The 401K Drives Inequality: NY Times article.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:401(k)s are the only reason middle class Americans can retire.

Wealthy people don't care that much about their 401(k) as the amounts can be a drop in the bucket.

This.

Pure idiocy. Are you under the impression that a 401k is the only permissible means to save for retirement?

Anyone could have put money saved in a 401k in a taxable account.

I mean yes, anyone who has a spare 10+% of income to save (which is not most middle class Americans). 401k savings are tax deferred and usually matched so 4% post-tax can easily convert to 10% pretax.

[Anonymous]

Some of us are lucky period! I started my career in big tech and within 10 years I honestly save for retirement far more than most Americans would ever dream to have for retirement after a 40 years career. Our system rewards luck but we keep telling those who are not lucky to work harder and if you deviate from thai logic you are a socialist so ridiculous. And don't get me started with the so called self made people. Statistically they are a very small minority. America is a great success model if you make it. And both parties are very good at hiding those who didn't make it behind closed doors so we don't see them don't hear about them and just forget about them. Call me a socialist if you wish whatever. All I know is I was lucky to be born in the right family with the right wealth and afforded me the chance to attend a great college. Yeah I am sure that's the case for every American lol

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some of us are lucky period! I started my career in big tech and within 10 years I honestly save for retirement far more than most Americans would ever dream to have for retirement after a 40 years career. Our system rewards luck but we keep telling those who are not lucky to work harder and if you deviate from thai logic you are a socialist so ridiculous. And don't get me started with the so called self made people. Statistically they are a very small minority. America is a great success model if you make it. And both parties are very good at hiding those who didn't make it behind closed doors so we don't see them don't hear about them and just forget about them. Call me a socialist if you wish whatever. All I know is I was lucky to be born in the right family with the right wealth and afforded me the chance to attend a great college. Yeah I am sure that's the case for every American lol

Working in Tech is not "luck". It's called picking a field (if it's of interest to you) that typically pays well. I had two areas I loved in HS---music and Engineering. Majored in both, but chose to use the Engineering for my career. Why? Because I like having a steady job that pays well. I didn't want to have to work tons of side jobs/odd jobs to pay the bills while I struggled to keep an odd schedule to work gig work that I could get, until I land a job with a major orchestra (if that ever happened). So I did music on the side, taught private lessons and worked full time in engineering.

I wasn't born into the "right family". My family was LMC. Hence why picking a job that paid a decent salary and would provide stability was important to me. The rest was just hard work (4.0 in HS when it was hard to do, and 3.9 in College with two extremely challenging majors at a great university).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:401(k)s are the only reason middle class Americans can retire.

Wealthy people don't care that much about their 401(k) as the amounts can be a drop in the bucket.

This.

Pure idiocy. Are you under the impression that a 401k is the only permissible means to save for retirement?

Anyone could have put money saved in a 401k in a taxable account.

I mean yes, anyone who has a spare 10+% of income to save (which is not most middle class Americans). 401k savings are tax deferred and usually matched so 4% post-tax can easily convert to 10% pretax.

No matter what your income level is, you will one day want to retire. It's up to you if you do that in abject poverty or not. If you make X you need to live within your means or find a way to make more.

My parents never made more than $40-50K/year (between the 2 of them). They managed to retire with over $800K from living frugally and idenifying wants vs needs. They didn't have the nicest house or fanciest things, we rarely ate out and if we did it was Golden Corral level once per month. They were late to game with cell phones and other luxuries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Why not? It used to be a non-controversial part of compensation, in return for the work they provided. The benefits were not provided out of the kindness of their hearts.

I don't understand a lot of Americans. Many think the government should help care for seniors in any meaningful way b/c . . . "socialism." Now you object to companies providing a benefit to ultimately help retirees/seniors. And for many people, they don't make enough to properly or fully save for retirement, and/or they lack the smarts to properly invest in a meaningful way. So . . . sorry to the wave of elderly coming down the pike. Enjoy your warehoused medicaid facility (which taxpayers will fund anyway) or the street.

It's despicable how people in this country view our collective moral obligation to care for all citizens, including our elderly. Sincerely despicable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Why not? It used to be a non-controversial part of compensation, in return for the work they provided. The benefits were not provided out of the kindness of their hearts.

I don't understand a lot of Americans. Many think the government should help care for seniors in any meaningful way b/c . . . "socialism." Now you object to companies providing a benefit to ultimately help retirees/seniors. And for many people, they don't make enough to properly or fully save for retirement, and/or they lack the smarts to properly invest in a meaningful way. So . . . sorry to the wave of elderly coming down the pike. Enjoy your warehoused medicaid facility (which taxpayers will fund anyway) or the street.

It's despicable how people in this country view our collective moral obligation to care for all citizens, including our elderly. Sincerely despicable.

*should not

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No, they'll go after Roth IRAs first. And they should -- it was horrible tax policy when created. Bill Roth was a menace.

Is this a joke, or do you write for the NY Times?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If your policy goal is to enhance worker mobility, enact single-payer health care.

Completely agree with this! We should have 401Ks and single payer health care. One where everyone gets the benefits of economies of scale and "discounted rates".
For ex: I can recall getting my first mammogram. Price was $800. My BCBS negotiated rate was $200. If I had no insurance, I'd have to pay $800---even if I was willing to pay in cash that day. IMO, everyone should get that $200 rate, as long as you pay that day (ie they don't have to bill you and chase you down to get paid).

Truly only the people with the worst critical reasoning skills think single payer is the optimal method to deliver universal healthcare.

[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.

Women don't have to do this. That's a choice. I'm a teacher (with a pension) who took off six weeks for maternity leave. This was at the end of April so I had the summer off too. I drained nearly all of my sick leave to do this (that's another post) but I didn't take time off for childrearing. Most people don't have the money to do that.

[Anonymous]

The trouble with 401k are the limits are too high. A married 50 year old couple can put in 60k a year. If they have a high income and a really good match it could equal 120k a year!!

But a middle class 50 year old man with stay at home wife and kids at best can afford 6 percent. And maybe a crappy match 50 cents on a dollar. If he makes 100k his total contribution is 7.5k a year.

Over time it is millions of dollars in difference

[Anonymous]

The trouble with 401k are the limits are too high.

So, you want people to save _less_ for retirement?

[Anonymous]

If you are posting record profits, doing stock buy backs, giving CEOs/board members/VPs multimillion dollar salaries and bonuses, I don’t want to hear that you can’t afford pensions.

[Anonymous]

They'll want to take from your 401ks.

Yup should spend as much as possible on cars while living. Also buy as big of a home as possible regardless of you can afford it. Just consume a ton more. Take as many fancy vacations as possible too. The commies are coming to absolutely punish anyone who forgoes consumptions and who chooses to save. They will redistribute your savings to alllllllll of the morons out there right now driving $70k pickup trucks and other luxury cars who spend all of their money on car payments rather than saving for retirement.

All in the name of equity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The trouble with 401k are the limits are too high. A married 50 year old couple can put in 60k a year. If they have a high income and a really good match it could equal 120k a year!!

But a middle class 50 year old man with stay at home wife and kids at best can afford 6 percent. And maybe a crappy match 50 cents on a dollar. If he makes 100k his total contribution is 7.5k a year.

Over time it is millions of dollars in difference

Life isn't fair.


The only way it is fair is if you make eeeeeeverything equally as crappy. This is the USA, where people have freedom to be standouts and to be stellar. If you want communism, go live in North Korea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of us are lucky period! I started my career in big tech and within 10 years I honestly save for retirement far more than most Americans would ever dream to have for retirement after a 40 years career. Our system rewards luck but we keep telling those who are not lucky to work harder and if you deviate from thai logic you are a socialist so ridiculous. And don't get me started with the so called self made people. Statistically they are a very small minority. America is a great success model if you make it. And both parties are very good at hiding those who didn't make it behind closed doors so we don't see them don't hear about them and just forget about them. Call me a socialist if you wish whatever. All I know is I was lucky to be born in the right family with the right wealth and afforded me the chance to attend a great college. Yeah I am sure that's the case for every American lol

Working in Tech is not "luck". It's called picking a field (if it's of interest to you) that typically pays well. I had two areas I loved in HS---music and Engineering. Majored in both, but chose to use the Engineering for my career. Why? Because I like having a steady job that pays well. I didn't want to have to work tons of side jobs/odd jobs to pay the bills while I struggled to keep an odd schedule to work gig work that I could get, until I land a job with a major orchestra (if that ever happened). So I did music on the side, taught private lessons and worked full time in engineering.

I wasn't born into the "right family". My family was LMC. Hence why picking a job that paid a decent salary and would provide stability was important to me. The rest was just hard work (4.0 in HS when it was hard to do, and 3.9 in College with two extremely challenging majors at a great university).

Your fingers must be sore from pulling on those bootstraps so much.