It seems to me that the employer will fund it either way. Maybe I’m misremembering stories of pensions being mismanaged and lost. I think the most important thing is that the employer actually does something to fund a retirement, in my way of thinking the 401k approach puts me in control of the money so I don’t rely on someone else to not fail.

Whether it’s promised bonuses, stocks, or retirement funds, my motto is always “show me the money”, and I’ll believe it when it’s in my hands.

  • frezik@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    3 months ago

    The old plan was that you’d have three things in retirement: Social Security, a corporate pension, and a 401k. Each of these has problems, but if any one of them fails, then the other two are still there to provide enough.

    Problem is, pensions have all but disappeared, Social Security gets fucked with, and 401k’s are highly dependent on market conditions at the time you retire.

      • frezik@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        3 months ago

        The stock portion is reduced, yes, but there’s almost always some kind of mix of stocks in the portfolio. That’s not necessarily the main issue.

        First, you may not get to choose the timing. A lot of older people got trapped in the 2008 downturn. They were planning on retiring a few years out, but they lost their jobs and never got them back. Not only was their portfolio unprepared just based on when they planned to retire, but also the stock crash killed a chunk of what they had. Double wammy of losing their job and destroying their portfolio.

        Second, inflation hits hard. If there’s a period of high inflation right when you retire, that can really hurt your savings regardless of how it’s distributed. One of the things those forced 2008 retirees had going for them was that we had a period of relatively low inflation for the next decade. If you took out housing (older people often own their home outright), inflation was sometimes negative.

        Capitalism, even when it generally makes line go up, does so in a spiky way. Those spikes cause problems that tend to hit the working class the hardest. Sometimes in ways that cannot be recovered.

        There are some liberal economists, particularly of a Modern Monetary Theory bent, who do argue for policies that would flatten growth in return for predictability. Capitalism always goes for the sugar rush of high gains, though. For example, the Fed left rates at rock bottom for far too long, thus letting the market continue extremely high gains (over 20% per year of the sp500, when 7% is a typical long term average). Likewise, you have corps chasing high profits and assuming post pandemic pent up demand would continue indefinitely. Which is now leading to layoffs while major stockholders continue to sweep it in. Both of these lead to the recent high inflation.

        I think the efforts to flatten it out are doomed. Capitalism can’t solve its own problems.