Rob Base 2.0
Well-Known Member
Joined: Feb 23, 2017 18:12:07 GMT -5
Posts: 1,538
|
Post by Rob Base 2.0 on Feb 24, 2017 9:28:20 GMT -5
|
|
cronewitch
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:44:20 GMT -5
Posts: 5,976
|
Post by cronewitch on Feb 24, 2017 9:38:42 GMT -5
I believe it but I did payroll. Some also only put in $5 a week when they are over 50.
Welcome Kayfresh
|
|
Rob Base 2.0
Well-Known Member
Joined: Feb 23, 2017 18:12:07 GMT -5
Posts: 1,538
|
Post by Rob Base 2.0 on Feb 24, 2017 9:42:13 GMT -5
I believe it but I did payroll. Some also only put in $5 a week when they are over 50. Welcome Kayfresh
thanks but I yam knot knew
just got locked out of old account (but Moon hooked me up)
|
|
ohmomto2boys
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 9:25:38 GMT -5
Posts: 1,008
|
Post by ohmomto2boys on Feb 24, 2017 10:02:03 GMT -5
Yep, I believe it. I do payroll as well and there are employees who do not put any of their own $ in, and only get 3% from employer. These people are upper 20's low 30's of age. There are 35 employees and 5 do not contribute. Not 2/3, but still stupid.
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Feb 24, 2017 10:06:06 GMT -5
Many people simply do not make enough to cover their bills, so 401-K contributions seem out of reach for them. Five dollars a week is better than nothing...... I too, saw it first hand when I worked. I had people working under me that used it as a cash machine with several loans over the years that they repaid, but left their balances woefully under filled because they lost increases of their funds and paid just some interest back.
|
|
haapai
Junior Associate
Character
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:40:06 GMT -5
Posts: 5,895
|
Post by haapai on Feb 24, 2017 10:07:19 GMT -5
I have no trouble at all believing it. What surprises me is that we've been relying on skewed survey data for so long. These horrible numbers are closer to what I'd expect.
I would like to see the numbers of employees who don't contribute to a 401(k) but do contribute to an IRA. I don't think that the picture would improve much, but I would like to know those numbers, especially since teasing them out of that dataset should be very simple.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 14, 2024 9:49:57 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2017 10:12:18 GMT -5
Many people simply do not make enough to cover their bills, so 401-K contributions seem out of reach for them. Five dollars a week is better than nothing...... I too, saw it first hand when I worked. I had people working under me that used it as a cash machine with several loans over the years that they repaid, but left their balances woefully under filled because they lost increases of their funds and paid just some interest back. I'm not sure I buy the 2/3 amount. I don't think that's true here because a lot of people contribute to get the match, BUT they also are constantly taking out loans. It's super easy with our plan. Just a quick few clicks on the website and then a payroll deduction. I don't hear a lot of talk like this now that I'm in the office, but when I was on the production floor it was common to talk about purchases and how they were acquired. People were constantly taking out loans. Some would get a car, pay that off, then get a boat, pay that off, then redo their kitchen...it was a constant cycle.
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Feb 24, 2017 10:55:23 GMT -5
Many people simply do not make enough to cover their bills, so 401-K contributions seem out of reach for them. Five dollars a week is better than nothing...... I too, saw it first hand when I worked. I had people working under me that used it as a cash machine with several loans over the years that they repaid, but left their balances woefully under filled because they lost increases of their funds and paid just some interest back. I'm not sure I buy the 2/3 amount. I don't think that's true here because a lot of people contribute to get the match, BUT they also are constantly taking out loans. It's super easy with our plan. Just a quick few clicks on the website and then a payroll deduction. I don't hear a lot of talk like this now that I'm in the office, but when I was on the production floor it was common to talk about purchases and how they were acquired. People were constantly taking out loans. Some would get a car, pay that off, then get a boat, pay that off, then redo their kitchen...it was a constant cycle. The worst reason I ever heard? We need that large screen television.......back when they would push you back $2,000 or more.
|
|
tskeeter
Junior Associate
Joined: Mar 20, 2011 19:37:45 GMT -5
Posts: 6,831
|
Post by tskeeter on Feb 24, 2017 11:00:22 GMT -5
In part, a scare story. Our local school teachers would be part of the 2/3 who aren't contributing to a workplace retirement plan. How can I make a blanket statement like this? Because the school district contributes 24.75% of the teacher's pay to their retirement account. At that contribution level, what the school district kicks in will fund a quite comfortable retirement. No need for a teacher to contribute to a 403B so they will have adequate retirement saving. I wonder how many other folks who are part of the "unfunded 2/3" are in a similar situation?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 14, 2024 9:49:57 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2017 11:02:55 GMT -5
As a manager for every new employee I go over the 401k plan again after HR essentially just hands them a piece of paper about it. Obviously I don't go near investment advice but just reinforce the company match and what it takes to get it.
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Feb 24, 2017 11:07:27 GMT -5
In part, a scare story. Our local school teachers would be part of the 2/3 who aren't contributing to a workplace retirement plan. How can I make a blanket statement like this? Because the school district contributes 24.75% of the teacher's pay to their retirement account. At that contribution level, what the school district kicks in will fund a quite comfortable retirement. No need for a teacher to contribute to a 403B so they will have adequate retirement saving. I wonder how many other folks who are part of the "unfounded 2/3" are in a similar situation? Exactly. TD is a consultant and the company he consults through has a 401k with lousy choices and high expenses, so he does not contribute, he just funds other investments. Not it looks like my remaining retirement vehicle has been taken from me, do I'll do the same. FWIW....my previous employer in TX also has a large, well funded pension plan that covered a LOT of employees in the state.
|
|
Rob Base 2.0
Well-Known Member
Joined: Feb 23, 2017 18:12:07 GMT -5
Posts: 1,538
|
Post by Rob Base 2.0 on Feb 24, 2017 11:20:13 GMT -5
In part, a scare story. Our local school teachers would be part of the 2/3 who aren't contributing to a workplace retirement plan. How can I make a blanket statement like this? Because the school district contributes 24.75% of the teacher's pay to their retirement account. At that contribution level, what the school district kicks in will fund a quite comfortable retirement. No need for a teacher to contribute to a 403B so they will have adequate retirement saving. I wonder how many other folks who are part of the "unfounded 2/3" are in a similar situation?
"unfounded 2/3"?
from the article- "Census researchers Michael Gideon and Joshua Mitchell analyzed W-2 tax records from 2012 to identify 6.2 million unique employers and 155 million individual workers, who held 219 million distinct jobs."
Sure you can say it doesn't show how many of the peeps on the 2/3rds category contribute to Roth & traditional IRAs, or how many of them have a pension plan, etc. .......but it's not "unfounded"
and do you really think a significant number of peeps have a teacher like retirement? or a pension?
Peeps just can't save, no matter how much they make or what "incentives" they are given to save....unfortunately it is human nature NOT to save
Most peeps aren't like those on this board
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 14, 2024 9:49:57 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2017 11:24:53 GMT -5
In part, a scare story. Our local school teachers would be part of the 2/3 who aren't contributing to a workplace retirement plan. How can I make a blanket statement like this? Because the school district contributes 24.75% of the teacher's pay to their retirement account. At that contribution level, what the school district kicks in will fund a quite comfortable retirement. No need for a teacher to contribute to a 403B so they will have adequate retirement saving. I wonder how many other folks who are part of the "unfounded 2/3" are in a similar situation?
"unfounded 2/3"?
from the article- "Census researchers Michael Gideon and Joshua Mitchell analyzed W-2 tax records from 2012 to identify 6.2 million unique employers and 155 million individual workers, who held 219 million distinct jobs."
Sure you can say it doesn't show how many of the peeps on the 2/3rds category contribute to Roth & traditional IRAs, or how many of them have a pension plan, etc. .......but it's not "unfounded"
and do you really think a significant number of peeps have a teacher like retirement? or a pension?
Peeps just can't save, no matter how much they make or what "incentives" they are given to save....unfortunately it is human nature NOT to save
Most peeps aren't like those on this board
I don't disagree with that, but I still think 2/3 is inflated.
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Feb 24, 2017 11:31:49 GMT -5
In part, a scare story. Our local school teachers would be part of the 2/3 who aren't contributing to a workplace retirement plan. How can I make a blanket statement like this? Because the school district contributes 24.75% of the teacher's pay to their retirement account. At that contribution level, what the school district kicks in will fund a quite comfortable retirement. No need for a teacher to contribute to a 403B so they will have adequate retirement saving. I wonder how many other folks who are part of the "unfounded 2/3" are in a similar situation?
"unfounded 2/3"?
from the article- "Census researchers Michael Gideon and Joshua Mitchell analyzed W-2 tax records from 2012 to identify 6.2 million unique employers and 155 million individual workers, who held 219 million distinct jobs."
Sure you can say it doesn't show how many of the peeps on the 2/3rds category contribute to Roth & traditional IRAs, or how many of them have a pension plan, etc. .......but it's not "unfounded"
and do you really think a significant number of peeps have a teacher like retirement? or a pension?
Peeps just can't save, no matter how much they make or what "incentives" they are given to save....unfortunately it is human nature NOT to save
Most peeps aren't like those on this board
Neither DH nor I contribute to retirement vehicles. If you consider that some of those 2/3 are already retired. Some have pensions (I know a lot who have pensions in my field)....consider that many state employees like government officials/admin, fireman and policemen, teachers, many university employees, etc. have pensions....then yes. Many of the big car manufacturers have at least some of their employees in pensions. I know Boeing has employees (some) in pensions.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 14, 2024 9:49:57 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2017 11:36:56 GMT -5
My employer has a defined contribution pension which is rare now a days. It is essentially like getting more 401k contributions that is managed by the company. They also offer a 401k match.
|
|
bean29
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 22:26:57 GMT -5
Posts: 9,956
Member is Online
|
Post by bean29 on Feb 24, 2017 11:37:15 GMT -5
They say the lower income people have a greater % of their income replaced by SS, so it would be interesting to see the ##'s crunched with that group eliminated, or taking that into consideration. I have to think that people are underfunded for retirement. Most people have too much house/car and lifestyle enhancements like vacations etc, and too little concern for the future. When the last of the baby boomers move to retirement territory I think the stress fractures will really be evident, especially for those of us who have no pension with health insurance benes included in the plan.
|
|
alabamagal
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 11:30:29 GMT -5
Posts: 8,121
|
Post by alabamagal on Feb 24, 2017 11:45:05 GMT -5
I was a non-contributer for several years in my late 40s-early 50s In my case, it was a small employer with high fee, crappy plan. The first year we got a match and I contributed. Next year the match was cut. I was also in a 0% to even negative tax bracket due to 1-3 kids in college, so I didn't need tax breaks. Plus I have pension and 401k from previous employer. But obviously that is a very specialized (and short term) issue. I have always contributed at least to get company match. I think there are a lot of reasons people don't contribute. I have heard "I'm not letting my company keep my money" - even though that is incorrect. "I don't trust the stock market" - even though there are usually other options.
|
|
Rob Base 2.0
Well-Known Member
Joined: Feb 23, 2017 18:12:07 GMT -5
Posts: 1,538
|
Post by Rob Base 2.0 on Feb 24, 2017 11:46:51 GMT -5
"unfounded 2/3"?
from the article- "Census researchers Michael Gideon and Joshua Mitchell analyzed W-2 tax records from 2012 to identify 6.2 million unique employers and 155 million individual workers, who held 219 million distinct jobs."
Sure you can say it doesn't show how many of the peeps on the 2/3rds category contribute to Roth & traditional IRAs, or how many of them have a pension plan, etc. .......but it's not "unfounded"
and do you really think a significant number of peeps have a teacher like retirement? or a pension?
Peeps just can't save, no matter how much they make or what "incentives" they are given to save....unfortunately it is human nature NOT to save
Most peeps aren't like those on this board
Neither DH nor I contribute to retirement vehicles. If you consider that some of those 2/3 are already retired. Some have pensions (I know a lot who have pensions in my field)....consider that many state employees like government officials/admin, fireman and policemen, teachers, many university employees, etc. have pensions....then yes. Many of the big car manufacturers have at least some of their employees in pensions. I know Boeing has employees (some) in pensions.
Why is it hard for peeps to read??
some of those 2/3rds are NOT retired based on the stat the dudes used
the stat is based on WORKING peeps only
once again from the article it is based on reviewing the taxes of ".... 155 million WORKERS, who held 219 million distinct JOBS"
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Feb 24, 2017 12:02:03 GMT -5
It says the data is based on W-2s. Many retirees work well through retirement and receive W-2s so you cannot discount that. Both my dad and stepmother did, for something to get them out of the house. They did not work to contribute to retirement, but to have more play money.
Quite frankly, it was not a well done project. There were a LOT of variables that they did not account for statistically. Examples of this are teenagers working in HS, consultants, pensions, retirees, etc.
|
|
haapai
Junior Associate
Character
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:40:06 GMT -5
Posts: 5,895
|
Post by haapai on Feb 24, 2017 12:06:26 GMT -5
I was wrong about the ease with which folks who contribute to IRAs but not 401(k)s could be identified. I've googled the authors of the study and been unable to find a link to it but I have found a number of other stories on the study. They are all quite scant, but if you read enough of them, you will eventually figure out that they were looking at W-2s, not tax returns. It also seems clear that the study identified individual tax-payers, so folks who had multiple W-2s but only showed workplace contributions on one of them, were not classified as non-savers.
But I have some doubts that adding the folks that pass on workplace plans but contribute elsewhere are all that numerous. Some of you are probably here, but I still don't think that there are nearly enough of you to explain the huge discrepancy between the percentage of non-savers identified by surveys and what this approach suggests.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 14, 2024 9:49:57 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2017 12:07:33 GMT -5
Well, things I can think of besides all the government workers and people with pensions that might be skewing this.
Low income might not need it, (Full SS is predicted to cover 90% of my current net), or they are young and funneling it all towards other things. I wouldn't say a young person is being irresponsible by foregoing retirement savings while getting started or paying their way through school. Then married couples can really mess up these numbers. There are married couples where they are contributing all to the better plan. When I was married to my first husband his 401K sucked and had no match so we just used mine exclusively for a number of years. There are lots of couples where one spouse is working a job and part but it might just be part time and they don't utilize the benefits.
There are people investing outside of work plans (IRAs or real estate). There is a group that doesn't trust government run plans but they are still saving/investing elsewhere.
I do think there are a lot that are going to be hurting, but I will argue the 2/3 part.
|
|
tskeeter
Junior Associate
Joined: Mar 20, 2011 19:37:45 GMT -5
Posts: 6,831
|
Post by tskeeter on Feb 24, 2017 12:23:44 GMT -5
In part, a scare story. Our local school teachers would be part of the 2/3 who aren't contributing to a workplace retirement plan. How can I make a blanket statement like this? Because the school district contributes 24.75% of the teacher's pay to their retirement account. At that contribution level, what the school district kicks in will fund a quite comfortable retirement. No need for a teacher to contribute to a 403B so they will have adequate retirement saving. I wonder how many other folks who are part of the "unfounded 2/3" are in a similar situation?
"unfounded 2/3"?
from the article- "Census researchers Michael Gideon and Joshua Mitchell analyzed W-2 tax records from 2012 to identify 6.2 million unique employers and 155 million individual workers, who held 219 million distinct jobs."
Sure you can say it doesn't show how many of the peeps on the 2/3rds category contribute to Roth & traditional IRAs, or how many of them have a pension plan, etc. .......but it's not "unfounded"
and do you really think a significant number of peeps have a teacher like retirement? or a pension?
Peeps just can't save, no matter how much they make or what "incentives" they are given to save....unfortunately it is human nature NOT to save
Most peeps aren't like those on this board
Damn autocorrect. Should have read unfunded. Do I think a significant number of people have teacher like pensions? Yes. The NEA (teachers) is the biggest union in the country. More members than the UAW or the Teamsters. Compared to the private sector, government employees have very good pensions. According to the census bureau, there are 35 million full time local, state, and federal government employees in the US. In rough terms, this translates into about 1/3 of US households having government pensions. Then consider the number of households that are retired and not contributing to retirement accounts. Between government employees and retirees, that's a large, large portion of the "unfunded 2/3".
|
|
Pants
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 19:26:44 GMT -5
Posts: 7,579
|
Post by Pants on Feb 24, 2017 12:28:18 GMT -5
Neither DH nor I contribute to retirement vehicles. If you consider that some of those 2/3 are already retired. Some have pensions (I know a lot who have pensions in my field)....consider that many state employees like government officials/admin, fireman and policemen, teachers, many university employees, etc. have pensions....then yes. Many of the big car manufacturers have at least some of their employees in pensions. I know Boeing has employees (some) in pensions.
Why is it hard for peeps to read??
some of those 2/3rds are NOT retired based on the stat the dudes used
the stat is based on WORKING peeps only
once again from the article it is based on reviewing the taxes of ".... 155 million WORKERS, who held 219 million distinct JOBS"
Were you this unnecessarily confrontational before you got locked out of your account? Just wondering.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 14, 2024 9:49:57 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2017 12:33:15 GMT -5
Neither DH nor I contribute to retirement vehicles. If you consider that some of those 2/3 are already retired. Some have pensions (I know a lot who have pensions in my field)....consider that many state employees like government officials/admin, fireman and policemen, teachers, many university employees, etc. have pensions....then yes. Many of the big car manufacturers have at least some of their employees in pensions. I know Boeing has employees (some) in pensions.
Why is it hard for peeps to read??
some of those 2/3rds are NOT retired based on the stat the dudes used
the stat is based on WORKING peeps only
once again from the article it is based on reviewing the taxes of ".... 155 million WORKERS, who held 219 million distinct JOBS"
There are plenty of retired people with W2 income. Over 65, not contributing, earning some money to supplement their retirement income.
|
|
Rob Base 2.0
Well-Known Member
Joined: Feb 23, 2017 18:12:07 GMT -5
Posts: 1,538
|
Post by Rob Base 2.0 on Feb 24, 2017 14:48:45 GMT -5
whatevs
|
|
simser
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 29, 2011 15:54:04 GMT -5
Posts: 798
|
Post by simser on Feb 24, 2017 15:44:34 GMT -5
I am a worker with 2 W2 jobs and I only contribute to a 401k at one of them. So that's 65 million jobs with no 401k there.
And when I was a grad student, I was employed by the university and got a w2 but wasn't eligible for a 401k. My entire second job basically isn't (all part time).
Etc etc.
Sure not everyone who could be participating is, but if you look at case studies, we could be fine. Personally I'm at 50%, but at the job I contribute to, it's a 50% match on anything up to 18,000/year, so I max it out! I'm probably not going to be eating dog food in retirement (cat food, yes)
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Feb 24, 2017 16:12:48 GMT -5
The data that this study used was not a good source. It's a great sound bite, but it is so freaking easy to choose a wrong data set to draw the wrong conclusion, especially if you do not control for all the variables. However, it's a great sound bite, and people tend not to read articles critically these days. Shock headlines rule.
Had they taken this data set and made a subset of those who were aged 25-65 they might have gotten a more accurate representation of what the true number is. This would eliminate those teenagers who are working at Rotten Ronnie's for gas money, and those older people who work at the grocery store (like my dad did during retirement).
It still doesn't eliminate those who do have pensions, or those who contribute to IRAs, so it is still going to overestimate what the true number of people is who are not saving for retirement.
|
|
emma1420
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 28, 2011 15:35:45 GMT -5
Posts: 2,430
|
Post by emma1420 on Feb 24, 2017 17:23:51 GMT -5
I'm not sure I buy the 2/3 amount. I don't think that's true here because a lot of people contribute to get the match, BUT they also are constantly taking out loans. It's super easy with our plan. Just a quick few clicks on the website and then a payroll deduction. I don't hear a lot of talk like this now that I'm in the office, but when I was on the production floor it was common to talk about purchases and how they were acquired. People were constantly taking out loans. Some would get a car, pay that off, then get a boat, pay that off, then redo their kitchen...it was a constant cycle. The worst reason I ever heard? We need that large screen television.......back when they would push you back $2,000 or more. This is one reason why I appreciate my employer. 401k loans are not permitted. If you want any the funds in the account prior to leaving employment you must take a hardship withdrawal. There are no other options. I know we do have people who do this, but because it's the only option it's the option of last resort for most people. We have a match, but it's not great (50% of each dollar contributed up to 6%), however, I will take it. It also doesn't surprise me that many people don't contribute to a 401k. I didn't start contributing until my 30's. Until then I made enough to cover my bills, but that was about it.
|
|
TheHaitian
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 27, 2014 19:39:10 GMT -5
Posts: 10,144
|
Post by TheHaitian on Feb 24, 2017 18:12:09 GMT -5
Nope I don't believe it!
|
|
Tiny
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 21:22:34 GMT -5
Posts: 13,371
|
Post by Tiny on Feb 24, 2017 18:29:59 GMT -5
I kind of question the 2 out of 3 workers not contributing to a 401(k) as being kind of high...
But, after talking to people IRL - I've found a couple of late 20 somethings who were suspicious of their employer offered 401(k) and so didn't contribute. They also didn't contribute to a personal IRA instead.... I can understand not trusting your employer... they didn't seem to realize they could get a similar benefit by contributing to a personal IRA (traditional or roth) - 10% of their gross income would be about 5K... so it's not like they would be taking advantage of the higher contributions in employer sponsored plans.
Some of the 40/50 yos also seemed to not use their employer's benefits... they felt they couldn't possibly save money - they needed to earn more before they could 'save'. I was like - just do $50 a paycheck to get started and they looked at me like I had two heads. I suggested getting started and then increasing it over time... but I think the issue was they didn't have $50 a paycheck...
I also found this weird undercurrent of 'fear' about banks and investments and such from people who I would have assumed knew better. That and the prevalent misconception that you have to buy individual stocks - so like put all your money in Apple or Amazon.... was weird.
|
|