That, and try this:
There are only three solutions. Retired people must live on less, they must work longer or they must save more during their working lives. The last two options may be preferable, but they are not easy.
First, the problem. The average period in retirement has risen from 13 years in the 1960s to 20 today. There is a 50% chance that one member of a retiring couple will live to 92. The average age of retirement is 64, lower than it was in the 1960s.
For most people, the main source of their retirement income will be Social Security, the government pension.
The same second linked item, in closing, notes that so far:
The government could also increase the minimum retirement age under Social Security from 62 to 64. That would require assistance for those who are physically unable to work in later life but it would encourage able-bodied citizens to keep working. Congress could also redesign tax incentives in favour of the lower-paid, matching pension contributions (with a limit) rather than making savings tax-deductible, which gives the biggest gain to the richest. Politicians seem to assume, however, that changing Social Security in any way will lead to their own retirement.
Those fostering generational Angst, as for example locally in a Minnesota House race, will be persistent - as long as voters allow it. Given Wisconsin's First Congressional District's penchant to keep reelecting Paul Ryan, the dark forces need be less than fearful. And what about the nation's state legislatures, given local experience?