Because at a practical level they don't do what policy makers and businesses claim they do.

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/03/20/l-it-...a-failure.html

You contribute nothing of substance to this forum. Though I don't know if trolling is your goal that's exactly what you've become.

So a couple of problem with that article.

One, they are defining average 401k account amount as totality of retirement savings. Most people either have multiple 401k accounts or a single 401k account with IRA rollover from 401k acounts from previous employer.

Two, the fact that many Americans dont like to save should not be an indictment of the 401k as a scam.

A reasonable rate of savings (15%) from the start of working career can easily cover retirement spending.

Saving 15% is a pipe dream for low earners. It may also be one for medium to high earners who can't resist the siren song of easy credit, forcing them to use the money they could've saved to service consumer debt.

It may very well be a pipe dream for low income earners but that is largely a problem of wage increase not keeping in line with cost of living increase. It doesnt say anything about the viability of 401k vs some other retirement plan. If low income workers cant save x% of their paycheck then neither can they afford a mandatory withholding or reduction of salary for retirement purposes.

Amoeba,

Just save 15% ez game is beyond tone-deaf.

Practically speaking, I would wager a guess the national savings rate has never been 15%.

As a thought experiment, where do you expect people to conjour this 15% from?

Housing costs, as a percent of income, have never been higher;
Healthcare costs, do I really need to say anything here;
If you're lucky enough to have graduated college, congrats, you have more debt than any graduating generation before you;
Car ownership is defacto mandatory basically everywhere in the US; in the rare instance you live somewhere where you can forgo a car you more than make up for the expense in higher rents.

And so on and so forth.

I don't even have the energy to cite all these things.

You sound like my cousin who is the child of a surgeon, had his education completely paid for, and is the beneficiary of the Orthodontic cartel and said verbatim at Thanksgiving; 'if you live in America and aren't rich, it's your own fault'.

Half of all Muricans rent exceeds 30 percent of their income; 25% their rent exceeds HALF OF THEIR INCOME. Joint Center for Housing Studies Harvard.

Wake up man! The banks (interest) and owners of capital(land/apartments) are taking all of the productivity gainz!

The median income in San Francisco is ~78k. And you don't need a MBA from Wharton to know the median workers benefits package is going to pale in comparison to the 50k City employees get.

So yea, so like 150% of median income plus defined benefit pension is bonkers. And there are 31,000 of them.

Who says a city job should pay lower than median income? There are a lot of barristas in SF. Median software engineer is $101k in SF. Median "Solutions Architect" is $135k. (payscale.com)

A lot of jobs with the city are for professionals.

https://www.jobaps.com/SF/

I looked around this and I will say that cops make too much money. Their salaries should be cut in half and probably half of them laid off and probably a quarter as much spent on their equipment.

While I am very frustrated with baby boomers and think the country will be much better off when we move on from their dominant voting block, obviously I'm not looking forward to anyone dying off.

My mom grew up in a large catholic family. I have 11(ish) close family members who are all boomers. There will come a time when I am flying back to KC way too often. It will be awful and I am dreading it.

https://www.jobaps.com/SF/sup/bulpre...61&R3=TEACH%21

Substitute teacher $136/day. That job needs a pay raise. With a job like that where you spend some time waiting around for assignments and a high ratio of administrative BS to time on the clock, that's like $13/hr.

My mom listens to these financial shows - "I'm going to give you a secret that rich people have known forever - save 10% of everything you make. Every year. Folks it's just that simple."

There you go stupid poors. Trump just saved 10% every year and look where he is now.

Suzzer,

You gotta correct for KC. Think of all the people your age on Chief's Planet.

Thenewsavman, i did not state any of the things you attribute to me. You also seem to do a very poor job of reading and seem to think i am espousing a " let them eat cake" position.

Once again, it may very well be the case that cost of living is so very high that people are unable to save for retirement. However, it is largely irrelevant in a discussion between the benefits and drawbacks of an optional retirement saving plan such as 401k vs a mandatory forced retirement contribution plan such as SS.

Its a little late for your mom to follow that advice. On the other hand its perfectly fine advice for 20 year olds and preferably 14 year olds today.

Nothing wrong with it. But working a **** job and saving 10% is never gonna get you rich. You need to inherit it or start a business - which often involves going massively into debt first.

Why are you making things up?

Dude. You said:
And I said:

That is literally the only thing in my post I attributed to you. I even explicitly said....'as a thought experiment' re: the rest of my post. It's not like I am grossly mis-interpreting what you said.

One of us has reading comp issues, and it isn't me.

Then take that up with the guy who brought it up in the first place!

What is your definition of rich?

Besides, i thought we were talking about having a comfortable retirement.

Obviously having a better job helps but the choice isnt between better job and **** job. Saving 10% and putting it in to a diversified investment is likely better than the alternatives of taking that money and spending it/investing it in to an undiversified illiquid asset such as primary residence/following latest stock tip, regardless of the job you have.

Thenewsavman, is your issue that you dont find 15% to be a reasonable savings rate?

I might agree with that.

I went a bit on the high side because i did not want to count on SS income and i am using a pessimistic number for market growth.

So is 10% reasonable?

We haven't had a good "definition of rich" derail in a while.

But anyway from the context oh my post, obviously the radio guy was talking about rich people - not just anyone who can afford a comfortable retirement.

All that 10% stuff is fine. But it aint going to get you to Trump level or even close w/o a) being born with a huge head-start (like Trump) or b) taking a bunch of risk (debt) or c) getting massively lucky (12th employee at google). My point is average people don't get that. They think getting rich is 90% grit and determination.

10% would be roughly doubling the current savings rate. (Personal savings rate is after taxes) The rate has been in more or less steady decline since the 70's. If you watched the Warren Vid I posted earlier you would be aware that, despite many peoples assertion to the contrary, people are spending less on pretty much everything (in real terms) except healthcare, housing, education, and taxes.

So it's not like everyone is needlessly frittering away their savings.....all those rising costs are necessities.

So as to your question, do I find it reasonable, I would ask: where are people going to get the money from?

And my larger point is that if we address two things then I think a lot of other things fix themselves:

1.) Lower the cost of living by attacking the cost drivers I mentioned above

2.) Somehow incent wage growth in real terms

I suspect the two issues are largely interconnected. My personal suspicion is the root cause is mostly rent seeking from the FIRE industries. But it's only a suspicion. I mean I have some theories but just barely. Meanwhile living costs are increasing and wealth is concentrating at the (very) top.

Brief aside: It's not like I am advocating wage growth for it's own sake, wage growth and productivity have been decoupling since the 70's. i.e. Workers are producing more, they just aren't getting as much of their increase in production.

This is partly a function of people's compensation coming increasingly in the form of benefits and not wages. i.e. employer subsidized health care instead of a wage increase.

But that doesn't explain all of it.

And to loop back to your original question, I mean I personally find 10% to be reasonable, and Americans did too when they could afford it.

I really can't overstate the degree to which I think rising inequality is the source of so many of our ills.

savman sounding like a pinko-commie itt

The best of politics right there.