Camperforce documentary

[John61CT]

Following up on Jessica Bruder's book "Nomadland" https://www.amazon.com/Nomadland-Surviving-America-Twenty-First-Century

Academy-Award-winning documentarian Laura Poitras teamed up with the author to make "Camperforce" https://fieldofvision.org/camperforce

The film features hidden-camera footage of Amazon's warehouses, along with the stories and lives of the nomadic senior citizens who work there, most of whose assets were wiped out by the Great Recession bankster scammers.

And it seems these are now being displaced by people in their 30's who have given up on ever owning a home, since the urban rental markets, where real jobs are, have been cornered by hedge funds and other speculators, pricing working people out of the market.

 

[mpruet]

Following up on Jessica Bruder's book "Nomadland" https://www.amazon.com/Nomadland-Surviving-America-Twenty-First-Century

Academy-Award-winning documentarian Laura Poitras teamed up with the author to make "Camperforce" https://fieldofvision.org/camperforce

Both the book and the video are quite good.  My feeling is that anyone in their 20's - 30's should read the book and view the documentary.  Folks at that age need to fully understand that the age of a defined pension is pretty much dead and also need to understand just how large your nest egg needs to be in order to retire at a given annual expense cost.  Not only is the size of your nest egg important, but also the strategy that you use to protect that nest egg is critical to the survival of that nest egg.

For me, I would have never have assumed that I could retire with only $400K.  In a normal growth year, the most you could safely withdraw from $400K would be $16,000.  In a bad year such as 2008, it would have been closer to $8,000.  There is no reason that anyone should have lost everything in 2008 unless they are not monitoring their assets and invested in high risk equities. I don't know for sure, but I suspect that the 'advisors' mentioned in the documentary were just brokers (i.e. salesmen).  And the reason they are called brokers is because they will make you broke. 

There are plenty of ways to protect your assets including a bucket strategy or even an immediate annuity.  Given the implications raised in the documentary, I would suspect that the folks did not have a history if investing and that a BROKE-er talked them into letting him be their 'financial advisor'.  I also suspect that he never explained the safe withdrawal rate that they could expect and then he invested their money in high risk equities and options. Since they lost all of their money, I doubt that they were invested in funds. They would have been much better off to have put the money into an immediate annuity.

 

[John61CT]

Expecting ordinary citizens to be able to invest wisely when fraudsters are allowed to run the financial services industries is ridiculous.

IMO a reasonably comfortable and dignified old age should be a right guaranteed by citizenship in a well-developed and civilized nation.

 

[mpruet]

Expecting ordinary citizens to be able to invest wisely when fraudsters are allowed to run the financial services industries is ridiculous.

IMO a reasonably comfortable and dignified old age should be a right guaranteed by citizenship in a well-developed and civilized nation.

I agree, but am not sure how to implement that without massive new taxes. 

One thing that ordinary citizens can do is to ask anyone trying to become their "financial advisor" is to show them their fiduciary papers. 

Currently when a person nears retirement they are flooded with offers for classes in transiting into retirement.  Usually those classes are taught by fiduciary advisors and not just financial advisors.  I'd really like to see those classes offered when folks are in their 30's - 40's so that folks have a much better chance of being prepared... 

It's rough enough now with all of the folks reaching their late-50s/60s and not being able to live like they thought they could.  Oh you can live a good life, but for a lot of folks it's not an easy transition.  And based on the current numbers, it's only going to become worse over the next 20 years.

 

[BigRockSpeaker]

This documentary is an excellent depiction of the transition to a new era.  I am 50 years old and looking to retire soon.  My friends ask me "how can you afford to retire so young?"  My response is simply "it all depends on your definition of retirement."  I have a well-paying job right now with the fastest-growing pharmaceutical company in the world, but despise working in the back-stabbing, "climb-the-ladder-at-all-costs"  corporate environment.  I will be looking for something that will give me a reason to (happily) get up in the morning and keep me active, but while avoiding the stresses of corporate life and all the rest of the rat-race of mainstream living.  I have encouraged my children to pursue careers in fields they truly enjoy, not just those that would be well-paying, and worry about money later.  The RV lifestyle is truly a way to pursue one's dream and still put food on the table, no matter how old.

 

[mpruet]

Fortunate indeed is the person who is passionate about their work for they will never work.

 

[lenny flank]

I agree, but am not sure how to implement that without massive new taxes. 

I would happily pay massive new taxes--if in return I got a civilized and humane society.

 

[mpruet]

I would happily pay massive new taxes--if in return I got a civilized and humane society.

And of course the government does such a good job at managing financial systems and creating a humane society for the aged... ;-)

Not wanting to get into a big argument, but let's take social security as an example.  It's supposed to be the safety net which prevents retired folks from being destitute, but apparently it doesn't cover enough for people to fully depend on it to live comfortably.  

Now I've been paying into SS since I was 18 so that's some 47 years.  If I check my SS earnings report, I discover that I've paid $154K into SS and my employers have paid $164K giving a total of $318K.   I also see that my expected benefit will be $39K a year.  I realize that's much higher than a lot of folks, but I'm just using myself for comparison reasons.

If instead of the money going into SS, that same money had been invested in a rather safe S&P Index fund, it would have a current value of over $1M. This is with using the historical growth rate of 8%. Yes there can be down years, but there can also be some pretty good years. Last year was 20% growth and the S&P Index rates of return since 2008 have been closer to 14%. Since those were also my peak earning years, the actual value of the nest egg would be much higher than the $1M, but we'll use the $1M just to make it easier. 

From a $1M nest egg, I could safely take out $40K. (A safe withdrawal rate from the nest egg is basically less than the growth.) The remainder of the nest egg would grow by 8%.  This means that after 10 years of retirement, I could expect to see the money which would have gone into SS to have grown to $1.4M and the safe withdrawal amount would have risen to about $57K.  That would be the equivalent of receiving an annual COLA of 4.35% instead of the puny COLA that SS normally gives out.

In addition to getting a much larger annual COLA than SS provides, and seeing the nest egg grow, there are a couple of additional advantages to having been able to invest the money that was taken by SS.  This would give me significant funds to provide for long term care when I am no longer able to care for myself and it would provide a decent inheritance for my grandkids when I'm gone. 

Now I'm not saying that we should do away with SS, but I am saying that any government program will not provide the quality of living that people want.  There is simply too much inefficiency in government programs...

Still a bit sick, but hoping to make it to RTR....

 

[lenny flank]

And of course the government does such a good job at managing financial systems and creating a humane society for the aged... ;-)

It does in a civilized and humane society.

Which, alas, we no longer live in.

 

[lenny flank]

There is simply too much inefficiency in government programs...

Well, perhaps we could let Enron run it instead.

 

[mpruet]

It does in a civilized and humane society.

Which, alas, we no longer live in.

Yea - that's why the British Health system is currently in meltdown.  

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/nhs-crisis-apos-risks-patients-164500644.html

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/nhs-crisis-jeremy-hunt-apologises-122100173.html

http://www.newsweek.com/english-peo...-disgrace-and-national-health-disaster-769635

https://steemit.com/news/@zen12/bro...n-if-it-kills-people-due-to-a-lack-of-funding

 

[lenny flank]

Well, yeh, that's generally what happens when you cut funding.

A civilized country would raise the taxes and pay what needs to be paid.

An UN-civilized country won't.

A *SERIOUSLY* uncivilized country would raise taxes and use it to pay for more military instead.

And Enron would, of course, just let everyone die.

 

[mpruet]

Well, yeh, that's generally what happens when you cut funding.

A civilized country would raise the taxes and pay what needs to be paid.

An UN-civilized country won't.

A *SERIOUSLY* uncivilized country would raise taxes and use it to pay for more military instead.

And Enron would, of course, just let everyone die.

Well - perhaps you should move to a civilized country....   ;-)

 

[lenny flank]

Well - perhaps you should move to a civilized country....   ;-)

I thought I was born in one.

 

[bugleyman]

Well - perhaps you should move to a civilized country....   ;-)

Love it or leave it, eh?  Yuck.  We can (and must) do better.

The fallacy in comparing what your SS contributions would amount to with what SS will actually pays you is that that would have left multiple generations completely in the cold while your money built up.  Great for you, not so great for them.

The long-term problem with the solvency of Social Security isn't one of government inefficiency, but of changing demographics. It is, however, not an intractable problem. Or at least is shouldn't be if we don't let politics turn it into one.

 

[TDT fan]

Love it or leave it, eh?  Yuck.  We can (and must) do better.

The fallacy in comparing what your SS contributions would amount to with what SS will actually pays you is that that would have left multiple generations completely in the cold while your money built up.  Great for you, not so great for them.  

The long-term problem with the solvency of Social Security isn't one of government inefficiency, but of changing demographics.  It is, however, not an intractable problem.  Or at least is shouldn't be if we don't let politics turn it into one.

"changing demographics"...hmmm...where have I heard that before...I think it was that guy Ponzi as they led him away, protesting that his method merely suffered from "changing demographics".   :angel:

 

[lenny flank]

Meh, I've been hearing the John Birchers blithering about Social Security as a "Ponzi Scheme" for 50 years now. It's one of many reasons why nobody takes them seriously.

PS--the Social Security system is not insolvent. If it becomes so in the future, it can be fixed instantly simply by raising the payroll tax to keep pace with inflation (which has not been done in a very long time.)

Yes, I know--certain politicos think "taxes" are evil. I *like* taxes. They pay for 'civilization'. I *like* 'civilization'.

 

[rvwandering]

I think everyone has a chance to add their thoughts. I'm closing the thread before it becomes too political.