Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: Chapel Hill, NC, formerly NoVA and Phila
9,779 posts, read 15,793,171 times
Reputation: 10888
Advertisements
I think the concept of working will change, so the concept of retirement will change, too, but not come to an end. What I mean is the '9-5' working person who goes to the office 5 days per week until he's 60 will end. And is already changing as we know. Over the next decade or two, the person, instead, will work from home, work some hours during the week, work some hours on the weekend. Instead of retiring at 60, he may slow down - work fewer hours, just do some work from home, work from a remote location. He will keep his foot in the door earning income as he needs it. Some will fully stop earning an income from work, but many will continue on an as needed basis.
I think the concept of working will change, so the concept of retirement will change, too, but not come to an end. What I mean is the '9-5' working person who goes to the office 5 days per week until he's 60 will end. And is already changing as we know. Over the next decade or two, the person, instead, will work from home, work some hours during the week, work some hours on the weekend. Instead of retiring at 60, he may slow down - work fewer hours, just do some work from home, work from a remote location. He will keep his foot in the door earning income as he needs it. Some will fully stop earning an income from work, but many will continue on an as needed basis.
A number of good points. Not only will the concept change but the means of financing it will change. I am beginning to read about more things employers are doing to work around parts of the Affordable Care Act. Some of those changes could have a real long term impact on peoples ability to finance their retirements and the opportunities they will have in the work place. Having your hours cut and or your position converted to a 1099 won't help I wouldn't think.
I think the concept of working will change, so the concept of retirement will change, too, but not come to an end. What I mean is the '9-5' working person who goes to the office 5 days per week until he's 60 will end. And is already changing as we know. Over the next decade or two, the person, instead, will work from home, work some hours during the week, work some hours on the weekend. Instead of retiring at 60, he may slow down - work fewer hours, just do some work from home, work from a remote location. He will keep his foot in the door earning income as he needs it. Some will fully stop earning an income from work, but many will continue on an as needed basis.
That's great - IF your employer wants to keep you around that long. Seems to be a trend of laying off older workers and hiring younger/cheaper workers.
Few people in my industry actually choose their 'retirement' date. It is often chosen for them.
Once you are in your mid-fifties in corporate America - your job is in jeapordy.
You're trying to disprove statistics with conjecture, and it doesn't work. I haven't scene any numbers that suggest anything other than that the vast majority of Americans heading toward retirement are grossly unprepared financially to support themselves. If you have any hard numbers that show anything else, please post them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107
that number for 401k balances couldn't be more meaningless.
it is diluted by the fact you are taking those that max out or even contribute 1/2 the max , and mixing it with those who barely contribute and arriving at some figure in that middle.
how about the millions of folks who switched jobs like i did and pulled out 6 figure 401k's and rolled them to ira's?
how about those who structure things correctly and keep only their income generating stuff in the 401k's since that is taxed at regular rates anyway. a good structure has the equities in your taxable account .
how about those who invested in real estate?
others have pensions and annuities they bought.
that number thrown out is hog wash.
want a better number?
fidelity says those over age 55 who contributed from 1/2 to max for the 10 years over just the LOST decade have average balances of almost 300k and that is only the last decade.
only 1/3 was gains from the market. 2/3's were contributions from the employee and employer. it would have been way higher had we had more normal markets and rates.
the media loves to always take the sky is falling path.
americans love to see numbers that say see it isn't just you that screwed up. everyone else screwed up too.
the truth is retirees who acted to save and invest did so and many have balances far far greater than these stupid statistics portray. .
it was like the frontline show we discussed in the other thread.
they did not have one winner on that show, every single person failed at savings that they had on. if i did not know better i came away from that show thinking everyone in america has a crappy 401k and little savings.
since a real financial census does not exist that measures all of us why would anyone care or assume that any data thrown out there really is correct for all or even matters .
the only numbers that are complete or even matter are your own.
You're trying to disprove statistics with conjecture, and it doesn't work. I haven't scene any numbers that suggest anything other than that the vast majority of Americans heading toward retirement are grossly unprepared financially to support themselves. If you have any hard numbers that show anything else, please post them.
I don't think the number reflect the true picture. I think there are serious issues but it is difficult to paint a big picture without disaggregating the data further. We can take all the data about individually:
Average SS benefits
Number with Pensions
Average Pension
Money in Tax Sheltered Accounts
Forget taxable accounts.
Unless you read a survey that does a major disaggregation based on overlapping variables it is hard to get a picture. Also marriage status and is it one or two benefit/income couple. Big difference if you have two people married each with 30K in combined retirement benefits as opposed to one. Where do they live? 30K in San Fran or 30K in rural Missouri? Just read an article which I will link in a few that the wealth earned since the 2009 market low was earned by the top 13% of asset owners. That is logical as a 15% return on 1k, 50k, 100K or 1 million K is very different.
You're trying to disprove statistics with conjecture, and it doesn't work. I haven't scene (sic) any numbers that suggest anything other than that the vast majority of Americans heading toward retirement are grossly unprepared financially to support themselves. If you have any hard numbers that show anything else, please post them.
You are mischaracterizing Mathjak's argument. It is not the statistic itself (average balance in people's 401K's) that he is questioning, but the meaning (relevance) of it.
In other words, your argument was roughly as follows: Since older individuals have an average 401(K) balance which is not very large, that proves that most are not well prepared for retirement.
Mathjak's rebuttal was roughtly this: The statistic about 401(K) balances in largely meaningless because it assumes people's entire retirement savings are in their 401(K)'s, whereas the reality is that many people have significant retirement assets in other places, such as income producing real estate, Roth IRA's, pensions, etc.
Thus Mathjak is not trying to disprove any statistic; rather, he is putting the statistic itself into context and perspective.
You are mischaracterizing Mathjak's argument. It is not the statistic itself (average balance in people's 401K's) that he is questioning, but the meaning (relevance) of it.
In other words, your argument was roughly as follows: Since older individuals have an average 401(K) balance which is not very large, that proves that most are not well prepared for retirement.
Mathjak's rebuttal was roughtly this: The statistic about 401(K) balances in largely meaningless because it assumes people's entire retirement savings are in their 401(K)'s, whereas the reality is that many people have significant retirement assets in other places, such as income producing real estate, Roth IRA's, pensions, etc.
Thus Mathjak is not trying to disprove any statistic; rather, he is putting the statistic itself into context and perspective.
That's fine, but it doesn't go very far. All the numbers that are available show that most of those approaching retirement are woefully underfunded. If he's saying those numbers aren't applicable, he needs to come up with some that are bother credible, and prove his point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Escort Rider
You are mischaracterizing Mathjak's argument. It is not the statistic itself (average balance in people's 401K's) that he is questioning, but the meaning (relevance) of it.
In other words, your argument was roughly as follows: Since older individuals have an average 401(K) balance which is not very large, that proves that most are not well prepared for retirement.
Mathjak's rebuttal was roughtly this: The statistic about 401(K) balances in largely meaningless because it assumes people's entire retirement savings are in their 401(K)'s, whereas the reality is that many people have significant retirement assets in other places, such as income producing real estate, Roth IRA's, pensions, etc.
Thus Mathjak is not trying to disprove any statistic; rather, he is putting the statistic itself into context and perspective.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
