Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Joan Osland Graffius who wrote (161133)	4/20/2002 2:49:46 PM
From: GraceZ	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

Understandably a lot of people lost a great deal of money out of their pension plans. They must be feeling pretty bitter about it considering that they did work for years and years putting as much away as they could. (so much for people not saving) Certainly I know some of these people, I'm helping a few try to get back on track. But even if say you were a straight indexer, owned the S&P. You are back to the end of 1998 right now. Which means you lost the 35% it rose to the top in 2000, or you are down 26% from the top. But you were getting double digit gains from 1994 through 2000 for what was largely a no brainer investment. Obviously the closer you are to retirement the harder it is to recover from such a set back so it did hit people your age more than it hit people in their mid forties who presumably have many more earning years. Most Boomers are still on track although it does not feel that way. If they were more aggressive and got caught up in the Naz bubble they are in far worse shape unless they funneled some of those gains into real estate. I know people in both conditions, ones who lost two years of gains and those that lost everything speculating in the Naz. What I don't know are that many people who haven't saved any money for retirement or those that lost it all in reasonably conservative plans if they had been investing say from their early thirties up to their late forties and early fifties, Boomers. For a lot of these people their houses will provide some savings. Most people won't live in the same house they raised a family in when they retire, they will wind up eating their house. Frankly I see this as a better alternative to having the kids fight with each other over it after you are gone and I've seen enough of that to last me a lifetime. NG As for people taking their kids with their kids back in, enough already, kick them out. Time for tough love. My husband has friends who are close to 50 still living with mom. Its unfathomable to me, at some point you are suppose to take care of your parents not have your parents take care of you in perpetuity. They should be doing what we did when I graduated from college and there was a terrible economy. Live in a dump and do whatever job you could get. We didn't move back in with our parents so we could live in a nicer house. Time to change the locks if the kids are doing this.