Americans Are Putting Billions More Than Usual in Their 401(k)s • Hacker News Board

Re: Americans Are Putting Billions More Than Usual in Their 401(k)s

#241

Post by AnimalMuppet » Thu, Jan 05, 2017, 7:41 PM UTC

legodt wrote: post #218

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oddly, you don't sound very tolerant...

Being intolerant of bigots doesn't exactly make you as bad as them... Parent comment is wrong and overgeneralizing a bit (as others have pointed out, awful people exist everywhere and transcend the bounds of class and geography), but the line of thinking you are getting at that it is hateful to be agressive against perpetuators of evil is somehow equal to their hate is dangerous and incorrect. It isn't fascism when y…

Being eager to label (and therefore dismiss) half the country does make you as bad as them. In particular, it makes you a bigot. (Where "you" = thesimpsons1022, not legodt.)

No, I am not an apologist for bigotry. That's why I'm against it when it's done by liberals, just the same as I'm against it when it's done by conservatives. The only difference is that liberals don't do it based on race. I'm not sure that makes it any better, though.

Re: Americans Are Putting Billions More Than Usual in Their 401(k)s

#242

Post by kgwgk » Thu, Jan 05, 2017, 7:41 PM UTC

ryandrake wrote: post #165

readams wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No; investments go toward productive work to create economic value. Social Security doesn't have any element that would actually create wealth. It works exactly like a Ponzi scheme.

To be fair, when I buy a company's stock on the public stock market, it's more of a lottery ticket than an investment. It's not as if buying a stock actually puts money into the company's pocket for them to use to "create economic value". Buying a stock puts money into the pocket of whoever last bought that stock so that they can continue gambling.

Is buying real estate or a business an investment? You're not creating economic value, just putting money into the pocket of the previous owner.

Re: Americans Are Putting Billions More Than Usual in Their 401(k)s

#243

Post by merpnderp » Thu, Jan 05, 2017, 7:42 PM UTC

temp246810 wrote: post #35

Even though I'm doing all the right things like maxing out 401k etc., I can't help but feel that I will regret it later. It feels like everyone grew up hearing the same thing (people are poor planners, people go broke in retirement) and now as adults have vowed that will never be them. The problem is that now everyone thinks this way - index funds are on the rise, people are saving into their 401k, I can't help but t…

Are there enough funds outperforming the index tracking funds to even start thinking about zagging?

Re: Americans Are Putting Billions More Than Usual in Their 401(k)s

#244

Post by Frondo » Thu, Jan 05, 2017, 7:43 PM UTC

Frondo wrote: post #184

cloakandswagger wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or don't use a massive government sponsored Ponzi scheme for a national retirement plan.

Social security is not a Ponzi scheme. http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2014/sep/24/car...

Wow, downvoters!

Seriously, just google "is social security a pyramid scheme".

You'll find a LOT of breathless articles from personal blogs and sites like World Net Daily calling it a pyramid scheme.

You'll also find a lot of, for lack of a better way to put it, content of actual substance that describes how it's not a pyramid scheme, but a sustainable government program that's worked out just fine for decades (with regular adjustments, as all human endeavors need).

Re: Americans Are Putting Billions More Than Usual in Their 401(k)s

#245

Post by pc86 » Thu, Jan 05, 2017, 7:44 PM UTC

avn2109 wrote: post #167

bogomipz wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>" The fact is you pay ~16% of your paycheck into social security." Not quite. This is actually split between the employee and the employer. With each contributing 6.2%. https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10022.pdf Also why are you admonishing the OP? He has every right to pessimistic about this current state of social security.

But your employer is perfectly capable of doing accounting. So they pass through their 6.2% to you. In practice the mechanism is that every employer figures it in to their offers, such that every offer you ever receive is ~6.2% lower than it would be if SS didn't exist.

> such that every offer you ever receive is ~6.2% lower than it would be if SS didn't exist

Every offer is up to 6.2% lower. I have a business with employees but their pay is sufficiently low (compared to the revenue of the business; their pay is above market for the jobs they do) that SS does not enter into our calculations. If the employer portion of SS was eliminated tomorrow we would not give anyone a 6.2% raise, nor would future employees get offers 6.2% greater.

I'm sure somewhere there is an employee whose salary is a big piece of a business's income and they would have gotten a little more money had that tax not been there. But I'm pretty sure that's the exception rather than the rule, if for no other reason than SS taxes are capped so you reach a point where more salary does not equal more SS tax.

Re: Americans Are Putting Billions More Than Usual in Their 401(k)s

#246

Post by Jeema101 » Thu, Jan 05, 2017, 7:44 PM UTC

jcdavis wrote: post #126

lintiness wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

along these lines, note how many news stories etc are currently touting the power of stock indices and index investing. given a shiller pe of ~28, i'd say most are in for a very rude awakening (again and forever). http://www.multpl.com/shiller-pe/

Solely discussing stock valuations without also considering bond yields is a little misleading. With interest rates so low on a historical basis (albeit now possibly picking up), higher stock pricing is expected and isn't necessarily "overpriced" A good recent discussion of this: http://brooklyninvestor.blogspot.com/2016/11/bonds-down-stoc...

I'm not sure where that guy is getting his data, but I think the average stock market P/E when 10 year treasury rates are in the 4-6% range is more like 19. But maybe he's looking at 'forward P/E' or something.

http://qvmgroup.com/invest/2013/06/22/sp-500-pes-versus-10-y...

Re: Americans Are Putting Billions More Than Usual in Their 401(k)s

#247

Post by cmdrfred » Thu, Jan 05, 2017, 7:45 PM UTC

optimuspaul wrote: post #207

wang_li wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Social Security Trust fund generally runs a surplus (as recently as 2014 it added $25 billion.) However it's projected that around 2030-2034 the number of recipients will be drawing more than is being paid in. At that point your statement will become more correct than it currently is.

(wild conspiracy theories to follow, intended to be humorous) It's all good, SS can go on forever. As long as shootings increase, gun control laws are kept at bay, and healthcare remains unavailable to all or at least expensive odds are good a growing minority of workers will never collect SS benefits. It's fairly genius actually. It all stems from the American Dream, one of the most dangerous yet lucrative schemes e…

>As long as shootings increase

Gun violence is trending down and rather low historically. So I guess SS really is doomed.

https://cdn1.ijr.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/guns4.jpg

Re: Americans Are Putting Billions More Than Usual in Their 401(k)s

#248

Post by Frondo » Thu, Jan 05, 2017, 7:46 PM UTC

toomuchtodo wrote: post #181

Frondo wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should the coal miner get more of a voice than the guy who lives in a city? They're both citizens, right? They both get to vote on their state, city, and county stuff. Why should the guy who lives in the middle of nowhere get to say "my vote's worth 50x what yours is, sucker!!"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

The minority already has constitutional protections to live, love, worship, engage in commerce, employ speech and association, without interference from the majority. Their rights are already guaranteed by the constitution.

Getting a way-outsized vote in federal elections is undemocratic, and doesn't protect the minority from "tyranny" so much as give it outsized power, just as a quirk of geography.

Re: Americans Are Putting Billions More Than Usual in Their 401(k)s

#249

Post by pc86 » Thu, Jan 05, 2017, 7:48 PM UTC

harryh wrote: post #192

dlp211 wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To pile on to this. Even is SS makes no changes whatsoever, they can still pay out ~75% of the benefits starting in the late 2020's or early 2030's and all the way through the 2080's or 2090's based on the SS Trustee report. SS is going to be around unless we choose to elect officials that dismantle it. The fear mongering and apathy needs to stop.

It's worth noting that if there are benefit cuts of 25% that it's unlikely that each individual will see a 25% cut. It's more likely (in my opinion at least) that we'll see some sort of means testing where seniors with other income (from 401Ks, private pensions, other savings) see their benefits cut much more than 25% while those with low incomes retain their full benefits. So if you are saving a lot it could, ironic…

So what you're saying is I can cash in my 401k for a boat.

Re: Americans Are Putting Billions More Than Usual in Their 401(k)s

#250

Post by cmurf » Thu, Jan 05, 2017, 7:49 PM UTC

TheBeardKing wrote: post #217

cmurf wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's amusing. I'm 45 and said the same thing when I was in my mid-20's. And now I think it's just naive. The most docile 60 year olds I know become positively vitriolic at the idea of even the age of benefit payout being changed by 5 years. If Social Security were just done away with, I guarantee you the violent revolution they'd be considering wouldn't involve clever devices that take people's heads off cleanly, q…

Only there's now bi-partisan recognition that SS is insolvent and something must be done. The left wants to increase taxes and remove the cap, who knows how far they could get to taking that if the populist Sanders side takes over, and the right wants to reduce benefits and/or privatize. If the stagnation keeps up until retirement, I guess they'll just quit writing checks.

Social Security insolvency is a myth. https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/fyOps.html https://www.nasi.org/research/2016/social-security-finances-...

The risk to a stable society (the purpose of Social Security, which is part of its name) is essentially zero by raising the cap.

The risk is substantial by either reducing benefits or privatizing. And I know this because the instant the conversation goes down this road the contra agent devolves to this:

I will pick a pocket first, and shoot grandma in the head second, before this nonsense of reducing benefits or privatization. Benefit reduction, a risk of which is endemic to privatization (grandma might become rich, or she might get kicked out of her apartment, who is to say except the glory of the free market), is objectively more unethical than either picking pockets or shooting old people.