Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Support MFO
Donate through PayPal
States Tackle America’s Retirement-Savings Shortfall
I am not sure this is a real solution. Why not make it very easy for each employee to have their own retirement plan that would be portable? IRA's fit the bill but they would have to greatly increase the limits on contributions. If employees want a retirement vehicle, they could do it on their own versus waiting for the company. If the employee is not interested, then it doesn't matter? Education on what SS provides and what a personal retirement account could provide is necessary.
I like the portability issue due to the fact that today's workers will have several jobs in their working life. Also, by having your name on the account versus the XYZ company 401k, it promotes ownership of your retirement future.
>> If employees want a retirement vehicle, they could do it on their own versus waiting for the company. If the employee is not interested, then it doesn't matter?
Because why, freedom?
The whole point is that it matters regardless. People know, but don't do. Anything that is 'enforces' extra-strong encouragement (default must be opted out of, for example) is gonna help. Anything expansive like Wash state and Illinois is gonna help.
Kind of agree with davidmoran. Too many ppl WILL NOT set up their own retirement fund or plan, no matter how easy the mechanics of it are made. Recent example: low-mid-income couple with blinders on, enough income to invest for the long haul (rather than trade stocks short-term), always declared their retirement was in their property. It finally sold, for 75% less than they had anticipated. They will be through the proceeds by the time they are 70, at which point they will have only S.S. That story is repeated over and over, even among college-educated folks who exercise business savvy in other matters and hunt for bargains. They simply WILL NOT.
I didn't see anything in the article that suggested mandatory participation of employees. So the state could set it up but if the employee doesn't want to participate then what was gained?
Freedom is a bad word to some here. The overriding advantage of a personal plan is portability.
What a ridiculous comeback, freedom a bad word, to a sarcastic aside. Freedom! Yeah, that'll solve the problem.
No, not mandatory. That would get the attention of Fox howler monkeys. But incentives and strong encouragement and forced opting-out will have good outcomes without any freedom-quashing. What is gained? Behaviors influenced in aggregate, as always. Think social policies for lungs, crania, teeth....
Oh, great, a snotty comeback from you; productive. It is not I who is kneejerk and does not give serious thoughtfulness to gradations and modulations of approaches. As I implied, tell us your thoughtful and substantiated philosophies about fluoride, seatbelts/helmets, taxes, vaccination, and all similar. Or rather, and more on point, is there no point to strong and effective incentives/disincentives for retirement saving via the workplace, do you think? What would you do to vigorously encourage better retirement planning? Just leave it alone and let it be? --- because freedom? Sow and reap, etc. Or is it that you do not think this is a problem that needs addressing? Freedom? Try to be contributory here and not just reactionary.
Comments
I like the portability issue due to the fact that today's workers will have several jobs in their working life. Also, by having your name on the account versus the XYZ company 401k, it promotes ownership of your retirement future.
Because why, freedom?
The whole point is that it matters regardless. People know, but don't do. Anything that is 'enforces' extra-strong encouragement (default must be opted out of, for example) is gonna help. Anything expansive like Wash state and Illinois is gonna help.
That story is repeated over and over, even among college-educated folks who exercise business savvy in other matters and hunt for bargains. They simply WILL NOT.
Freedom is a bad word to some here. The overriding advantage of a personal plan is portability.
No, not mandatory. That would get the attention of Fox howler monkeys. But incentives and strong encouragement and forced opting-out will have good outcomes without any freedom-quashing. What is gained? Behaviors influenced in aggregate, as always. Think social policies for lungs, crania, teeth....
I expected no less from you David.