Well, if they get taken to the cleaners, clearly it’s all their fault… if they had just kept their money in the right kind of fund, kept it in for 40 years, and managed to NOT retire during an economic crash, then they’re entirely to blame! /s
9 Likes
As you noted- it’s not either or.
A diversified retirement strategy might best include a pension and savings via a tax deferred scheme. And social insurance.
Stools with one leg aren’t very stable.
7 Likes
And yet they are remarkably nice places to live!
Seriously, I often hear that from people in the financial sector, but I have yet to meet someone outside it who thinks of a house primarily as an investment rather than a home. (I have often thought to myself that if only I had a better class of friend, I would get to meet more ponies. So this may be related.)
2 Likes
This is pretty much the case, I’m a late Xer and plenty of my cohorts are living in the homes they grew up in that are still owned by their parents, now occupied by one or more of the children and their family. The parents move out to downsize but don’t sell, their kids just live in it still.
2 Likes
I believe this was also the case in the glorious past of the America’s gilded age which current economic policies are designed to resurrect.
1 Like
The thing is, is that rise of 401ks came at the EXPENSE of a pension. They did away with alternatives to 401ks and they’d do the same to social security if they could.
8 Likes
Oh yes. Can’t let the plebes have security.
That’s for their betters.
7 Likes
Especially when you can steer them towards products that will turn a profit for those betters… /s
The thing that kills me is that none of this is rocket surgery… we have answers and solutions to this stuff, that people have been doing for this past century or so.
8 Likes
Churn baby churn!
Yeah - they pulled that on a family member.
Burned through his entire retirement account- putting him is high risk stocks when he was 80 - and knew nothing about investment- worked on cars. Got a nest egg from his parents when they passed.
2 Likes
Did you just assume my gender? But no. I was making the case that it doesn’t have to be hard to invest. If you don’t want to take time to learn, invest in a broad low cost index fund, and you’ll be fine. There’s no step two.
I personally don’t want to stay at the same job for 40 years to get a pension that might be taken away. I’ll take my chances (and portability) with the 401k.
4 Likes
No, unless “you’re” is somehow gendered. To be clear, I don’t think anyone here is under the impression that you manage a fund or operate a trading platform for multiple people.
Assuming everyone knows what that means. Which they don’t unless they take the time to learn the basics.
A lot of people do want to stay at the same job for 40 years. For a long time, they didn’t have to worry about having the pension taken away. That only changed when St. Ronnie arrived on the scene with his +100 Wand of Deregulation.
Not as portable as you think. The old employer’s plan, matching contributions, and/or tax advantages don’t necessarily go with you to the new employer or to a self-managed IRA.
That’s why 401k-type investment pensions need to be separated from corporate benefits management. The only involvement by the employer should be to match the contributions.
5 Likes
But it’s good for you to have to invest in the companies’ stock!
3 Likes
Nor should they be, since I never said nor implied that. Not sure where this is coming from.
Unfortunately sometimes you have to learn things for yourself. When you’re talking about your future, maybe make some time to learn. It’s important.
That’s great, and they can do that if they want to. Choice is good for everyone.
Of course not, nor would I expect them to. That’s part of the whole process of deciding if you want to move to a different job or not. Just like if you’re at a job that has a pension. But what I’ve already earned is mine, and it won’t disappear if i change jobs.
In response to your comment. The people wetting their beaks are theoretical fund managers, operators of trading platforms, etc. “You’re” refers to you – a different person from “someone”.
I wish the administrators and school boards of most public K-12 districts felt this way about financial literacy courses. Unfortunately, it seems that the more conservative a district’s leadership, the less willing they are to fund such courses (even as they lavish funds on the football team). Odd, that… it’s almost as if they’d prefer that future consumers/human resources be financially illiterate.
Counting on young people who think they’ll be young forever to learn this stuff on their own or from their parents is as disastrous a choice as calling for sex ed to be taken out of the schools and left to the kids and parents.
As with healthcare insurance, it should play no part in the decision to move to a different job beyond the question: will the new place contribute more to my pension plan than the old one?
By your own terms, a 401k is better off being managed by the employee or a management company he hires than it is by his employer. Similarly, a defined-benefits plan (a more complex beast) is better off being managed by a union that’s accountable to the employee, rather than by his employer. A benefits plan should not be used to chain an employee to an employer.
6 Likes
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
