Live data from Hacker News

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

bloomberg.com

341–350 of 479 posts

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

#341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure if "crash" is the problem. Crashes happen in markets, it's part of the business cycle. OP is discussing a 30+ year time horizon, though. I can think of a few potential things that would precipitate not just a crash, but a long-term economic malaise: - Climate change - Political/social unrest (extrapolate Brexit, Trump, etc) - Mass unemployment caused by automation (you can't "retrain" 5MM 50yo truck driv…

> Empire collapse (has happened with every single empire in history - what makes the U.S. exempt?) The US isn't anything like traditional historical empires for one. It hasn't built its prosperity on invading other nations to annex them and plunder their national wealth, which is traditionally how empires temporarily sustain themselves. The US built its immense wealth today (just under half of all private wealth on e…

The factors you outlined are definitely a part of the equation, but I'd argue that the US role in geopolitics post-WWII has had a much larger role in its success.

First, Bretton Woods established a system that heavily favored US interests -- it was based on dollars and gold, and the US had most of the gold supply. The US was able to achieve this favorable position thanks to its place as the major merchant-state, lender, and latecomer ally/victor in WWII. Among other effects, this system led to the dollar becoming accepted as the foundation for most international trade in the latter 20th century.

After the dollar's position became less favorable in the late 1960s, the US ended the Bretton Woods system and worked out agreements with OPEC to shift oil trades into dollars. This had the effect of cementing the USD as the currency of global trade (among other benefits), as all countries needed to hold dollars in order to purchase oil. This "agreement" was backed up by US military and economic hegemony.

Additionally, during this time, the global "south" was being pillaged for resources -- particularly oil, but also cropland (see bananas and sugar) and other scarce resources. The US established and propped up dictatorships that were favorable to its aims under the guise of fighting Communism. The USSR was doing the same thing in reverse, of course -- a grand game of chess, with the spoils to the victor.

Finally, the US "won" against the USSR through a combination of clever psychology, propaganda, and economic warfare, as well as Soviet mismanagement. When the USSR collapsed, the US obtained some economic benefits from the disentangling of the Soviet system, prolonging its advantage.

The US position was unsustainable, though, and this is when the shift occurred. With the relative increase in global stability and international "free" trade, as well as the power of the Internet, corporations no longer needed the protection of the US system quite so badly. Outsourcing and distributed operations became more and more common. The US position is not so rosy as it once was. The petrodollar system seems to be unwinding as well.

I do live in the US, so I do hope that the inevitable correction is a slow one. I also hope that we can avoid starting new conflicts in an attempt to prolong or reestablish our advantage.

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

#342
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.

That's like saying: let's ignore 58.55 million voters for no reason other than where they live. More than 18% of the entire US population.

States are arbitrary dividers, it's silly to think there's some great reason for allowing people in some random groups (states) have much more voting power than others. What if the dividers were based on income, race, etc? Wouldn't even that be more reasonable?

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

#343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read this a lot. Why do you expect this to be the case? Social Security may become unable to pay the benefits that you're expecting at some point because the input from workers will not be enough to pay those benefits. But that doesn't mean it will pay nothing. It will just pay less. You'll still get some payments.

Agree wholeheartedly with this. The "Social Security is Failing" headlines are all ginned up to support political ends, they don't have much to do with the reality of the program. Large adjustments were already made to accommodate the baby boomer generation. That's why we have a $2.8 trillion-dollar trust fund. With current demographics, we should be able to pay 100% of promised benefits until the late 2030's. Afterw…

> With current demographics, we should be able to pay 100% of promised benefits until the late 2030's.

The Baby Boomers will be dying off at a hefty rate by 2030. It includes people born between 1946-1964, which will mean they will be between 64-84.

Generation X is quite a bit smaller than the Millennial generation, so SS should start running a surplus again by the 2040s. There are plenty of things that can be done to bridge the 10 year gap. But reverting to pay-as-you-go for a short time isn't a terrible outcome.

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

#344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

> If California seceded, wouldn't they retain their part of the Colorado River Compact?

Well I would imagine that deal would have to be revisited in light of a secession, no?

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

#345

Am I the only one that is scared of 401ks? It sounds nice: put your money into an account tax-free, let it grow tax free over 30-40 years. When you retire, you have this nice large fund to pull money from. My biggest fear is that in 30-40 years the US government and/or 401k funds are so poorly run that they tax 50/60/70% of the income (withdrawals) out of the 401k to sustain theirselves. Lots of people tell me "that…

I suppose that (barring any fundamental transformation of the structure of our society during the intervening time) the income tax rates will still be progressive, and that the lowest brackets will be quite low - perhaps similar to the current ones.

If you assume that, and you've paid off your mortgage by the time you retire, and aren't planning to blow lots of money on air travel and hotels, then probably the rate at which you withdraw from your 401k will place you in one of those low-rate, bottom brackets.

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

#346
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

Why draw the lines by state? Wouldn't income or race be better dividers?

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

#347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure if "crash" is the problem. Crashes happen in markets, it's part of the business cycle. OP is discussing a 30+ year time horizon, though. I can think of a few potential things that would precipitate not just a crash, but a long-term economic malaise: - Climate change - Political/social unrest (extrapolate Brexit, Trump, etc) - Mass unemployment caused by automation (you can't "retrain" 5MM 50yo truck driv…

> Empire collapse (has happened with every single empire in history - what makes the U.S. exempt?) The US isn't anything like traditional historical empires for one. It hasn't built its prosperity on invading other nations to annex them and plunder their national wealth, which is traditionally how empires temporarily sustain themselves. The US built its immense wealth today (just under half of all private wealth on e…

> It hasn't built its prosperity on invading other nations to annex them and plunder their national wealth, which is traditionally how empires temporarily sustain themselves.

That is exactly how it has built its wealth, what?

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

#348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are Michiganders still angry about that?

Not that I know of, but the point is that our system ought to be robust against historical and statistical flukes. If you're going to decide elections via first-past-the-post at all , you should at least make the election pass a 95% likelihood hypothesis test for difference-of-means or something.

I''m of the same sentiment, but I feel that even more rigor and a smaller p value should be demanded from our election methods. 99% seems like a nice number.

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

#349
post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"You need to change that attitude or your complacency will allow politicians to take it from you." I really don't like the glibness of that sentiment, even if the idea is fine. As a voter or constituent, yeah, fight for Social Security, try to maintain it. But as an investor? Recognize that your personal view has approximately no impact on whether Social Security exists unless you run for high office or devote your l…

In fact, I will argue that the commenter's attitude is MORE harmful. He or she is placing the responsibility on the individual, when this clearly is something where the individual has no authority. The notion that if you just vote REALLY HARD the people in power will treat you well, and that if you're not treated well you must not have voted hard enough, only helps maintain the status quo.

Haven't you ever heard that "the squeaky wheel gets the grease"? There's a reason the Christian right has a political voice far out of proportion to their actual numbers: they're active and loud.

No, of course the answer isn't to "vote really hard", but that phrasing is simply rhetoric built to disparage the poster you're responding to. Everyone has only one vote. But the people who make noise, the people who are politically active, gain power far beyond their single vote. And get enough of them together -- it doesn't necessarily take that many -- and you can orchestrate some real change.

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

#350
post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

I'm more debating the definition of "value creation" rather than "investment". But admittedly I did conflate the two terms in an earlier response. I'd offer: not all investments, even the ones that provide monetary returns, do so by creating value.
Post reply on HN