401K Millionaires Record High

[Anonymous]

So is this data even useful? Sure there are 497,000 millionaires but the whole data is flawed as can only look at individual balances not total balances. For instance I am a not yet retired Boomer who of course had several jobs. So I have a few 401ks. I bet if we added up all 401ks including current jobs and prior jobs and added in spouses 401ks you would find people near retirement have a lot more money.

For instance my brother in law who is 66 has worked at same company since 21 and has a massive 401k.

His wife went back to work part time at 55 and is 61 so her 401K is very small for her age.

In these stats she is way under prepared for retirement It only can count her 401k as no such thing as a joint 401k.

In my case I had two short term jobs in Covid, one for one year, one for two years and have a new job. those three 401ks are tiny for someone my age.

How can it be govt has no clue what people have saved for retirement. Why cant they look it up by SS and combine spouses SS?

https://thehill.com/business/4851492-record-number-401k-millionaires/

[Anonymous]

I actually think it's a good thing that these stats understate 401k totals for people/couples in the way that you've identified, because it's very easy to think there's no retirement crisis or Social Security is just icing on the cake if you think everyone with a 401k is doing fine. A significant portion of workers in the US don't have access to workplace retirement accounts at all!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I actually think it's a good thing that these stats understate 401k totals for people/couples in the way that you've identified, because it's very easy to think there's no retirement crisis or Social Security is just icing on the cake if you think everyone with a 401k is doing fine. A significant portion of workers in the US don't have access to workplace retirement accounts at all!

Then they have access to various IRAs. They still have some options (not as good as 401K), and fact is most do not take advantage of that. Or you just invest on your own, without "retirement/401K benefits".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually think it's a good thing that these stats understate 401k totals for people/couples in the way that you've identified, because it's very easy to think there's no retirement crisis or Social Security is just icing on the cake if you think everyone with a 401k is doing fine. A significant portion of workers in the US don't have access to workplace retirement accounts at all!

Then they have access to various IRAs. They still have some options (not as good as 401K), and fact is most do not take advantage of that. Or you just invest on your own, without "retirement/401K benefits".

So when you can't find your personal combined family balances in an article about 401k millionaires it's a crisis, but when low income workers don't have access to 401ks at all they should just figure it out on their own. Get over yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So is this data even useful? Sure there are 497,000 millionaires but the whole data is flawed as can only look at individual balances not total balances. For instance I am a not yet retired Boomer who of course had several jobs. So I have a few 401ks. I bet if we added up all 401ks including current jobs and prior jobs and added in spouses 401ks you would find people near retirement have a lot more money.

For instance my brother in law who is 66 has worked at same company since 21 and has a massive 401k.

His wife went back to work part time at 55 and is 61 so her 401K is very small for her age.

In these stats she is way under prepared for retirement It only can count her 401k as no such thing as a joint 401k.

In my case I had two short term jobs in Covid, one for one year, one for two years and have a new job. those three 401ks are tiny for someone my age.

How can it be govt has no clue what people have saved for retirement. Why cant they look it up by SS and combine spouses SS?

https://thehill.com/business/4851492-record-number-401k-millionaires/

Why on earth would you want the government to do that? And why would it need to?

[FPYCparent]

The source data is from Fidelity, so I'm not sure there should be an expectation that "the government" would have and share the aggregate information as suggested.

Vanguard publishes a similar report, but I think they do theirs annually (in June) ... https://institutional.vanguard.com/insights-and-research/report/how-america-saves.html

[Anonymous]

I have 401ks at Vanguard, Merrill, Principal, Fidelity and Enpower and wife at JPM plus a cash balance pension plan.

My two daughters aged 24 and 22 both currently have two 401ks each. Both switched jobs already and both worked places with no forced cash out. They are in the Vanguard and/or Fidelity 2065 fund. Boomers bounce around jobs nears end as they are pushed out and have to keep reinventing themselves young Gen Z hop jobs a lot.

They make rolling 401ks extremely hard on purpose. I rolled one small one recently and all paper forms and I got a paper check I had to then fill our more paper forms and re-mail check to new 401K I was rolling it into. The process should be when I start new job I should be able to click a button and 401ks auto rolled over, but that does not exist.

[Anonymous]

I have been working for 27 years and only 7 months of that for a company that offered retirement. You can imagine how many people I know who have no retirement accounts in my industry. Since they were not offered any, and workers couldn't sit down with HR and decide what to invest in, they most likely also don't know about IRA or Roth.
As for you, did you know that if you had maxed out Roth for twenty years and trade inside of it tax free, you'd have several million $ and the pleasure of knowing how to trade. You wouldn't be here talking about your several 401k's being million combined. I have no 401k but to reach Roth on my own, I had to kick aside through several big companies who all pushed their funds. For me, trading and individual stocks were the way to go.
Not only that people don't know how, they have professionals in their way with their own agenda. Same with 401k- very lousy returns. Why would you do that to yourself? Not to mention, they are all over the place with many rules about their use.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually think it's a good thing that these stats understate 401k totals for people/couples in the way that you've identified, because it's very easy to think there's no retirement crisis or Social Security is just icing on the cake if you think everyone with a 401k is doing fine. A significant portion of workers in the US don't have access to workplace retirement accounts at all!

Then they have access to various IRAs. They still have some options (not as good as 401K), and fact is most do not take advantage of that. Or you just invest on your own, without "retirement/401K benefits".

So when you can't find your personal combined family balances in an article about 401k millionaires it's a crisis, but when low income workers don't have access to 401ks at all they should just figure it out on their own. Get over yourself.

Well ideally, I'd like it if every company/Job offered a 401k. however for that to happen it would mean the Federal govt is running it. So I don't see that as a perk. It would destroy the 401k program for most. Look what SS has become. I've paid in 1000 times more than we will most likely ever see. I would have preferred to have all of that money to invest myself, rather than leaving it to the govt to "not make any money on it". A simple SP500 index fund would have given me a lot more than SS will actually pay out.

Heck, I also think we need universal Healthcare, so everyone gets the same benefits of lower costs. I've thought that for decades. It's not fair that with my BCBS my mammogram that is charged at $850 is paid in full for $195 by BCBS. But if I don't have insurance, I owe the full $850. Everyone should get the $195 as long as you are willing to pay in full Day of Service (IE the company doesn't have to bill you and track you down to get payment).


There are plenty of lower income jobs that do offer 401K. Starbucks, Panera, many fast food companies do offer that for full time workers. So lower income workers do have a choice to work for a place that offers those perks. Or to more importantly work to better themselves and get a higher paying job. Starbucks offers online college for virtually free as a perk.

But the issue for a lower income worker is more that they don't have the extra money to save for retirement. So the better solution is to help them improve their job prospects.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually think it's a good thing that these stats understate 401k totals for people/couples in the way that you've identified, because it's very easy to think there's no retirement crisis or Social Security is just icing on the cake if you think everyone with a 401k is doing fine. A significant portion of workers in the US don't have access to workplace retirement accounts at all!

Then they have access to various IRAs. They still have some options (not as good as 401K), and fact is most do not take advantage of that. Or you just invest on your own, without "retirement/401K benefits".

So when you can't find your personal combined family balances in an article about 401k millionaires it's a crisis, but when low income workers don't have access to 401ks at all they should just figure it out on their own. Get over yourself.

Well ideally, I'd like it if every company/Job offered a 401k. however for that to happen it would mean the Federal govt is running it. So I don't see that as a perk. It would destroy the 401k program for most. Look what SS has become. I've paid in 1000 times more than we will most likely ever see. I would have preferred to have all of that money to invest myself, rather than leaving it to the govt to "not make any money on it". A simple SP500 index fund would have given me a lot more than SS will actually pay out.

Heck, I also think we need universal Healthcare, so everyone gets the same benefits of lower costs. I've thought that for decades. It's not fair that with my BCBS my mammogram that is charged at $850 is paid in full for $195 by BCBS. But if I don't have insurance, I owe the full $850. Everyone should get the $195 as long as you are willing to pay in full Day of Service (IE the company doesn't have to bill you and track you down to get payment).


There are plenty of lower income jobs that do offer 401K. Starbucks, Panera, many fast food companies do offer that for full time workers. So lower income workers do have a choice to work for a place that offers those perks. Or to more importantly work to better themselves and get a higher paying job. Starbucks offers online college for virtually free as a perk.

But the issue for a lower income worker is more that they don't have the extra money to save for retirement. So the better solution is to help them improve their job prospects.

All together now, for those who haven't been paying attention for the past few decades:

Social Security is not designed to be, nor is it, a retirement plan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually think it's a good thing that these stats understate 401k totals for people/couples in the way that you've identified, because it's very easy to think there's no retirement crisis or Social Security is just icing on the cake if you think everyone with a 401k is doing fine. A significant portion of workers in the US don't have access to workplace retirement accounts at all!

Then they have access to various IRAs. They still have some options (not as good as 401K), and fact is most do not take advantage of that. Or you just invest on your own, without "retirement/401K benefits".

So when you can't find your personal combined family balances in an article about 401k millionaires it's a crisis, but when low income workers don't have access to 401ks at all they should just figure it out on their own. Get over yourself.

Well ideally, I'd like it if every company/Job offered a 401k. however for that to happen it would mean the Federal govt is running it. So I don't see that as a perk. It would destroy the 401k program for most. Look what SS has become. I've paid in 1000 times more than we will most likely ever see. I would have preferred to have all of that money to invest myself, rather than leaving it to the govt to "not make any money on it". A simple SP500 index fund would have given me a lot more than SS will actually pay out.

Heck, I also think we need universal Healthcare, so everyone gets the same benefits of lower costs. I've thought that for decades. It's not fair that with my BCBS my mammogram that is charged at $850 is paid in full for $195 by BCBS. But if I don't have insurance, I owe the full $850. Everyone should get the $195 as long as you are willing to pay in full Day of Service (IE the company doesn't have to bill you and track you down to get payment).


There are plenty of lower income jobs that do offer 401K. Starbucks, Panera, many fast food companies do offer that for full time workers. So lower income workers do have a choice to work for a place that offers those perks. Or to more importantly work to better themselves and get a higher paying job. Starbucks offers online college for virtually free as a perk.

But the issue for a lower income worker is more that they don't have the extra money to save for retirement. So the better solution is to help them improve their job prospects.

All together now, for those who haven't been paying attention for the past few decades:

Social Security is not designed to be, nor is it, a retirement plan.

i have a client who lives entirely off their ss. They were a 2 income household, and carry no debt. Recently they have been forced to take RMDs but they just reinvest that.

[Anonymous]

If median and standard deviation data were made available by age group it would be a different story. Many Americans in their 50s and 60s if you look at the median are not doing so well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually think it's a good thing that these stats understate 401k totals for people/couples in the way that you've identified, because it's very easy to think there's no retirement crisis or Social Security is just icing on the cake if you think everyone with a 401k is doing fine. A significant portion of workers in the US don't have access to workplace retirement accounts at all!

Then they have access to various IRAs. They still have some options (not as good as 401K), and fact is most do not take advantage of that. Or you just invest on your own, without "retirement/401K benefits".

So when you can't find your personal combined family balances in an article about 401k millionaires it's a crisis, but when low income workers don't have access to 401ks at all they should just figure it out on their own. Get over yourself.

Well ideally, I'd like it if every company/Job offered a 401k. however for that to happen it would mean the Federal govt is running it. So I don't see that as a perk. It would destroy the 401k program for most. Look what SS has become. I've paid in 1000 times more than we will most likely ever see. I would have preferred to have all of that money to invest myself, rather than leaving it to the govt to "not make any money on it". A simple SP500 index fund would have given me a lot more than SS will actually pay out.

Heck, I also think we need universal Healthcare, so everyone gets the same benefits of lower costs. I've thought that for decades. It's not fair that with my BCBS my mammogram that is charged at $850 is paid in full for $195 by BCBS. But if I don't have insurance, I owe the full $850. Everyone should get the $195 as long as you are willing to pay in full Day of Service (IE the company doesn't have to bill you and track you down to get payment).


There are plenty of lower income jobs that do offer 401K. Starbucks, Panera, many fast food companies do offer that for full time workers. So lower income workers do have a choice to work for a place that offers those perks. Or to more importantly work to better themselves and get a higher paying job. Starbucks offers online college for virtually free as a perk.

But the issue for a lower income worker is more that they don't have the extra money to save for retirement. So the better solution is to help them improve their job prospects.

Someone has to be a barista..another person has to be a grocery clerk. Saying low income folks should improve their prospects is a bit naive. Income inequality is a feature of capitalism and many of us on this very forum are beneficiary of this system. Many of the services we pay for are heavily discounted for the exact reasons that some of the input into those services are cheap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually think it's a good thing that these stats understate 401k totals for people/couples in the way that you've identified, because it's very easy to think there's no retirement crisis or Social Security is just icing on the cake if you think everyone with a 401k is doing fine. A significant portion of workers in the US don't have access to workplace retirement accounts at all!

Then they have access to various IRAs. They still have some options (not as good as 401K), and fact is most do not take advantage of that. Or you just invest on your own, without "retirement/401K benefits".

So when you can't find your personal combined family balances in an article about 401k millionaires it's a crisis, but when low income workers don't have access to 401ks at all they should just figure it out on their own. Get over yourself.

Well ideally, I'd like it if every company/Job offered a 401k. however for that to happen it would mean the Federal govt is running it. So I don't see that as a perk. It would destroy the 401k program for most. Look what SS has become. I've paid in 1000 times more than we will most likely ever see. I would have preferred to have all of that money to invest myself, rather than leaving it to the govt to "not make any money on it". A simple SP500 index fund would have given me a lot more than SS will actually pay out.

Except, you haven’t. Not even close.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually think it's a good thing that these stats understate 401k totals for people/couples in the way that you've identified, because it's very easy to think there's no retirement crisis or Social Security is just icing on the cake if you think everyone with a 401k is doing fine. A significant portion of workers in the US don't have access to workplace retirement accounts at all!

Then they have access to various IRAs. They still have some options (not as good as 401K), and fact is most do not take advantage of that. Or you just invest on your own, without "retirement/401K benefits".

So when you can't find your personal combined family balances in an article about 401k millionaires it's a crisis, but when low income workers don't have access to 401ks at all they should just figure it out on their own. Get over yourself.

Well ideally, I'd like it if every company/Job offered a 401k. however for that to happen it would mean the Federal govt is running it. So I don't see that as a perk. It would destroy the 401k program for most. Look what SS has become. I've paid in 1000 times more than we will most likely ever see. I would have preferred to have all of that money to invest myself, rather than leaving it to the govt to "not make any money on it". A simple SP500 index fund would have given me a lot more than SS will actually pay out.

Heck, I also think we need universal Healthcare, so everyone gets the same benefits of lower costs. I've thought that for decades. It's not fair that with my BCBS my mammogram that is charged at $850 is paid in full for $195 by BCBS. But if I don't have insurance, I owe the full $850. Everyone should get the $195 as long as you are willing to pay in full Day of Service (IE the company doesn't have to bill you and track you down to get payment).


There are plenty of lower income jobs that do offer 401K. Starbucks, Panera, many fast food companies do offer that for full time workers. So lower income workers do have a choice to work for a place that offers those perks. Or to more importantly work to better themselves and get a higher paying job. Starbucks offers online college for virtually free as a perk.

But the issue for a lower income worker is more that they don't have the extra money to save for retirement. So the better solution is to help them improve their job prospects.

All together now, for those who haven't been paying attention for the past few decades:

Social Security is not designed to be, nor is it, a retirement plan.

i have a client who lives entirely off their ss. They were a 2 income household, and carry no debt. Recently they have been forced to take RMDs but they just reinvest that.

Indeed, many people do this. The benefit at full retirement age or age 70 is not small for many people, especially two incomes.