For years, I traveled the country as a financial planner. I sat across kitchen tables, conference rooms, and union halls, helping people chart their paths toward retirement. I met with teachers in Kentucky, counting their pension years; postal workers in Michigan, trying to understand their 401(k) statements; and members of the EPA in Boston who, while appreciating my financial guidance, had alternative thoughts about my love of big trucks.. Each conversation was unique, but they all revolved around the same fundamental question: Will I have enough?

In the fall of 2018, I met Donna, a postal worker going on 33 years of service, who was contemplating retirement at 58. Like many federal employees, she had spent decades contributing to one of America’s most reliable retirement systems, yet she still felt uncertain about taking the leap. That uncertainty, it turns out, was entirely justified, though perhaps not for the reasons she initially thought.

As I reconnect with former clients, like Donna, it’s clear that retirement security is under strain. Rising living and housing costs, combined with uncertainty around Social Security and Medicare, have made retirement feel far less predictable for many.

A Retirement That Almost Didn’t Happen

Retirement is a huge step, and no matter how many corny jokes I would tell to break the ice, it’s still awkward strategizing your finances for the rest of your life with someone who’s ultimately still a stranger. 

But Donna and I got past the small talk and formalities and got a plan in order. At 58, with 33 years at the post office under her belt, Donna was eligible to retire. But she was terrified of making the wrong choice. “I never thought about it until about a year before I actually retired,” she recalls. “People kept telling me I was too young.”

That skepticism wasn’t unfounded. Conventional wisdom says Americans should work until at least 65, ideally longer, to maximize Social Security and let savings grow. But Donna had something many workers do not: a federal pension system. With proper understanding and management, it could support an earlier exit from the workforce.

“I had no idea what a great retirement I had until I talked to someone,” Donna says. She only realized she had such good benefits after consulting an advisor. “I would totally recommend getting an advisor,” she emphasized. She notes that a friend, also from the federal government, retired before her, but did not do what she did, and was very unhappy.

In May 2019, Donna took the leap and retired. She had caught what she now recognizes as a crucial window of opportunity. “I got out at the right time,” she says. Less than a year later, COVID-19 would upend the world and transform retirement decisions for millions of Americans.

The pandemic became an unexpected inflection point for retirement in America. For Donna, watching friends continue working through lockdowns, sanitizing mail trucks, and navigating constant exposure risks confirmed her timing had been fortunate. Tragically, some colleagues didn’t make it to retirement at all. Their deaths were stark reminders that tomorrow isn’t guaranteed, and working ‘just a few more years’ isn’t always possible.

Even with her strong federal pension, Donna has not been immune to the financial pressures reshaping retirement. The stability she thought secure has been eroded by forces beyond her control, reshaping what retirement means for an entire generation.

When the Safety Net Frays

Retirement in 2026 looks drastically different from what previous generations experienced. The traditional three-legged stool of retirement: Social Security, pensions, and personal savings, has grown wobbly. One leg is nearly gone, and the remaining two show troubling signs of instability.

Consider the numbers that retirees are facing this year. Social Security benefits received a 2.8% cost-of-living adjustment for 2026, translating into an average monthly increase of approximately $56 for retirees. For reference, the average monthly Social Security benefit in 2025 was about $2,012.30. While that is a modest increase, it only tells half the story. 

In 2026, Medicare Part B premiums jumped by nearly $18 per month. This 9.7% increase consumed roughly one-third of the COLA, marking the largest erosion of the Social Security cost-of-living adjustment by Medicare premiums since 2017. As a result, what appeared to be a 2.8% raise turned out to be just 2.1% in actual purchasing power.

For retirees living on a fixed income in Denver, these numbers are the difference between comfort and anxiety. When I asked Donna about the cost of living and her expenses, she said she considered downsizing to cut expenses, but Denver’s housing market stopped her cold, “If I sold my house, I wouldn’t be able to replace it.”

Denver’s median home price now hovers around $575,000. In recent years, it has appreciated at a modest 1%-3% annual clip—a “cooling” from the breakneck double-digit gains during the pandemic era. However, this figure remains substantially higher than when Donna retired in 2019. According to Zillow, average rents in Denver hover around $2,200 per month, effectively pricing even modest rentals beyond the reach of many on fixed incomes.

The housing trap of being unable to sell and relocate without sacrificing quality of life is a major challenge facing retirees. Retirees like Donna have their equity effectively locked; converting it into more flexible or affordable housing comes with a steep penalty. Millions of American retirees face this dilemma: home-rich, cash-poor, and unable to access the wealth built over decades because replacement housing costs far exceed their means.

The irony is that downsizing was once a reliable strategy for retirees: sell their home, move to something smaller, pocket the difference, and enjoy a more comfortable retirement. But when the “something smaller” costs as much or more, the strategy collapses. Donna’s story reflects a larger problem: assumptions about retirement that held for Boomers are failing for their successors.

The Looming Cliff

As challenging as the current landscape is for retirees, the future looks even more precarious. The specter hanging over every retirement conversation today is the projected insolvency of Social Security’s trust funds.

According to the most recent Social Security Trustees Report, the Old Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund, which pays benefits to retirees, is projected to be depleted by 2033. Recent legislation, including the Social Security Fairness Act and provisions in other budget bills, has accelerated this timeline. Some analysts now project the retirement fund could be exhausted as early as late 2032.

What happens when the fund runs dry? Payroll taxes will keep coming in, but Social Security will be forced to cut benefits, paying only what it collects. For millions relying on these payments, that means a painful reduction of about 77% of scheduled benefits from 2033 onward, dropping to 72% by 2099 if Congress doesn’t act.

For a dual-income couple with medium earnings, retiring just after insolvency would mean an annual benefit reduction of roughly $18,400. That’s not a policy proposal or a worst-case scenario, but what current law requires if the trust fund is depleted and no legislative fixes are implemented.

The political paralysis around Social Security reform comes from the painful solutions. Closing the funding gap means raising the payroll tax rate by about 3.65 percentage points, reducing benefits, raising the retirement age, or means-testing benefits to cut payments to wealthier retirees. Each option is politically toxic, so Congress has spent decades studying the issue without acting.

The real toll of inaction is measured in sleepless nights, not just benefit cuts. When what once felt solid becomes fragile, every plan feels shaky. How much more must someone save if Social Security falters? For those who cannot work longer or save more, the questions keep piling up, each one heavier than the last.

“I hadn’t really thought about it,” Donna admits when asked about retiring now versus in 2019. The question reveals an uncomfortable truth. Those who retired before the current convergence of crises – pandemic disruption, accelerating inflation, and the approaching Social Security cliff – occupy a slightly more secure position than today’s retirees. While Donna made it across the finish line before the course changed, for those still running, the destination keeps moving farther away.

The Planning Gap

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of America’s retirement crisis is that it increasingly can’t be solved through individual effort alone. The question of whether planning alone is enough for people to retire, or whether systemic issues are at play, has become the central dividing line among retirement experts.

The statistics paint a sobering picture. Nearly 45% of Americans are projected to face retirement funding shortfalls if they retire at 65, according to a 2024 Morningstar study. About 46% of Americans have no retirement savings. The median retirement account balance for Americans aged 55 to 64, those on the cusp of retirement, was just $71,000 as of 2022, according to Vanguard data. That’s enough to generate perhaps $3,000 to $4,000 in annual income using conservative withdrawal rates, nowhere near sufficient to maintain most pre-retirement living standards.

The challenge becomes even clearer when you examine what adequate retirement planning actually requires. Financial advisors typically recommend that retirees have saved enough to replace 70% to 80% of their pre-retirement income. For someone earning $60,000 a year, that means needing an annual retirement income of $42,000 to $48,000. Social Security might provide around $24,000 of that for an average earner, leaving a gap of $18,000 to $24,000 that must be covered by savings. Using the common 4% withdrawal rule, which requires a nest egg of $450,000 to $600,000. The highest median retirement account balance is $200,000 for those aged 65-74, which doesn’t even come close.

For those who cannot afford professional financial planning, fees typically run around 1% of assets under management, or several thousand dollars for comprehensive planning. Resources do exist, though they require initiative to find and navigate. Organizations like the Foundation for Financial Planning offer free services to financially vulnerable populations, including wounded veterans, domestic violence survivors, and cancer patients. The Financial Planning Association and local non-profit credit counseling agencies sometimes provide low-cost or free retirement planning workshops.

Government resources include the Social Security Administration’s retirement estimator tools, available at ssa.gov, which allow individuals to model different claiming strategies and estimate their benefits. The Labor Department and IRS websites offer free calculators and educational materials about retirement accounts and required minimum distributions. Many libraries now offer free access to financial planning software and databases through their digital collections. AARP provides free retirement planning resources and calculators for those 50 and older, along with workshops and counseling services through its foundation.

Yet the existence of these resources highlights, rather than solves, the underlying problem: our retirement system has become so complex that it requires professional expertise to navigate, expertise most Americans can’t access. The very people who need help the most, those with limited savings and complex financial situations, are the least likely to be able to afford the guidance that could help them maximize what little they have.

Donna’s experience stresses this reality. Her federal pension was always there, a valuable benefit earned through decades of service. But in her own words, she had no idea what a great retirement she had until she talked to someone who could explain it to her. How many Americans are sitting on benefits or opportunities they don’t understand? How many are making costly mistakes simply because they don’t know what questions to ask?

Living With Uncertainty

For those who worry that retirement is slipping out of reach entirely, the reality is even more complex than simple affordability. Over half of American workers, 59%, now plan to work in some capacity during retirement, although this isn’t necessarily by choice. It’s often a financial necessity driven by inadequate savings, rising healthcare costs, and the reality that Social Security alone typically replaces only about 40% of pre-retirement income for average earners.

The average retirement age has crept upward, from 57 in 1991 to 64 for men and 62 for women today. Expected retirement age has similarly increased, from 63 in 2002 to 66 in 2022. The data suggests that Americans aren’t retiring later because they want to, but because they must.

This extended working life comes with its own risks. Health often deteriorates faster than financial circumstances improve. The physically demanding jobs that many older workers hold become increasingly difficult to perform. Ageism in the workplace can make finding new employment challenging for those who lose their jobs in their late 50s or early 60s. 

A growing part of the retirement problem isn’t just how much people earn or save, but how little clarity they’re given along the way. Too often, people reach their final working years without a clear understanding of what their employer provides, what it doesn’t, and what gaps they’re expected to fill on their own. 

Working with an advisor can help, but guidance only goes so far if people don’t understand their own benefits. If you don’t know whether you have a pension, how your employer plan works, or whether any other income streams exist, it’s difficult to make informed decisions. That uncertainty often leads to inaction, which compounds over decades.

The difference is clear when you look at workers who do have structured support. Donna’s retirement worked because federal employees are part of a system designed to prepare them. In addition to a pension and the Thrift Savings Plan, many receive the FERS Supplement, a monthly payment based on what they are expected to receive from Social Security at age 62, funded by the federal government. That bridge provides stability and the ability to plan.

Most retirees don’t have anything comparable. The earlier they realize this, the earlier they can adjust for it. Without clear guidance or built-in systems, people need to know that more responsibility falls on their own savings and investments.

A System Under Stress

Donna’s story represents both the promise and the limitations of the American retirement system. She had access to one of the country’s remaining robust pension programs. She sought professional guidance to maximize her benefits and made her decision at a fortuitous moment before a global pandemic reshaped the working world. But even with all these advantages, rising costs have constrained her retirement in ways she didn’t anticipate.

For the tens of millions of Americans without federal pensions, the vast majority of workers, the situation is more precarious still. The shift from defined benefit pensions to 401(k) style defined contribution plans has transferred risk from employers to individuals, requiring workers to become amateur investment managers, calculating how much to save, how to invest, and how much they can safely withdraw without outliving their money.

The 401(k) was originally designed as a supplement to pensions, not a replacement for them. But for decades now, employers have systematically eliminated traditional pensions, leaving 401(k)s as the primary retirement savings vehicle for most American workers. The problem is that 401(k)s only work well for people who can afford to contribute consistently over decades, understand investment principles well enough to allocate their assets appropriately, and who don’t need to tap the money early due to emergencies. While certainly not impossible, that’s a lot of conditions.

The confluence of factors straining retirement security, depleting Social Security trust funds, rising Medicare costs outpacing COLAs, housing prices that trap retirees in place, and the simple fact that Americans are living longer than ever while saving less than ever, suggests that individual planning, however careful, cannot fully address systemic failures in how we support older Americans.

When housing costs consume an ever-larger share of retirement income and healthcare expenses rise faster than Social Security benefits are adjusted, even the best individual planning can do only so much. You cannot budget your way out of a failing system.

When asked how she feels about her retirement now, more than six years after leaving the postal service, Donna’s perspective reflects both gratitude and realism. She has a pension that provides a foundation. But even she recognizes that the margin for error has narrowed, that unexpected expenses or further cost increases could upend even careful planning. She understands, perhaps more clearly than many who haven’t yet reached retirement age, how lucky she was in her timing and how different things might have been had she retired even a few years later.

A whopping 79% of Americans believe we have a retirement crisis, up from 67% in 2020. The question is no longer whether a crisis exists, but how severe it will become and how many Americans will be caught in its wake. For every Donna who makes it to a stable retirement, there are countless others who won’t. People who worked just as hard, who tried just as diligently to save, but who lacked access to a federal pension or who retired at the wrong moment, or who faced medical emergencies that wiped out their savings, or who simply earned too little to save meaningfully in the first place.

For future retirees, Donna recommends getting an advisor. Understanding your situation is imperative to successfully navigate retirement. Einstein once described compound interest as the “eighth wonder of the world,” but as anyone who doesn’t file their taxes in a timely manner will tell you, compounding interest works both ways, and its effects aren’t just exclusive to money. Coughing up money for an advisor or cutting down on expenses in your thirties, forties, and even early fifties may not be fun, but scrambling to fix decades of procrastination a few years before retirement is a far worse alternative. 

The promise of retirement, that after decades of work Americans could look forward to a period of rest and security, is changing. Not because of one single thing, but through a series of small changes that have reshaped what retirement looks like. Donna benefited from a system that worked when she needed it to. For many others still working toward that goal, the path is less certain, and understanding the reality of today’s retirement landscape matters more than ever.

By the Numbers – The State of Retirement in 2026

Social Security & Medicare:

• 2026 Social Security COLA: 2.8% ($56 average monthly increase)
• Medicare Part B premium increase: $17.90/month (9.7% increase)
• Net effective COLA after Medicare: 2.1%
• Social Security trust fund depletion: Projected 2033 (possibly as early as 2032)
• Benefit cut upon depletion: Approximately 23% to 24% across the board

Retirement Readiness:

• Americans with retirement funding shortfalls: 45%
• Americans with no retirement savings: 46% (2022 Federal Reserve Survey of Consumer Finances)
• Median retirement savings for ages 55 to 64: $71,000
• Highest median retirement account balance (ages 65 to 74): $200,000
• Workers planning to work during retirement: 59%
• Average retirement age: 64.7 (men), 62.1 (women)
• Americans who feel behind on retirement planning: 53%
• Americans who believe there’s a retirement crisis: 79% (up from 67% in 2020)

Denver Housing (2026):

• Median home price: $575,000
• Year over year price change: Down 2.0%
• Average monthly rent: $2,200
• Average days on market: 43
• Home price vs. national average: 29% higher

Income & Inequality:

• Median household income in Denver: $91,681
• Workers earning $150K+ contribute 13x more to retirement than those earning under $50K
• Bottom 25% wealth: $3,500 median net worth
• Top 10% wealth: $3.8 million median net worth

Sources: Social Security Administration, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Zillow, Redfin, Morningstar, Vanguard, Survey of Consumer Finances, Center for Retirement Research, Kiplinger, National Institute on Retirement Security

Like journalism like this? Consider becoming a sustaining supporter — and get our print edition delivered to your home each month.

Democracy needs journalism more than ever. For 25 years, we’ve told the truth — your support helps us keep doing it for the next four and beyond. Administrations come and go. Our team stays, ready to lead no matter who’s in charge.

The post Silver Security: A Generation Nearing Retirement, Without Certainty appeared first on Yellow Scene Magazine.

Boulder District Court Judge Robert R. Gunning ruled in favor of Boulder’s camping (aka the Blanket Ban) on Friday, December 6th, 2024, an unsurprising development given the June 28, 2024 SCOTUS Grants Pass majority decision – albeit full of pretzel-worthy twists and absurdities alluding to the blanket ban’s general applicability. 

Just as hypothermia can lead to hallucinations, the confusion and perplexity of criminalizing anyone who cannot afford housing – in one of the most expensive areas of the country is adding insult to injury and flies in the face of the city’s homelessness strategy “built around the belief that Boulder community members should have the opportunity for a safe and stable place to live.”

Reality of Housing Costs in Boulder County and the U.S. in General

The average rent for a one-bedroom in Boulder is currently $2,464. Using 30% of income as a guide, you’d need to earn $8,000 a month gross to make that work, or $6,250 if you use 40% of your income. 

A new Harvard report says 22.4 million households in the United States now spend more than 30 percent of their income on rent, with 12.1 million spending more than 50 percent.

More than your mortgage? Well, of course it is. It’s expensive to have to rent when you don’t have the money for a large down payment or the promise of consistent monthly income to be able to take on a mortgage in the first place. 

While all of Sweden, Norway, and parts of Finland and Iceland, promote “wild camping” anywhere one pleases outside of official campsites, law enforcement authorities in the land of the free will wrestle that blanket from you, lest you try to keep yourself warm in an area of the country with 89 inches of annual snowfall and lows ranging from the negatives to 20 degrees December through February. 

Efficacy and Usefulness of Camping Bans

Everything happens for a reason, and our criminal laws are no different. There has to be a purpose behind punishment, or essentially, it boils down to “I don’t like the way it looks” or “because we said so.” Either sentiment applies when looking at Boulder’s camping ban. 

Does a camping ban deter people from camping in public places? When the punishment is a fine they can’t afford to pay, it’s plain that it doesn’t. 

What about when the punishment is up to 90 days in jail? Now, they are worse off, having a criminal record for their mere presence in a public space – a presence that would not be a crime unless it is accompanied by the bodily necessities of sleeping and eating outside of daytime hours.

Boulder’s camping ban does not include “napping during the day or picnicking.” 

Although it is not clear when the day ends, it’s safe to say it would be sunset which is as early as 5 pm during wintertime in Boulder. 

Although the Grants Pass SCOTUS majority held that “camping ordinances validly criminalized the conduct of “occupying a campsite on public property” and were applicable to housed and unhoused persons alike, reality hits differently. 

An unhoused person in public space is often met with hostility by civilians and law enforcement alike. 

Ask yourself, why would anyone who already has housing camp in a city park or on city property? Newsflash buddy! They wouldn’t, and neither would you because you have a choice. Failure to admit the homeless person’s only choice is to freeze or not to freeze is as dangerous as the threat of frostbite. 

But they have shelters! Shortsightedness Runs Amok

You want to argue the unhoused have the choice of going to a shelter. Well, if there are enough beds and a winter shelter is open, it is also: 

• Where they don’t get to choose who is in there with them
• Where they don’t get to choose when they can come and go 
• Where zero-tolerance policies apply, and a rule infraction will be handled the same as putting someone else in danger. 

Plaintiffs for the unhoused in Grants Pass argued that camping bans were cruel and unusual punishment incompatible with the 8th Amendment when there weren’t enough shelter beds, an argument plaintiffs in this Boulder case cited while also claiming Colorado Constitution’s counterpart, Article II, Section 20, should apply and is more protective than the 8th Amendment. 

Judge Gunning disagreed, writing, “the Colorado Supreme Court has not yet interpreted Art. II, § 20 to afford broader protection than its federal counterpart, the Court disagrees.”

Mismatch Between Number of Shelter Beds and Number of Unhoused

Estimates of the number of shelter beds in Boulder range from 150-180 but regardless, the chances that the number of available beds will ever mirror the number of people in need is the same chance that people will ever stop referring to Boulder as the “People’s Republic of Boulder.” 

“At any given time in Boulder, we have around 500 more unhoused people than we have beds to serve them,” explains Lisa Sweeney-Miran, CEO of local homeless shelter and outreach program Haven Ridge. The last Point in Time Count published was for 1/30/23, tallying 839 homeless individuals in Boulder County, with 243, or 29% of that figure being unsheltered and the remainder in emergency or transitional housing. 

In SCOTUS’s Grants Pass decision, Gorsuch (the only Justice with Colorado ties) concluded that the punishments attached to the Grants Pass ordinances — increasing fines and up to 30 days in jail — were not cruel or unusual because they were not designed to “superadd terror, pain, or disgrace,” and are typical of other punishments for similar offenses.

Having your blankets torn away from you and being carted off to jail to be housed with no escape from dangerous and violent criminals would most certainly instill terror and is disgraceful unless you discount someone’s humanity and admit that jail should be reserved for people who commit dangerous offenses that are malum in se and not malum prohibitum. 

If we’re throwing open the jailhouse doors to anything we deem bad because we think it’s bad, Boulder jails would be teeming with jaywalkers, parking violators, or publicly intoxicated college students. Been to the Hill lately? Colorado does not have a law against public intoxication. Jail is only appropriate if you commit a crime WHILE you are intoxicated. 

Back to “typical of other punishments for similar offenses,” Jaywalking is a class B infraction punishable by a $15-$100 fine. Compare this to violations of the Blanket Ban, which are punishable by fines of up to $2,650 per violation and up to ninety days of incarceration. Not exactly apples to apples. 

Consider the cost of jail at roughly $205 per day (2023 figure) and the cost to try and obtain payment of fines, and there is a litany of other worthwhile uses for taxpayer funds than to put someone in jail for the offense of being unhoused. A job training program for trade comes to mind, or diverting that amount to a true housing first model that has proven successful in other Western cities like Salt Lake. 

If one of the most progressive towns in the nation resorts to camping bans, where is the ingenuity and the compassion Boulder likes to pride ourselves on? The means exist, but the will is lacking, and in cases such as Feet Forward and Grants Pass, is overpowered by a cruel thirst for punishment, reminiscent of vagrancy laws that existed until the 1970’s. These laws are just far enough in the rearview of our history that those in power now were only infants or young teens when these were last in favor. 

Legal scholars, judges, law enforcement and Boulder residents should revisit the 1972 case of Papachristou v. Jacksonville, striking down a vagrancy ordinance for being unconstitutionally vague because it failed to give people fair notice of what was prohibited, encouraging arbitrary arrests, and making activities that were normally innocent criminal.

While the Boulder camping ban gives notice that sleeping and eating on public property outside of daytime hours is prohibited, the ordinance encourages law enforcement to enforce only on unhoused persons as no unhoused person would have reason to sleep or eat on city property outside of daytime hours. Furthermore, eating and sleeping are innocent activities and only because of the where and when of the camping ban – are deemed criminal. 

When you hear the oft used, “he or she would give you the shirt of their back,” imagine it’s counterpart inspired by Boulder’s camping ban, “He or she would wrestle a blanket away from a homeless person.” 

“Reason often makes mistakes, but conscience never does.” Josh Billings. 

Like journalism like this? Consider becoming a sustaining supporter (and get our printed copy monthly at home.)

Democracy needs journalism more than ever. We’ve been telling the truth for 24 years. Your support helps us keep telling it for at least the next four years.

Democracy needs journalism more than ever. We’ve been telling the truth for 24 years. Your support helps us keep telling it for at least the next four years.

The post Are We Progressives or Puritans? Boulder District Court Decision Criminalizes Homelessness appeared first on Yellow Scene Magazine.