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.
I cannot understand how 31% can see $250K as sufficient to retire. Add in the next 19% that is aiming between $250K and $500K, 50% is looking to retire less than $500K. They are really in trouble and they don't know it.
Average account balance grew to all time high of $74,900 while average for those with at least 10 years of contributions rose to $191,000 and for over 55 and 10+ years of contributions is $233,800.
It does not say much about overall assets of someone for retirement and I am sure there are many people like we with a number of accounts. However, growth in assets means Fidelity is probably making more money on fees.
The $233,800 figure subject to many variables. (1) these are folks who have contributed "continuously" for 10 years or more to a Fidelity 401k. Them that were laid off for a while and didnt contribute during that time not included. Somebody with a short term crisis who stopped contributing briefly not included. These folks if included would probably pull that figure way down. (2) this figure represents them age 55 and up. Whats the average age of this group? 60? 65? They dont say. (3) Applies to individuals. Couples combined likely higher. (4) Doesnt take into account investments or assets outside the plan.
Agree $233,800 aint enough for somebody with just social security. With a good DBP, especially with cola or medical coverage, might be adequate. Would boil down to how spartan an existence they wanted to live and how astute they were at keeping that money invested and growing during early years of retirement. Working part time also an option. Owning a home debt free would help alot. Thanks Investor for a good read, even if the author leaves it full of holes. Must say those figures appear much higher than what I recall reading over the years. May be due to some of the omissions noted.
"As the private wealth of the Empire was gradually confiscated or taxed away, driven away or hidden, economic growth slowed to a virtual standstill. Moreover, once the wealthy were no longer able to pay the state's bills, the burden inexorably fell onto the lower classes, so that average people suffered as well from the deteriorating economic conditions. In Rostovtzeff's words, "The heavier the pressure of the state on the upper classes, the more intolerable became the condition of the lower" (Rostovtzeff 1957: 430).
The remaining members of the upper classes were pressed into providing municipal services, such as tax collection, without pay. And should tax collections fall short of the state's demands, they were required to make up the difference themselves. This led to further efforts to hide whatever wealth remained in the Empire, especially among those who still found ways of becoming rich. Ordinarily, they would have celebrated their new-found wealth; now they made every effort to appear as poor as everyone else, lest they become responsible for providing municipal services out of their own pocket.
The steady encroachment of the state into the intimate workings of the economy also eroded growth. The result was increasing feudalization of the economy and a total breakdown of the division of labor. People fled to the countryside and took up subsistence farming or attached themselves to the estates of the wealthy, which operated as much as possible as closed systems, providing for all their own needs and not engaging in trade at all. Meanwhile, much land was abandoned and remained fallow or fell into the hands of the state, whose mismanagement generally led to a decline in production. "
Yeah, this is pretty much my home too. I always thought that Roy worried a bit too much about OT, but it was his site, after all. Frankly I don't see a lot of problems with OT, even OT that argues about financial implications of various political ideas, as long as it's kept civil. For instance, see my response to Scott, down below. Always enjoy rattling his chain) now and then. Makes the entire site a whole lot more interesting, and actually keeps the Funds section really clean. I think that David is pretty much of that perspective also.
It was fun trying to get OT stuff past Roy. Generally anything with "fund" in it worked. Now that you mention it, has anything ever been deleted here? That one went in the cooler for a bit. I think somebody at the old board crashed this one once and got taken out. But amazingly free of deletions.
Comments
Inflation is the biggest question in my mind.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-11/average-u-s-401-k-balances-reach-highest-level-fidelity-says.html
Average account balance grew to all time high of $74,900 while average for those with at least 10 years of contributions rose to $191,000 and for over 55 and 10+ years of contributions is $233,800.
It does not say much about overall assets of someone for retirement and I am sure there are many people like we with a number of accounts. However, growth in assets means Fidelity is probably making more money on fees.
Agree $233,800 aint enough for somebody with just social security. With a good DBP, especially with cola or medical coverage, might be adequate. Would boil down to how spartan an existence they wanted to live and how astute they were at keeping that money invested and growing during early years of retirement. Working part time also an option. Owning a home debt free would help alot. Thanks Investor for a good read, even if the author leaves it full of holes. Must say those figures appear much higher than what I recall reading over the years. May be due to some of the omissions noted.
The remaining members of the upper classes were pressed into providing municipal services, such as tax collection, without pay. And should tax collections fall short of the state's demands, they were required to make up the difference themselves. This led to further efforts to hide whatever wealth remained in the Empire, especially among those who still found ways of becoming rich. Ordinarily, they would have celebrated their new-found wealth; now they made every effort to appear as poor as everyone else, lest they become responsible for providing municipal services out of their own pocket.
The steady encroachment of the state into the intimate workings of the economy also eroded growth. The result was increasing feudalization of the economy and a total breakdown of the division of labor. People fled to the countryside and took up subsistence farming or attached themselves to the estates of the wealthy, which operated as much as possible as closed systems, providing for all their own needs and not engaging in trade at all. Meanwhile, much land was abandoned and remained fallow or fell into the hands of the state, whose mismanagement generally led to a decline in production. "
http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cjv14n2-7.html
+++++
Only sayin'.
Cheers!