Registered Investment Advisor

Scott Burns' Articles -- Recent and Archived
Print Article Email Article

A Meditation on McDonalds

By Scott Burns

A Meditation on McDonaldsMcDonald’s, 9 a.m. My coffee, as usual, is tasty and lawsuit hot. I look around and note that virtually everyone here at mid-morning is at least 60 years old. The kids and moms may come in the afternoon. They will certainly be here over the weekend.

But they are not here now.

This moment is for the geezer crowd. And I am now a full, dues-paid member of this group.  There is no turning back. This morning I passed the last official age milestone most of us will experience.

My online bank balance showed a new deposit. It was the first automatic deposit of Social Security retirement benefits. I am now one of the 31,528,000 workers collecting retirement benefits. The deposit, $2,620, was net of the $96.40 premium for Medicare Part B. So the full benefit is $2,716 a month.

If that $2,716 a month strikes you as a hefty amount, it is. The average Social Security benefit check is about $1,153 a month. The most you can pull if you’ve earned the wage-base maximum for your entire work life is $2,172 a month. This year the wage-base maximum is $106,400. Only 1 worker in 20 earns that much.

So how did I get the extra $544 a month?

It was easy.  I delayed taking benefits. Instead of taking them at 62, 65 or my full retirement age (65 years and 6 months), I waited until a few months after my 68th birthday.

This may be the only form of denial that pays dividends.

Simply ignore that you’ve become a geezer and, month by month, the government will raise your retirement benefits. The delay means that my wife will receive higher survivor benefits in the event that I am not immortal.

If this sounds familiar, I’ve written a lot about it. Delaying benefits is good personal finance. The optimal age to take benefits for a typical married couple is when the husband is age 68 or 69.

My wife, who was also a strong earner, started taking her benefits at 62. She now gets $1,394 a month. So we’ve got $4,110 a month coming in from Uncle Sam.

Why, with that much money I could be drinking coffee at Starbucks!

I find this worrisome.

It isn’t that we haven’t earned it. We have. We’ve worked and paid lots in employment taxes. And we’ve done it for many years. In addition, the benefits that high-income workers receive are proportionately smaller than the benefits lower-income workers receive. Workers who earn less than $711 a month are credited at a 90 percent rate. Earnings over $4,288 a month are credited at only a 15 percent rate. So we’ve paid proportionately more for the benefits we receive than most workers.

So why am I worried?  Simple.  It takes a lot of workers to support us.

Here’s the math. To deliver our monthly benefit, someone has to have a taxable payroll of $33,145 a month. Here at McDonald’s that translates into lots of hourly workers. And lots of hours. According to payscale.com, for instance, the median hourly wage for workers with one to four years of experience at McDonald’s is $7.87 an hour. Let’s call it $8. Typical workers will have to clock about 4,143 hours a month to cover our retirement benefits.

A typical McDonald’s has a crew of 50 workers. Most are hourly workers. Few work more than 30 hours a week because, well, things like health benefits are expensive. So a typical worker would have to work 138 weeks, with no benefits, to provide the money my wife and I get, and spend, in a month.

We’re an extreme case, of course. But if you do the math for a more typical retired couple with benefits of $1,876 a month this year, it will still take the typical McDonald’s worker 63 weeks to provide the money an average retired couple receives and spends in a single month.

Fortunately, McDonald’s isn’t the only employer in America. There are lots of companies out there. Some pay the big bucks. The difference is that many of those companies are shedding workers, not adding them. McDonald’s shares, unlike most, are down only 5 percent since the October 2007 market peak. The S&P 500 index is down 46 percent.

There is a message here: Houston, we’ve got a problem.

On the web:

Maximum Social Security benefit

Social Security full retirement age by year of birth

Wages at McDonald’s

Monthly benefits for the average retired couple

January 29, 2006: Fine Tuning the Social Security Benefits Decision

Only published comments... Feb 20 2009, 03:00 PM by admin
Filed under:


Comments

 

KBJR said:

That sounds like a pretty good desciption of a Ponzi scheme to me.
February 20, 2009 10:14 PM
 

CalfMountInvest said:

Scott,

Enjoyed reading this article in Sunday's newspaper.  I will be 65 in April and have a job that I believe will enable me to work for another 2 to 5 years.  I have good health insurance from the company for which I do not have to pay.  My wife is a little older than I.  She is on Medicare and we have a Medicare Supplemental policy for her.

I plan to continue with my company insurance until I retire.  Do I have an option to not join Medicare when I become 65?  If yes, what are the pros and cons of my joining Medicare now versus later.

I will not start Social Security payments until I am at least 66 and based on your article I may wait until I am 68 or 69.

Thanks in advance for your help.

February 22, 2009 11:56 PM
 

TJM said:

Jydicious analysis. May God give me that lucidity at age 69! The fear about the bURROcratic Ponzi scheme is what made me start getting the retirement as soon as I qualified. There may not be enough funding...What an understatement of mine!
February 23, 2009 8:40 AM
 

mshideler said:

Scott ~ Naturally the issue of SSI strikes me as critical to the finacial survival of the US economy. So, Scott - do you actually NEED to take SSI, or are you taking it because it's yours as you paid in for years? I would think that as smart as you are regarding financial matters that you are well off and do not NEED SSI. If you do need it, then good for you. However, if you are still able bodied, of sound mind, and have your own investments then why would participate in a system that along with Medicare is doomed to fail? Each and everytime someone applies for SSI that does not need it they only contribute to the 1) sooner failure of SSI and Medicare, or 2) saddle their following generations with more and more debt, or the worst case 3) speed our way to more taxes & social programs thus usuring in socialism. We already have a 'you owe me' attitude. As I have stated in another post - as long as I do NOT need SSI I will not apply for it. If I have my own $$$ I will spend it first. If I am able to work I will contnue to earn my own income. I will do my best to never be a burden on society. Your article does allude to the fact that how will your SSI be paid for with fewer workers, but you still chose to apply and receive SSI. Comments? thoughts?
February 23, 2009 2:36 PM
 

scottb said:

Everyone must register for Medicare part A when they turn 65. This won't interfere with your ongoing employer provided insurance if you have it. Also, it won't cost any money. At a later date you can sign up for Medicare part B. Similarly, you don't have to sign up for Medicare part D (the prescription drug bill) when you have ongoing private insurance.

So many readers responded to this column with questions that I've written a follow-on explaining my decision. It is scheduled for Thursday, March 5.

Scott

Scott

February 24, 2009 5:46 PM

Contact Us

Open Monday-Friday
9 a.m. - 5 p.m. (CST)

ph. 972.535.4040
fx. 214.556.3848
Email Us

1255 W. 15th Street Suite 240 Plano, Texas 75075