Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(LA Times)   New report says the 401(k) system leaves most people with inadequate retirement savings. That report is called your 401(k) statement   (latimes.com) divider line 206
    More: Fail, pension plans, saves, Economic Policy Institute  
•       •       •

1575 clicks; posted to Business » on 06 Sep 2013 at 11:38 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



206 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-06 03:58:17 PM  

AngryDragon: error 303: I made every effort to shovel as much as I could into my retirement fund early on. Now that I've got 2 kids I've had to dial back, and stuff like this worries me. At 6.5% over the next 30 years I can hit $500,000, which would probably be enough (combined with planned pension and SS), especially if I can have my mortgage paid off by then, but adding to everything is  the fact that the prospect of paying for college for two (or more) kids is just terrifying. The financial planner we talked to recomended saving about $600 a month, per kid, to ensure we could fully fund their college education, which is just way out of our budget right now.

I'd be much happier and comfortable with a better pension option and the knowledge that SS will be more robust in the future, the whole 401k model seems like such a crapshoot.

So you have successfully followed the 401K plan, are probably set to be comfortable in retirement, and you're dissatisfied?  I don't understand.  It sounds like your issue should be the insane cost of college that you can't continue with your successful plan.


Which is why you may need to explain to your kids:

Daddy/Mommy can't afford to pay for you school. We can help, but we can't afford all of it. Then, teach them about debt (school, CC, cars, mortgages, etc), saving, living within their means, planning for the future.
 
2013-09-06 03:58:55 PM  

DrewCurtisJr: doczoidberg: I have an awesome 401K with about 500 dollars in it.

Retirement, here I come!

You are doing fine, assuming you are 15.


This is fark. Not reddit.
 
2013-09-06 03:59:24 PM  

meat0918: And if Americans actually saved what they needed to for retirement, it'd probably send the world economy into a tailspin as even more wealth sat idle.

Imagine if every working American socked away just 10% of their income each month. That's a huge chunk of cash taken out of circulation, sitting earning interest in some account, 401K, IRA, or whatever you choose.


What do you suppose happens to retirement savings when the account holder retires?
 
2013-09-06 04:01:05 PM  

error 303: I'd be much happier and comfortable with a better pension option and the knowledge that...


...the company that owns and manages the pension account could someday go tits up, or management could decide to loot it for yacht money, and I'd be SOL.
 
2013-09-06 04:01:34 PM  

meat0918: rumpelstiltskin: Yeah, it's The System's fault you can't save any money.

Actually, yes, yes it is.

And if Americans actually saved what they needed to for retirement, it'd probably send the world economy into a tailspin as even more wealth sat idle.

Imagine if every working American socked away just 10% of their income each month.  That's a huge chunk of cash taken out of circulation, sitting earning interest in some account, 401K, IRA, or whatever you choose.


Is that a reason you can't save, or an excuse for not saving?
What, in any thing you've said, could allow me to conclude: "therefore, I cannot save."
 
2013-09-06 04:02:51 PM  

KierzanDax: "...and invest too conservatively to sustain themselves through old age."

Except that those of us who did take on higher risk "because you're young and you can weather any market fluctuations!" got f*cked in the ass by Wall Street selling shiat sandwiches as "moderate risk".


If only there was some sort of risk management technique that mixes a wide variety of investments within a portfolio. To ensure that you don't have all your eggs in one basket.
 
2013-09-06 04:04:22 PM  

The_Gallant_Gallstone: Me neither... I prefer to go "Full Copeland" for my Prosperity Gospel Needs.


Ah, so you are a anti-religious bigot.  I see now.  Sorry, I mistook you for someone that was honestly discussing the topic.
 
2013-09-06 04:05:13 PM  

meat0918: That's a huge chunk of cash taken out of circulation, sitting earning interest in some account, 401K, IRA, or whatever you choose.


Also, why would you imagine money put away in an INVESTMENT ACCOUNT be sitting stagnant and not circulating in the economy?

It should be evident to you by now you haven't a single gotdamned clue what you're talking about.
 
2013-09-06 04:09:21 PM  

mediablitz: I have SS, 401k, a retirement fund, two houses paid for and I still doubt I'm set up for retirement.

But that (of course) is because I'm lazy and don't know how to handle money. That's ALWAYS the right wing answer...


And when the hell did becoming an expert money manager become a requirement for having a decent old age? Why shouldn't being good at what you are good at be enough?
 
2013-09-06 04:12:26 PM  

GoldSpider: Also, why would you imagine money put away in an INVESTMENT ACCOUNT be sitting stagnant and not circulating in the economy?


I had to scratch my head on this as well.  I guess it is the same thining that if you put $50 in a saving account, the bank puts an actual Grant in the vault on a shelf with your name on it.
 
2013-09-06 04:12:34 PM  

Problem: 100% of Americans need a source of funds for retirement after working and contributing to the economy for 40-50 years.


Solution: 1935 Social Security is created, but is never intended to be the sole source of retirement funds.  Between 1945 and 1980 or so, public- and private-sector unions are notably successful in negotiating defined-benefit retirement plans (pensions) for average US workers at nearly all levels of income.  Businesses experience steadily rising production efficiencies, with rising profits, and can afford to pay for pension plans. Progressive taxes pay for public-sector worker retirement plans.

This system is generally successful for its recipients, and for the first time in human history a large portion of the population can expect a retirement that is actually enjoyable and doesn't involve starvation and being placed on ice floes.


Problem: Shareholders decide they want annual gains in share value of at least 10% a year every year.  Also, they don't want to pay any taxes on those gains.

Solution:Stagnate wages to all worker levels below upper management,

www.artonissues.com

and elect politicians who steadily reduce tax rates on upper income levels, and declare capital gains to be excluded from ordinary income.

Problem: This works for a while, but 10%/yr adds up so we need to squeeze more.

Solution: Eliminate defined benefit (pension) plans for all worker levels below upper management, and replace with defined contribution plans (401k, IRA). Sell defined contribution plans as being better for the worker ("They're portable!") and use unrealistic growth assumptions ("12% a year, and with never a market correction!"). This produces a feeding frenzy for the finance industry, in large part because average workers don't know that 2-5% fees are looneytunes and have no realistic way to know that they could have used no-loads with maybe .2% fees for the same indexes, assuming their employer lets them have any access to something like that.

Problem: Of course, the market doesn't really work as predictably or as lucratively for its end users to give 12% net returns every year, and workers are beginning to realize they won't have anywhere near enough money for retirement.

Solution: Blame the workers. They didn't put enough into their 401k (never mind the declining wages for 30+ years) because they're irresponsible spendthrifts (wanting to have children! buy shoes, healthcare and education for those children!). It's their fault, because all workers should have the same professional level of understanding and education in financial management as a licensed financial planner. So it's their fault you see.
 
2013-09-06 04:12:45 PM  
ITT: Farkers think that 20 year olds are putting money into accounts. Every calculation I've seen in this thread accounts for people to start saving for retirement when they hit 20...when most people who are 20 are still in college, then off to grad school to be able to compete in this economy...and then searching for a job for 6 months - 3 years...so realistically my generation is only going to be saving (IF they are saving at all) from the ages of 25, 26, 27....so 30 years TOPS.

My company does a 5% match, but very few of the 30 and under (and a surprising number of over 40s) dont take advantage of the 401(k) plan, such as it is.

Someone said above there seems to be no pressure for financial planning...and I'd agree. Most of the younger people I work with go out often...are not very responsible with their money.
 
2013-09-06 04:13:51 PM  

error 303: the whole 401k model seems like such a crapshoot.


Really? You doubt that rank and file americans have the savvy to succeed at something that accredited professional money managers with huge buying advantages utterly failed at? You don't say...

Me, I'm doing ok and I think my lucky stars that I somehow learned about index funds and the effect of fund expenses at an early age and took it to heart. I still doubt I'll have enough but I do think I'm doing better than most - I'm not making a ton of money, just that I started saving in my early 30's and have put substantial amounts of money into low cost index funds for more than a decade so I have something of a balance.
 
2013-09-06 04:19:12 PM  

The_EliteOne: realistically my generation is only going to be saving (IF they are saving at all) from the ages of 25, 26, 27....so 30 years TOPS.


You think this generation is going to retire at 55?
 
2013-09-06 04:20:41 PM  
Dave Ramsey admits that his plan isn't mathematically perfect.  But it is based more on psychology and getting you to think about what you are doing with money and communicate it with your spouse.

But then we have a net worth well into 6 figures including a paid off house and 3 paid off cars so who knows...
 
2013-09-06 04:22:52 PM  

HeadLever: While he has a degree in Finance from UTenn


No he doesn't. He has a BA in Business Administration from UTenn. That's the male equivalent of a sorority girl with a Communications degree. He's on par with Robert Kiyosaki, Suze Orman or Motley Fool. Good luck with that, and keep blaming average Americans for getting shut out of our nation's continual growth and prosperity - it's their fault for not getting an MBA.
 
2013-09-06 04:23:52 PM  

The_EliteOne: from the ages of 25, 26, 27....so 30 years TOPS.


From 25 to 65 is 40 years.  Say I save a modest $300/month and my employer matches 50%.  Say I average 8%.  When I retire at age 65, I'll have $1.57Million.

It just takes a bit of discipline.
 
2013-09-06 04:27:48 PM  
 
2013-09-06 04:28:08 PM  

HeadLever: Say I average 8%.


That's not realistic
 
2013-09-06 04:29:41 PM  

thurstonxhowell: You think this generation is going to retire at 55?


When they're living to 90+?  Perhaps they ought not retire that early?
 
2013-09-06 04:29:58 PM  

thurstonxhowell: The_EliteOne: realistically my generation is only going to be saving (IF they are saving at all) from the ages of 25, 26, 27....so 30 years TOPS.

You think this generation is going to retire at 55?


No, I think they'll retire in the early/mid 60s, but only start saving at the earliest at 30.
 
2013-09-06 04:30:03 PM  

TheGreatGazoo: Dave Ramsey admits that his plan isn't mathematically perfect.


Yep.  He advocates that you attack your debts smallest to largest in order to keep momentum going on paying your debts off.  Mathmatically, it would make sense to pay them off highest interest rate to lowest.
 
2013-09-06 04:31:24 PM  

rnld: HeadLever: Say I average 8%.

That's not realistic


That's conservative.  It doesn't even account for company match (free money).
 
2013-09-06 04:32:16 PM  

rnld: That's not realistic


As stated by someone upthread, the S&P average is about 10% over the long term.  8% is perfectly realistic.

/S&P is up 16.6% YTD.
 
2013-09-06 04:37:11 PM  

Tyrone Slothrop: mediablitz: I have SS, 401k, a retirement fund, two houses paid for and I still doubt I'm set up for retirement.

But that (of course) is because I'm lazy and don't know how to handle money. That's ALWAYS the right wing answer...

And when the hell did becoming an expert money manager become a requirement for having a decent old age? Why shouldn't being good at what you are good at be enough?


Because most people aren't good at anything. They're just average blobs of mediocrity. It's impossible to even tell them apart. So we can't restrict a decent old age to people who are actually good at something.
It would be unfair.
 
2013-09-06 04:39:05 PM  

HeadLever: The_EliteOne: from the ages of 25, 26, 27....so 30 years TOPS.

From 25 to 65 is 40 years.  Say I save a modest $300/month and my employer matches 50%.  Say I average 8%.  When I retire at age 65, I'll have $1.57Million.

It just takes a bit of discipline.


Now that's not bad, but in my work experience many younger people are not putting anything away...and starting with an entry level salary, realistically, they will put away $100 or $150, if at all. That's provided they get a job with a 401(k) plan. You're also assuming an annual 8% return on every year of those 40...not going to happen. The good news is we can assume people will make more as they age, and probably make up that 150 difference and even surpass the $300/month mark...(Although, can we really say that with confidence when you look at how median wages have been over the past decades?)

I'd also say it's more than just discipline, it's also about getting raises, bonuses, making more money & advancing in your career, balanced against quality of life, home ownership, kids, unexpected life catastrophes...and the uncontrollable factors of your returns.

Tell all of that to some twenty-five year old, and they will look at you like "You're nuts, like I even know where/who/what I'm going to be in five years!"
 
2013-09-06 04:41:35 PM  
January 20 2001 the S&P was at 1341

Jan 20 2009 The S&P was at 805
 
2013-09-06 04:42:46 PM  

HeadLever: El Pachuco: No he doesn't

Ramsey earned his B.S. degree in Finance and Real Estate from the University of Tennessee.

Are you lying again?


You're projecting again.  So you take financial advice from someone with a BA in Business and a record of failure?  Good luck.
 
2013-09-06 04:46:00 PM  

El Pachuco: You're projecting again.


I am projecting that he has a BS in Finance?  Really?  Dude, that is weaksauce, even for you.

Can you even come up with a source that shows him to have a BA in Buisness?  I have already provided my sources that show that you are talking out your ass.
 
2013-09-06 04:47:31 PM  

rnld: Jan 20 2009 The S&P was at 805


And today it is at 1655.
 
2013-09-06 04:48:40 PM  

KierzanDax: "...and invest too conservatively to sustain themselves through old age."

Except that those of us who did take on higher risk "because you're young and you can weather any market fluctuations!" got f*cked in the ass by Wall Street selling shiat sandwiches as "moderate risk".


Only if you cashed out. If you opted to cash out during the crash, you ignored wall street. If you had to, you ignored wall street when you put short-term money in a long term investment.

You made that sandwich.
 
2013-09-06 04:49:36 PM  

HeadLever: rnld: Jan 20 2009 The S&P was at 805

And today it is at 1655.


Yeah, but isnt this because the fed has been pumping 85 BILLION into the market every month?

Every time Bernanke or his minions give a press release about easing QE everyone becomes chicken little.
 
2013-09-06 04:50:11 PM  
HeadLever: From 25 to 65 is 40 years.  Say I save a modest $300/month and my employer matches 50%.  Say I average 8%.  When I retire at age 65, I'll have $1.57Million.

It just takes a bit of discipline.


You sound young. It also takes a lot of luck.

From 25 - 65, you're apt to marry and/or spawn an off-spring or two. Also likely to be: divorced, fired, laid-off, sick, or disabled in that same 40 year period. Once one bad thing happens, things tend to go downhill very quickly. After which, you'll have to raid your retirement account just to eat.

/ middle aged
// survived my 2009 personal & financial disaster pretty well
/// not bitter
//// love slashies
 
2013-09-06 04:51:57 PM  

HeadLever: TheGreatGazoo: Dave Ramsey admits that his plan isn't mathematically perfect.

Yep.  He advocates that you attack your debts smallest to largest in order to keep momentum going on paying your debts off.  Mathmatically, it would make sense to pay them off highest interest rate to lowest.


If I recall correctly, Ramsey acknowledges that his approach isn't strictly the mathematically best way to do things. His approach is psychological, designed for people who are discouraged and need to see progress.

It's not for everyone, but I know some people who have been really helped by his advice.
 
2013-09-06 04:52:45 PM  

mcreadyblue: HeadLever: Yep, subby. All the system's fault.  Has nothing to do with this.  Personal responsibiltiy is only for others, amiright?

Frontline had a great show that talked about retirement/401K.

They pointed out 2/3 of gains are typically swallowed up in fees by the Wall Street companies that run the 401ks.


Absolute bullshiat. Why do you guys believe this propaganda? You are being lied to.

That quote comes from someone hypothetically getting 7% returns while paying a 2% fee over many years. 2% fee is extraordinarily high. I can't find a fund allowed by my companies 401k that charges over 1%, and those near 1% are international funds where investing is more expensive. And index funds charge a small fraction of that.

Don't be fooled. Save as much as you can in your 401k. It's a good deal for you.
 
2013-09-06 04:52:47 PM  

The_EliteOne: but in my work experience many younger people are not putting anything away...and starting with an entry level salary, realistically, they will put away $100 or $150, if at all.


And that is part of the underlying problem.  The younger generation does not realize how important it is to get an early start.  They don't understand compoud interest at all.  That is where having a Dave Ramsey or simliar program taught in HS would help them understand.

I started my retirement when I was 25, just because one of my co-workers slapped me upside the head with a few facts when I started.  Boy, am I ever grateful for that.
 
2013-09-06 04:54:15 PM  

HeadLever: From 25 to 65 is 40 years. Say I save a modest $300/month and my employer matches 50%. Say I average 8%. When I retire at age 65, I'll have $1.57Million.

It just takes a bit of discipline.


That's an unattainable dream for recent grads, not something that a little discipline will get you.
The pay isn't there, nor are the benefits. The job I did have with great pay and benefits was outsourced before I could ever contribute. When outsourcing didn't work out, what I used to get $21/hr with full bennies and a defined career path is now performed by interns who get <$10/hr and the knowledge they're gone if the wind changes.
My current job has neither the wages to support decent savings nor does it do 401K matching. And this is what the majority of jobs are looking like these days. All this talk of discipline and 8% returns for 40 years sounds like so much "I've got mine, fark you." It's the same kind of ignorance that still thinks hitting the bricks will land you a great job.
 
2013-09-06 04:54:30 PM  

GoldSpider: meat0918: That's a huge chunk of cash taken out of circulation, sitting earning interest in some account, 401K, IRA, or whatever you choose.

Also, why would you imagine money put away in an INVESTMENT ACCOUNT be sitting stagnant and not circulating in the economy?

It should be evident to you by now you haven't a single gotdamned clue what you're talking about.


Good god people.

Banks STILL aren't lending.  Wages are stagnant.  Money has accumulated in too few hands.  This is bad.

And yes, I save 10% a month, even though I want to go to go on a long vacation, buy a second car, get a new computer, a new bike, and god knows how many other things I don't buy or spend my money on because I'm trying to be responsible with my money so I don't end up like my mother who blew through her retirement account in 2 years because of medical expenses for her husband, or my mother in law that flat out doesn't have any retirement to speak, or my dad that will be relying on a measly pension after 30 years of automotive parts work, farming, and leasing out the family farm land he doesn't use to others when he retires.
 
2013-09-06 04:56:26 PM  

HeadLever: rnld: Jan 20 2009 The S&P was at 805

And today it is at 1655.


Correct - But it was at 1527 in 2000.
 
2013-09-06 04:56:57 PM  

The_EliteOne: Yeah, but isnt this because the fed has been pumping 85 BILLION into the market every month?


Partially true and there is genuine concern about the economy moving forward.  However, that could have been said during every generation.  I am not close to retirement, so these short(er) term problems are not a reason for me to change course at this time.  What concerns me more is the rapid and coninued explosion in the National Debt.
 
2013-09-06 04:58:33 PM  

El Pachuco: Problem: 100% of Americans need a source of funds for retirement after working and contributing to the economy for 40-50 years.
Solution: 1935 Social Security is created, but is never intended to be the sole source of retirement funds.  Between 1945 and 1980 or so, public- and private-sector unions are notably successful in negotiating defined-benefit retirement plans (pensions) for average US workers at nearly all levels of income.  Businesses experience steadily rising production efficiencies, with rising profits, and can afford to pay for pension plans. Progressive taxes pay for public-sector worker retirement plans.
This system is generally successful for its recipients, and for the first time in human history a large portion of the population can expect a retirement that is actually enjoyable and doesn't involve starvation and being placed on ice floes.
Problem: Shareholders decide they want annual gains in share value of at least 10% a year every year.  Also, they don't want to pay any taxes on those gains.

Solution:Stagnate wages to all worker levels below upper management,



and elect politicians who steadily reduce tax rates on upper income levels, and declare capital gains to be excluded from ordinary income.

Problem: This works for a while, but 10%/yr adds up so we need to squeeze more.

Solution: Eliminate defined benefit (pension) plans for all worker levels below upper management, and replace with defined contribution plans (401k, IRA). Sell defined contribution plans as being better for the worker ("They're portable!") and use unrealistic growth assumptions ("12% a year, and with never a market correction!"). This produces a feeding frenzy for the finance industry, in large part because average workers don't know that 2-5% fees are looneytunes and have no realistic way to know that they could have used no-loads with maybe .2% fees for the same indexes, assuming their employer lets them have any access to something like that.

Problem: Of course, the market doesn't really work as predictably or as lucratively for its end users to give 12% net returns every year, and workers are beginning to realize they won't have anywhere near enough money for retirement.

Solution: Blame the workers. They didn't put enough into their 401k (never mind the declining wages for 30+ years) because they're irresponsible spendthrifts (wanting to have children! buy shoes, healthcare and education for those children!). It's their fault, because all workers should have the same professional level of understanding and education in financial management as a licensed financial planner. So it's their fault you see.


Your conclusion is pretty close to accurate. If you haven't saved enough for retirement, you are stupid and irresponsible. Is it their fault that they were born with those negative traits? I suppose not, but it doesn't change the fact that they are, in fact, stupid and irresponsible.

The liberal position regarding pensions and retirement is essentially :"we need employers to take over retirement planning because our constituents are too farking stupid to do it for themselves!!"
 
2013-09-06 04:59:03 PM  
The main problem I have with these articles is that they discourage folks from even trying.

No one knows the future. Salary, savings, career length, etc. are not guaranteed.

But that does not mean you can't give it a try. Not to guarantee, but to improve the odds.

Almost 20 years ago there were a lot of naysayers who said either "why invest in a 401K? my pension is my retirement", or "why invest if I can't touch the money for 30-40 years? By that time it won't be worth anything!"

And then, Black Monday in 1987, when I saw my 401K lose 22% of its value in ONE DAY. When statements came out, you should have seen folks rushing to get out of their 401K ("I'll lose everything if I stay in!").

My 401K has done well over the past 29 years... but I did not know that at the time. And every crisis that came along I saw folks panic and take money out. I had no more insight than them. I just thought "what are the long term odds?" And kept plugging away.

Oh, and also - I kept my 401K simple. All index funds - large cap, small cap, international, bond fund. Part of the problem is that 401K plans offer so many options that folks think they need to take advantage of those options. 90% of folks should just stick to broad index funds and probably no more than 5 (full disclouse: I am a Boglehead).
 
2013-09-06 04:59:42 PM  

meat0918: Banks STILL aren't lending. Wages are stagnant. Money has accumulated in too few hands. This is bad.


All true, but do nothing to support your assertion that more people saving more money for retirement would be a bad thing because it takes money out of the economy.  Because that's simply not true.
 
2013-09-06 05:00:42 PM  

robbrie: You sound young. It also takes a lot of luck.


Mid 30s.  I have 12 years of investing and doing OK.  You are correct that Murphey can strike at any time and that is just part of life.  Just need to be smart and careful.  Find good job, good spouse, work hard, play harder.  Work hardest at being thankful for what you do have.
 
2013-09-06 05:01:11 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: The liberal position regarding pensions and retirement is essentially :"we need employers to take over retirement planning because our constituents are too farking stupid to do it for themselves!!"


Really?
 
2013-09-06 05:02:06 PM  

El Pachuco: HeadLever: El Pachuco: No he doesn't

Ramsey earned his B.S. degree in Finance and Real Estate from the University of Tennessee.

Are you lying again?

You're projecting again.  So you take financial advice from someone with a BA in Business and a record of failure?  Good luck.


No, you're projecting that I'm "lying again."

You clearly have no idea what a B.S. degree in Finance and Real Estate actually encompasses.  Granted, I'm simplifying by calling it a BA in Business, but that's what it is, effectively.
 
2013-09-06 05:02:57 PM  

wombatsrus: The main problem I have with these articles is that they discourage folks from even trying.

No one knows the future. Salary, savings, career length, etc. are not guaranteed.

But that does not mean you can't give it a try. Not to guarantee, but to improve the odds.

Almost 20 years ago there were a lot of naysayers who said either "why invest in a 401K? my pension is my retirement", or "why invest if I can't touch the money for 30-40 years? By that time it won't be worth anything!"

And then, Black Monday in 1987, when I saw my 401K lose 22% of its value in ONE DAY. When statements came out, you should have seen folks rushing to get out of their 401K ("I'll lose everything if I stay in!").

My 401K has done well over the past 29 years... but I did not know that at the time. And every crisis that came along I saw folks panic and take money out. I had no more insight than them. I just thought "what are the long term odds?" And kept plugging away.

Oh, and also - I kept my 401K simple. All index funds - large cap, small cap, international, bond fund. Part of the problem is that 401K plans offer so many options that folks think they need to take advantage of those options. 90% of folks should just stick to broad index funds and probably no more than 5 (full disclouse: I am a Boglehead).


Agreed completely. Automatic investing via 401k payroll deduction also results in automatic dollar cost averaging. If you are under 45 or 50 and the market tanks, look at it as an opportunity to buy cheaply.
 
2013-09-06 05:03:29 PM  

GoldSpider: meat0918: Banks STILL aren't lending. Wages are stagnant. Money has accumulated in too few hands. This is bad.

All true, but do nothing to support your assertion that more people saving more money for retirement would be a bad thing because it takes money out of the economy.  Because that's simply not true.


I'll acknowledge that the money will be spent eventually as well.  Also, I said investment accounts, but my brain was thinking "under the mattress or in a jar buried in the backyard."
 
2013-09-06 05:03:31 PM  

nosferatublue: His approach is psychological, designed for people who are discouraged and need to see progress.


Yeah, his response that personal finance is 20% actual finance and 80% personal behavior.
 
2013-09-06 05:06:18 PM  
Step 1: know exactly what you spend your money on.
 
Displayed 50 of 206 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report