Part of what they say is now men have access to
their basic needs with out needing to work as much.
In reality, one of the easiest ways to be poor is to have a single mom. In other words, one of the easiest ways to be poor is to have a dad who isn't (can't or won't) fulfilling his responsibilities. Men and women who are fertile and sexually active need to be able to care for a child for eighteen years. Yes, birth control, please. But there are millions of single moms out that came from somewhere.
Additionally, someone needs to pay for current social security retirees, poverty programs, etc. And if you aren't having kids, someone else's kids will be paying for both their social security checks and yours.
I say all that not to be judgmental, but to point out that the numbers don't add up for men to just live the minimalist lifestyle free of guilt. Like I said, that's possible, but you'd literally have to live (and die!) off the grid while somehow caring for orphans, veterans, and windows at the same time (lifestyle choices don't count).
Why? I'm pretty sure I'll be totally fine in retirement (predicted savings of $5M+).
Some experiments can be run in a spreadsheet. I assumed 40 years of work (optimistic) and google reports a median personal income of 32140/yr and average savings rate of 3.2%. Shadowstats reports an average inflation rate around 5%, thats sounds about right. The S+P 500 total return over the last half century has been 7% but it oscillates insanely from -5 to +17 percent per decade. I think it very unrealistic to assume the 50s or 90s will ever happen again, but whatever, I feel optimistic this morning. I modeled in a 1% annual decline in income, which is lower than actual but sounds vaguely realistic.
My spreadsheet model shows an inflation adjusted retirement nest egg of $51K for joe 6 pack median middle class dude assuming its never dipped into for medical, educational, or unemployment issues for J6P or his kids or parents (in other words almost everyone will not have the money). I'm also assuming smooth economic growth (LOL) for best compounding results.
It still affects you as most investment advisors assume 0% inflation, 10% rates of economic growth, etc. In a world of poverty for almost everyone, that sounds rather optimistic.
Some other interesting experiments... 15% annual growth rate still only gets joe 6 pack to about 10% of your goal.
Joe6Pack at 1% annual wage increase (which is totally unrealistic in era of long term decline) and 15% annual economic growth rate (LOL) and triple the median savings rate at 10% of gross income being saved for 40 years and no unemployment, medical issues, or educational costs for J6P or his parents or kids (LOL) is still only about 1/3 of your goal.
Nobody I know experiences nominal wage declines, even of 1%. For reference, the average annual raise is a full 3%. [1]
As for 5% inflation, everyone knows Shadowstats is incredibly bogus and pushing a clear agenda without any grounding in realistic CPIs. [2] [3] For the past few years we've been experiencing almost 0% inflation, though I use 3% for my models (to be conservative).
I'm not implying that someone with average income will retire with millions, I just took issue with the idea that somehow "everyone" is going to end up penniless. 50% of people fall above median income and a substantial portion of us can reasonably expect to have retirement savings readily available.
1: http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2013/09/... 2: http://voxrationalis.wordpress.com/2011/05/15/the-absurdity-... 3: http://www.forbes.com/sites/modeledbehavior/2013/10/14/niall...
This has already happened in europe's southern bankrupt economies
Basically, "everyone" is hyperbole. Obviously many people can retire fine, if you live within your means and consistently save.