The 401K Drives Inequality: NY Times article.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Gift article link:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/08/magazine/401k-retirement-crisis.html?unlocked_article_code=1.qk0.FoXn.AmNofORfld_i&smid=url-share

The evidence seems clear. My family has won in this scenario as have many of those who post here. We have a federal pension along with a 401K that's been maxed out for over a decade, and was well-funded before that.

But, overall, for our society taking away pensions and making people save for retirement as a replacement seems to have been a poor plan. People don't plan or save for the future. Some can't, others just don't have the desire to, many others are living paycheck to paycheck whether because of low wages or poor planning.

We should never have left pensions behind.

I think there is no question about this.

[Anonymous]

People are living too long for pensions to be viable. A lot of organizations are having trouble meeting their pension requirements, including public orgs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Gift article link:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/08/magazine/401k-retirement-crisis.html?unlocked_article_code=1.qk0.FoXn.AmNofORfld_i&smid=url-share

The evidence seems clear. My family has won in this scenario as have many of those who post here. We have a federal pension along with a 401K that's been maxed out for over a decade, and was well-funded before that.

But, overall, for our society taking away pensions and making people save for retirement as a replacement seems to have been a poor plan. People don't plan or save for the future. Some can't, others just don't have the desire to, many others are living paycheck to paycheck whether because of low wages or poor planning.

We should never have left pensions behind.

Some people don't know how to budget or think about saving for the future. That's a shame, but that doesn't mean that companies should be doing it for them in the form of a pension.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd rather not read what progressive think since they always want to abolish a system because the MC/UMC use it. Recently (before Biden) they tried to do away with PSLF student loan forgiveness because of doctors and lawyers apparently using it.

Anyways, I think the only options would be to up the scale of social security or create one of those sovereign funds like some Gulf countries have to supplement retirements.

Yes, shares of a sovereign wealth fund for all from birth is a MUCH better idea than all of this communist crap of taxing more in the name of equity. Hell, even Alaska has a sovereign wealth fund for its residents. Norway has a sovereign wealth fund for its citizens. A sovereign wealth fund that pays out regularly would give ALL an equal and vested interest in the economy of the country. Much, much better idea.

Wait until you find out where that wealth fund comes from in both Norway and Alaska.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd rather not read what progressive think since they always want to abolish a system because the MC/UMC use it. Recently (before Biden) they tried to do away with PSLF student loan forgiveness because of doctors and lawyers apparently using it.

Anyways, I think the only options would be to up the scale of social security or create one of those sovereign funds like some Gulf countries have to supplement retirements.

Yes, shares of a sovereign wealth fund for all from birth is a MUCH better idea than all of this communist crap of taxing more in the name of equity. Hell, even Alaska has a sovereign wealth fund for its residents. Norway has a sovereign wealth fund for its citizens. A sovereign wealth fund that pays out regularly would give ALL an equal and vested interest in the economy of the country. Much, much better idea.

Wait until you find out where that wealth fund comes from in both Norway and Alaska.

Yes, oil.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Gift article link:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/08/magazine/401k-retirement-crisis.html?unlocked_article_code=1.qk0.FoXn.AmNofORfld_i&smid=url-share

The evidence seems clear. My family has won in this scenario as have many of those who post here. We have a federal pension along with a 401K that's been maxed out for over a decade, and was well-funded before that.

But, overall, for our society taking away pensions and making people save for retirement as a replacement seems to have been a poor plan. People don't plan or save for the future. Some can't, others just don't have the desire to, many others are living paycheck to paycheck whether because of low wages or poor planning.

We should never have left pensions behind.

Leave behind? As noted, they are mathematically impossible to fund.

[Anonymous]

Pensions are dumb. It handcuffs you for life to a company. They so bankrupted numerous companies over the years. They're simply not a viable concept without significantly hamstringing companies that will in turn mean less overall productivity and innovation in the economy because companies are enforced to divert soooo much money to funding pension liabilities. Pensions just kill private industry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Social security is essentially a federal pension for all, the problem is that US culture doesn't support increasing contributions (in the form of taxes) in order to increase payouts, plus there are generational issues with this based on baby booms/busts.

But if you really wanted to make pensions universal, that's how you'd do it. Not by requiring or encouraging companies to provide them (as a PP noted, pensions can be very restrictive in terms of your career and you have to trust the company/government entity to actually fund it) but by making SS more robust so that people were essentially forced to save for their own retirement.

This does seem like the logical answer.

[Anonymous]

Are you a white male?

Pensions benefit men who don’t have to step out of the workforce for childrearing.

401ks and private brokerage accounts allow for worker mobility. You’re not tied to an employer for life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Seems like the beginning of a new indoctrination attempt among the progressive left - subtly attacking 401ks to set up the justification for crippling them through much higher taxes down the road.

Anyway, I know the NYT well enough to do the opposite of what they tell you to do.

If you ask your mom to read the article to you, you'll hear that the proposed reforms have bipartisan support including Trump's advisors.

Why are you so afraid of a logical argument?

[Anonymous]

I just learned it lately that so many high income people have no idea how to invest. They also have nothing saved on their own. The little they have is thanks to company 401k. Thirty years of making nearly $60k-$160k and nothing to show.
I just talked to them about finances and I was speechless. They know only what they need to know at work and that's it.
As for me, I have never had a job with a $401k. Same for most of my co-workers. Roth IRA has a very low maximum. I have to pull a Peter Thiel in my Roth.

[Anonymous]

401ks were never really meant for retirement. They designed as a way to protect bonuses from 70% tax rates by differing the income. Most plans were terrible until the last few decades and there was very little education about funds. It’s much easier now.

Roth IRAs are much better and more straightforward. I wish there easier ways to choose good low fee funds though for most people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are you a white male?

Pensions benefit men who don’t have to step out of the workforce for childrearing.

401ks and private brokerage accounts allow for worker mobility. You’re not tied to an employer for life.

Or just couples with two workers, only one of whom takes significant time off for childrearing. Which is still most families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Seems like the beginning of a new indoctrination attempt among the progressive left - subtly attacking 401ks to set up the justification for crippling them through much higher taxes down the road.

Anyway, I know the NYT well enough to do the opposite of what they tell you to do.

This.

They want to eliminate retirement savings altogether. The Boomers benefited from them so time to tax the Millennials and below so they can have their cake (401ks) and eat it too (SS).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Gift article link:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/08/magazine/401k-retirement-crisis.html?unlocked_article_code=1.qk0.FoXn.AmNofORfld_i&smid=url-share

The evidence seems clear. My family has won in this scenario as have many of those who post here. We have a federal pension along with a 401K that's been maxed out for over a decade, and was well-funded before that.

But, overall, for our society taking away pensions and making people save for retirement as a replacement seems to have been a poor plan. People don't plan or save for the future. Some can't, others just don't have the desire to, many others are living paycheck to paycheck whether because of low wages or poor planning.

We should never have left pensions behind.

The reason we dont have pensions is because companies couldnt afford them. They are comically expensive. Basically the only people who have pensions now are teachers and cops.