2/3 rds of peeps don't put $$ in 401K

[Rob Base 2.0]

Feb 24, 2017 18:12:09 GMT -5 TheHaitian said:

Nope I don't believe it!

  I understand.....you think 3/4 ths of peeps don't put $$ in 401K  

[tskeeter]

Feb 24, 2017 11:46:51 GMT -5 Rob Base 2.0 said:

Feb 24, 2017 11:31:49 GMT -5 The Walk of the Penguin Mich said:

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"

You might want to re-read the article.  Especially the second sentence where it says two thirds of all Americans ...

[Rob Base 2.0]

Feb 24, 2017 18:37:27 GMT -5 tskeeter said:

Feb 24, 2017 11:46:51 GMT -5 Rob Base 2.0 said:

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"

You might want to re-read the article.  Especially the second sentence where it says two thirds of all Americans ...

like eye said bee four, whatevs

[resolution]

Feb 24, 2017 18:29:59 GMT -5 Tiny said:

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.

 

Some of the distrust can be justified. When I got married, I created an online account to monitor DH's retirement, and came to find out that they were withholding his contribution and keeping it, rather than depositing it into his account. At the time we were only contributing $100 per week, but that is a rather large hit to have an employer steal. It took a couple years plus him quitting the job to get his withholdings back, and we were never compensated for the lost gains.

To this day, he doesn't contribute to his employer account. It all goes into my 457 plan or his IRA.

[resolution]

We are currently investing about 30% of our gross, but we would fall on the charts as 50% not investing. We just had another year where our net worth went up more than our gross income.

[zibazinski]

I never had a 401 and my Roth doesn't have even 100k in it. I wasn't a high wage earner and I had two kids to support and get through college. It's not impossible to go through life with not a lot saved in a retirement account.

[emma1420]

Feb 24, 2017 22:41:37 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

I never had a 401 and my Roth doesn't have even 100k in it. I wasn't a high wage earner and I had two kids to support and get through college. It's not impossible to go through life with not a lot saved in a retirement account.

Not impossible but not pleasant.  I know too many people who live off social security only and they do not have a decent standard of living.  They can cover the basics but that is it, and those people all had houses that were paid off.  I wonder how many of those people who aren't saving in their 401k have also treated their homes like piggy banks?

[Deleted]

Feb 25, 2017 10:14:18 GMT -5 emma1420 said:

Feb 24, 2017 22:41:37 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

I never had a 401 and my Roth doesn't have even 100k in it. I wasn't a high wage earner and I had two kids to support and get through college. It's not impossible to go through life with not a lot saved in a retirement account.

Not impossible but not pleasant.  I know too many people who live off social security only and they do not have a decent standard of living.  They can cover the basics but that is it, and those people all had houses that were paid off.  I wonder how many of those people who aren't saving in their 401k have also treated their homes like piggy banks?

I don't think zib is living off of SS.  She just states that she didn't use retirement accounts.   The generation before me in my family have been retiring off of military pensions and real estate investments mostly. 

[swamp]

The study says only 14% of employers offer retirement plans, but then 33% of employees contribute. How many work for places that don't offer plans?

Also, I'm self employed. I have a SEP IRA. Does that count?   I contribute to a plan for my assistant, but she can't contribute to it.    

My parents don't contribute. They're retired.

My brother doesn't contribute, he's a municipal employee. Lots of my friends don't contribute, they work for NYS or the school district.

I think the study was badly done.

[emma1420]

Feb 25, 2017 10:47:01 GMT -5 minnesotapaintlady said:

Feb 25, 2017 10:14:18 GMT -5 emma1420 said:

Not impossible but not pleasant.  I know too many people who live off social security only and they do not have a decent standard of living.  They can cover the basics but that is it, and those people all had houses that were paid off.  I wonder how many of those people who aren't saving in their 401k have also treated their homes like piggy banks?

I don't think zib is living off of SS.  She just states that she didn't use retirement accounts.   The generation before me in my family have been retiring off of military pensions and real estate investments mostly. 

But many people don't have sources of income outside of social security without a 401k.  I probably won't.  I might inherit from one of my parents, but it's not guaranteed, and it's his money not mine.  

[Deleted]

Feb 25, 2017 11:08:12 GMT -5 emma1420 said:

Feb 25, 2017 10:47:01 GMT -5 minnesotapaintlady said:

I don't think zib is living off of SS.  She just states that she didn't use retirement accounts.   The generation before me in my family have been retiring off of military pensions and real estate investments mostly. 

But many people don't have sources of income outside of social security without a 401k.  I probably won't.  I might inherit from one of my parents, but it's not guaranteed, and it's his money not mine.  

Oh, without a doubt there are a lot of people that are going to be in a world of hurt come retirement or will have to continue working, but as far as the statistic in the OP of 2/3 of Americans.  I think that's misleadingly high as an indicator of who will be hurting.  For example, I just read that there are more people working for the government than in all the Fortune 500 companies combined.  That's a big subset of people on track to get pensions.  Then all those that don't have access to traditional retirement vehicles that are saving other ways.  My Mother never had one at her company that she worked for for 45 years, but she still saved up 400K on her own.  She would be in the 2/3.

[The Walk of the Penguin Mich]

Feb 25, 2017 11:08:12 GMT -5 emma1420 said:

Feb 25, 2017 10:47:01 GMT -5 minnesotapaintlady said:

I don't think zib is living off of SS.  She just states that she didn't use retirement accounts.   The generation before me in my family have been retiring off of military pensions and real estate investments mostly. 

But many people don't have sources of income outside of social security without a 401k.  I probably won't.  I might inherit from one of my parents, but it's not guaranteed, and it's his money not mine.  

I think you'd be surprised.  My dad lived well off of his SS and military pension.  In fact, about most of his cohorts are very comfortable in retirement without having a big bolus of funds in another retirement account.

My dad also had a small IRA and was PISSED test he had to take a RMD from it.  In retirement, he didn't have a lot of needs and could easily cover them, along with most wants.  

Finally, with my job before last, had I chosen to remain there for another 6 years, I would have had a very liveable pension.  Another 5 years on top of that would have replaced 70% of my salary and I would have been 51.  Unfortunately, it was not possible for me, but I still have many friends in this position.

[haapai]

Feb 25, 2017 11:24:41 GMT -5 minnesotapaintlady said:

Feb 25, 2017 11:08:12 GMT -5 emma1420 said:

But many people don't have sources of income outside of social security without a 401k.  I probably won't.  I might inherit from one of my parents, but it's not guaranteed, and it's his money not mine.  

Oh, without a doubt there are a lot of people that are going to be in a world of hurt come retirement or will have to continue working, but as far as the statistic in the OP of 2/3 of Americans.  I think that's misleadingly high as an indicator of who will be hurting.  For example, I just read that there are more people working for the government than in all the Fortune 500 companies combined.  That's a big subset of people on track to get pensions.  Then all those that don't have access to traditional retirement vehicles that are saving other ways.  My Mother never had one at her company that she worked for for 45 years, but she still saved up 400K on her own.  She would be in the 2/3.

The study was done with 2012 W-2 data.  If your mom was working in 2012, she might have been part of the 2/3 that took a pass on workplace plans.  However, if she wasn't working in 2012, she's not a potential data point.  She'd be an anecdote. 

We should be looking for links to the original study instead of spinning tales about how our moms are just fine. 

[emma1420]

Feb 25, 2017 11:31:52 GMT -5 The Walk of the Penguin Mich said:

Feb 25, 2017 11:08:12 GMT -5 emma1420 said:

But many people don't have sources of income outside of social security without a 401k.  I probably won't.  I might inherit from one of my parents, but it's not guaranteed, and it's his money not mine.  

I think you'd be surprised.  My dad lived well off of his SS and military pension.  In fact, about most of his cohorts are very comfortable in retirement without having a big bolus of funds in another retirement account.

My dad also had a small IRA and was PISSED test he had to take a RMD from it.  In retirement, he didn't have a lot of needs and could easily cover them, along with most wants.  

Finally, with my job before last, had I chosen to remain there for another 6 years, I would have had a very liveable pension.  Another 5 years on top of that would have replaced 70% of my salary and I would have been 51.  Unfortunately, it was not possible for me, but I still have many friends in this position.

I guess, I have never had a job that offered a pension, and only my friends who are teachers have pensions.  Perhaps I'm projecting my own situation, but without my 401k all I will have is the equity in my house and social security.  And I know many people who will only have social security (or have social security now).  Even when I worked in higher ed, a defined benefit pension wasn't an option.

i have a decent job.  I'm not rich, but it's enough for me to contribute to my 401k and to own a home, and have a decent standard of living.  It's not enough to create multiple other streams of revenue with rentals, etc.  

[Deleted]

Feb 25, 2017 11:49:18 GMT -5 haapai said:

Feb 25, 2017 11:24:41 GMT -5 minnesotapaintlady said:

Oh, without a doubt there are a lot of people that are going to be in a world of hurt come retirement or will have to continue working, but as far as the statistic in the OP of 2/3 of Americans.  I think that's misleadingly high as an indicator of who will be hurting.  For example, I just read that there are more people working for the government than in all the Fortune 500 companies combined.  That's a big subset of people on track to get pensions.  Then all those that don't have access to traditional retirement vehicles that are saving other ways.  My Mother never had one at her company that she worked for for 45 years, but she still saved up 400K on her own.  She would be in the 2/3.

The study was done with 2012 W-2 data.  If your mom was working in 2012, she might have been part of the 2/3 that took a pass on workplace plans.  However, if she wasn't working in 2012, she's not a potential data point.  She'd be an anecdote. 

We should be looking for links to the original study instead of spinning tales about how our moms are just fine. 

She retired in 2014.

And, not a tale.  An example of how 401Ks aren't a necessary part of retirement for everyone.  These articles remind me of the student loan crisis ones.  Blow everything way out of proportion to make things seem worse than they are.

[haapai]

I can't help but notice that very little is being said about the sample except something like this. 

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.

Shouldn't we be scrutinizing that instead of talking about our parent's pensions and mutual funds?  Where did that sampling come from?  Why is the word "random" used nowhere in its description?  Why is the number of employers so low compared to the number of W-2s?  Why is the number of individual workers so low compared to the number of distinct jobs/W-2s? 

If anyone can link to more detailed information regarding this study, I would appreciate it. 

[The Walk of the Penguin Mich]

Feb 25, 2017 12:03:46 GMT -5 haapai said:

I can't help but notice that very little is being said about the sample except something like this. 

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.

Shouldn't we be scrutinizing that instead of talking about our parent's pensions and mutual funds?  Where did that sampling come from?  Why is the word "random" used nowhere in its description?  Why is the number of employers so low compared to the number of W-2s?  Why is the number of individual workers so low compared to the number of distinct jobs/W-2s? 

If anyone can link to more detailed information regarding this study, I would appreciate it. 

According to Gideon's cv, it is a working paper, which means not yet published.

www-personal.umich.edu/~gideonm/cv.pdf

I have to wonder if it was something taken out of context, especially if it is going to be submitted to peer reviewed journals.  Errors this glaring should never be published.

It wouldn't be the first time that an early report (like an abstract submitted for a professional meeting) got bastardized by the popular press.

[Deleted]

Feb 25, 2017 12:03:46 GMT -5 haapai said:

I can't help but notice that very little is being said about the sample except something like this. 

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.

Shouldn't we be scrutinizing that instead of talking about our parent's pensions and mutual funds?  Where did that sampling come from?  Why is the word "random" used nowhere in its description?  Why is the number of employers so low compared to the number of W-2s?  Why is the number of individual workers so low compared to the number of distinct jobs/W-2s? 

If anyone can link to more detailed information regarding this study, I would appreciate it. 

What is there to scrutinize, these seem to match census number and make complete sense (www.census.gov):

219 million distinct jobs / 6.2 million Employers = 35 employees per employer, Why do you think the number of employers is to low?  Each employer is only issuing 35 W2s and you think they needed more employers?

Census data states there are about ~300 million people in the USA with about ~65% of adults in the work force (age 18-100+).  So 155 million workers seems to match that very well.  64 Million got W2 from more than one job (again where is the problem, this seems normal between those with multiple jobs or job changes within the year).  Even when I was salaried, working 1 job I would get multiple W2s in years I switched jobs.

[The Walk of the Penguin Mich]

Feb 25, 2017 12:31:09 GMT -5 @logicnow said:

Feb 25, 2017 12:03:46 GMT -5 haapai said:

I can't help but notice that very little is being said about the sample except something like this. 

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.

Shouldn't we be scrutinizing that instead of talking about our parent's pensions and mutual funds?  Where did that sampling come from?  Why is the word "random" used nowhere in its description?  Why is the number of employers so low compared to the number of W-2s?  Why is the number of individual workers so low compared to the number of distinct jobs/W-2s? 

If anyone can link to more detailed information regarding this study, I would appreciate it. 

What is there to scrutinize, these seem to match census number and make complete sense (www.census.gov):

219 million distinct jobs / 6.2 million Employers = 35 employees per employer, Why do you think the number of employers is to low?  Each employer is only issuing 35 W2s and you think they needed more employers?

Census data states there are about ~300 million people in the USA with about ~65% of adults in the work force (age 18-100+).  So 155 million workers seems to match that very well.  64 Million got W2 from more than one job (again where is the problem, this seems normal between those with multiple jobs or job changes within the year).  Even when I was salaried, working 1 job I would get multiple W2s in years I switched jobs.

No one is saying that the data needs to be scrutinized, but the methods and conclusion the authors drew certainly do.   It is not uncommon for the popular press to snag a statistic like this and jump on it claiming "the sky is falling", but it is only one part of the larger picture that the author is trying to research.

Could 2/3 of those out there not contribute to an employer sponsored plan?  Absolutely.  But there are a lot of factors that could play into this and this sound bite does not tell you whether or not they were controlled.  That would be determined by reading the papers and looking at the methods.

[NoNamePerson]

I never contributed to a 401K plan. WHYYYYY - because I never worked for an employer that offered one. Mostly small companies where it was just me and bossy lady. But I started contributing to IRA the year they were offered.

Some years in the early phases I would work just enough to contribute the max (was married at the time with kiddo) and chose not to work full time till he hit school age and then I didn't work full time some of the time.

I continued to max out my IRA. I quit work at 60, was OK and then drew early SS. I too was like one poster's dad and got pissed that I had to take Mandatory Withdrawals when I hit 70 1/2.

And why do these people have access to the W-2's in the first place to be doing a study?? Did they just ask SS for copies of W-2's to do their study. Why does that bother me

And I am not eating cat food in my retirement - that sh## is expensive 

[teen persuasion]

I believe it.

I'm one of the 21% with no retirement account option from my employer.

The article mentioned 10% have pension options (fewer in younger generations).

Of the 79% that work for an employer offering a retirement plan, some unknown % are not eligible to contribute - part-time, new hire, etc.
 
Then there's everyone who just hasn't started yet, thinks they can't afford to contribute, afraid, ...