The happy talk has to go. You hear a LOT of people talking like they're going to retire with essentially the same standard of living as they had when they were at full earning capacity. And you hear a LOT OF FINANCIAL ADVISORS talk as if Americans should expect to save enough to meet that expectation.
Don't get me wrong. It does happen, people do it. People play in major league baseball and fly in space and win the lottery, too. Just because SOME people can do it, because of their circumstances, doesn't mean most people can do it, because the reality is, they won't... because they can't. The American worker can't support two economic engines at the same time - the process of saving as much money as possible for the future, and the processing of spending as much money as possible to maintain the economy of today. Some process loses. Look at the credit balances, it is pretty clear which one does.
So the happy fantasy talk of a rich retired future, whereby one lives at the same standard as they did when they worked and received value-based and cost-of-living raises, is going to end. Remember who tried to sell you this rich future bullshit, and don't listen to them anymore, because they weren't trying to accord reality with finance in their advice.
We manage to think of lots of ways to use government to prep Americans for adulthood, with schools and recreational programs and lots of laws to protect the unworking young. We really haven't done the same for the post-work protections - nor have we done nearly enough to figure out post-work population cost reductions.
There's a huge population just shy of retirement, that won't have enough money to support themselves without help from their families, and government hasn't done shit to figure out some ways to create revenue-building ways to provide more cost-effective supports, such as with housing. A lot of retirees are going to sell their homes to get their money out of it. Then they're going to need to live somewhere else and pay rent, or live at their relatives'. Why couldn't the government commit to building cost effective retirement communities that the government could generate revenue from, and that could reduce the economic pressure on retirees? Not the Del Webb live on the golf course kind of place, but nice communities with decent housing and convenient shopping and car-free options for transportation?
Honestly, I just don't get the whole retirement community thang. So, people with kids segregated themselves to living in the suburbs, hip young people live in the city, old folks live in a retirement community....
People want it this way? I think even the wanting is symptomatic of a bigger problem.
But there does need to be greater planning on government's part for a growing population that will need less space, at less cost, and with considerably less driving - the empty nester retirees. That doesn't mean whole cloth communities for us, but it can mean trying to mold existing communities to be more cost-effective. Smaller housing, competitively priced, with low overhead. Less or no driving, meaning nearby groceries and other businesses.
In other words, government should be planning about what will be the reality as the boomers peak in retirement, rather than being partners in the fantasy.