Dean, Did you mean 1% (my guess) or 10% have more than a million in equities?

Dean,

I am puzzled.

Why would readers fail to understand that the wealthy are only a small fraction of the elderly population just as the wealthy are only a small fraction of the total population?

I believe that most readers are savvy enough to draw the appropriate conclusion.

This is the usual practice of NYT. And that's because (1) the problems of the rich are a lot prettier than the problems of the not rich, and so photograph better; (2) it enables the powers what be to avoid talking about how poor most people are in this country.

It's like the yearly article on taxes, where the newspaper spends a lot of time writing about tax deductions for people who itemize, even though 70% of households don't itemize.

The New York Times plays to its audience. This is to be expected, and is nothing new.

Dr. Baker, I appreciate your 'beating the press' and your other articles, but I would appreciate very much if you would offer policy options in addition to your criticisms.

If 'another world is possible' I'd like to know how you propose to get there.

Dean,

Yeah. See post #1. 10% also strikes me as high.

Cliff: Read Dean's book "The Conservative Nanny State". See also Economic Policy Institute, try "googling" his name, and, last but not least, keep checking in here.

Those who have or whose parents have > $1 million in investments may be a negligble part of the population as a whole. But they're certainly not a negligble proportion of Times readership. And the more affluent Times readers are presumably those most appealing to advertisers. So it's not surprising that the Times runs articles catering to their concerns. (Opera lovers are a tiny part of the population, too -- but the Times runs opera reviews.)

Less than a million dollars in investments and you aren't retired -- you're unemployed.

TNS Financial Services, a marketing firm, claims to be able to count the number of millionaire households in the US - the number is now over 9 million (for 110 million households), so 10% for retirement age is about right for a year ago. Some other estimates are lower. These numbers are pre-stock-market-housing crash, so the percentage now is less.

Does having a million make you wealthy? If you want to preserve it for your heirs, you will have a hard time getting $50,000 safe income from it.

bobbyp:

I wasn't being snarky in #4... Baker is a prolific writer, I know. But lately he seems to be focused mostly on his anger at colleagues that consistently denied the bubble not having any accountability.

I can understand that. But then again there is no accountability for torture, domestic wiretapping, or private sector mortgage fraud either.

Right now of all times is the time to be talking loudly and relentlessly about policy options. Even while beating the press.

To channel the Clintonites: "It's the policies, stupid!"

Dean,

Any thought on today's (11/14/2008) proposal on aggressive loan mods to prop up housing prices?

http://money.cnn.com/2008/11/14/news/economy/fdic_bair/index.htm?postversion=2008111411

Terms could be as long as 40 years but monthly payment would be limited to 31% of gross income. How about that?

Ellen1910 sort of makes a good
point. A million dollars in investments, giving a $50K income, might be a decent income, but only if
you are healthy and own your residence. Otherwise, though
you are less dependent than other retirees but 'rich' is pushing it. Of course, if we
are talking diversified portfolios where stocks are properly de-emphasized, then we are talking about rich retirees.