Baby boomers changed the paradigm in nearly every market theypassed through, so why should retirement be any different?

You need look no further than those rock and roll concerts the agecohort continues to fill. The artists performing at these venuestend to be well beyond the traditional retirement age. Why shouldit be any different for the generation that once held them up asteenage idols?

I’ve noticed a plethora of articles on the concept of what manycall “Retirement 2.0” (the earliest reference I found of thisphrase is from a PRWeb article dated June 30, 2014). Indeed, Iwrote a series of articles on the subject last month. Of interest,though, is the different responses we’ve seen to this betweenpublic officials/policy wonk (i.e., those who don’t practice withinthe field) and those with actual, real-life, hands-on experience.It’s as distinct as the whole “glass half empty/glass half full”debate.

Almost anywhere you turn, politicians and talking heads cryabout the “impossible dream” of retirement facing manypeople.

Unfortunately, they don’t have the slightest grasp as to what’sreally happening.

The best example of this occurs when the combine the popular memesof “lost retirement” and “income gap” to conclude the poorest inthe nation are too poor to save for retirement; ergo, they won’tever be able to retire.

Those who know the score know that’s not the group being robbed ofretirement. It’s the middle class who stands to “suffer” the most.The extremely rich can afford to do anything they want. Theyextremely poor will continued to be subsidized by the extremelyrich through omnipresent cradle-to-grave government programs – atleast until the extremely rich pack up and move out.