"bert" ] wrote in message
...
In message , Rod Speed
writes


"bert" ] wrote in message
...
In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
bert ] wrote:
Yehbut, if you've organised things properly, you should have paid off
your mortgage, kids off your hands etc by the time you retire. And no
more of the often considerable expense of getting to work and
subsistance there.


No you stay at home and have to heat your house all day - and you
still
have to eat.

The extra cost of heating the house all day is pretty small compared to
a
mortgage - or the cost of bringing up kids.
And are you really saying it costs you the same to eat at home as eating
out?

It is more difficult for many to get to supermarkets and so
shopping is more expensive.

Maybe. There aren't really any corner shops round here so it's just as
easy to go to a supermarket. Or have things delivered from one each
week?

Funny, no-one was commenting about pensioners when things were going
well and they were only getting increases at inflation whereas wages
were increasing more rapidly

Well, when I started work many years ago, the hope was near everyone
would
be in some form of pension scheme as well as the state one. But it's now
far more important that the rich get even richer.

It used to be compulsory with any large company to join the pension
scheme after 1 or 2 years.
But then the twittering classes said that wasn't "fair" and so few opted
in and the schemes have died.

That wasn't the reason they died.

It was a very significant factor

Nope, the main factor was in fact the demise of the traditional
pension schemes which offered a percentage of the final salary
as a pension, adjusted for inflation over time in retirement.

combined with rules which prevented companies from injecting more funds
even when they wanted to.

That was an even less significant factor.