First, Sunday’s lead story in the Washington Post.

For the first time since the New Deal, a majority of Americans are headed toward a retirement in which they will be financially worse off than their parents, jeopardizing a long era of improved living standards for the nation’s elderly, according to a growing consensus of new research.

You know you are headed for a low-quality article when it starts that way.

1. First off, that sentence may turn out to be wrong. Living standards for those about to retire may well turn out to be fantastic.

2. To the extent that Americans are potentially outliving their saving, it has a lot to do with the “outliving” aspect. People are living longer.

3. Revealed preference suggests that people think that they are in good enough financial shape to retire. Anecdotes and exceptions aside, the average trend is toward retiring younger, not older. Even though people are much healthier at age 65 then they used to be, and many jobs are less physically demanding.

4. The article never addresses the fact that from an aggregate saving point of view, Social Security is the problem, not the solution. It creates disincentives to work and save, so that we have less output and less capital than otherwise.

Next, a story from Kiplinger’s.

Retiring abroad can offer a host of advantages over buying a condo in Florida. Living expenses can be cheaper, cultural experiences richer and the lifestyle more satisfying — even in some places in Europe.

The article proceeds to list eight inexpensive places. I do not see elderly people wanting to pull up their roots and move to faraway places. If they are willing to do so for a lower cost of living, then that would be a sign that financial issues really are pressing. On the other hand, my guess is that staying for a month in one of the recommended cities will appeal to a lot of people who are looking for relatively low-cost trip.