Skip to main content
The Cost of Growing Old · BGM-1E

Summary: Retirement Was a Promise

How America Broke Its Compact with the Old

By Syam Adusumilli · 3 min read
Executive Summary Read the full article.

In 1985, Frank retired from a Midwest auto plant at 62 with a pension paying 60% of his final salary for life, employer-covered health insurance until Medicare, and a Social Security check that handled the rest. In 2026, Karen retired from a mid-level administrative job at 66 with a 401(k) holding $210,000, no pension, and Social Security of $2,100 a month, $290 of which goes to Medicare premiums before she fills a single prescription. Frank and Karen worked the same number of years. They saved at comparable rates. The difference in their retirement security is not a difference of character. It is a difference of architecture.

The defined-benefit pension was the foundation of American retirement for most of the twentieth century. In 1980, 38% of private-sector workers participated in one. By 2024, only 15% even had access, and two out of five of those plans were frozen. The 401(k) did not just change the vehicle. It changed who carried the risk. A pension guaranteed income regardless of what markets did. A 401(k) drops when the market drops, runs out if you live too long, and does not adjust for inflation. The median 401(k) balance across all age groups is $38,176. Median retirement savings for households nearing 65 sit at roughly $185,000, against a projected need of roughly $1 million for a 30-year retirement. The racial dimension deepens the gap: Black and Hispanic households hold significantly lower median savings, a disparity rooted in decades of wage gaps and compounding wealth inequality. The 401(k) was supposed to democratize retirement savings. It democratized retirement risk instead.

Social Security was designed as a supplement, never meant to be the whole floor. For roughly 40% of Americans over 65, it is the primary income source. The average benefit is about $1,976 a month, roughly $23,700 a year. Its cost-of-living adjustment is tied to an index that does not accurately reflect senior spending patterns; older Americans spend proportionally more on healthcare and housing, categories that consistently outpace general inflation. The purchasing power of benefits erodes steadily over a 20- or 30-year retirement. The 2.8% COLA for 2026 sounds like a raise until Medicare Part B premiums increase 11.6% the same year.

The structural threat is more immediate. The Social Security trust fund is projected for depletion by late 2032, at which point benefits face an automatic cut of roughly 24%. That is six years away. A person retiring today at 66 will be 72 when it arrives. Congress has known this for decades. It has not acted.

Home equity, the other pillar, is more complicated than it appears. Selling a home means 8-10% in transaction costs, finding somewhere else to live, and severing ties to a community. Reverse mortgages carry high origination costs and shrinking equity over time. And the maintenance trap is real: roofs, furnaces, property taxes, and accessibility modifications accumulate on homes that older owners are already undermaintaining. Homeownership rates and home values are both lower for Black and Hispanic households over 65, meaning the equity available as a retirement backstop is smallest for those who need it most.

These failures compound. Karen and Tom’s combined $350,000 in savings and $3,900 in monthly Social Security look adequate on paper until a health crisis arrives, a roof needs replacing, or long-term care enters the picture. The spend-down documented in the previous installment does not exist in isolation. It exists because the retirement architecture that was supposed to prevent it was dismantled.

Other countries show alternatives. Australia’s mandatory superannuation, the Netherlands’ collective pension system, and growing state-level experiments in the U.S. (OregonSaves, CalSavers) all acknowledge that voluntary private savings alone are not producing adequate retirement security. Individual financial planning remains essential. It also remains insufficient. The system was not designed for people to live this long on this little institutional support.