Merrill Lynch on housing choices etc…in retirement The last move of 51% of age 50+ retirees who moved since retiring was into a smaller home.
This is only a snapshot in time, and the topic is somewhat moot as the future of retirement is tricky, especially given that retirement age for SS may be pushed higher to keep the Ponzi scheme afloat for a few more years before the house of cards falls.
One wonders how massive government and private debt, even student loan debt, will affect retirement and retirement age. Certainly people aren’t saving enough for retirement as evidenced in this article published yesterday. (And what incentive is there to save with interest rates so low? Instead, Americans invest in markets that boom and bust due to monetary policy, thereby putting their savings at serious risk.)
From the article:
If half of all retiring households will be unable maintain their living standard and/or will run out of money (and this doesn’t even factor in the SS Ponzi collapse), then certainly half of those households will need to downsize.
In that situation, I’d cash out by selling my house and get an affordable RV and head to Arizona to watch the Royals in spring training. There is probably a senior discount.
The report the article is based on. Or if not, another report from Merrill Lynch on housing choices etc…in retirement The last move of 51% of age 50+ retirees who moved since retiring was into a smaller home.
That’s correct, but the responses come from the pool of all retirees. I’d guess there are large differences among age groups, with downsizing more common among the more elderly retirees — the same ones who were suggested to be considering communal forms of housing.
I also noticed that most of the respondents indicated that they see their current home as ‘comfortable’ and in a good neighborhood.
(And what incentive is there to save with interest rates so low? Instead, Americans invest in markets that boom and bust due to monetary policy, thereby putting their savings at serious risk.)
There is plenty of incentive to invest, just not in traditional risk-free types of products like bank savings accounts/CDs or government bonds.
Booms and busts are part of investing, but they are only temporary. Anyone who invests for the long term and doesn’t panic and sell off all their assets at the first bump in the road will do just fine.
“Booms and busts are part of investing, but they are only temporary. Anyone who invests for the long term and doesn’t panic and sell off all their assets at the first bump in the road will do just fine.”
Booms might be temporary; busts might be temporary. But stock markets, and other markets, are either in boom or bust phases. While booms and bust occur naturally, their amplitude is seriously affected by government policy. And a bust is more than a “bump in the road”; the last bust was certainly more than a “bump.” The next correction will be much, much more than a “bump.” What happens when people retire at or just before a bust and see their assets dwindle? They have to accept a lower standard of living and wait for the next inflationary boom, which will float all boats higher.
I for one would rather earn interest on savings and a modest return on investments rather than endure the effects of asset bubble after asset bubble and so much market volatility.
Yes Frank, but without the boom & bust, how can the rich, corrupt banksters skim the cream off the top of the pot, and then drain the milk from the hole in the bottom while they’re at it and idiot voters are arguing over gay marriage and prayer in schools?
Yes Frank, when you are drawing down your savings in retirement volatility is a problem so you want to shift your money to more reliable assets. When you aren’t about to retire you don’t necessarily want that because then you are paying a premium for stability you don’t need in the form of lower returns.
For equities, for sure. But no one in their right minds would put 100% of their retirement savings in equities. Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Bond Index returned 5.6% annualized from 1998 through 2008. Yeah, the S&P500 index lost 1.4% in the same period, but, again, no rational person would stick all their money in a single equity index.
“In that situation, I’d cash out by selling my house and get an affordable RV and head to Arizona to watch the Royals in spring training. There is probably a senior discount.”
AKA: Livin’ the dream. I often wonder why I’m not on tour.
It has to be more than equities, either that or Oregon’s Public Employees Retirement System is just messed up. When I had an PERS account, it lost more than 30% during the crash and did not recover for years
To reiterate metrosucks, the business cycle is how the ultra rich get ultra richer, and it’s enabled by govt and bank policy.
I don’t understand how so-called progressives can cheer for this stacked deck.
Bennett, I’m hear ya. I was on tour for more than a decade as a park ranger and often wish I could do it again. The wife and dog aren’t fans of the nomadic lifestyle. 🙁
Way back in the 60’s both my grandparents sold their homes to move to the new South Auditorium Urban Renewal district in Portland. One lived on the top floor and the other about 3/4 up. They both had great views. But after a couple years they got tired of parking in the basement and using the elevator to their apartment. They did not like the isolated feeling of apartment life and both soon moved back into houses in the burbs. Where they could plant a vegetable gardens and have a yard to enjoy in the summer.
Later as they aged they both moved to retirement apartments, both after my grandmothers passed away. They were nearly in their 90’s and needed more help or less responsibilities, such as a house and yard.
See building in rear of the photo in the South Auditorium Urban Renewal district
http://tinyurl.com/kandboh
“See building in rear of the photo in the South Auditorium Urban Renewal district”
Wow. Lived downtown Portland for three years and don’t recognize the scene from that pic!
Yes Frank, when you are drawing down your savings in retirement volatility is a problem so you want to shift your money to more reliable assets. When you aren’t about to retire you don’t necessarily want that because then you are paying a premium for stability you don’t need in the form of lower returns.
This is an important point. The risk profile of people’s investment portfolio often changes toward a more risk-averse set of assets as they approach or enter retirement.
The people who were hurt least by the last recession were those who had already made this transition, partly because they had accumulated more assets by that stage in their life and partly because their holdings were less exposed to large swings in market indices. If necessary, they could use some of their savings in the near term to help offset the losses in income from lower investment returns.
Frank, 30% is a huge hit. My condolences. I have a feeling you might be right about PERS. A 30% hit in 2008 indicates that they were taking unnecessary risks: Historical Returns for US Stock/Bond Allocations, And Choosing Your Allocation. They were chasing returns at the expense of the beneficiaries.
Note Figure 2: (80/20 Stocks/Bonds). That portfolio lost close to 30% in 2008. But, IMHO, it’s only appropriate for someone in their 20s, not for a retirement fund that’s paying out benefits now. 2008’s loss would have been cut down to 20% with a 60% stock / 40% bond allocation, and to 3% with a 20% stock / 80% bond allocation. PERS would have been far better off if it had invested those funds in low-cost target date retirement funds.
Well, PERS knew the taxpayer would pick up the slack regardless, so I guess they just didn’t care.
Frank March said
Wow. Lived downtown Portland for three years and don’t recognize the scene from that pic!
—————————————-
Frank, I believe that is the new Auditorium being built on the left and the businesses on the right, would become the Keller fountain in front of the Auditorium.
@metrosucks
All over the country municipal workers were promised retirement benefits that nobody was willing to pay for. If you say you can get a 10% average annual return on your investments then you can make the healthcare and pension funds look like they’re in decent shape. If you say you can’t get that then your elected official boss finds someone who can. They gambled and lost. Everyone was hoping they’d get out before the shit hit the fan, many think they still will. How many voters remember which politicians endorsed the overly generous union contracts? Taxpayers will get hit for some of the difference. In many places municipal workers will get less than they expected too.
Incorrect. All such ridiculously generous promised will be repudiated, as has already happened in some areas on a limited scale. A guaranteed 10% return is insanity and honestly, except for a very few portions of government, most of them are paper polluters and seat warmers that do absolutely nothing useful for society.