401K Millionaires Record High

[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.

Bully for them. Doesn't change anything I wrote.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

It will alarm people. You need to keep in mind that the point of these articles is to sing the merits of the 401k program. 401k benefit corporations far more than employees.

[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.

not counting on it being a retirement plan. But it's not an open tax and govt can do whatever they want. It's a plan you pay into to get income back at retirement age. The amount of income taxed is capped, as is the payout.

Point is I could have just invested all we have paid into SS in an SP500Index fund for the last 35+ years and I would have a ton more than what I will ever get back. So ditch the concept of SS and just let everyone manage it themselves. Let the employer pay their employees that extra amount into a 401K or for them to invest in a Roth.

[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.

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.

And many grocery stores and coffee shops offer 401K for full time employees, often for anyone working 30+ hours.

And yes we need someone in thiose jobs. But if your goal in life is to be a barista at age 40, then you have to live your life accordingly. If you want to be a manager or own a coffee shop, then you will have a better "career" with income prospects.

Even at larger companies with 401Ks, many do not invest. Spouse runs a Tech company of 2K people. Almost everyone is college educated and paid well (no low income workers). a few years ago they decided to make the 401K program "opt out" instead of "opt in", so that everyone at least did the minimum to get the company match (6%, vested over 4 years), as too many people were not participating. Majority stayed in the program once they were automatically put in it. Sure there was some complaining with first paycheck that was lower, but once the employees were educated about it (that they were leaving 6% on the table and the perks of retirement investing), over 90% of those not in previously stayed in, many even increased their investment %.
Fact is most of American is not well educated or educated at all about finances.