General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Bernie Sanders: Do you know why millions of our people are stressed out? [View all]JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)But so many people now in their 50s and 60s lost their jobs and homes and lived on the savings they had accumulated prior to the recession that they are particularly unprepared for their elder years.
And in our changing, ever more computerized. ever more import-dependent society, they are unable to save enough now. Many are barely surviving. They have taken jobs that paid less than they had before the crash. It's pretty depressing for them. And people who had businesses that went under in the recession and are in that age group have also lost out. One friend of mine who did well before 2008 with a family business now rents rooms in her house. She at least has a house (mortgaged) so she has some hope.
Whether the young will be able to save and buy homes and own property, stocks, etc. will depend on whether our economy stays healthy. I'm very pessimistic about that. And mostly because the recovery from the recession is mostly going to the very rich. Maybe it will "trickle down," but I am more and more dubious about that trickle down stuff. It is not working well. It has not worked well for most Americans.
The "best and brightest" among American youth are saddled with oppressive student loan debt. That will make it harder for them to save.
We need some new solutions.
The biggest concern is that at this time when our inventors have great ideas some of which could solve huge problems and make life better for everyone, because of the tremendous disparity in wealth, the markets that can reward invention, that foster more inventions, will not be there in the future, a nearer future than we would like to contemplate.
Can ordinary people afford to benefit from the wonderful breakthroughs in medicine? New medications, new methods of communicating with doctors, new systems in hospitals and medicine, etc. All wonderful. But how to pay for them when patients' wages are not high enough to cover all that innovation.
Obamacare is a way to spread the risk and to encourage innovation by making sure the costs can be covered. But Obamacare can only achieve those goals if wealthier people pay some of the cost for care for those who have less. And Republicans, with their ape-like, chest-beating mentality of "I'll show that sucker who doesn't have what I have and doesn't deserve what I have. He should'a made better decisions" of course, don't understand that broadening the market for health care technology will ultimately save their own lives.
The disparity in wealth will ultimately slow down our technological development. Countries in which there is less disparity can absorb and deal with the changes better than we will. Just watch and see.
The lack of savings of ordinary Americans is just a symptom. It is not a character flaw.
I have to say that we lived in Austria many years ago. That country had a Bausparkasse system that encouraged people with little money to save. If you saved part of your income, the government matched your savings. That was a great system. Helped the banks as well as low-income people who wanted to save but whose accounts only grew slowly. That's a good idea. And Austria did quite well even in the recent recession.