- Oct 25, 2017
Lol. Well after being a contracted worker for many years and then being hired and ultimately being apart of a massive layoff, my 401K is pitiful and I’m back to contract work.
I'm working till I die if SS goes under.
Most Americans are WAY poorer than you probably thought. People around here would consider my wife and I "rich". We're not even close, and we barely have any savings. Wife has a 401k and one other small savings account. I have two SUPER low savings accounts, with barely anything in them. Sucks.
They are extremely low. I think most people can't or won't save anything meaningful, and then there's the minority of those that do which is why the averages and medians are so different.
Pretty obvious, there are people who have multiple millions saved up that skew up the average. The median takes into account how many people have have none or close to none.
I've also heard whole salary by 35. Trying to come up with a target at 30 is tricky because the amount of your 20s spent working varies from person to person. Also, your salary can increase considerably in that time period.
Not really. It's fairly common for people to sell their house and buy a smaller place or rent in their retirement. People don't need a 4-bedroom house once the kids have moved out, and they may not want to deal with the maintenance as they get older. Some people will also move in with relatives or to a retirement community if they have difficulty living on their own.
It should be at least 10% to 15%. Does your company offer matching? If so you have to do what you need to get that - no excuse.
Oh certainly it’s better to have equity than not. That’sa big thing we are missing is any sort of property investment or home ownership. I just feel so much more flexible not having one. My wife is the big earner and she works in health care. That makes me nervous to assume her money train will continue ten+ years down the line so we’ve avoided buying a house in an elevated market. That plus we would have to live in the burbs.Not really. It's fairly common for people to sell their house and buy a smaller place or rent in their retirement. People don't need a 4-bedroom house once the kids have moved out, and they may not want to deal with the maintenance as they get older. Some people will also move in with relatives or to a retirement community if they have difficulty living on their own.
In any case, you would agree that it is not accurate to say that a person who rents and has $50K in their 401K is better off than someone who owns a $300K home and has $25K in their 401K, right? That's my point. In the US there is a big culture around home ownership as part of the "American Dream", so it is usually the case that people will invest in a home before they start putting money into a 401K or an IRA.
The problem is that the average American doesn't exactly start off in positions that pay well enough to start investing in their 401(k). On top of that, I would assume that the majority of Americans do not even have any contributions to their 401(k). Then you get into the territory where many employers are not matching even 1% of an employee's contribution to their 401(k). On top of that, you do have annual limits on your contributions to your 401(k) (based on age - but most never hit this cap unless they're in a well-paying position, to begin with).
Which in effect is as good as eliminated. Who is supposed to be able to scrounge by on 30% of what SS is now?I honestly think that there's no way social security will just be eliminated.
Do you all have an understanding of how this is calculated and what take for a program like this to just disappear.
What I do think is feasible and will happen is that the benefits that we receive from SS go down 60% to 70% from what we have today.
60% to 70%**
Agreed. Those totals seem incredibly low. To the point where they are giving people a false sense of security and accomplishment. Incredibly dangerous for people in the upper age brackets.