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

#391

Post by shoover » Thu, Jan 05, 2017, 10:29 PM UTC

callinyouin wrote: post #4

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.

I was thinking it may be boomers putting in catch-up funds. Younger folks today may still be trying to get started on a mortgage down payment, let alone saving for kids' college or maxing out the 401k.

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

#392

Post by jessaustin » Thu, Jan 05, 2017, 10:30 PM UTC

TheCoelacanth wrote: post #387

fooey wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm 36 and in ~17 years of being a developer professionally, I've yet to find employment at a single company that offers any kind of retirement plan at all. I max out my IRA each year, but my retirement plan is to basically work until I can't, then hop on an iceberg. IMHO, between Americans being drastically underprepared for retirement and mass job automation, the country is on the cusp of a devastatingly colossal s…

What kind of developer job doesn't have a 401k? Even the minimum wage job I had my first summer out of high school had one.

You had a minimum wage job with a 401k? That was a firm with a bigger HR department than it needed.

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

#393

Post by mjevans » Thu, Jan 05, 2017, 10:32 PM UTC

vkou wrote: post #329

hoorayimhelping wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, that's why we need people not to bet their retirement on a pyramid scheme, which is the point the parent of this whole conversation was making.

How exactly can a 45 year old currently making <$25,000/year be expected to finance their retirement, without Social Security?

By voting Socialist.

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

#394

Post by linkregister » Thu, Jan 05, 2017, 10:32 PM UTC

jacalata wrote: post #78

fortytw2 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it was actually your money, paying into it would be optional.

Not necessarily. The Australian superannuation program has compulsory contributions but the money goes into an account in your own name.

The superannuation program is minuscule compared to the pension scheme in terms of expected payments.

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

#395

Post by hx87 » Thu, Jan 05, 2017, 10:32 PM UTC

portent wrote: post #382

mywittyname wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Where will that come from? The same place cash comes from now when the Fed buys t-bonds in order to manipulate the interest rate: nowhere. The Federal Reserve has the authority to create money to redeem any US government security.

I don't think that is right. The federal reserve can create new US dollars, and it can buy US Treasuries - but this is not the same as redeeming them. The fed becomes just another bondholder that needs paying by the treasury dept. The money goes to the person who previously held the bond as payment for the bond. Also there is about $20 trillion outstanding public debt, and only $3.3 trillion in the whole money supply…

> The fed becomes just another bondholder that needs paying by the treasury dept.

The Fed does not get paid. It doesn't need to get paid, since the Federal Reserve by law has infinite liquidity.

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

#396

Post by baddox » Thu, Jan 05, 2017, 10:32 PM UTC

notheguyouthink wrote: post #321

baddox wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is "diversity of concerns" a primary goal of democracy? Obviously for issues that directly affect a local region, I do think those should be handled by a local government. The people in the apartment complex probably ought to have different rules than people in rural counties, each reflecting the concerns of the local population. But there's only one President for the whole country, for better or for worse. It doesn'…

From your description it sounds like thats the only time it makes sense, to me at least. Ie, the President should hopefully be working for the whole country, not just the most dense areas. I guess another way to look at it is that the president is responsible for such a large area, that population is far less of a concern (in my view) . S/he should know not to set laws that focus on a locality, because the states can…

> From your description it sounds like thats the only time it makes sense, to me at least. Ie, the President should hopefully be working for the whole country, not just the most dense areas.

But that's not the alternative proposed. The alternative proposed is that a human in a sparsely populated area gets MORE influence than a human in a densely populated area. If you go with the national popular vote idea, the President should be the candidate who got the most votes by humans without regard for the population density where they live.

> I guess another way to look at it is that the president is responsible for such a large area, that population is far less of a concern (in my view).

Population density is an extremely meaningless demographic to adjust for. Seriously, why does that matter? Sure, you can show a map of the US and see that most land area went Republican even when the Democratic candidate wins, but if you think about it for a moment, why does land area matter? Surely no one would go so far as to suggest that every unit of land area should have the same influence on the election (i.e. you get to vote once for every acre of land you own).

> I don't want the president to set laws for me (just an example) focusing on people in downtown LA or NYC - i don't live there, my world is very different. I want my president to consider the whole country, and let the states/counties handle raw locality.

That's a reasonable desire, but how does giving people in sparsely populated areas MORE influence help this? It may help you if you live in a sparsely populated area, but it doesn't help the goal of having the president consider the entire country.

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

#397

Post by anigbrowl » Thu, Jan 05, 2017, 10:33 PM UTC

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.

Yes, people can...in the aggregate. But aggregating people takes a lot of work. So unless you devote yourself to the task of saving social security (by mobilizing lots of people to fight with you) then you're not going to have much influence. The ~50 million Trump voters, how much influence do they have with him right now? fuck all. I don't mean that as a comment on him, just pointing out the huge asymmetrical power differentials. Voting does make a tiny difference, but that's like saying you can steer a boat by getting the passengers to rush to one side of the deck or the other. It's technically true but nobody actually steers a boat that way.

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

#398

Post by fooey » Thu, Jan 05, 2017, 10:34 PM UTC

TheCoelacanth wrote: post #387

fooey wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm 36 and in ~17 years of being a developer professionally, I've yet to find employment at a single company that offers any kind of retirement plan at all. I max out my IRA each year, but my retirement plan is to basically work until I can't, then hop on an iceberg. IMHO, between Americans being drastically underprepared for retirement and mass job automation, the country is on the cusp of a devastatingly colossal s…

What kind of developer job doesn't have a 401k? Even the minimum wage job I had my first summer out of high school had one.

I'm in Southern Utah, so it's not very competitive for tech work. I should move, but inertia and a bit of luck stumbling into the few webdev jobs that are around here has kept me in place so far.

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

#399

Post by chrisabrams » Thu, Jan 05, 2017, 10:36 PM UTC

tunap wrote: post #325

chrisabrams wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the older generation should give way to the younger generation. After all, it is the younger generation that is required to run the world while the older retires. However, as it is currently, the older generation is robbing the younger generation. The younger generation is paying for entitlements that it knows it will never receive. That is not sustainable, fair, or in my opinion: necessary. It should not be…

"Probably" see better results? I don't have, nor will I fetch for, the number of people who are solely reliant on SS, but my father is one of them. And he said the exact same words as you to me when I was a sprout. Now, after some bad decisions, and health issues as a direct result of long arduous work, he is glad to have that net. Please, don't tell me about my duties as a son, I've supported two family members thro…

That's great that you've recognized your duty to your family, but what happens when your children retire? What process is in place to help them? Current projects barely keep things solvent for the retiring baby boomer generation.

Robbing Peter to pay Paul isn't sustainable [1], but that's what social security is. Social security is not a guaranteed solution. If we have to raise taxes or collect additional taxes, that makes it a ponzi scheme. Cutting benefits is similar: you either lose the money now or later.

Discussion forums such as this are one of our few hopes for generating s sustainable solution. Just because a solution doesn't currently exist doesn't mean we should be complacent with how things are.

[1]: http://money.cnn.com/2016/06/22/pf/social-security-medicare/

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

#400

Post by brandonmenc » Thu, Jan 05, 2017, 10:37 PM UTC

logfromblammo wrote: post #279

brandonmenc wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's exactly the kind of "we got ours" BS that the boomers are so known for. The boomers are just recipients of an anomalous post-war economic order that heavily benefitted the US for a couple decades. The average 60-year old had no role in pulling the rug out from millennials.

Right. The average Boomer had nothing to do with it. To be fair, the Boomer politicians and business managers didn't screw the Millennials, either. Not directly. They pulled the rug out from the Gen-Xers, and let the domino effect take out the Millennials, too. Yeah, as a generation, we still exist, even though nobody talks about us. The Boomers were the beneficiaries of post-war prosperity, but they also decided to…

> The Boomers were the beneficiaries of post-war prosperity, but they also decided to steal money from the future to finance their generational party/gravy train.

I hear this a lot, but what exactly do you mean?

The real reason we don't have the same great lifestyles our (let's be honest - mostly white, male) parents and grandparents did is because no one can get a good paying factory job right out of high school anymore - an inevitable, global, structural change that no one could've prevented.