America's Retirement Timebomb!
Вставка
- Опубліковано 4 жов 2024
- To try everything Brilliant has to offer for free for a full 30 days, visit brilliant.org/.... You’ll also get 20% off an annual premium subscription.
Over the next five years the largest cohort of the baby boomer generation will reach retirement age and while it is broadly assumed that they will have comfortable retirements, a recent analysis of their assets shows that more than half of this final group of boomers are not financially prepared to retire whatsoever.
In today's video we look at how American retirees found themselves in this position, and how much you need to save to have a comfortable retirement.
Patrick's Books:
Statistics For The Trading Floor: amzn.to/3eerLA0
Derivatives For The Trading Floor: amzn.to/3cjsyPF
Corporate Finance: amzn.to/3fn3rvC
Additional Reading:
While America Aged by Roger Lowenstein: amzn.to/4fLLZ45
Peak Boomers Paper: www.protectedi...
Fed Survey: www.federalres...
Private pensions in the United States: Gambling with retirement security: www.cambridge....
Ways To Support The Channel
Patreon: / patrickboyleonfinance
Buy Me a Coffee: www.buymeacoff...
Visit our website: www.onfinance.org
Follow Patrick on Twitter Here: / patrickeboyle
Business Inquiries ➡️ sponsors@onfinance.org
Patrick Boyle On Finance Podcast:
Spotify: open.spotify.c...
Apple: podcasts.apple...
Google Podcasts: tinyurl.com/62...
Join this channel to support making this content:
/ @pboyle
To try everything Brilliant has to offer for free for a full 30 days, visit brilliant.org/patrick/. You’ll also get 20% off an annual premium subscription.
This is a disappointing video Patrick. The idea that Unions tricked "the brilliant minds of upper management" into making a company insolvent is laughable when it threatens the employment and the retirement of the workers IN that Union. Why weren't Golden Parachutes discussed as well?
Why did you preface your comments with a story about France when France has a far better record of prosecuting lawbreakers regardless of their income? Why DIDN'T you mention that a Reagan law change meant that pensions suddenly became "a company asset" if said company declared bankruptcy? And why DIDN'T you mention the numerous Market Crashes that transferred wealth upwards such as seizing homes after the Housing Bubble but getting a bailout anyway?
I could go on, why didn't you?
I hate how boomers judge younger generations'' inability to attain financial security when it was their selfish policies that were responsible for it in the first place
@@arcanondrum6543I'm a millennial and my father is a boomer. I could never imagine having the career development my father had. He became a director at 36 and director at $ billion plus annual revenue and budget at 40. My best is senior manager at a medium sized at 42.
My father had a bachelor's with slightly above average marks. I have 2 Masters with a 3.8/4 and 5.78/7.
I'm a very astute investor, in terms of safe investments in property and other commodities, at least on a personal level. My father has made more business FUps than I can count on my fingers.
Somehow He still keeps getting richer. 😂😂😂
I'm all for pensions, simply because of the family dynamic currently in the West. In our culture, senior citizens are taken care of in the family of their children or next closest relatives. But many senior citizens are abandoned in places like the US and UK.
@@arcanondrum6543 Why did he also not mention options like Fouty years of tabaco smoking to negate the need to payout on or receive a retirement fund.
@@arcanondrum6543 Unions don't trick upper management, it's a forced negotiation, especially by roping in politicians.
Union negotiations can (and often) result in the failure of the system they're negotiating in. Union officials are fine with the collapse since they lose their bargaining power by the time a new Government is elected, say every 4 to 8 years. By then, senior union officials have collected a hefty retirement sum.
The terms of many Enterprise Bargaining Agreements between large unions and Governments provide some very generous outcomes at the cost of the taxpayer.
Meanwhile the youngest generation is being told to start saving for retirement as soon as they graduate, while still paying student loans... and to not spend more than 30% of their income on rent.
It's "very optimistic" advice
The youngest generation is being told to go to trade schools and community colleges, not take student debt, and yes -- start saving for retirement immediately. Investing $5 a week would give folks a considerable safety net, and if you increase that as your income increases, a very comfortable one.
Yes this generation will be much better off than then for it as well.
@@okwhatevev5 dollars a week is 260 a year. With the average rent being $1560 a month in the U.S., that would mean you’d have to save for 6 years to cover one month of rent. Not exactly a safety net.
@@okwhatevev Assuming the economy, the dollar and, therefore, the investments won't collapse in 40 years from now.
My mom is 1953 boomer and my dad is a 1959 boomer. Dad just retired, and my mom is absolutely doing most of the heavy lifting on their retirement expenses. Dad's retirement was way worse than mom's, you've hit the nail on the head. My dad is a heck of a mechanic but his finanical skills are lacking for sure. Without my mom, my dad would be in rough retirement shape indeed. Fascinating.
Edited to add: gotta push back a bit on the union hate. I'm a 9th generation child of coal country-you'll never convince me companies can be held accountable without unions.
I'm a retired boomer, doing well. Small pension, good investments. There is no effective education on any of this. (The real reason I'm 'retired' is I quit teaching.) As a teacher I attended a many faculty meetings on retirement (but I avoided the ones where attractive young people gave out free pizza and tried to sucker us with insurance annuities.)
We were always told that because we have such a good state pension plan (CalSTRS California) that our 'service time' wouldn't contribute to Social Security. What they never knew to tell us was that not only did SS would not go up, it was going down. The annual letter telling me about my SS contributions and expected payout, was completely wrong, even after I retired. I only found out when I applied for my payment. I got less than 20%, and then Medicare took that. In my case, not a problem, but it illustrates how little real understanding there seems to be.
The way retirement is discussed is all abstract and general. You should have this amount by the time .... Okay. So is everybody else is eventually homeless? working at WalMart?
The people I've known who did well, over saved, or inherited. It's impossible to tell who was smart and who was just lucky. I bought Apple at $3. Ask me about Tesla in a couple of years.
Every 'financial advisor' who's ever wanted to talk to me, was a fraud selling insurance. If I don't roll my eyes and ask a good question, they'll get into it and starting talk about Modern Portfolio Theory.
So young people: be cheap, save everything, (buy indexed S&P funds without fees or whatever Patrick suggests. GW Bush wanted to privatize SS, like they did in Chile. But then the media flew someone down there who found out everyone's privatized pension was sucked dry by fees and commissions.)
The chart at 25:45 is interesting. I know exactly what that would've meant to me in my 20s. Not much. How much is a year's salary the chart refers to? Almost no one I knew had any clue how to save anything. The only people I knew who were paying into retirement funds in their 20s and 30s were either in a specific career, teaching, other government, union, or corporate. What's missing from this video is how CEOs gutted so many pension plans and put it in their pockets. In the past 30 years corporate stopped pensions, but those people seemed to handle it well. Maybe I should've hung out with those guys. (Now, in order to get that teacher salary you have to incur over $100k in student loan debt. When I graduated I owed $3300. I didn't bother to start paying if off for a few years and it didn't go up much. If I was just out of high school in 2024? I might sneak into college, but I sure wouldn't enroll and sign my future away to get a diploma. In today's dollars of course my $3300 for attending one of the best universities would be much more, maybe $6600. )
An economic concept I'd like to see discussed by Mr Boyle is what is the difference between businesses negotiating with suppliers and other businesses and negotiating with unions? Maybe I'm missing something. I've always been pro union like my UAW grandparents, so I admit to being biased. I just can't see how my grandmother bolting bumpers onto Barracudas bankrupted Chrysler. Her pension was gutted by the inflation of the 1970s. (And a big difference between auto company pensions and Teamster Union pensions is your employer only had to pay into your Teamster retirement fund while you were employed. I wonder how that worked out.? Factoid: The mob run casinos in Vegas actually gave better returns than when the government took over. Even with the 'rake.' Usually of course it never works out well.)
Sure GM bankrupted itself, twice or is it three times now? The bigger problem is that at one point these companies were incredibly efficient and profitable and then they weren't. I guess there was no clause for when we stop being profitable. If they were now making cars as efficiently and profitably as Tesla, they'd be doing great. (I grew up in Detroit with a front row seat to all of it. I had zero expectation that there would be any future for me in an auto company, or Detroit. They've actually lasted longer than I thought they would, and the Motor City is about where I thought it was headed.)
Unions can be good. Mine however, got rid of pensions for current and future employees and has an article in the Collective Bargaining Agreement that prohibits us from going on strike. The UAW is a farce with corrupt higher-ups bought-off by the company.
You got that right.
Coal country you say? Can we get a "Fuck you Bob" from all the squirrels in the comments?
Companies can be held accountable via government intervention. Venture outside the states and there is a long list of countries with poor or no unions and the job of worker rights is well regulated via laws. Unions came to life to fill a gap in laws and lack or poor government support.
I think Patrick got distracted and forgot that this is a rapping channel
if he remembers in time he can make the Olympics for breakdancing
Nope. He's talking about Eminem (a boomer) having to come out of retirement and that's why he had to release a new album.
He is rapping. Who says it has to rhyme?
@BrownStarKachina so Eminem is a boomer? Ok
He is not that old. The youngest boomers are 60@@BrownStarKachina
When you got handed THE MOST STABLE ECONOMY IN HISTORY - and spent it all on divorce lawyers.
I laugh at you tears, I went through depression recession stagflation the dollar going broke where do you think the petrol dollar came from you have no idea what it was like because your all brain dead and all the history is hidden from you. But would you forever children even care.
They're victims as well. After WW2 the U.S. was 50 percent of the worlds productive GDP. Just the U.S. They were raised in an artificial environment and learned habits that were needed for that time that no longer work in this one. It will happen to us as well. Things are changing too quick for it not to. You feel it happening now, its where all the frustration and bitterness comes from.
The "peak boomers" (who started working from 1979-1984) did not get a stable economy at all, and bore the grunt of globalization, i.e. the evisceration of manufacturing jobs thru disastrous trade agreements and low tariffs profiting only the 1%.
@@verw719 For sure. 1980-1982 was the peak of "Stagflation" -- unemployment rising to 10%, inflation peaking at 22%
@@verw719 Things only really started to decline in 1979, but lets be real, they had plenty of income they could've been saving and housing cost nothing. They liked fancy cars, that was literally their main problem.
The average car sold back then would be like $70k+ adjusted for inflation, cars are matched or under inflation in terms of price increases relative to space, nevermind efficiency etc. Sure new car sales are averaging high right now too in transaction price, but new car sales are super down.
If they got a cheaper Japanese car, they could've retired. That's literally the difference 40 years on, the additional payment + gas had it gone into savings would be $3 million today.
The cold hard reality is that these people had the best shot in the world, and they failed because they couldn't conceive of tempering their lifestyles
This issue isn’t just an issue in the USA. Europe too. My father passed away, my mother is no longer well enough to work, she is the exact generation of peak boomer, her pension is pathetic and I have been feeding her and housing her for years now. She simply can’t afford to survive without me.
same for my relatives in germany, they have nothing without their meager pension. if anything bad happens, their kids pick up the tab
All the boomers who didn't invest in their children (especially their sons) are getting ready to pay a heavy price for just depending on the government for their retirement. They need to try to keep working as long as possible. Forget spending all your days on the golf course.
@@rbdan They'll do it anyway in a max. of 12 years.
The last federal budgets spend ~30% in "Work and Social" and now you can add the cost of the plans of the current administration.
Its not like spending 45% in income tax alone keeps doctors in the country and "the new doctors" are also a social expence.
The three biggest groups in rising employment in Germany are 'Law&Tax", "Goverment employment ex Military" and "Medicine"....yea
On the other side, "Chemistry" and "Automobiles" - the tradiotional main source of national employment - are net cutting their headcount...
EXACTLY - I'm Australian and we have the same issue here.
Unfortunately if the baby Boomers don't wake up shortly the simple fact is that the rest of us will be FORCED to dump them because we wont be able to afford them and their selfishness.
AND LETS BE CLEAR - its NOT all of them. Most of them worked damned hard to pay off their homes and not be in debt, but even that part of their generation kept VOTING FOR the scumbags who have wrecked the planet and left us with the most gigantic of expenses THE ENERGY TRANSITION.
I am an engineer and I can tell you that not only is the ENERGY TANSITION GOING to cost several $100 Trillion IT WAS ALWAYS GOING TO HAPPEN because no matter what power stations like everything lese wear out and have to be replaced AND they usually have to be replaced by BIGGER power stations because of population growth.
BUT the scumbags our parents kept electing where more interested in their share portfolio's than our future and that is going to bite and bite damned hard.
I don't have much pity. By the time I retire I will get zero pension because the demographics just don't allow for that. So what I will have then is what I saved myself.
Our current system requires individuals to be financially savvy and make sound decisions for their investments. Yet we don’t teach personal finance in most high schools and expect everyone to acquire this knowledge on their own. Many don’t.
Why bother teaching it? Other than maxims like save more than you spend the rules change like the direction of the wood based on whatever the political zeitgeist is.
Half of states require financial education for graduate HS.
They also require health class but that doesn't stop people from vaping or contacting STDs
They didn’t exist when I graduated 15 years ago, but in recent years many states have implemented required, financial literacy courses for high school upper class men. The content can actually be pretty good, but I would guess that most high schoolers really don’t care to learn much on the topic. The surest way to make a course undesirable is to make it required.
Financial literacy is good and all but a lot of people don’t even have the money needed to engage in saving and investment.
Even people who are following responsible saving and investment strategies could have their life savings wiped out from a single medical emergency.
I spoke to a teacher about changing high school curriculum to actually prepare children for life. He believed children's brains aren't sufficiently developed to understand finance, taxation and economics.
Maybe the boomers should cut back on avocado toast.
Yep. Withdraw of solidarity and empathy flows both ways.
why I want to be healthy@!!!!
Have they tried making coffee at home instead of buying that 7usd Starbucks?
Well, pull yourself up by the bootstrap, will you?
Maybe hit the pavement and go hand out some of those resumes 😂
@@FarleyMan151these sayings are all things boomers have been telling the younger generations for years. They are just as guilty as others putting people in categories, deriding others, and not being "mature". Some younger people are tired of being told these things trying to make it in this ever increasingly difficult time. So when the shoe is on the other foot I can understand why they are hitting back with the very same sayings the boomers like to parrot.
Maybe people should shut up about what we boomers should do?
I’m part of the generation that asks…
“What’s a pension?” 😅
lol according to the suggestion in the video, I have as much savings as a person in their 60s. I wonder if this means I can go ahead and retire now at 36. That'd be wild.
@@johnjingleheimersmith9259Well done. Wish more people would adopt a more frugal mentality. We spend way too much money buying things we can’t afford to impress people we don’t care fire.
@@jan2000nl yea, but you know the plot twist is i have the nonsmokers stage 4 lung cancer. So unless science comes up with a cure in the next decade or maybe less I won't really get to use much of it. irony
My parents are Babyboomers and many of them have following similarities
(1) Did not save adequately during their working years
(2) Carried and still carry excessive amounts of debt (mortgages, auto loans, credit cards, etc)
(3) participating in excessive consumerism
(4) Refusal to adjust their lifestyle to reflect their situation
My father for example, bought a car in 2022, which he could not afford, never made a serious effort to pay off the family home before during his working years because of his addiction to debt, he is know 72yrs old and working full time just to try to maintain his over consumption life style
In the coming decades many of the boomers will become homeless/destitute because of poor financial choices they made early in life and no amount of public outcry/intervention will solve this problem
Well, I hope you've learned something from this then.
5) paid for you and your shit...what's the total on that sport?
6) sounds to me like Dad has it figured...ride like hell on OPM till you're dead.
7) maybe you should buy him dinner tonight while he's still here?
Working full-time till you are 72 is not having it figured. @@hillbilly4895
I guarantee you your boomer parents are democrats.
No they won't become homeless they'll find a way to collectively take from the young
All I know is that when the crystal in my hand changes color, I'm supposed to float up to the ceiling and be vaporized.
When Covid brought out the ageist rhetoric, I took to calling it the "Logan's Run Virus" 😩
@@mandisaw The Boomer remover....💩
I pretty sure logan's run is right around the corner. We are already in a mix of the Brave New World, 1984 and Soylent Green
@@deckard5pegasus673 Although ironically, most people won't watch (or read) any of those. I'd add Fahrenheit 451, and Idiocracy to the list...
Renew!!!
I read several decades ago that General Motors was the largest health care provider through pension/union agreements. That was the 80s.
BTW the responsibility of pensions was passed off to the unions. What did they do with it? Watch your favorite organized crime movie
I'll never understand why corporate America didn't push for a national health care scheme to relieve themselves of the medical burden
@@darkgalaxy5548no profit! hope that helps ☺️
@@darkgalaxy5548Because they couldn't keep people in underpaid positions for so long if they couldn't hold the loss of medical benefits over their heads
@@darkgalaxy5548 "I'll never understand why corporate America didn't push for a national health care scheme"
Thank goodness they didn't. However most business use their benefits as a recruiting tool. Many workers will take a far lower salary just to have more generous healthcare benefits.
I love how the title of the video has the word "Timebomb" in it but, as usual, Patrick generally understates everything. Saying the seniors will "struggle" with retirement is like saying an airplane will "struggle" to maintain altitude if the wings fall off. 🤪
Perfect comment
@@phillipsoltan9913 senior citizens had the highest wages in history and the lowest cost for housing and medical benefits. What's their excuse??
Now that’s classic! 😅
@@gregorylyon1004 They have none. They will all vote for laws that steal even more from their children though. That's what they all do.
I don't think he understates it. We're used to media and youtube showmen being sensationalist. In reality, this is another problem that will continue to be discussed and resolved with time, and not the end of the world or society.
I remember many pension plans being dissolved back in the 1980's
And you would have worked for the same company for 30 years?
@@SocalSamStokes What does that have to do with pensions going away?
@@SocalSamStokes If pensions still existed and wages actually kept step with inflation? Sure. But we all know that isn't happening and that it most likely will never happen.
Me too and for that matter my 10-year pension with Pan American Airways was robbed. It's such old information you can barely find it on the web. Corporate raiding quite common in the 80s. You can do a search of this but it really only talks about some people finally getting paid, but this was after the pbgc guaranteed "whatever was left in the pension fund" after the raiding. Good times. I received 5% of my full pension amount as a result of this event.
@@kaijuultimax9407 Public sector still has pensions & inflation-adjusted wages. Base pay is generally below-market, but total comp including benefits is far above-market for nearly every field. It can also be quite fulfilling to know that your labor goes towards making people's lives better in some way, whether that's clearing garbage, or clearing arteries.
T Rowe Price’s figures are useless. When I was 35, a “year’s salary” was about 32k; at 50, it was approaching 100k. You can’t move the goalposts out two more football fields in 15 years and still expect kickers to hit it from the same field goal line.
@tinad8561 A great point and a very fitting analogy! 👏
Incorrect.
Their "Salary Target" is simply *'THE AMOUNT TO COVER your EXPENSES* during Retirement.
That's probably a smaller number than what you are earning in your 50's
😜
@@HughJass-jv2lt The old school rule of thumb was to plan for 60%, including social security. Not that it matters-if federal debt is unserviceable SS is broke, 32k annually wouldn’t keep the lights on and cover taxes now, forget 19.2, and I haven’t been paid 100k long enough to make up the savings gap to get to 60k annually. The point is all the assumptions are garbage, and while you might think you’re on track at, say, 45, you are in fact one inflation spiral or black swan away from becoming hopelessly behind at 50 and living on cat food at 65. (Actually, I don’t mean that-cat food is stupidly expensive. Pig knuckles, maybe.) And people should therefore stop being almighty smug about retirement savings shortfalls, which all these generational-analysis articles are.
No, it’s not moving the goal post. They assume the money is invested at 7% and compound interest is at work. The only thing absurd about their numbers is that it’s far too low. You likely need 30-40X your preretirement income saved.
@@tinad8561
You're still "missing" the point.
How much do you anticipate you will need to cover all your Retirement *EXPENSES* Annually?
It doesn't matter if you're age 35 , or age 55. Figure out what your annual *EXPENSES* are going to be in Retirement.
Hopefully your house is paid off.
Hopefully you have no college loans etc.
Hopefully you are in good health... but that's most likely the variable that will inevitably Bankrupt you.
☀️😎☀️
Patrick brought up the primary issue when talking about the labor union negotiations. Rather than opting to pay their workers better wages immediately, the companies basically borrowed on credit - that is the future cost of those pensions. They did this to themselves. Happy workers don't generally tend to strike. Labor unions developed in reaction to labor exploitation. I will never have sympathy for a capital class that fails at every opportunity to forecast long-term consequences and adapt accordingly. Those same members of the capital class would say that workers aren't owed a living wage, or even a job. So why should they feel entitled to ever-increasing profit margins?
"Rather than opting to pay their workers better wages immediately, the companies basically borrowed on credit - that is the future cost of those pensions. They did this to themselves."
I think in the case of e.g. the auto workers, the unions were demanding pension benefits specifically. Also, increasing wages enough to allow the workers to save an equivalent amount would likely have taken away the possibility of profits right away (instead of later) which is something neither the company nor the union would want.
Labor is seen as a liability and a resource to be exploited. In a system in which you are forced to work to live, since you’re going to have to work anyway the belief is that you might as well be obligated to give that labor to an employer. You only get paid the bare minimum, up to the limit as that employer (and society around them) can still feel like good people for allowing. Unfortunately that point typically bottoms out at “can afford to put some semblance of edible material in your stomach once per day, regardless of caloric or nutritional value.”
@@seneca983 Your second sentence seems to conflict with the first one. I recall Patrick saying something to the effect in the video that the companies were disinterested in talking about increasing regular wages, so the unions bargained for any benefits they felt they could reasonably achieve. If they felt they had the leverage for direct wage increases, they likely would have (and did in the future) fought for those.
I also disagree to some extent your framing of the last point. Something that the capital class continues to get wrong is that allowing labor to have increased purchasing power will come at their profit margin's expense. That's sliding towards trickle-down economics, which hasn't been proven to actually increase economic growth. You know what DOES increase economic growth? A wider portion of the population having more income to purchase goods and services. The wealthiest members of the capital class don't maintain that wealth by increasing their spending habits, you don't need an economics degree to see that. However, as the Covid stimulus checks proved, if the middle and lower classes have extra money to work with, they have shown themselves more than willing to spend it. The math really isn't as hard as people make it out to be.
@@Brogenitor "Something that the capital class continues to get wrong is that allowing labor to have increased purchasing power will come at their profit margin's expense."
Higher labor costs will generally reduce profits. That's pretty simple. The pension benefits the automakers gave to their employees proved eventually too costly to leave them with profits. Paying similar amounts but just earlier (i.e. as wages and not pensions which are delayed) probably wouldn't have made it better. They would've been in trouble anyway and possibly earlier. That's also what the unions don't want because that would just mean their members losing their jobs rather than getting higher wages. Thus, delayed benefits were preferable to both of them.
who is in the 'capital class'? This reads like some poli sci sophomore who either doesn't have a 401k or has never looked at its composition. If you have ANY money in your retirement account, YOU are the 'capital class'. What goofy parlance.
So now the pendulum has swung in the opposite direction, the companies are awash in cash and the workers are retiring without enough money to cover their costs.
Workers paying for their own greed.
@@VTh-f5xNo, we're paying for the greed of the last 3 generations that sold our economical future to China
There are state pensions/social security/employer assisted savings schemes with generous tax relief available in most countries. Despite the demise of defined benefits schemes surely the situation isn’t that grim.
@@MrBlaxjaxyou are completely neglecting monetary inflation. Currency debasement is a stealth tax the effects mainly the poor
Well, it is not like they are ever going to improve anything in the US when everyone seems fine with how things are. Say what you will about Europe, but it seems to have worked in many cases. Not always employment, but definately quality of life. Gotta wait for things to break for people to push for change of any kind. Clearly most pensions are dead for the future.
i don’t get the implications its the union’s fault none of these companies actually set aside money for pensions. If a pension fund disappears when a company goes under then the company committed fraud imo.
I don't think the fund disappears immediately but it won't incoming contributions from that point forward.
@@noThankyou-g5c I think from the video that initially firms didn’t really have a pension fund. They paid their pensions out of current income. This put these firms under financial pressure sometimes so bad that they were bankrupted. These days pensions organised into separate pension funds or investments so that if an employer goes bust the pension fund is unaffected. (Unless your employer is a villain such as Robert maxwell who somehow managed to steal his workers’ retirement funds).
@@MrBlaxjax Yeah like, I’m not saying unions in the 70s and 80s were perfect I mean they were mostly run by the mob. But I’m just saying it’s framed as if the unions blew up their pensions, not that firms themselves were offering expensive long term benefits without actually planning ahead and keeping a separate pension fund.
If you start offering pensions that pay out in 30 years and just _hope_ you’ll have the money for them in 30 years instead of saving for them… it’s going to be luck of the draw whether you’re running a business or a very convoluted ponzi scheme.
In general, I’m pretty skeptical of most of the claims he made about unions but that just felt like the most blatantly dishonest framing.
Union leaders were just doing their job, but no one was looking at the bigger picture. Having an employer spending more on pensions than wages or production, whilst competing with companies that don’t is obviously going to lead to disaster.
@@noThankyou-g5c Then you didn't understand what he said. His points about the unions were that, in conjunction with weak corporate/civil leadership (San Diego and Detroit were his examples I think), poor financial decisions were made. The unions got their bosses to agree to retirements and benefits that *could not* be payed out. For example, you could convince me to invest $50,000 in your business, but my own personal financial situation would cause that to fail in the long run...because I have no way to cover 50 grand. This, in conjunction with having to compete with cheaper overseas labor, is what bankrupted most of the companies he was talking about. But with the cities, that was 100% poor decision making on the parts of the politicians AND the unrealistic demands from the unions. And all of *that* is assuming no malice on anyone's part.
I’m over here looking at the ten million dollar sign on bonus and 1.6 million annual salary of Starbuck’s new CEO, and am having a real hard time thinking it’s the union’s fault the coffee tastes bad.
I live in an area that’s been very popular for boomers to retire to in Florida. I used to work as an occupational therapist and I had to watch so many of them lose all their life savings to healthcare costs and sell many of their possessions to pay things off. That plus the absurd prices in Florida and many of them are on the edge of homelessness very quickly.
That cycle feels like an inevitability. Since retirement is basically a race between spending all your money on healthcare and something killing you before you have the chance to spend all your money trying to cure it.
Yep...and now with insurance companies dipping out of the state, they're all just one summer storm away from being underwater in at least one way
@@Marbo12fChrist, surely society has some sort of better end goal to it in the year 2024 A.D….?
@@222o-u3t You reap your own goals and efforts, not some vague collective goal.
@@michaelmarlow6610 Those boomers should be fine. They ALL had the highest wages in history and the lowest cost for housing. The boomers that are going broke spent their lives aiming at nothing
Forgot to mention how venture capital, executives, and union bosses got mega payouts from pension collapse. Which green lit manufacturing to poor countries with governments help. Some claimed it was planned, most blame greedy unions and stagnant executive decision making. Also, many pensioners did not get government backed insurance. Most got a small payout. Those companies sure had lots of money to build, bribe, invest in poor countries, lobby government, and grant largest bonus and pay in history. Some journalists at the time called it the biggest bank robbery of its age. But sure. It was forced restructuring to compete on the global markets. Also funny, companies flooded with cash bought out competitors, buyouts were common place and executive pay tripled again.
That wouldn’t be supportive of our “capitalistic” aka socialism for the rich system which Patrick seems to support.
There isn't mention of the massive financial overhead which makes housing more expensive either. If Santa Claus provided everything to the workers except cost of housing the American worker still could not compete with foreign workers.
DING DING DING
Those at the top made out like bandits during and after collapses
Thank Mitt Romney. See how he obtained hundreds of millions
So what?! If something has a bad basis, then its collapse will definitely help someone. Pensions only make sense when you are the recipient, because you benefit to the detriment of the business you are working for and future generations.
When a Boomer starts complaining about how hard retirement and homelessness is, just remind them that they can always pick themselves up by their bootstraps and tough it out.
What if the Boomer has cancer? Sharp decline in mobility, hearing and sight, or cognitive ability that makes even basic employment impossible? No family or friends as a support system due to deaths? No children (1 in 6 people)? How would you advise them to "tough it out?"
I think the initial comment was tongue in cheek.
You're attacking low income baby boomers with the words of rich baby boomers.
@@kuolettavaVids too bad.
@@kuolettavaVids I don't know about that. I've heard plenty of poor boomers complaining about how lazy the kids these days are.
This is both of my parents. My dad married a younger woman, so he hasn't saved a fucking penny, and my mom's stuck working sales for the rest of her life.
They divorced after we lost our house and everything in the GFC, and neither are within any sight of a retirement
I'm so glad that my parents invested. They have a higher net worth than I do and I'm doing fairly well.
Oh you dont need to worry about that man. The older generation will vote in politicians that will siphon more money from the working aged people to the old
@@DylanJo123 I was born in 1962 and am about to retire. I did save in my 401(k) and will be fine. I agree with you about what is likely to happen and share your frustration. It's unfair for those of my generation who didn't save to rob your future.
Seen that too many times when I had a solo law
Practice. Hard enough for two
People to make it working hard; almost impossible once they split up.
@@tommiranda3158 I appreciate the kind words. Tbh, I typed that half in jest and frustration. I think the situation is a bit more complicated than "the boomers are screwing over the young," but i firmly believe it one of many factors for our country's current state.
Perfect topic. I was so afraid of retirement for certain personal reasons. I'm 3 years in retirement @57, did a good job in the accumulation phase with net worth of $3M+. The problem is I haven't spent any of it despite knowing I have no concerns of running out of money. Some minimalist traits that helped me save are not easily cast aside. I sense I'll be dead and gone with plenty of money left behind, but that was never a goal.
Wish we had similar issues, I'm 51 and mine draws near, gradually going into panic mode. Besides IRA and 401k, are there other ways we can prepare ahead of time for our retirement?
No need to panic... I was in a similar place few years back... The simplest way is to save more and invest those savings in profitable ventures (you must either understand what you're going into or get the services of a professional so you don't end up losing your savings)… I have almost doubled my retirement savings in the past 3 years through only stocks and Etfs and if I can keep at it, I won't have much to fear even with less than 6 years to my retirement...
By professional, do you mean an FA? Did you use one? What are the steps for getting one? Like a really good one?
I could definitely use external help right now. Thanks
Yes, I use one. Don't know if I am permitted to go into details here, but you should start by looking out for those from credible firms and good track records. You should also make sure the person is licensed. Mine is Michael, Allen Eckrich and you could also look him up though I'm not so sure he's taking on new people atm.
having 3m for retirement is the goal man.
maybe it's time for boomers to cut back on some luxuries, downsize, get a second job, stop watching TV, cancel any subscriptions stop buying so many phones or computers, stop eating or drinking and maybe they'd be able to afford to live! The elderly are have got too used to a good standard of life and they have got very lazy, they need to work if they want to survive. Just give the interviewer a good firm handshake, he'll understand
This comment wins.
Ugh. The satisfaction of throwing that shade back is too tempting. Feels so good, feels so bad 😭
What boomers do you know pal? You stroke with a pretty broad brush. Those boomers you refer to have paid into the system. They have paid into Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security. Not everyone’s living the life of luxury that you’re describing. Wait till you’re staring down the barrel of retirement. I’ll start the disco ball for you.
Some of us boomers actually lived within our means, started investing at the beginning of my working career and all the way to the end of my career. Lived in a modest home , paid off my bills and planned on using my investment money to supplement my social security.
There isn't any magic or tricks, just hard work and discipline.
Sure I would like to live in a huge Mc mansion with a three car garage and a half acre of lawn. A lot of us have had to try and keep up with the Jones.
I can't believe some of the expensive hobbies that some guys got into, like tractor and truck pulling. Holy crap, how about just burning your money you might break even.
@@paul5683 it’s not just boomers. Everyone has a comfort first mindset. Retirement bubble and birth rate crisis are both symptoms of how we think.
We have lost our sense of duty and personal responsibility to ourselves AND others.
Front the top to the bottom, we are a world of prideful, selfish apes.
The irony in the UK is that those who provide for their retirement are heavily taxed to pay for others who have retirement provisions. The morale appears to be make no provisions and rely on payments from the state which has the policy 'Reward the profligate and idle, punish the prudent'
Sorry a typo : should say : 'pay for others who have made no provisions'
@@douglasmiller4351 Also, moral, not morale.
I don’t know that our system could handle people actually saving property. I recently turned 30 and have almost 300k in my retirement accounts and taxable account, but my car is 12 years old and the last time I bought a new phone was 4 years ago. I’m great at saving, but terrible for the economy.
You're not great at saving, you're great at earning. I now earn probably on pace with you at 32 but for the decade leading up to that I was not earning enough for that kind of pace
Heck, I don't even have a car, and except for one time, I have always bought 2nd hand phones. The upside is that the balance on my bank account looks like a phone number.
you earned a lot in your 20s to end up with 300k
You don’t think there’s people who earn a lot and end up with no savings? Yes, this individual has a high income, but it’s completely ignoring the meaning of words to say they didn’t save money
Maybe he wasn’t a pretty good wage, but 300k in about 14 years would take 600$ per month investment and a 10% return every year. If it’s retirement and he has a generous pension contribution from them then he could get there quicker. If he has a good investment in say Nvidia or out a chunk into Tesla early then he could well have more for less.
The problem is that 14 years is a long time away when you’re young. So most people live for the now and spend everything they’ve got. He could be sitting on 15k per year passive income now at 30 ish. Good luck to you.
It's not that no one in the U.S.A. has pensions. It's that now all of the money goes to the executives.
And to the entire Stock market, real estate, D
CEOs, Uber wealthy, The !%, The upper 10%, my pension is $500.0 per month. A horrible return. I am a Capitalist BC its the best system we have. But it does have the greed and fear@!!!!! factors to create the huge ups and downs of Real estate and the total Stock market.
Bro did not understand anything in the video…
Most hourly employees do not take advantage of the company matching 401 plans. Even if they do, many employees take large amounts out to pay for items that they can't afford and don't need. Use the company's plan to get their free money, then put money in a Roth IRA. Invest in a good S & P EFT for low cost/ low tax load. And you have a good source of income during retirement. Also have a good stash of cash during retirement so during market down turns you will not be forced to sell.
Executives do get ridiculous benefits packages…but pretty sure that the cost of pensions was WAY more. I don’t know the exact numbers, but a fund that can pay former employees or their spouses for decades after their retirement is a massive amount of money.
@@williamgrignon7969 study Finance
That Starbucks coffee bean joke had me laughing out loud.
Its amazing how tone deaf the company is. They'll improve everything except the core ingredient. That company is not seeing long term.
@@jeabo0adhd if Starbucks' core ingredient is coffee, then they would've sold packaged coffee for people to make at home themselves. Their business model rely on workers working on the retail side, not just the coffee itself. (not a fan of Starbucks myself btw, I just make my own at home)
I pause for a moment here Patrick to praise you for the effort into the video. The research, it's ordering and scripting is work and a half. Thank you and I hope others appreciate the effort and brilliance of the content.......💪🤔🤳
I'm a peak boomer. We came of age hearing about pensions and then suddenly, corporations started stealing the pensions and forcing us to get into 401k programs. The biggest problem with that is that we recieved little to no training on how 401ks worked. And this was pre-internet, so it wasn't like we could look up a guide or do any sort of in depth research into how they worked. If you didn't have the means to get professional help, you were basically effed.
Now everyone just has ETFs aren’t going to do shit since they are mostly tech stocks that will never reach these highs again due to population decline, anti-monopoly laws (finally) and many other factors.
There’s basically nothing you can invest in right now except yourself or your own business if you have one that is even remotely secure.
Indicators showing we are already entering a recession and whether the government bails it out massively like in 2008 or not, the results won’t be good for the coming decades.
You guys voted for this. You sleep in the beds you make. Where did all the money go? To the billionaires. I hope this is what you all wanted. Reagan did that for you. Good job.
@Chris-ey8zf so EVERYBODY voted for regan? 😂
Why are only unions to blame for a joint decision? They didn’t impose pensions-they NEGOTIATED them. The EMPLOYERS decided, as is typical, to put short-term gains first, I.e., rather than increase wages now, they sifted that obligation later-and then didn’t do anything to prepare for it. Great balance sheet in year 1; bankruptcy in year 20.
I also thought this was the weakest point he made. Both parties negotiated and agreed to a contract. Both sides fought hard and acting now like somehow the executives of these giant companies were bamboozled or bullied into bad deals by union reps is ridiculous.
Literally this. They could have paid more during the boom times and avoided the long term obligations.
Yes, it seems like a really poor take by Patrick, like he doesn't understand how negotiations work.
Repeated strong arm demands for more. Were you watching? They bled industries white.
@@Leisurelee53 um, there were two parties doing the negotiating. Corps could have given them more money up front or done profit sharing. Instead they chose to kick the can down the road.
So who are buying all these million dollar homes at 7%?
Corporations and foreign/domestic investors paying cash.
@@zwatwashdc real estate investors.
Boomers with money pay cash. Interest rates don’t matter to some of us.
@@Toomanydays That is what I am saying. If everyone is so poor, why are mediocre houses in secondary and tertiary cities going for well over a million? Either people are paying cash or they are qualifying and paying a truck load of interest.
Blackrock
0:32 Strange how they have most of the money but not enough money.
Not enough to retire for 20 years.
It's almost as if capitalism doesn't work
@@Jw-iu2el They can off themselves whenever they want. They made sure to vote down universal healthcare and every other thing that would have made their retirement cheaper, so good riddance.
Isn't Capitalism funny like that?
Probably because Said Money is Not evenly distributed
Perhaps a rich Scandinavian country will start a "sponsor an American" campaign. They could hire Sally Struthers for the infomercial. "For less than the cost of your morning latte, you could help a needy elderly American afford food and medical care."
"a rich Scandinavian country"
I.e. Norway.
They have imported their own problems now.
All I ask for is rice and beans. And a new set of tires for the...
A wide screen needed for that commercial.
@@carlwest859 🤣🤣🤣
I started working for the Federal Government in 1984. They terminated the pension plan for new employees the year prior. So I started off having to save for retirement right from the beginning. It wasn't easy, but 40 years later, I have enough to retire. I understand exactly why so many people never saved. Putting the burden on the worker was a bad idea.
It's hard to save when your being taxed to oblivion to pay rich retired boomers a 3k/mo SS check. More than I make working full time btw
Good ideas don't always work out when you leave an important part of your life in the hands of another.
On the contrary, it was a great idea... For a few people...
@@here_be_dragons9184 It's a great idea for people not throwing money at 10 dollar coffees every day. I'd be very happy if my government stopped taking retirement taxes out of my salary and let me handle things myself. No risk of them gambling it all away on a stupid "green battery factory" and then claiming "there isn't enough in the coffers"
Even the federal government did this? That's fcked.
Under half of American workers had pensions at the peak of pension coverage, per John Rekentalher of Morningstar. It's a bit of a myth every Boomer had some excellent
cushy pension
And those stats usually only reflect SocSec-eligible workers. Over the decades, that hasn't included most women, many minorities, and a lot of fields excluded from those ranks. Even now, a lot of 401(k) jobs are not really population-representative, so a lot of folks are/will-be left stranded.
Nobody is saying every boomer had a cushy pension. But millions did, and it crippled the industries that offered them
And yet the myth is repeated endlessly on social media, along with the "Minimum Wage Used to Buy a Cadillac and a Mansion" nonsense.
@@Leisurelee53 Pensions aren't what crippled US manufacturing. Having to compete with gov't-subsidized ultra-low-cost, unregulated labor overseas, with no pushback from our own gov't did.
@mandisaw it's not an either or. But if you want to pretend a ballooning population of pay outs for no production was not a sucking chest wound for any company that engaged in the scheme is just ignoring reality.
Ah yes, it is time for another episode of the finest financial satire show on the planet
Guess we're all going to be living in a.. Van.. down by the.. river!
I don't think you quite grasped the concepts in this video, or don't understand what satire is. Unless this comment itself is satire and if thats the case Bravo! Lol
It's where I get all of my rap and wood nymph content
@@raztubes you are funny!
It’s nice of Patrick to take time out of his busy rap career to teach us about finance.
I love that he doesn’t offer any commentary after saying we should have 17 years salary saved away by the time of retirement. 😂
When started working at my final employer in 1981 (fact check if I'm wrong) 46% of Americans had defined pension plans. When finally retiring in 2015 only 18% had them. I find this scandalous and heartbreaking. Younger generations are being denied the financial security I take for granted. (I'm having a meltdown as I write this.)
80% of stocks are owned by only 10% of our population, and half of all that is in the hands of the 1%. Our collective productivity is being horrendously misallocated. If we had a truly transparent and strongly progressive taxation system we would be well on our way to solving this problem.
Thank you, Patrick Boyle. Your programming is simply wonderful. I get an education every time I watch your content.
Keep up the great work!!
Employers can't afford to hand out lifetime free rides. That's why no pensions
@@gregorylyon1004
Oh no, nobody's having kids because we're refusing to pay them enough to have kids. Am I doing something wrong? No, its everyone else who's selfish enough to not go into debt having children.
no mention of the absurd and steady increase in CEO pay with respect to the average worker in these companies?
CEO pay is still a drop in the ocean compared to where the rest of the money goes.
Walmart employees, for example, would only get around $17 more PER YEAR if 100% of the CEO's pay went to every employee.
@@vanguard6937 CEO pay is indicative of a trend though. The ratio of worker pay (median pay for instance) to compensation at the top end is absolutely relevant, even if it of course isn't literally all going to one guy...
@@vanguard6937 there's no justification for a CEO to make 334 times what an average worker makes. The new CEO of Starbucks makes $22 Million per year. That's absurd and not even on the higher scale of what other CEOS make. Not to mention he got a $85 Million in cash and stock as a bonus to join the company. Insane
@@vanguard6937 Just like our entire Education branch of federal government is "only" like $20 a year per person in the USA... But its still $3 billion, which is pennies right?
@@noelghallager4672 The question is, why does it bother you? CEOs of successful companies have always had huge compensations, it's a standard practice in all of the developed world. What are you trying to suggest?
I work for a large auto manufacturer. My defined pension plan is funded by taking money from my hourly wage and placing it into a fund. It's MY money I agreed to use later
I have a problem with "bad labour deals" being the culprit for industry decline. Workers not accepting to get exploited is not "bad". The actual bad thing is that companies, in our global capitalism, can choose where workers can be exploited more efficient and for more profit. Those companies also profit from a heavily distorted field of subsidies, a field no worker has any noteworthy influence over (see China and even the US). And when supply chains are breaking (wars or natural disasters), those companies suddenly cry for bailouts....
Correct. If a company can't afford to pay salary and pension to workers, it shouldn't be in business. It's not the workers fault. It's management's fault for mismanaging the company
If a company doesn’t make profits, it can’t grow or invest, it’ll stay small and primitive. Your aversion to profits is a disdain for progress. Unions agreeing to having older worker pensions paid for by reduced wages for younger workers, and more expensive goods for everyone, is the kind of selfishness attributed to capitalists. ‘Let someone else pay for it’ is not a virtuous attitude.
@@piage84but when you set the bar for "properly paying salary and pension" higher and higher, eventually nobody can do it and stay in business. If you have a worker who did 30 years and then retired at 47, and you have to continue paying then another 40 years until they die and that repeats itself over thousands of workers, you're just never going to be able to compete and sell cars at a price that people can afford.
People act like big businesses are bottomless money pits but they have a lot of employees to pay for and that adds up, a lot more than even the high salaries of a handful of top executives.
@piage84 well hence many companies went bankrupt. What's your point?
@@piage84 Totally agree. Basically, businesses shouldn't exist at all. We should all build our own log cabins, grow our own food, and weave our own clothes.
I'm a '64 boomer and saw this coming when I was in my 40s. I've been working continuously since I was first able to do so, but wasn't making enough to start saving until my early 40s. Twelve years ago I decided to sell my home in DC and move to a country with a favorable exchange rate. I had enough from the sale of my home to be able to afford buying my own place here and still have a couple hundred thousand left over. Considering the exchange rate, my social security benefit (which would be difficult but possible to live on in the US) should be roughly twice the median household income here. My Thai spouse also has a modest income on top of that. Fingers crossed.
Now we know where Hannibal from the A Team is. “I love it when a plan comes together.” Col. Decker is on the way to Thailand. Get out now.
Some people have no shame, "yeah, old white guy who had no successful relationship back in the States, so i went and found a young gold digger in Thailand." You know people normally make fun of that stereotype, right? Enjoy what's left of your life, I guess, oh and those U.S. taxes, you still have to pay.
@@greenpinapple820better than marrying an American woman ( who initiates 80 percent of divorces) and eventually loosing all your stuff lol
@@greenpinapple820 that was disgusting. Do you have nothing better to do than put words in people's mouths? Not that you deserve to know, but I married my spouse in the states and the two of us made the joint decision to move overseas. Sorry if that doesn't satiate your depraved wishful thinking. Go look for somebody else to feel superior over.
Did you get you a much younger woman in Thailand???
I’m intrigued by the lack of acknowledgment that these same companies chose to underfund their pension plans, instead spending that money on ever increasing c-suite compensations, bonuses, stock buybacks, etc
What's wrong with stock buybacks?
@@benjamindover4337 it's all money that isn't invested in the businness, just like bonuses and whatnot.
@@benjamindover4337 , plenty wrong. Instead of money being spent on reinvesting into the company, improving products and processes, developing new products, ensuring fair compensation for the lowest paid employees, they artificially inflate stock prices by decreasing their quantity in the market, thus benefiting the small number of already wealthy executives and shareholders
@@azrael-1964 You don't get it man. Once a company is selling stock, that's how they make their money.. selling stock. The stock price is the only thing that matters. Not the products, not the customers. The real customers are the people buying stock. That's why they do buybacks, to shore up the stock price which in turn generates revenue in new stock sales.
@@benjamindover4337That’s not true. The focus is too often on the share price but that price is grounded to real world metrics, even if that grounding has been stretched thin in recent decades.
Companies that don’t deliver pay the price after a bad quarter or to, and these tricks to prop up shares only buys you a few quarters at best.
Eventually reality bites
Really good video. I didn't know much about the history of the unions, so I learned some new things.
6:56 "with the introduction of modern plumbing, people started to live a lot longer"
Vaccines and flouridation of water contributed as much to longevity as hygiene did. It was a heck of a health revolution overall.
@@ReflexVEThe idea of fluoridation contributing to longevity is unlikely. Populations in countries in continental Europe are healthier and live longer on average than in the US and none fluoridate their water.
@@theonlycaulfield There are a bunch of studies on this, I suggest you read them. The EU countries that do flouridate show the same health advantage those in the USA, UK and other nations do.
@@ReflexVE There isn't a single EU country that has mandatory fluoridation other than Ireland. People from Ireland live shorter lives on average than continental Europeans.
@@ReflexVE When saying there are studies. It might be helpful to copy paste the title of the studies you are referring to in your comment.
If you're still thinking 30 years from now there will be some kind of "guaranteed" retirement, you're in for a ride... 🤣🤣 Never trust your governments.
Social Security will be non existent when I retire. I know that. I’m 36 years old.
@@Oblivisci........I’m 27 and if I wasn’t born to the family I was born to, I’d be up shits creek.
@@ancientflames Not really, you still would have plenty of time to save if you did need to rely on your own money. I'm in my 30s and I did that math: I could save for retirement by 60 and still have money left over for gambling on my own business and a family.
@@Oblivisci........they said that when I was your age. Quit believing those negative bastards.
Well I will say I'm a little older at the age of 39 40 next March and I can remember that I've been hearing this since I was in fourth grade they basically said that we will probably die on the job.
I can remember that you know we had and you did too a combination of baby boomer teachers as well as Gen x teachers and I don't know about your school but I can remember it my school most of them said okay so the baby boomers are definitely going to get something probably not the full enjoyment that their parents got but they're definitely going to get more than the Gen xers The Gen xers will definitely get something but it might not be hardly half of what the boomers get by the time the millennials show up to get theirs it said that there's hardly going to be anything left I can remember that that was an open discussion in the classroom even in fourth grade.
So if we do get some sort of social security retirement it's probably going to be like a lousy 20 to 50 bucks per month as it is social security has hard-on for throwing disabled people off of it they're going around right now and they're throwing off anybody they can possibly get on a technicality and a lot of cases it's unjust and then you have to fight them to get it back it's a pain in the ass.
So I can only imagine what they're going to do when it comes to retirement technically the money's there technically the money will be there there's actually a 2 trillion dollar fund for social security that is a separate lock box from the official social security account but I don't doubt that they're going to play games to try and hold up the two trillion technically social security is funded they're really technically shouldn't be a problem but the way in which things are run and the assholes who are running it there's probably not going to be any significant payout.
Brilliant episode. Remarkable information. Thanks Patrick!!
Excellent analysis & historical perspective! Thank you.
Compound interest not only helps the rich, it helps you when aging if you can save some all the time it grows a lot over decades...
"Peak Boomers" born in the 1960s, especially 1962-1964, are for all intents and purposes GenX, and in fact were included in GenX as that term was originally defined. Not just culturally: In terms of income, retirement preparedness, and wealth accumulation they're much more like GenX than earlier Boomers.
Generation Jones
I like that thinking. I think the boomer years were once adjusted. I hope they adjust them again to what you noted.
( Actually...some politician will adjust them to better serve his own needs and skew the reports )
tHanks @@SpookyEng1 I had to go and look it up again.
"Generation Jones : born between 1954 and 1964-65. 'Lost Generation. ' They have this nickname because they were born between the Baby Boomers and Generation X birth dates".
Gotta love the hard Milton Friedman logic in this video. "Unions and pensions are the reason why businesses failed. But we took that away, so now 50% of workers can't retire. And businesses who don't have pensions are not doing great either. So everyone can lose as they should."
To be honest here, Friedman never said anything close to that. What he did say was that unions, management, and government were literally stealing the wealth of Americans...you know, like they are now.
He doesn't say that though, he attributes it as one of many reasons American manufacturing failed. Which given the numbers presented appears to be an entirely reasonable argument.
Pensions are literally mathematically completely unsustainable and always have been.
The democratic party has been quirky bailing out every pension with tax dollars for literally decades.
I don't think that unions are nearly as relevant as he thinks when there is cheap labor beyond horizon, it was always going to be problem cause thats just given in global capitalism. Inherent power imbalance between rich and poor and tendency for capital to chase profit above everything else.
@@robertkalinic335 'Capitalists are bad for chasing profit!' Now do the UAW.
Great piece. I learned a lot about the economic impact of defined benefits plans. You talked about the financial burden these placed on large corporations like GM. However, you didn't mention that during this same period corporate profits remained healthy and that rather than investing in R&D or capital equipment companies like GM used those monies to buy back stock and dramatically increase executive compensation. They lost ground competitively, not so much because of pensions, but because management was not interested in the future of the company.
So the bottom line is that no form of capitalism can guarantee a safe and secure life for an average Joe.
Earlier froms were doing it for a while and now are at the verge of bankruptcy.
Newer forms have made the cost of living so high and employment and good income so scarse that it's impossible to have a balanced ordinary life let alone saving for the retirement.
I wonder if the modern capitalism generated so much wealth, where does it all go? Does it end in the hands of a few or the huge wealth was a myth?
Also, The savings guidance is basically worthless and shifting all of the burdens to ordinary people who have no say in the macro economic decisions is just another ploy to oppress the anger of the masses.
Do you believe Communism is better? If not Capitalism then what?
The wealth generated by modern capitalism primarily goes to ineffective government programmes that Average Joe voted for, and which the capitalists warned Average Joe not to wote for because it would all make us poorer.
@@GackFinder wow. Can you show me the mechanism?
@@ariangh815 Did you watch the video? Whenever he says the words governments, benefits, public whatevers, unions, etc, think "not capitalism". Capitalism is about private ownership, private trade, and private industry. What you are talking about is called corporatism, where the distinction between the government and private capital is completely blurred.
@@GackFinder well, I can't disagree. Capitalism is a broad definition.
at 30 I am quite literally the only person I know who is on track to retire.
Peter Zeihan's been keeping an eye on this for quite a while and if you think this is bad in America, it's SO MUCH WORSE everywhere else in the developed world because the American Baby Boomers actually had kids (American Millenials saved America just by existing).
I remember him talking about this subject, too. It makes sense, since the system can only exist if one generation is able to replace the previous one
I worked IT 1977 to 2021 with 9 employers. 3 times I moved because of layoffs and moved on my own 6. Either way a defined benefit retirement sounds like a straight jacket.
A lot of pensions offer a payout when you leave the company that you can then roll over into an IRA.
Hm, that doesn't make sense... pensions generally roll over when you leave, same as 401ks, or are held in an account until your retire, like TIAAA-CREF annuities for teachers.
Can you explain why? DB pensions in the UK are considered very valuable retirement benefits. They provide significant security and also tend to offer inflation proof indexation. You can also transfer them to flexible retirement schemes if you so wish but this is usually not advisable given the potential risks involved.
And yet, it seems that more people were better off financially with them
It is. They're called "golden handcuffs" for a reason. You can't leave your job because you lose out on such a massive benefit. So you just got to stay and grind out the time no matter how unhappy you are.
48% of men with median just under $100K and 41% women with median just under $60K. What the hell?! You’re telling me half these people didnt even save?!
What have they been doing for 40+ years betting on Social Security to bail them out?! Jesus after doing 5 years in the military as an E-4 and separating immediately after, I straight up had 50K on hand. I put money into TSP (Traditional/Roth split for government employees), CDs, some stock holdings.
So disappointed and worried for the older generation now
Too many people fell into the trap of always having a late model car, or the latest iPhone, or vacationing at luxury resorts instead of maybe just going camping or hanging out at the local beach/lake while on vacation.
lol people bad mouth the military but really don’t appreciate how good it is at taking an 18 year old kid that can barely tie their shoes and turning them into a proper citizen that understands how to get shit done and take care of themselves and others. Shit it still has lifelong pensions after 20 years. Free medical. Free dental. All the kids clamoring for benefits should be signing up in droves.
I feel sorry for them, but then again I don't. Millenials and Gen Z will have it way harder. We won't even have social security
Military pays for most of your expenses. It’s easy to save in that environment, even when the cash income is lower than civilian work.
Try doing that on a civilian income with children and you pay for your own housing.
"You’re telling me half these people didnt even save?! "
They bought a home, likely had to pay commuting costs (car, train), Cost of housing has skyrocketed. Housing costs are around $2K per month (no matter if your rent or got a mortgage). Out of pocket health insurance is now about $300/mo per person with a company plan. Much higher for those without a company plan. Energy costs (fuel, electricity, heating), cell phone, etc. Car loan payments, It all adds up. Many also lost their job in the previous recessions (2001, 2008-2009, 2020) & had to tap savings.
Since about 2000, the US dollar has lost about half of its value. If your making $100K today, its about the same as making $50K in 2000. Its going to get much worse as Inflation in the US takes off. Expect high inflation by the late 2020s, & hyper-inflation by the early to mid 2030s.
FWIW: I had over $1M in savings back in 2017. I converted most of it into hard assets. No way do I want inflation to steal it from me.
Corportations: "we cannot pay out millions if not billions to people who are no productive in the company"
also corporations: "We have decided for a dividend package for our shareholders in the millions if not billions"
Your videos were the dopamine source I needed on this Saturday night
So at 55 yrs $2500 in my checking is not enough?
02:09: Defined retirement plans were mostly phased out as you note. But most workers of any age never got those pensions, anyway, because they switched jobs (and industries) over their working lives and did not stay in place long enough for pension vesting to kick in. For example, my mom and sister both worked for the phone company. My mom had a phone company pension; but my sister did not. Reason? My mom worked what switchboard and union job for decades; my sister did not. The onus on retirement savings was turned over from the employer to the individual worker. My working life began in 1967 (preparing chicken dinners) and ended in 2016 (computer work for Capital One), when I retired. But I took responsibility and planned ahead. I got an education along the way, too! Very, very interesting. Thanks from a retired older Boomer in Oregon, USA.
Gen Z will not stay long enough to get pensions, but will complain about it anyway.
Is it really fair to blame unions when companies leave America to employ people who have no worker protections? Seems kind of like victim blaming. It's capitalism to blame, not the people begging for a fair cut of profits of a society.
Small cities in the UK are actually amazing places for English speakers to retire (if they can manage to get citizenship). Homes are incredibly cheap, but unlike rural towns in the US, these cities are also typically quite accessible in terms of public transit, and of course the NHS eliminates the need to reverse mortgage your home for medical bills. As long as certain public services are provided, we depend way less on people's personal discipline in terms of saving and planning
Fantastic mini-doc that, among other things, highlights the shift in responsibility for retirement from “others” (DB) to “self” (DC and personal investments).
I'm glad to see Mr Boyle is no longer endorsing babbel. That was tough watching him speak anything other than English.
Yeah, because "brilliant" by microsoft and google standards is such an improvement...
Why u Not a fan of babbel?
You know a LOT of people don't live long enough to collect much money
The pension saving targets mentioned at the end will be completely unachievable for most working people, so work until you go into the ground it will have to be. Shareholder value must be preserved!
All hail the shareholder! Line. Go. Up!
you can be a share holder you know. invest in stocks and etf from young age and you will have money to retire
Thanks little juden @@jean-xf9mv
in point of fact, one does not need 10x their salary in retirement. Retirees don't have many expenses that workers do in the first place, and in the second, your IRA or 401K will continue to earn something even as you draw it down. Most people are able to retire comfortably on 70% of their working years earnings and even 50% is often not hardship.
How much you need is entirely dependent upon the lifestyle you believe you want. If you want to take $5000 vacations 4 times a year, you need more, if not, you need less. Pretty simple, really.
@@marcogenovesi8570 remember, your 401K or IRA makes YOU a shareholder. Or did you not realize that?
My kids are 8 and 10. You better believe i already started to put money away for them since they were 2
Very interesting video. Thank you very much.
Great history lesson. I agree Starbucks's coffee is awful.
It was when I fell into poverty in the early 1980’s and got jobs in manufacturing, government, gig and the like, my surprise was that the ‘boomer benefit’ had already been eviscerated from the economy. The ‘promised’ jobs with benefits and middle class lifestyle were only available to the offspring of ppl actually working in those jobs. The whole idea of those benefits available to ppl with the promise of education, work experience or luck were mostly short-lived. In the end, you were made redundant because they could always find somebody to accept far lower standards. Keeping up for the sake of appearances while hanging on by the skin of your teeth is what the economy is like, and has been for a very long time.
If you managed to ‘win the lottery’ and obtain a job with benefits, managements were certain to try to knock you off your perch for nothing so much as being unable to walk the tightrope to retirement.
This whole paradigm of the presumed privileged is a well-worn paradigm, and is quite smooth for a certain demographic that fits the numbers, but there’s a vast underclass struggling to obtain even minimal benefits.
Yes. exactly what I went through when I entered the work force in '82. All the good union jobs were for second and third generation union babies. This was New York City after all.
The problem is that boomers and Gen X struggled to maintain mountains of debt while living in homes, buying boats and cars (or whatever), and saving. Now people in their 20s to 50s are struggling with the same debt load in order to pay off student loans, not keep up with the Joneses. And they're doing it while barely maintaining their rent, buying used cars and working multiple jobs. Not saying people didn't have to do this in the 80s, just that overall the standards have been getting worse and we are all still yoked to debt and performance. It sucks.
As I listen to it, I can't believe anyone thought it would work out. Of course, it is better to agree to higher pension rather than higher salary. This allows the company to maximise their profits now and get management and investors more money. When the time eventually comes to pay the pensions, we can just have the company bankrupt so that it does not have to pay said pensions and higher ups got away with their money.
This was always going to end up this way, and it is on unions to not see the writing on the wall.
Works for construction costs vs maintenance costs too.
Patrick, this is your best video yet!!
Long story short, the younger generations are screwed.
Oh no. The boomers will get the shaft as well. A lot of pension funds are heavily invested into commercial real estate. And that real estate is not being rented out. Bye bye pensions. LOL. No more free rides
An erudite analysis as usual, Patrick! 🙏
One thing I wish you went over was when companies switched from pensions being a liability on the balance sheet to then setting aside one y from wage expenses in a separate pension fund.
State and local governments are worse than that.
@@wisenberI know gov pensions are unfunded, but when did corporations start to put funds in an investment company
@@kingbonezai4925 "I know gov pensions are unfunded"
They're "underfunded" state and local governments are supposed to set aside pension contributions.
"when did corporations start to put funds in an investment company"
Pensions have always been in pension funds. If the funds weren't invested in something with a return, you'd be much worse off.
Just finished watching a Bloomberg documentary about FTX. Kevin O’Leary concluded that the most important takeaway is that the financial crimes are a feature of Capitalism. He recommended that we all get over it.
I'm not even a highschool grad and Patrick still makes things make sense to me.
People just aren’t even trying to save. Boomers have no excuses.
We could've prepared, but instead we gave all our resources to a few billionaires...
In my opinion the statistics about boomer wealth is kind of nonsense. As wealth is not evenly distributed among the population, and the top 1% owns almost everything, it's most likely just means that a large part of the 1% are boomers. It doesn't mean that regular boomers are rich.
Wait. American economic decline is down to unions negotiating better deals? What? Not Enron, Lehman brothers, selling state assets at a fraction of their cost, 40 years of money transfer from the middle class to the perpetually needy already rich? Patrick - I’m 52 and I’m still waiting for his amazing trickle down I’ve been told was going to happen any day now since about 1983…this is an old creaky tune…
The biggest problem is massive taxation. If taxes were cut in half, people would have a lot more money.
trickle down is every middle class home having internet, a fridge, a microwave, etc. it's not all about wages. the middle class has access to cheaper and better products as a result of investment in capital. if you want to know what hasn't gotten cheaper and only more expensive, look at any of the industries that the government gets involved in like higher education and Healthcare. wages not going up at the rate we would want them to has less to do with free market policies and more to do with foreign competition improving after WWII and women entering the workforce in large numbers. when you have more workers, you see lower wages. fewer workers means higher wages. we saw that labor gained bargaining power during covid. I'm not saying women's liberation was a bad thing, but you can't act like millions of women entering the labor force didn't impact labor bargaining power in a significant way.
@@SomeUserNameBlahBlah And if children didn't go to school, they would have more free time. And what? This is bullcrap reasoning without more context. Anyway what am I doing reading all of these comments.
@@asainpopiu6033I have to remind myself sometimes that a lot of commenters are probably high schoolers lol. I too thought the answers were so obvious back then
Pensions promote the state enslavement of the citizens and encourage total lack of personal responsibility. Australia has attempted to deal with this through superannuation which puts the responsibility back onto the people to save for their retirement. Stop consuming and act like an adult.
Taft-Hartley made American unions unsustainable and have no teeth. In Germany they work side by side with companies to ensure they are negotiating within the means of the company, looking at the books together. In the US they have to negotiate blindly and get what they can regardless of how sustainable their demands are, which should be proportional to investor profits. The PRO-act would give a lot of power back to the unions and allow them to be a lot more reasonable and sustainable. When you have no clue how a business is actually doing on the inside, you just have to ask for as much as you think you can even if the company actually can't
Crazy how Patrick did not mention how the need to service shareholders cash-strapped companies and bled money out of re-investment and salaries (which are useful to fund the state) meaning companies made grandiloquent promises of pensions
Pensions were killed by stock BuyBacks and excessive executive compensation.
The CEO and executive class took the majority of productivity gains from 1978 onwards.
They went for making 50 times as much as their average employee to making 450 times as much as their average employee.
Stihl in 1985 I saw that people had no job security after 45 years old. So I started living on half of what I made in the 1990s.
And I'm in good shape as long as the GOP doesn't kill social security.
As one of the last of the boomer generation, I have to admit that I only have about $500,000 saved and a younger wife and a young son who is still in high school. No matter how I put it on a spreadsheet it means I will have to work well into my 70s and hopefully continue with a six figure income , well passed the time when people like to invest in guys over 70. It is likely not going to work out very well for me, but there’s nothing right now that I can do about it.
Look at your expenses. I retired out of the super-expensive San Francisco Bay Area, largely because I was willing to sell my house and move to a much cheaper part of the country. Do you NEED to live in the area you do? Could you live somewhere cheaper at some point before your 70s?
@@stevenkraft8070”hey just move where it’s CHEAP” belies the subtext that cheap plces are cheap for a reason.
I’m in a declining area and I wouldn’t want my children exposed to burning meth lab fumes, but I do save a lot of money on rent!
We know a couple in a similar situation. She’s 55; he’s 75. Spends his days playing golf, tennis, & puttering around, unless he’s recovering from his latest injury or surgery. Does your wife work? If your son plans on going to college, please consider 2 years of junior college, then transfer to the ‘Big U’. He must seek out every possible scholarship and grant possible in order to avoid any student loan. Consider a trade school, rather than a 4-year college degree. You cannot afford to pay for your son’s college education without jeopardizing your retirement. Also, if your younger wife is working, and receives health benefits through her employer, you should be able to have a coordination of healthcare benefits, between Medicare and her healthcare coverage, which puts less burden on your finances. She’s going to have to continue working as you retire. Face it, many companies begin to see you as a liability the closer you get to age 70, and may ‘encourage’ you to leave.
@@probablynot1368 Thanks and yes the wife works and I have an excellent paying corporate VP job (for as long as they will have me). We have likely just enough in a pre-paid college plan plus a few scholarships to scrape by. But, in the end, I will have to stick it out until they cut me loose. We will then sell our house, take the equity off the table and figure it out but it won't be the retirement we wanted. Not complaining, it's out choice but that's the way it is. Too little...too late.
@@olanderdecastro52 Sounds like you’ve got a plan in place. Even though working to age 70 wasn’t what you’d envisioned, just by making adjustments and spending in a more mindful way, you’ll be able to enjoy a downsized, somewhat less complicated retirement. There are many folks facing retirement in the same manner; you are not alone.
Oh sure, blame the unions. Not the companies who mismanaged their funds.
Fantastic video with well researched content. Thank you!
I had not considered any of these aspects at all. You explained the concepts extremely well and now it makes a lot of sense how the most basic workers of coffee shops etc are now old and telling everyone that they're lazy or not trying hard enough. They managed to live through the time of history where not only their country was the center of the economy of the world, but also they were getting constantly increasing benefits which had to be paid no matter what. Now in today's era of the complete opposite, I wonder how our retirement will look like. Maybe the economy will actually do well since everyone seems to be saving and investing now days.
And yet, most us working class types barely make enough to afford a share of a house with another person (or 3 or 4.) The idea that somehow, we'll be able to save a years salary (which barely pays the bills as is) by the time we hit 40, when we've been stuck with mostly minimum wage garbage jobs that like to fire us the second we're eligible for a raise, and magically be able to earn 7% back on it is the most absurd thing I've heard in years.
Totally
Why do you keep taking “minimum wage garbage jobs”? Lack of skills or ambition? Is it time to hustle through an extra job for 6 months, scrape together every penny from that job, and plan a strategic move to another part of the country that offers better opportunities? Sometimes we get too comfortable in our ‘known hell’, rather than taking a chance on the ‘unknown heaven’.
@@probablynot1368 Not for nothing, but this advice is just about on par with the "Just don't buy this thing you already don't buy!" We have moved so many times chasing jobs and with the exception of this last move, they only lasted 2 years before the process had to repeat. Moving is expensive and resets your networking and opportunities. Endlessly renting is a debt hole you get nothing out of. Mix those two together and you're going to be in a massive hole.
The idea that someone is going to be able to just an "extra" job just so they can blow every last cent to move somewhere else and start the cycle all over again is laughable. If someone can just "hustle through an extra job" they'd be able to save money, period.
@@FranNyan I didn’t mean to move to another area to start the cycle (“garbage jobs”) all over again. I meant to move to an area that offers more than garbage jobs, and the possibility of steady growth, with pay that matches the growth. Perhaps coupling this with some additional training, online classes, or anything that adds to your ‘skills toolbox’ that gets you the better job with better pay. Maybe these additional skills will allow you to remain in your current location. If you’re not making any traction whatsoever, it may be time to examine what’s holding you back, such as skills, work preferences, lack of confidence, relationships, circle of friends, etc. I wish you nothing but the best success in life.
@@probablynot1368 That is what we moved for. And everytime, it did not last. Moving does not open opportunities, it drains resources.
I admire your optimism that thinks that there's paths leading forward to everyone. I'm too old and been kicked around by far too many jobs to have that. Changes of management, changes of economics, changes of priorities and positions that are functionally sabotaged by the business to always be points of failure have killed functionally every job with promise I or my family have had. New management comes in, dumps everyone the previous management hired. Become absolutely essential in a position, company goes bankrupt. Had one job get eliminated because of change on the state level. And at least 3 different jobs where there was no way anyone could succeed due to how the position was managed. And then the final kicker, the one that paid well, but required so much physical labor, that the medical bills absolutely wiped out any financial advantage that job gave. They claimed you could work your way up, but after 3 years, the company went public and stared layoffs.
Somewhere I'm sure there's some unicorn of a job that pays and stays, but frankly, I've never seen one and whomever has one likely isn't giving it up. Steady work doesn't pay, and well paying work isn't steady.
Australian Point of View here: retirement is a mixture of systems and age brackets. My parents were able to retire when they reached the age of 65, but I won't be able to do so until 75. My parents will most likely have to apply for aged pensions but my Mum does have some superannuation funds set aside (think 401K account were government forces employers to take a chunk out of the thei working income and it's set aside in an account people can't touch). I probably won't be able to retire at 75 anyway because one of the biggest problems with Superannuation is that if you work in a job with shit pay, then it results in a smaller percentage being taken out of your income. Good for now, but not great for later. There's a big problem with women in the 65 years old age bracket becoming homeless because they can't apply for a pension and they were too old/weren't working when superannuation became into existence.
I’m disappointed to see this heavy ‘blame unionization’ rhetoric. Companies made pension agreements and then failed to live up to them because they preferred profits over meeting their obligations. When it came time to pay the piper, they preferred profits again, bankrupting themselves rather than meet the obligations to which they had agreed. Anything to preserve the massive payouts and bonuses to CEO’s - you’ll notice none of the stories of companies that failed includes the impoverishment of their top brass. Blowing up their pension funds was a choice.
This is just bs rhetoric. Even if CEOs had to pay back every dime they collected, it couldn't remotely cover pension obligations. CEO pay is not that much, there aren't many CEOs. Blaming CEOs is one of those pathetic rationalizations and excuses people throw out baselessly
@@ajr993
While you're right, lowering CEO pay across the board would make the situation overall easier for every single company. Same with most directors on the board.
@@xana3961 it would only help profits at big companies by 0.05%. something miniscule. Moreover, if I'm an elite CEO why would I work at at company that doesn't pay me for what in worth. CEO job actually isn't that great. You're working 16 hours a day and you're always on call if there's a situation. Moreover, you have the responsibility for the entire company resting on your shoulders which is a lot of stress. The difference between a good and bad CEO can be absolutely massive for a company. Look what Jenson Huang of Nvidia did. He turned a small company into the world's most profitable large company in history because of vision, strategy, and leadership. That's well worth the 0.05% profit margin
One big problem I saw with define contribution accounts was people repeatedly plundering them as soon as they had significant money in them.
Another problem was when they put it into risky investments. Real estate, precious metals, speculative growth equities.
I kept mine in investments with little downside that earned about 1% more than the rate of inflation. I didn't get wealthy but I deferred half of my purchasing power to the Future every year.
No common person will retire in the future. The cost of things has made that impossible. Barely anybody can even save money in this economy.
This is the last generation with one-worker households - where most men worked and women stayed home to cook and take care of the kids. Many women in this generation never bothered with college because they thought they would be housewives the rest of their lives.
Women's participation rate in the workforce has been between 50% and since the late 70s/early 80s when boomers were getting married and having kids (it's lower today than in the 90s). For reference, men's participation rate in the workforce is a little under 70%.
Single parent households being the widespread norm hasn't been a thing since the silent generation and even they had a very significant number of women from lower classes working.
Not exactly. Most families were two-income then too, but women couldn't have their own property or bank accounts before the late 70s/early-80s, so many were paid off-book. So that means no retirement savings, no personal Social Security, and in the case of divorce/widowhood, often no survivor benefits.
As for college, even when I attended an elite school in the late 90s, the school was still getting used to the idea of women students. Most of our bldgs only had women's restrooms on every-other floor 😅 (all floors had men's). Still had profs & depts that believed women had no place in science & engineering.
There's also the opportunity cost - a lot of women had to skip college or drop out early due to either having to work [or for more money/longer hours], or juggling family responsibilities (their own kids or their parents/siblings/birth-family).
They didn't bother going to college? No one bothered going to college!
Only 1/4 of boomers hold a college degree and the rate of men with a college degree was under 10% for most of the 60s (it's around 35% today)
Disagree.
After the collapse, saner value will have their time under the sun back.
@@mandisaw False, women have been able to own property and bank in America since the 1670s. Try again, read a history book.
While mostly accurate, I think this way of looking at things is overly biased against unions. It makes it sound like the unions are the ones who loaded up American business with debt (retirement commitments), while in reality unions were always looking to get higher wages now. It's the corporate leadership that negotiated for pensions instead, hoping that some other CEO/Board/Shareholders will have to deal with it down the line. These same people then negotiated to have their bonuses be determined by this quarter's performance, not by company performance 20 years down the line, when all these debts they created to solve current labor issues will come due. Sounds like a great deal for the executive team.
If anything, the unions weren't harsh enough, they should not have agreed to any such deal without stronger guarantees that this money will be paid.
you’ve misrepresented the situation, it was the unions asking for pensions.
it was already known pensions were a bad idea by the time UAW was pushing for it. congress bailed out the railroads for a reason.
big auto just also didn’t care because when you are the first company to make a billion dollars in a year, you don’t exactly think bad times are on the way.
@@rbdan Pensions placed the risks that come with fluctuations in the market with employers. Which was smart. Pensions weren't withdrawn all at once and the economy was booming. Corporations could stagger the liability of the pension withdrawal rates, allowing for a diverse portfolio to back that liability and use that pool of money to muscle better rates. Diversification meant higher returns for less risk, which individuals don't have in 401ks, this problem is highlighted by what we saw in 2008.
@@rbdan Patrick himself said that unions wanted higher pay, which they got initially, but settled for pensions when they couldn't get pay raises any more.
The moment I got rich was the moment I stopped working for companies with union presence. Nobody negotiatiates salaries on my behalf, I negotiate it myself. That way, my salary actually increases.
@@GackFinder "the moment I got rich" lol. not only are you not rich, you don't even know what rich is.
but yes, you can get a salary bump by being a class traitor, for a while. sometimes they will pay you a slightly higher than union rate for not being in a union... as long as there is a union and a union rate.
but you didn't win anything, you just put another notch into the branch you are sitting on. once there is no union and no union rate, all bets are off, and you will be earning a fraction of a fraction of what you could have gotten with a union.
Hey Patrick, I enjoy your longer form videos on history analysis! Bring them back 😊
Well I enjoy his hr long lectures on financial derivatives. Get in line, buddy
30% for living expenses, 25% for Investments, 8% for vehicle (if needed) 37% for whatever you want. This is all based on AFTER- tax income.