PBS Frontline : The Retirement Gamble, sorta Must See

[Dentist 1,768]

19 minutes ago, Bull Dozier said:

I never would recommend anyone save less, but I have my own observations.

My parents retired a little later than you hope to (they went to the normal 65).  My dad had a solid government job, saved extra, has plenty of money to do what he wants.  My parents had a good 2-3 years of retirement.  Then my mom needed a hip replaced.  Then my dad needed a knee replaced.  The my mom needed a knee replaced.  Then her other hip replaced.  Then my dad had a stroke.  Then my mom needed multiple surgeries for arthritis.  Then my dad had cancer.  Since they turned 69 (they are now 72), they've spent more time either in hospitals, or recovering from surgery, than they've had time to enjoy their retirement.  It's not like they spent a lifetime not taking care of themselves though.  While my mom battled her weight most of her life, they did bike, walk, play tennis together.  My dad ran multiple marathons and ran up until he had a stroke.  They were active.

Granted, their story might have been different had they saved that much more and retired 5-10 years earlier.  But that stuff can happen to anyone by the time you hit 55 (I've seen enough stories of guys dying from heart attacks in their 40s).  You only get to live once, and I'm not going to spend my whole life planning to live when I could be almost dead.

My grandfather retired at 62, and he and my grandmother enjoyed a wonderful lifestyle of travel, golf, social life, grandkids, sailing and boating for 20 years until my grandmother got cancer.

He saved hard, and invested hard, and lived a lifestyle most would be envious of for a long time.

He's 88 now and until very recently lived exactly the lifestyle he wanted golfing, snowbirding in padre, etc..  until he has recently been limited by knee/hip issues.   He has no regrets.

 

My dad is 65 and has been very part-time for 5 years now and is loving every minute of it..  traveling where he wants,  buying land to have the farm he always dreamed of, etc.

My aunt and uncle scrimped and saved while they had young children and now are living on a premium golf course in Dallas and taking mega vacations quarterly.... they have an awesome lifestyle.

 

We're all shaped by what we see...    all I've seen is that saving paid off time and time and time again for an awesome lifestyle when so many others are poor and destitute.

I could get in a wreck on the way home and die...  and I suppose I'd regret not getting to do some of the things I'd really love to have done if I'd spent earlier....  but at least I've funded a great lifestyle for those I leave behind... if that's the worst thing I've done, I'm good with that.

[Sand 5,221]

16 minutes ago, Grace Under Pressure said:

Yup. The industry would have you believe we'll all live until 92. Better invest more now.

The finance calculators on the net. Look to see who sponsors them, by and large.

For a couple at 65 there is about an even chance one of them makes it to 90.  

For finance calculators the best, IMO, are Firecalc, the new one from Personal Capital, and the one (mine, excel) I posted in here.  None are connected to a big company and all make good efforts at quantifying this problem.

[humpback 996]

54 minutes ago, Chadstroma said:

1 hour ago, FatUncleJerryBuss said:

We have to take care of people because we let business off the hook for taking care of their retirees.  Hence transfer of wealth and less saving.   Asking people living paycheck to paycheck to save more will always have a poor success rate.  

Let the business off the hook? I am not understanding this.

Some people think everything is their fault.  HTH.

[eoMMan 5,584]

1 hour ago, FatUncleJerryBuss said:

We have to take care of people because we let business off the hook for taking care of their retirees.  Hence transfer of wealth and less saving.   Asking people living paycheck to paycheck to save more will always have a poor success rate.  

I say we just get to the root of the problem and see WHY so people are living to paycheck to paycheck. It's obvious, isn't it? New cars, big screen TVs, eating out, etc.....people live beyond their means. You shouldn't be blaming big business for that. That's just horrible personal finances and horrible personal responsibility.

[eoMMan 5,584]

And I agree we dentist....us/we that are responsible and are saving for retirement shouldn't to have bail out the slackers later on who didn't save when they could. 

[Dentist 1,768]

14 minutes ago, eoMMan said:

I say we just get to the root of the problem and see WHY so people are living to paycheck to paycheck. It's obvious, isn't it? New cars, big screen TVs, eating out, etc.....people live beyond their means. You shouldn't be blaming big business for that. That's just horrible personal finances and horrible personal responsibility.

The lifestyle inflation has been ridiculous.

I blame pay TV, cell phones, broadband, computers,  30 year mortgages, and 60+ month car loans for doing the most effective job and separating people from their money.  

Business and banks have done an incredible job with marketing and finding ways to shear people of their money by way of monthly payments.

Yet, asking people to maybe live in a more affordable home, drive a more affordable car, maybe not have the most recent cellphone with crazy data, or have a premium cable/broadband package with netflix and hbo, etc, etc..  that's somehow unacceptable?

It truly is a wealth transfer... .  the poor/middle class over-consume and the beneficiary is big business and the people that hold stock in said businesses.

A fool and his money are soon parted.

[James Daulton 9,172]

45 minutes ago, Dentist said:

My grandfather retired at 62, and he and my grandmother enjoyed a wonderful lifestyle of travel, golf, social life, grandkids, sailing and boating for 20 years until my grandmother got cancer.

He saved hard, and invested hard, and lived a lifestyle most would be envious of for a long time.

He's 88 now and until very recently lived exactly the lifestyle he wanted golfing, snowbirding in padre, etc..  until he has recently been limited by knee/hip issues.   He has no regrets.

 

My dad is 65 and has been very part-time for 5 years now and is loving every minute of it..  traveling where he wants,  buying land to have the farm he always dreamed of, etc.

My aunt and uncle scrimped and saved while they had young children and now are living on a premium golf course in Dallas and taking mega vacations quarterly.... they have an awesome lifestyle.

 

We're all shaped by what we see...    all I've seen is that saving paid off time and time and time again for an awesome lifestyle when so many others are poor and destitute.

I could get in a wreck on the way home and die...  and I suppose I'd regret not getting to do some of the things I'd really love to have done if I'd spent earlier....  but at least I've funded a great lifestyle for those I leave behind... if that's the worst thing I've done, I'm good with that.

So your grandparents scrimped when they were young and had a young family to share the good life with, but now that they're alone they're living high on the hog?

I'd prefer to make some fantastic memories with my young wife and kids growing up and living a little less extravagantly when I'm older.  Who needs quarterly mega vacations when you're 70?  How about bi-yearly and use some of that money to take an annual mega vacation with your kids when you're younger?

[NutterButter 5,720]

25 minutes ago, James Daulton said:

So your grandparents scrimped when they were young and had a young family to share the good life with, but now that they're alone they're living high on the hog?

I'd prefer to make some fantastic memories with my young wife and kids growing up and living a little less extravagantly when I'm older.  Who needs quarterly mega vacations when you're 70?  How about bi-yearly and use some of that money to take an annual mega vacation with your kids when you're younger?

I'm with you.  I don't know how pumped I'm going to be in my 70's to be going on big vacations 4 times a year.   

[FUBAR 3,037]

26 minutes ago, Dentist said:

The lifestyle inflation has been ridiculous.

I blame pay TV, cell phones, broadband, computers,  30 year mortgages, and 60+ month car loans for doing the most effective job and separating people from their money.  

Business and banks have done an incredible job with marketing and finding ways to shear people of their money by way of monthly payments.

Yet, asking people to maybe live in a more affordable home, drive a more affordable car, maybe not have the most recent cellphone with crazy data, or have a premium cable/broadband package with netflix and hbo, etc, etc..  that's somehow unacceptable?

It truly is a wealth transfer... .  the poor/middle class over-consume and the beneficiary is big business and the people that hold stock in said businesses.

A fool and his money are soon parted.

I'll agree with your point but take umbrage with the concept that the mortgage is to blame.  Banks allowing people to buy more house than they can really afford, people wanting the biggest/best house possible without thinking about whether they really need it... those are the culprits.

[Dentist 1,768]

25 minutes ago, James Daulton said:

So your grandparents scrimped when they were young and had a young family to share the good life with, but now that they're alone they're living high on the hog?

I'd prefer to make some fantastic memories with my young wife and kids growing up and living a little less extravagantly when I'm older.  Who needs quarterly mega vacations when you're 70?  How about bi-yearly and use some of that money to take an annual mega vacation with your kids when you're younger?

Then you spoil your kids and turn them into basspoles who don't save and every subsequent generation of your offspring gets poorer.

When your kids grow up thinking they are middle class, they learn good personal finance lessons and thrive.   That's what my experience has been.

[Dentist 1,768]

Just now, FUBAR said:

I'll agree with your point but take umbrage with the concept that the mortgage is to blame.  Banks allowing people to buy more house than they can really afford, people wanting the biggest/best house possible without thinking about whether they really need it... those are the culprits.

 

Sure, at it's heart the loan isn't to blame..  neither is the 84 month car loan...  the instruments aren't the issue.. it's the people using them.

But if the instruments weren't available, or at least weren't recommended choices that most people used, it would be better.

The concept that people can afford what the banks are willing to lend is problematic....  again, not the banks fault... their job is to extract as much money from you as possible.

 

And hey, via my ETFs and mutual funds I own plenty of BoA, Wells Fargo, etc...  so they profit, I profit....  go for it banks!

[James Daulton 9,172]

23 minutes ago, Dentist said:

Then you spoil your kids and turn them into basspoles who don't save and every subsequent generation of your offspring gets poorer.

When your kids grow up thinking they are middle class, they learn good personal finance lessons and thrive.   That's what my experience has been.

No middle ground there huh?

You are like the real world Scrooge McDuck, only with fewer feathers and more fascination with excrement.  You wear a monocle by any chance?

Edited April 26, 2016 by James Daulton

[IC FBGCav 5,565]

Having 5 million in the bank only gives someone more reason to "make me have an accident".

Edited April 26, 2016 by FatUncleJerryBuss

[Dentist 1,768]

8 minutes ago, James Daulton said:

You wear a monocle by any chance?

too expensive

[Bull Dozier 3,501]

1 hour ago, James Daulton said:

So your grandparents scrimped when they were young and had a young family to share the good life with, but now that they're alone they're living high on the hog?

I'd prefer to make some fantastic memories with my young wife and kids growing up and living a little less extravagantly when I'm older.  Who needs quarterly mega vacations when you're 70?  How about bi-yearly and use some of that money to take an annual mega vacation with your kids when you're younger?

I agree with this as well.  My kids only have one childhood.  I want them to have a good one, and make great memories.  I probably spend more money on them than I should based on my income and saving rates, but I also want to reward them for their hard work.  They have one job, in my opinion, and that is school.  My college freshman made the dean's list.  Both my middle school boys are on the A honor roll.  They chip in and work around the house as well.  Working that hard, AND having to go play kick the can in the streets to entertain themselves, AND never go anywhere over the summer would be a miserable childhood.  I wouldn't want to put them through that.

I'll sacrifice the extravagent retirement vacations for some experiences while the kids are younger.  I'll have enough to retire to not have to worry about having a roof over my head, food on the table, and some extra fun money.  If I'm healthy enough that I want more out of life, I have no problem finding some part time job that would provide me with some extra cash.  If I'm not healthy enough to still be working, I'm probably not healthy enough to be flying to Europe and hiking the alps either.

[FUBAR 3,037]

1 hour ago, Dentist said:

 

Sure, at it's heart the loan isn't to blame..  neither is the 84 month car loan...  the instruments aren't the issue.. it's the people using them.

But if the instruments weren't available, or at least weren't recommended choices that most people used, it would be better.

The concept that people can afford what the banks are willing to lend is problematic....  again, not the banks fault... their job is to extract as much money from you as possible.

 

And hey, via my ETFs and mutual funds I own plenty of BoA, Wells Fargo, etc...  so they profit, I profit....  go for it banks!

there's a HUGE difference between the 30 year mortgage and the 84 month car loan.  (pretty sure you know this, but others seem to treat them similarly)

[Johnnymac 1,110]

2 hours ago, eoMMan said:

I say we just get to the root of the problem and see WHY so people are living to paycheck to paycheck. It's obvious, isn't it? New cars, big screen TVs, eating out, etc.....people live beyond their means. You shouldn't be blaming big business for that. That's just horrible personal finances and horrible personal responsibility.

So nobody drove new cars 50 years ago?  My big screen TV cost me $800, hardly puts me in the poor house.  People do not save because of many reasons.  maybe they just dont handle money very well, or maybe they dont understand investing, or maybe they dont make enough money to save anything.  You cant put people who have not saved money all in the same basket. 

I do think big business is the major cause.  Income inequality is real and thats why Bernie has a movement.  Its not something he made up to get votes.  Wages have for the most part been stagnant for the last 35 years and people expect everyone to save a million bucks for retirement????  Not going to happen because for many, many working people it simply is not possible.

[Chadstroma 1,985]

I don't understand the people who penny pinch every last possible penny in order to put money away in order to retire with globs of money to golf every day.

I don't understand the people who never put any money away to prepare for their retirement.

For me, there is balance. You live now while trying to not go crazy and put a decent amount of money away so that you can retire at a decent age and not have to work (unless you want to).

I can't tell you how many heartbreaking conversations I have had with seniors who are in financial hardship because they are basically living off of social security and that is it. I will never, ever forget doing some volunteer work for an organization where we would go to housing for seniors and disabled and offer to do their grocery shopping for them. On one hand it was nice to help them out and on the other it was really rough because these people lived in these small sort of one bedroom apartments that could fit in my living room and had to be very specific on exactly what we got for them because they had to plan out their meals in order to have something to eat and not run out of money. That wasn't living- it was waiting to die.

I don't want to end up that way but I also am not about to not live life now. Most of my money now is paying for school/childcare but that will be decreasing moving forward towards a few years not being something I pay for. We will use a significant portion of that money towards retirement/investment funds but some of it will be used for other things like taking a vacation now etc.

Live now and prepare to live tomorrow. Don't go crazy on either side.

[FUBAR 3,037]

13 minutes ago, Chadstroma said:

I don't understand the people who penny pinch every last possible penny in order to put money away in order to retire with globs of money to golf every day.

I don't understand the people who never put any money away to prepare for their retirement.

I'm no shrink but I think both behaviors are rooted in fear.

my question for the first group is whether they really will spend money in retirement or if they'll believe they always need more.

Edited April 26, 2016 by FUBAR

[eoMMan 5,584]

18 minutes ago, Johnnymac said:

So nobody drove new cars 50 years ago?  My big screen TV cost me $800, hardly puts me in the poor house.  People do not save because of many reasons.  maybe they just dont handle money very well, or maybe they dont understand investing, or maybe they dont make enough money to save anything.  You cant put people who have not saved money all in the same basket. 

I do think big business is the major cause.  Income inequality is real and thats why Bernie has a movement.  Its not something he made up to get votes.  Wages have for the most part been stagnant for the last 35 years and people expect everyone to save a million bucks for retirement????  Not going to happen because for many, many working people it simply is not possible.

Everyone can save something. Everyone can cut back an expense somewhere. I'm not suggesting that everyone has the ability to max out there 401k or even their IRA, but they can definitely get out of the hole of living paycheck to paycheck. You just gotta prioritize.

And speaking of TVs, our HD TV is several years old and didn't cost $800 when we got it new. My wife and I are DINKS and could definitely afford a much larger, look at me, TV....but that's not where we choose to put our money.

And regarding education of investing/finance, I agree that it should be more readily available  (especially for HS students). However, even if you were simply putting cash in a coffee can, you can break the paycheck to paycheck cycle. This doesn't need to be rocket surgery. 

[Johnnymac 1,110]

8 minutes ago, eoMMan said:

Everyone can save something. Everyone can cut back an expense somewhere. I'm not suggesting that everyone has the ability to max out there 401k or even their IRA, but they can definitely get out of the hole of living paycheck to paycheck. You just gotta prioritize.

And speaking of TVs, our HD TV is several years old and didn't cost $800 when we got it new. My wife and I are DINKS and could definitely afford a much larger, look at me, TV....but that's not where we choose to put our money.

And regarding education of investing/finance, I agree that it should be more readily available  (especially for HS students). However, even if you were simply putting cash in a coffee can, you can break the paycheck to paycheck cycle. This doesn't need to be rocket surgery. 

Sure everyone can always save by cutting back here and there.  I guess my point is bigger picture.  I would say many of those people may say to hell with retirement, I need the money now.  I think many of them feel like they will never be able to retire anyway.

[IC FBGCav 5,565]

This thread was started about Wall Street taking peoples retirement through expense ratios.............and now it is about lazy bums who wont save. Well done FFA, well done.  

[Binky The Doormat 12,035]

42 minutes ago, FatUncleJerryBuss said:

This thread was started about Wall Street taking peoples retirement through expense ratios.............and now it is about lazy bums who wont save. Well done FFA, well done.  

Hey - its 76 pages and several years later.

We're lucky the conversation still contains references to money.  

[James Daulton 9,172]

1 hour ago, FatUncleJerryBuss said:

This thread was started about Wall Street taking peoples retirement through expense ratios.............and now it is about lazy bums who wont save. Well done FFA, well done.  

Pretty sure we all hate Wall Street and Dentist hates anyone who doesn't save enough to take 2 round the world trips each year when retired.

And only one weekend trip to a state park per year while the kids are still in the house!

[xulf 2,228]

Dentist- so you have a family of savers rather than doers.  Do you some day think you are going to get a piece of that?

 

I'm not asking as an ###, but my parents were savers and theb frugals for the most part in retirement.  Same with the in-laws.  I keep telling everyone to spend, spend, spend on what they want b/c they don't owe us kids anything.

 

But at the same time I have a large net under me.

Edited April 27, 2016 by xulf

[Dentist 1,768]

5 minutes ago, xulf said:

Dentist- so you have a family of savers rather than doers.  Do you some day think you are going to get a piece of that?

 

I'm not asking as an ###, but my parents were savers and theb frugals for the most part in retirement.  Same with the in-laws.  I keep telling everyone to spend, spend, spend on what they want b/c they don't owe us kids anything.

 

But at the same time I have a large net under me.

On track to inherit millions most likely from multiple sources

[Grace Under Pressure 3,946]

14 hours ago, FatUncleJerryBuss said:

This thread was started about Wall Street taking peoples retirement through expense ratios.............and now it is about lazy bums who wont save. Well done FFA, well done.  

I am here to rail against the system once in a while 

That said, I follow the great advice in here and do the right thing responsibility-wise (my numbers are a few pages back), so for me the thread serves multiple important purposes. Best non-humorous thread in the FFA by far, IMO.

[NutterButter 5,720]

14 hours ago, FatUncleJerryBuss said:

This thread was started about Wall Street taking peoples retirement through expense ratios.............and now it is about lazy bums who wont save. Well done FFA, well done.  

 

13 hours ago, James Daulton said:

Pretty sure we all hate Wall Street and Dentist hates anyone who doesn't save enough to take 2 round the world trips each year when retired.

And only one weekend trip to a state park per year while the kids are still in the house!

 

[Dentist 1,768]

14 hours ago, FatUncleJerryBuss said:

This thread was started about Wall Street taking peoples retirement through expense ratios.............and now it is about lazy bums who wont save. Well done FFA, well done.  

I think once you discuss expense ratios and index funds it's a pretty short discussion.    I'm certainly glad programs like this Frontline one have paved the way for further reforms.. I'm glad that competition in the financial services industry have dropped expense ratios to the floor.

It doesn't have to be expensive to invest anymore.   Open a TD Ameritrade account,  use a commission free ETF that will likely have an expense ratio under 0.2%.   Follow a basic stock/bond ratio that's age appropriate, and you're done.     It's never been cheaper or easier to invest by yourself in the history of the stock market.

The rules changing that hold financial people to a fiduciary standard are also great.

I think things are reforming rapidly.. and I'm happy about it.      The only sad part is that it's so hard to communicate that to the average person...  so many people still think they need a "guy" to do all this.... due mostly to fear.

[Bob Sacamano 9,270]

38 minutes ago, Dentist said:

I think once you discuss expense ratios and index funds it's a pretty short discussion.    I'm certainly glad programs like this Frontline one have paved the way for further reforms.. I'm glad that competition in the financial services industry have dropped expense ratios to the floor.

It doesn't have to be expensive to invest anymore.   Open a TD Ameritrade account,  use a commission free ETF that will likely have an expense ratio under 0.2%.   Follow a basic stock/bond ratio that's age appropriate, and you're done.     It's never been cheaper or easier to invest by yourself in the history of the stock market.

The rules changing that hold financial people to a fiduciary standard are also great.

I think things are reforming rapidly.. and I'm happy about it.      The only sad part is that it's so hard to communicate that to the average person...  so many people still think they need a "guy" to do all this.... due mostly to fear.

BUT WALL STREET'S STEALING OUR MONEY!!!!

[mquinnjr 3,009]

3 minutes ago, Bob Sacamano said:

BUT WALL STREET'S STEALING OUR MONEY!!!!

Don't invest in the Wall Street Casino, they'll rob you blind! It's never been easier to flip mortgage notes and get rich quick! Come to my free seminar for more exciting details.

:merica:

[Bob Sacamano 9,270]

It's not a matter of if the market crashes again.  It's a matter of when!

[Chadstroma 1,985]

17 hours ago, FatUncleJerryBuss said:

This thread was started about Wall Street taking peoples retirement through expense ratios.............and now it is about lazy bums who wont save. Well done FFA, well done.  

Any rational person would see that both are problems.

[Chadstroma 1,985]

1 hour ago, Bob Sacamano said:

It's not a matter of if the market crashes again.  It's a matter of when!

Not exactly going on a limb there. 

[wilked 1,976]

The main problem with 401Ks is that:

 

-The majority are crappy plans, filled with high expense ratio funds

-What training does occur is by the snakes at the 401k firm, who tout their high expense ratio funds

-You almost have to get lucky and find a forum like this, have a good friend or parent, or watch Frontline to be saved from the 'system'

 

Everything is set up to suck your retirement dollars out like a leach and into Wall St money managers' pockets

[IC FBGCav 5,565]

7 minutes ago, wilked said:

The main problem with 401Ks is that:

 

-The majority are crappy plans, filled with high expense ratio funds

-What training does occur is by the snakes at the 401k firm, who tout their high expense ratio funds

-You almost have to get lucky and find a forum like this, have a good friend or parent, or watch Frontline to be saved from the 'system'

 

Everything is set up to suck your retirement dollars out like a leach and into Wall St money managers' pockets

And thanks to your help these are the funds our company now has:

 

https://www.sponsorportal.com/SponsorsPortal/index.cfm?nfc&custno=f1fc5413-fc23-4593-94a9-7288aa905ab9&plan=8135&sortby=name

[Johnnymac 1,110]

http://www.nextavenue.org/how-the-dream-of-retirement-is-becoming-a-nightmare/

[NutterButter 5,720]

2 people getting 16k each in SS doesn't sound too bad.  Its not going to be very good, but from the sound of it, neither was their pre-retirement years.  So important to pick a career that pays decently.      

[lod01 905]

37 minutes ago, Johnnymac said:

http://www.nextavenue.org/how-the-dream-of-retirement-is-becoming-a-nightmare/

This makes my point when people come out saying SS won't be there for them when they retire.

Oh and one last thing: Puleeeze, don’t talk to us about cutting Social Security.

For millions of Americans, Social Security is The Retirement Plan: 65 percent of beneficiaries depend on it for half or more of their monthly income. Without it, nearly half of women 65 and older would live in poverty or extreme poverty. Let’s not gloss over what extreme poverty means. It means living on less than $5,885 per year or $490 a month.

So when you threaten to cut entitlement programs like Social Security, what you’re really talking about is dooming millions and millions of boomer-age women to misery and destitution. Boomer-age women who vote.

 

[eoMMan 5,584]

The fact that so many people are irresponsible with retirement saving means that Social Security HAS to be around. For some, that will be their only source of income. Changes will be made to the program but it's not going away.

[lod01 905]

2 hours ago, eoMMan said:

The fact that so many people are irresponsible with retirement saving means that Social Security HAS to be around. For some, that will be their only source of income. Changes will be made to the program but it's not going away.

Exactly. Also, there will never be a time when the gov't hands the general public an SS lump sum and allows them to manage it. The fact that 50% of humanoids have no retirement tells what would happen in that scenario.

[Doctor Detroit 20,905]

Quote

 

GAO was asked to review the trends on DC plans (401(k)s, Individual Retirement Accounts, etc.) because they have become the dominant form for how Americans save for retirement, replacing the once common pension plans offered by the government and many private companies.

GAO found that 60% of working households have no money in any type of DC plan. The biggest reason by far for this was due to lack of access. The majority of those with no money in any plan (39%) did not have access to one. 34% of working households had no DC plan from either a current or previous job.

However, there was some good news from the study: 61% of working households have access to a DC plan, and of those, a majority participate. According to 2013 data, 86% of working households that could participate in a DC plan of some sort were doing so.

Discrepancies stood out even more based on income. Lower income families were much less likely to have any savings inside of a DC plan, even if they worked in a job that offered one. For example, GAO found that 35% of lower income families had access to a DC plan, however, only 64% of those that did participated. In higher income families, 95% who had access to a DC plan were participating. Higher income households also had more access (80%) to a DC plan of some kind.

- See more at: http://www.fedsmith.com/2016/05/09/gao-majority-of-american-households-have-no-defined-contribution-plan-savings-for-retirement/#sthash.1ecJds5X.dpuf

 

Edited May 13, 2016 by Doctor Detroit

[Tom Hagen 1,399]

Quote

GAO was asked to review the trends on DC plans (401(k)s, Individual Retirement Accounts, etc.) because they have become the dominant form for how Americans save for retirement, replacing the once common pension plans offered by the government and many private companies.

GAO found that 60% of working households have no money in any type of DC plan. The biggest reason by far for this was due to lack of access. The majority of those with no money in any plan (39%) did not have access to one. 34% of working households had no DC plan from either a current or previous job.

 

I'm not sure how they lacked access to a plan when they could open an IRA at any bank (assuming working household = earned income). 

[matuski 4,853]

13 minutes ago, Tom Hagen said:

 

I'm not sure how they lacked access to a plan when they could open an IRA at any bank (assuming working household = earned income). 

DC = Defined Contribution Plan.

[Tom Hagen 1,399]

3 minutes ago, matuski said:

DC = Defined Contribution Plan.

The first line DD's quote specifically includes IRA's in the definition of a defined contribution plan but then claims people do not have access to one.

Quote

GAO was asked to review the trends on DC plans (401(k)s, Individual Retirement Accounts, etc.)

 

[matuski 4,853]

Just now, Tom Hagen said:

The first line DD's quote specifically includes IRA's in the definition of a defined contribution plan but then claims people do not have access to one.

 

The second part specifically notes it is talking about lack of access to DC plans.. the part you didn't quote.

[Grace Under Pressure 3,946]

That article is on a Federal government blog. Reading the comments has me checking the government websites for jobs. The job security oozes from their pores. I know everyone's situation is different, but I can't responsibly plan to have a 40 year career in one place with no questions asked like those guys seem to be doing. It seems a little disconnected, the public & private sector risks in employment aren't equal. And I've seen the argument that the private sector pays higher. Then I check the salary ranges on these G grades, and I find that difficult to believe.

[Sand 5,221]

1 hour ago, Grace Under Pressure said:

That article is on a Federal government blog. Reading the comments has me checking the government websites for jobs. The job security oozes from their pores. I know everyone's situation is different, but I can't responsibly plan to have a 40 year career in one place with no questions asked like those guys seem to be doing. It seems a little disconnected, the public & private sector risks in employment aren't equal. And I've seen the argument that the private sector pays higher. Then I check the salary ranges on these G grades, and I find that difficult to believe.

The supposition that government jobs pay less than private sector hasn't been true for a while.  On the whole they are significantly higher compensation.

[RUSF18 3,605]

1 minute ago, Sand said:

The supposition that government jobs pay less than private sector hasn't been true for a while.  On the whole they are significantly higher compensation.

I spent 9+ years working for a non-appropriated agency, so I agree that even excluding benefits, the pay can be sneaky good. But even when factoring in I could get away with 40% of my salary in a pension if I worked that many years (I started before I turned 22) I wasn't coming out ahead by sticking around when factoring in the higher comp (salary plus bonus) over all those years. 

[Dentist 1,768]

On 4/28/2016 at 7:09 PM, lod01 said:

Exactly. Also, there will never be a time when the gov't hands the general public an SS lump sum and allows them to manage it. The fact that 50% of humanoids have no retirement tells what would happen in that scenario.

It's sad to me the government has to have a program to care more for people than they bother to do themselves.

But then again I guess people really don't care about themselves much at all really, so few take good care of themselves, their offspring, their money, or really anything.