![]() |
|
||
|
The 401(k) MythPosted on Dec 12, 2007By Marie Cocco WASHINGTON—The great 401(k) bonanza may well turn out to be a bust for most workers. This is not news to millions who know their account balances, or to low-income workers whose employers rarely offer them the chance to open an account. In the 1980s and, especially, the go-go 1990s, the 401(k) was the wondrous new invention that was supposed to make assembly-line workers capable of becoming rich, in retirement, through their own industriousness and, lest we forget, the magic of the stock market. The myth began to fade amid Wall Street’s uncertainty during the past decade. It should be buried—deeply—with the latest Government Accountability Office report on the savings plans that have become the primary form of pensions available to that half of the private work force that has any pension at all. Projecting retirement savings based on those currently participating in 401(k)-style plans, the GAO found that the youngest workers—those who’ve been told from the start that their jobs would provide no traditional, fixed-benefit pensions of the sort that their grandparents or parents might rely on—face the prospect of paltry incomes in old age. More than a third of those born in 1990 could be predicted to have no savings at all in retirement, the GAO found. Among the lowest-income workers, 63 percent would have no savings in their plans when they retire. What about more diligent savers? Overall, the GAO found that as a group these retirees would have an average income of about $18,784 a year, or just over $1,500 a month. Among the highest-income workers, a fund balance that is used exclusively for monthly income—not for extravagant extras—would be $50,098 a year. “Some will have very little, some will have almost nothing, and some will have nothing when they retire,” says Rep. Robert Andrews, D-N.J., who chairs the House subcommittee on health, employment, labor and pensions. Advertisement Ending workers’ ability to cash out a 401(k) upon leaving a job, as about half now do, would also help. The failure of even higher-income people to roll over their retirement savings into another retirement account—“leakage,” as the report calls it—is one of the reasons account balances are relatively low at retirement age, even if a worker has earned a solid income. “Taking money out of these accounts, or failing to roll them over, is very expensive,” says Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., chairman of the House Committee on Education and Labor. Of course, using 401(k) accounts as sort of a tax-preferred slush fund was part of their initial appeal. Rules allowing workers to cash out a retirement savings plan or to borrow from it were written into the program when it began. But that was when the savings plans were envisioned as supplements to traditional pensions that guaranteed monthly income in retirement, and not a substitute for them. “These are hangovers from another system,” Miller says. The blinding headache has not yet settled upon us. That will come when millions of people—and not just baby boomers—retire to find that their promised pot of gold is close to empty. If current trends continue, even Social Security will be stretched and strained by a generation of retirees with no other means of support. This is one reason why the repetitive and misleading political rhetoric on Social Security, the strongest and best-funded part of the nation’s retirement system, is so unprincipled. Traditional employer-provided pensions are an endangered species. The evolution to a self-funded retirement through 401(k) accounts has produced a mutant that doesn’t function well. Democrats, including the party’s leading presidential candidates, have been arguing for years that the 401(k) must be remade if it is to be a pension, not a piggy bank. At the moment, they debate only among themselves. After decades of dropping just a few pennies into the slot, Americans deserve more than to be told to dig deeper for a few more coins. Marie Cocco’s e-mail address is mariecocco(at)washpost.com. © 2007, Washington Post Writers Group Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig. Add Your Comment
|
A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
Copyright © 2009 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved. |
By Jim, September 1 at 9:08 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
401k’s are a scam. You can only go long in one. You cannot get in or out intra day. We pay these fund managers a huge expense fee to “manage” a fund. The only managing they do is window dress at month’s end to show their clients that they were part of the rally. These people are idiots. My cat could trade better than 90% of these fools. They are just salesmen and cheerleaders who want you in the market 100% of the time so they can trade the crap out of your stocks and rack up huge fees. They are not paid on performance, only on keeping you in the market.SCAM
Report thisBy George, December 18, 2007 at 12:06 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
How can you mandate employee contributions when people don’t have money to save? It takes a higher level of income to allow the luxury of saving for the future. - not a case of human nature, a case of survival. Those who haven’t been there, don’t understand. By definition, the ruling class of this country do not “get it”.
Report thisBy susannunes, December 16, 2007 at 6:12 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
The truth is 401(k)s are NOT designed to make you rich. That is a con put forward by those who want to abolish pensions, which are in every way superior to junk “retirement” plans like the 401(k)s. Companies have them to save money on pension costs, NOT to make workers rich. Unless you are very highly paid to begin with, you can NEVER save enough money in a 401(k) to cover retirement. Chances are, you will OUTLIVE your 401(k). Not true with a pension, which stays with you as long as you live.
Companies cleverly marketed 401(k)s as a get rich scheme, but what they were and are doing is shifting costs to YOU, the employee. To hell with rewarding loyalty, you are on your own. Believe me, the 401(k) is a scam.
Report thisBy Mr. C, December 14, 2007 at 6:28 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
The 401k system would work a lot better if the companies that ended their defined benefit pensions were required to pay their contribution into the 401K accounts regardless of whether the employee contributed all or nothing.
Report thisBy Enemy of State, December 14, 2007 at 2:28 am #
JKoch: is right about not investing strictly locally. I’m going to go further by suggesting you invest internationally (i.e. have a hefty portion of non US investments). That way when the dollar tanks, you have something left.
In any case 401Ks have been designed for the higher paid, and more investment savy among us. We have forgotten to teach basic personal economics and finance to the masses, yet we put them in charge of their retirement. Not only are the lower classes not investing as high a percentage of their smaller incomes in such plans, but mostly they are not investing that small amount very well either. So being low income is kind of a triple wammy when it comes to retirement.
We are doing a bit better, with some of the newer tweaks, such as automatic enrollment, and lifestyle investment funds which let an uneducated participant put all his 401K into a single managed fund. For those who are unsure what to do with their 401K, that is their best choice. The worst choice is to timidly put all your 401K into moneymarket funds, because you are unsure about investing. These are almost guaranteed to not keep up with inflation.
By the way, social security is not going bust. As long as the economy does reasonably well we shouldn’t worry about SS being around for us. But of course SS doesn’t provide enough income by itself, barring a traditional pension plan, and or significant savings, average Joe is going to find himself with a financially difficult retirement.
Report thisBy Kmiller, December 14, 2007 at 1:46 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
My 401K made a whopping 1% this year and it’s been losing money in the past two months. I might as well stuff my money under my mattress.
Report thisBy Trigger finger, December 13, 2007 at 11:35 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Well, reading all these comments leave me with the opinion that we have bought into a corrupt, self serving government. That anything this country ever stood is swirling in a downward spiral and we are standing here watching the flush that occurs because those we have elected to grab the handle and hold on are if fact forcing the handle to flush mode. It’s getting to where our retirement plan will have to be to go to Walmart, buy a 357 magnum and blow our own brains out. Be careful putting too much in your 401-k, this country is full of Haliburton’s seeking your treasure. If they don’t get it than the 110% fees or your tax man will.
And oh, Miguel, you can serve those burgers at McDonalds right up until the day “you” become the served in those delicious hamburgers! Please post a sign on your back, “Double catsup on me”
Report thisBy KarlB, December 13, 2007 at 7:32 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
The real problem here is the government taxing interest earnings on savings accounts, money markets, etc.
The only place the government has given people the ability to save is in a 401k or Roth IRA. And even then, the taxes are horrendous (deferred taxes are still taxes). So people just spend their money away since it incurs a far lower tax rate.
The best solution would be to exempt interest earnings under $250,000 annually for a married couple.
The result would be Americans wouldn’t be forced to spend their money to avoid taxes (5% sales tax vs 15% income tax), and could actually built a nest egg.
I guess that’s just too much common sense for politicians on both sides of the aisle.
Report thisBy montemalone, December 13, 2007 at 5:54 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
It’s quite obvious to anyone that the stock market is designed to enrich those that run it. How else to explain multi-million dollar salaries and larger bonuses? All that money is money that is not put to work for those that invested it. That is why a one bedroom apartment in Manhattan costs three quarters of a million dollars.
Report thisThat is why Wall Street continues to bribe Republican politicos to abolish Social Security. It would mean billions more dollars in profits, and of course the politicos are guaranteed nice “consulting” gigs when they leave public service to “spend more time with their families” or “pursue other opportunities”.
By JKoch, December 13, 2007 at 5:14 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Sorry, Jackpine, but retirement assets will shrink even more if the 401k funds are steered into “local intitiatives,” which tend to be run by either real estate developers or city hall & state assembly hacks. Every mayor wants to build a sports arena, refurbish the clubhouse at the big-wig golf course, capo casino, air port fountain, give tax rebates to worthy campaign contributors, or fund “fact finding” junkets to Rio or Rome. The funds earmarked to redevelop depressed inner city commercial zones with be allocaated to people who (surprise, surprise) happen to be partners with relatives of city council lords and ladies. The poker chums at city hall will learn about the programs, buy up the run-down city blocks, and profit on the redevelopments. Those involved may make 25% per annum returns. The 401k fund holders (suckers) will not be assured any yield.
On the other hand, a 401k invested in an index fund is liquid and one knows day by day what the shares are worth. They disclose the administration fees, and it is hard to disguise of obscure the net performance relative to other investments.
One thing that is really scary, though, is that the job market is likely to discard many people who still wish to work. The severance terms will not carry them through to the time when they can draw on retirement savings. The McJobs available to them will not provide insurance. Then, when they do reach age 67, the government will discover a need to provide a “safety net” to folks who never had a 401k or spent it all. Bright answer: a new tax and “means testing” to give help to the “needy.” Everybody and his uncle will cook their books to qualify. The system will reward the devious or spendthrift and punish the ones who followed the rules. Of course, none of this matters to those at the top, who have much of their wealth salted away beyond the reach of the IRS.
Report thisBy Chip U, December 13, 2007 at 3:48 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
I don’t think that the problem is entirely with 401(k)s. I think that the problem is with human nature.
As a species, we think that “the way I am, right now, is how I will always be.” It’s hard to imagine ourselves forty years from now. We think that since I can, now, pay for everything through my hard work, I will always be able to pay for everything through my hard work.
It’s a lot easier to spend money now, than to put it away for some fellow forty years away… who may not exist.
Further, we have a problem: the current Social Security system is (mostly) being paid by current donations. We can’t scrap that system; too many people donated to it, and rightly expect the benefits that were promised.
I don’t have solutions. I appreciate my 401(k), which I’ve contributed to for seven years. But I know that I’m very unusual.
Report thisBy GW=MCHammered, December 13, 2007 at 2:38 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Politicians began protecting Americans from predatory lenders in 1999. So much for the value of their labor. Without the pointless expense of ineffective and bloated government, Americans could work and retire just fine. Government is the biggest (undeserved-unearned) Entitlement Program on earth. And under Bu$hCo, our government is the sumo-antagonist to true Free Markets. Perverted politicians are the cause of destroyed retirements, overpriced healthcare, exported careers, frozen wages, and tripled prices.
“The answer to ‘1984’ is 1776!”
Report thisBy jackpine savage, December 13, 2007 at 12:31 pm #
G.Anderson, i feel your cynicism.
I think that the boomers got sold a load of hogwash; the Xers would probably have bought it too, only too few of them have ever had jobs with which they could afford it.
I’m no communist, nor even a socialist, but i strongly believe that the stock market does not generate wealth, it transfers it. Moreover, it takes actual wealth and turns it into monetary liquidity.
The last time the stock market really crashed, the very rich did not lose enough to make them poor. On the other hand, many people who were not poor to begin with ended up very poor. They bought the idea that they could become rich without labor.
I am not looking forward to the day (and it sure seems like its coming) when people who’ve been working for 20+ years and investing their hard earned money wake up to find that it is all gone.
The stock market, and in particular the 401K, has been the vehicle for corporatization (i think that i just made that word up). It doesn’t take long to find examples of the terrible things that massive corporations intent on quarterly profits have done to America and the world. But then there is the disconnection, i.e. many Americans who hate the terrible things are, in fact, complicit in the behavior through their 401K accounts.
In my perfect world, the taxes on investment proceeds would be near punitive. But investment into small businesses, local economies, and the like would be lightly taxed. As things stand, we make our money in the community and then send it far away to generate investment returns. If that money were reinvested in the communities that it comes from (or those near by), investment would generate actual wealth. That is, it would be used to prime lots of small pumps rather than one giant pump. Many small pumps can afford to periodically lose a pump and not suffer total failure. A single, giant pump is dangerous because it only takes one air bubble to lose its prime. Moreover, the larger the pump, the more difficult it is to prime.
Report thisBy Miguel, December 13, 2007 at 7:11 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
How old can you work until at McDonalds?
Report thisBy G.Anderson, December 13, 2007 at 3:48 am #
I remember after the tech bubble burst there was joke going around that 401K’s should be renamed 201K’s.
Congress will probably do just that but call it something else.
However, at this point, the dollar is on the road to oblivion, so it’s unlikely that anything held in a bank longer than 10 minutes will be worth anything to anyone.
So why bother, it’s more likely that after a few brief years of chaos, congress will just introduce a new currency to save us, The Amero.
In this way they solve two problems for the corporations, getting rid of social security, and ridding themselves of pensions.
Report this