Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 479 posts

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

#281

Post by cableshaft »

RUG3Y wrote: post #238
brewdad wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CA would be the 7th largest economy in the world if it were its own country. NY would be 11th. But yes, let's just pretend like they don't matter when it comes to the US as a whole.

If California were to become it's own country tomorrow, Californians would learn how much they also depend on other states.

You don't even have to go further than electricity and water supply to see how much they rely on other states. But I'm sure there's a lot of other areas where they're reliant on other states as well.

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

#282

Post by kgwgk »

ryandrake wrote: post #277
kgwgk wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I guess it depends on your definition of "creating economic value". If I buy something for $110 from someone who paid $100 for it, I guess you could argue that either you or I just "created" $10 of economic value. I don't subscribe to that. Value is only created when you improve something. Buy a lump of gold for $100 and turn it into a $110 bracelet -> value created. Buy a lump of gold for $100 and sell it to someone…

I didn't mention gold. I asked about two cash-flow generating assets that would be considered investments by most people (but of course you can have your own definition of investment).

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

#283

Post by sikim »

cloudkj wrote: post #231
sikim wrote: post #20

I wonder what percentage of 401k contributors has an IRA. General rule of thumb is to contribute enough to 401k to get maximum company matching and max out your Roth IRA contribution first. IRA is generally preferred because you can choose your own fund (e.g. Vanguard) and has more flexibility in certain situations. By having both pre-tax (401k) and post-tax (Roth IRA), you would be also diversifying your tax liabili…

That's a very interesting point about diversifying your tax liability. Is it a fairly common tactic to contribute evenly across pre-tax and post-tax buckets? I've mostly stuck to contributing to one bucket but spreading out contributions across buckets makes a lot of sense. If you have any sources about the pros/cons of diversifying tax liability in this way, I'd be very interested.

There's no one-size-fits-all type of advice because everyone's situation is very different. There are some great resources available online to get started though. This one [1] is for physicians but could also apply to everyone. The bogleheads [2] and their wiki page are also great resources for these topics.

[1] http://whitecoatinvestor.com/the-proper-ratio-for-retirement... [2] https://www.bogleheads.org/

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

#284

Post by uiri »

Frondo wrote: post #244
Frondo wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's not a "pyramid" scheme. A pyramid scheme involves selling a product - something like knives or energy drink. But the actual thing which is sold are licenses to sell the product. Each licensee passes some of their profits up to their licensor who is the licensee of someone else and passes along part of that and so on. Eventually the last round of licensees are stuck with product that they can't sell and the upstream licensors are getting rich from the "pyramid" of downstream licensor/licensees recruited into the scheme.

A ponzi scheme is quite different. You pretend to invest an initial investor's money. The returns to that investor are paid out of money coming in from later investors.

Social security works in this way. The money paid into social security is not invested at all. The returns from social security (money going out to current retirees) come entirely from new investments (money going in from current workers). This is the basic definition of a ponzi scheme. It is a sustainable ponzi scheme so long as taxes collected from current workers exceed benefits paid out to current retirees. The designers of this system did not count on two things: (a) ever increasing life expectancy and (b) the baby boom. The former has increased the length of time each person collects benefits and the latter has resulted in a demographic bulge that is now hitting its retirement years.

Thank you Mr. Bismarck![0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_von_Bismarck#Old_Age_and_...

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

#285

Post by EpicEng »

kevinh wrote: post #122
adventured wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trump easily won the popular vote for the 48 states that aren't California and New York. Popular vote indeed. There's a very good reason the electoral college exists.

And if you take out a couple states, Clinton won the electoral college. What's your point? That we should ignore the votes of two of the largest states because they don't agree with you?

If we change to a popular vote system then the entire race looks different. It's a silly argument either way.

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

#286

Post by EpicEng »

thesimpsons1022 wrote: post #141

obviously alabama and wisconsin need their votes to count much more than california or new york. rednecks deserve their voice to be heard 10x more than well educated tolerant people on the coasts.

And this is why the rest of us can't stand people like you. I lived on the west coast for more than a decade and people were not generally better or worse than when I lived in rural IL. Get your head out of your ass.

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

#287

Post by serge2k »

ProAm wrote: post #107
hillz wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean... He did lose the popular vote. So 'most' people didn't have an influence on the election. Or at least, the plurality of people.

Popular vote has never meant anything in America in all it's existence. But the point is a person with zero political experience, completely outside the political echo chamber/insiders club just won the most powerful office on earth. Whether you are for him or against him I believe it does show that people can absolutely start a change.

He's a billionaire and a TV star. Are you a billionaire and a TV star? No? Then you are not comparable to Trump.

He's not an outsider. He's absolutely a member of the elite.

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

#288

Post by AnimalMuppet »

cableshaft wrote: post #281
RUG3Y wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If California were to become it's own country tomorrow, Californians would learn how much they also depend on other states.

You don't even have to go further than electricity and water supply to see how much they rely on other states. But I'm sure there's a lot of other areas where they're reliant on other states as well.

Other than the Colorado River, does California depend on other states for water? If California seceded, wouldn't they retain their part of the Colorado River Compact?

Power, I'll grant you. They've been "exporting pollution" by having power plants built in other states for a while now...

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

#289

Post by WalterBright »

brewdad wrote: post #132
adventured wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trump easily won the popular vote for the 48 states that aren't California and New York. Popular vote indeed. There's a very good reason the electoral college exists.

CA would be the 7th largest economy in the world if it were its own country. NY would be 11th. But yes, let's just pretend like they don't matter when it comes to the US as a whole.

I live in Washington State, which was essentially totally ignored by all the candidates. The reason is simple - WA is an overwhelmingly blue state with a winner-take-all delegate selection.

If elections were based on the popular vote, then the candidates would have been here campaigning, which might have dramatically changed the vote in WA. Not enough to turn it red, but a big chunk.

My point is that changing the rules on how Presidents are elected will change how they are campaigned, the platforms of the candidates, etc. One cannot assume a voter tally under one scheme will be the same as the tally under another - not at all.

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

#290

Post by serge2k »

adventured wrote: post #117
hillz wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean... He did lose the popular vote. So 'most' people didn't have an influence on the election. Or at least, the plurality of people.

Trump easily won the popular vote for the 48 states that aren't California and New York. Popular vote indeed. There's a very good reason the electoral college exists.

Clinton won a plurality of the popular vote in the United States of America. That includes California and New York and every red state you can name.

Seriously, what a stupid fucking argument. You should be ashamed.

Post reply on HN