Can you specify the differences between the Baby Boomer trouble and the Gen Y issues? What are the issues the BBs you are referring to and why will GY be different? Is it just because they took much different career paths?

-Penelope

Just die, I guess. Maybe blow through my savings more quickly than expected? Go on welfare? Honestly, I’m not the least bit worried about it. I’ll have enough money to take care of myself if I can’t work at that age, but don’t consider that a very likely possibility. (Shockingly, I also don’t have a plan for what to do if a hurricane hits my house in Iowa.)

Not having any savings or investments is foolish. But some people live their lives ruled by fear and insecurity about the future. You don’t need a plan for everything. It will be 43 years before I turn 80, and I’m not going to spend all that time planning for it. I put a certain amount into retirement savings every year, but beyond that, I just spend the rest of my money and enjoy life. I am not going to skip a single vacation or deny myself a single pleasure that life has to offer me here and now because I am worried about having enough money when I’m 80. For all I know, I could get hit by a beer truck by then.

Unfortunate thing, the points P. is making (assuming I understand her correctly) are quite commonsensical. She seems to make them more provocative by her writing style. I think - on purpose. A bit overdone, IMHO

As you say, focusing on your career more than your investments is a much better path to financial success. And even if you do well, you won’t suddenly lose it all for no reason.

is bizarre. A, it is a gross generalization (something you excel at), as there are a lot of people who have satisfactorily saved for their retirement. B, even if many or even all haven’t satifactorily saved, does that mean that saving is bad/wrong/unnecessary? I’ll repeat the question I asked before - working until you are 80 is fine, but what is your plan if you are unable to do so?

1) Started at the bottom and has risen to a higher level every couple of years. This sort of person is probably quite gifted at what they do and would probably earn more than a new employee in an equivalent position.

2) Has only progressed through a few positions, with significant promotions merited about every 4~5 years. This person would probably be quite competent, but would only earn as much as a newer employee due to lack of “flashiness”.

3) Has stayed in essentially the same position for the last 20 years. Probably not especially gifted at (or interested in) the work. I can easily see how this person might be paid less than the new guy.

I used to work in a motorcycle test facility (2004) and there was a position equivalent to “Test Administrator”. Test Administrators were an interesting mix of newly graduated engineers and promoted riders/mechanics. Some of the engineers were obviously being paid more highly than the non-college graduates. But there were other cases where the former riders were obviously being paid more than the engineers. Ostensibly all of the Test Administrators were doing the exact same work, but it was obvious that the ones with more talent for the job were considered more important to the company. Since I left the facility, the Test Administrators displaying the most talent have been further promoted. These include 2 engineers and one guy with 20 years of experience riding bikes.

“…it doesn’t matter if you’ve done your job well for 20 years if someone can come in and do it well two years out of college. Both employees have the same relative value to the employer - why should one be paid that much more (or less as the case may be) for their experience?”

This seems to contradict a point made in the previous paragraph, which was: “Two people may have the same job, but that does not mean their skills and experience are equivalent or disparate.”

Specifically, do you believe that people should be rewarded for their tenure and loyalty to a company?