Anyone who's been following these blogs knows that I'm a stickler for saving money. You can't plan for the future if you're blowing your kid's college fund on hot tubs or vacations to Disney World (don't  laugh -- I actually know people who have done this).

Now comes word from yet another study that U.S. retirees are up the creek without a portfolio, let alone a paddle. According to a new study from Boston College's Center for Retirement Research, almost half of U.S. households will be unable to maintain their current  living standards—even if they work to age 65. There is no shortage of reasons for this predicament that retirees could find themselves in, but the study does say that declining Social Security replacement rates and employers’ shift from defined benefit plans to 401(k) plans have led to 32% of people aged 51 to 61 being at risk.

Things weren't this bad 15 years ago. The BC survey notes that, in 1992, just one-fifth of those households were at risk of coming up short in retirement.

Factors contributing to lower Social Security replacement rates include the increase in the average retirement age from 65 to 67. In 1992, the average retirement age for people between ages 51 and 61 was 65.2 years, but by 2004 it went up to 66.

The BC study adds that currently, 35% of early baby boomers born between 1946 to 1954 are at risk, as are 44% of late boomers born between 1955 and 1964. In addition, nearly half of Gen Xers face the possibility of a paltry retirement thanks to smaller Social Security benefits and increasing age longevity.

I take no issue with the study, save one thing: nowhere do the study researchers place the blame on overspending consumerism - - the bane of any long term saving plan, in my book. The plain fact is, we're not saving enough, and the decline in Social Security benefits and  employee retirement funding programs aren't helping matters.