11–20 of 479 posts
Say what you will about government incompetence, but the idea of tying things like my retirement and healthcare to my employer just sounds terrible. Also, auto-enrolling people into 401K sounds kinda like... ya know... social security.
I'm not planning on Social Security being around by the time I'm old enough to tap into it, and I'm also not planning on having any kids to bail me out when I go senile, so yeah I'm putting a lot into my 401k. I think a lot of people my age (turning 30 next week) are feeling the same way, so I wonder if it's younger workers driving this trend.
Having a somewhat paranoid personality, I find myself wondering if auto-enroll and (especially) auto-escalation - which my job has - are designed with the employee's well-being in mind, or just a ploy to prop up the stock market?
With more money chasing after the same quantity of equities, I would have thought the market prices would have been going up. But they've been essentially flat over the past year. Even though firms have been buying back their stock. There must be another reason why they've been stagnant.
Say what you will about government incompetence, but the idea of tying things like my retirement and healthcare to my employer just sounds terrible. Also, auto-enrolling people into 401K sounds kinda like... ya know... social security.
Companies auto enroll people into 401(k) programs because of participation requirements. For "highly paid employees" (i.e. executives) to be allowed to contribute to a 401(k), there requires a minimum level of participation from the rest of the workforce at the company. The easiest way to do so is to auto enroll people on day one.
Say what you will about government incompetence, but the idea of tying things like my retirement and healthcare to my employer just sounds terrible. Also, auto-enrolling people into 401K sounds kinda like... ya know... social security.
> Also, auto-enrolling people into 401K sounds kinda like... ya know... social security. Except that you have control over how your 401(k) gets allocated, along with additional ways to access those funds early (with a penalty) in case of emergencies. Furthermore, 401(k)s are explicitly not comingled, whereas the entire premise of Social Security is that the funds are comingled.
But yes, I understand your point.
Say what you will about government incompetence, but the idea of tying things like my retirement and healthcare to my employer just sounds terrible. Also, auto-enrolling people into 401K sounds kinda like... ya know... social security.
> Also, auto-enrolling people into 401K sounds kinda like... ya know... social security. Companies auto enroll people into 401(k) programs because of participation requirements. For "highly paid employees" (i.e. executives) to be allowed to contribute to a 401(k), there requires a minimum level of participation from the rest of the workforce at the company. The easiest way to do so is to auto enroll people on day one…
I'm not planning on Social Security being around by the time I'm old enough to tap into it, and I'm also not planning on having any kids to bail me out when I go senile, so yeah I'm putting a lot into my 401k. I think a lot of people my age (turning 30 next week) are feeling the same way, so I wonder if it's younger workers driving this trend.
Headline is shameless click-bait. Percentage change is much more valuable than absolute dollars. From the article: "An increase in retirement savings of 0.6 percentage points [from 2010 to 2015]".