401 Ks helping create inequality

tekkychick said:
I groaned him because of the tone of his post.

Of course everyone should save. But it's hard for people who are working low wage jobs, raising their kids, maybe taking care of sick parents, maybe working a second job or going to school or whatever to also be a financial expert.

But besides that - pensions, when done properly, are good things. They give the employee the comfort in retirement without the employee having to make those financial decisions. Now when pension plans are underfunded, of course there's a world of hurt. But done properly, they encourage company loyalty and give employees a sense of security.

401Ks are the companies saying "not our problem". And maybe it never should have been their problem. But it's nice when pensions work, isn't it?

Given that companies dumped pensions so fast, I am very surprised they didn't jump on health care reform - a single payer plan would have gotten companies out of the business of covering employees' health care. Companies were stupid not to dump that as well.

No one disagrees - people should save. I think some of us just miss the days of pensions.

For SF -Re expense of privatizing social security accounts. If every person in the uS has to pay someone to administer their soc sec account, that's a lot pricier overall than what we have not.
Click to expand...


every single person already has access to their personal SS info via ssa.gov. All that is required is they be given options on ssa.gov for investments. Again, it could be limited to just S&P and Treasuries. We already pay to keep the personal info separate. All you are changing is the ability to choose investments.
 
tekkychick said:
by the way - again, I recommend Barbara Ehrenreich's book "Nickel and Dimed" if you want to understand how hard it is to get by on low wage jobs, much less save.
Click to expand...

Those low wage jobs are not the jobs of old that would have had pensions anyway. The 401k doesn't change that.
 
evince said:
is the average guy better off since the right started pushing to kill unions?


fuck no
Click to expand...

Desh you're sort of jumping all over the place here. Your OP stated 401k's create inequality. You then asked why the right supports things that hurt the middle class. When it was stated that 401K's were created by a Democratic Congress under a Democratic President you stopped with that line of arguing and have now gone on to people not understanding what it's like to be poor but not really explaining how that relates to 401K's and now you're on to unions.

Yes it is very difficult for people who are truly poor to save, even in a 401K. No way around that. But is your argument no one should have 401K's then?
 
cawacko said:
Desh you're sort of jumping all over the place here. Your OP stated 401k's create inequality. You then asked why the right supports things that hurt the middle class. When it was stated that 401K's were created by a Democratic Congress under a Democratic President you stopped with that line of arguing and have now gone on to people not understanding what it's like to be poor but not really explaining how that relates to 401K's and now you're on to unions.

Yes it is very difficult for people who are truly poor to save, even in a 401K. No way around that. But is your argument no one should have 401K's then?
Click to expand...

its Bush's fault.... BUSH'S FAULT!!!!
 
Superfreak said:
every single person already has access to their personal SS info via ssa.gov. All that is required is they be given options on ssa.gov for investments. Again, it could be limited to just S&P and Treasuries. We already pay to keep the personal info separate. All you are changing is the ability to choose investments.
Click to expand...

Only thing is, that's not privitization of social security.
 
Superfreak said:
yes, it is. It sets up individual accounts where the individual has the choice of investments.
Click to expand...

Two choices of investments? And still run by govt? That's not what any repub means by "privitization" as far as I know. Please link to someone calling for this if you know different.

YOU may call it that. No one else will
 
Personal accounts within S.S. or total privatization of S.S. is different than the discussion of having 401K's along with S.S. as it is today.

Times change as does the economy and situations like my grandfather who worked for Exxon for 35 or 40 years and retired with a defined benefit plan don't really exist today nor is there a chance of going back to that.
 
tekkychick said:
Two choices of investments? And still run by govt? That's not what any repub means by "privitization" as far as I know. Please link to someone calling for this if you know different.

YOU may call it that. No one else will
Click to expand...

No, not run by the government. Chosen by the individuals. An index fund is neither hard nor expensive to run. It could be invested in the Vanguard S&P index fund or their treasury fund. Depending on what the individuals decided. The money would be out of the hands of the politicians.
 
tekkychick said:
I groaned him because of the tone of his post.

Of course everyone should save. But it's hard for people who are working low wage jobs, raising their kids, maybe taking care of sick parents, maybe working a second job or going to school or whatever to also be a financial expert.

But besides that - pensions, when done properly, are good things. They give the employee the comfort in retirement without the employee having to make those financial decisions. Now when pension plans are underfunded, of course there's a world of hurt. But done properly, they encourage company loyalty and give employees a sense of security.

401Ks are the companies saying "not our problem". And maybe it never should have been their problem. But it's nice when pensions work, isn't it?

Given that companies dumped pensions so fast, I am very surprised they didn't jump on health care reform - a single payer plan would have gotten companies out of the business of covering employees' health care. Companies were stupid not to dump that as well.

No one disagrees - people should save. I think some of us just miss the days of pensions.

For SF -Re expense of privatizing social security accounts. If every person in the uS has to pay someone to administer their soc sec account, that's a lot pricier overall than what we have not.
Click to expand...

If there was a "tone" in my reply, it might have something to do with the fact that Desh basically called anyone who worked and saved for their own retirement a "sociopath". Did you groan her for that?

As for the pensions, that is fine if you work in the type of business that would have offered them. I do not. Most of the jobs that pay poor wages would not have offered pensions either.

And another consideration is that the days of planning to retire on a company pension were largely days when workers went to work for a company and stayed their for most of their adult life. I don't know a single person my age who has done that.
 
Some people rush to be offended, usually from my party!
I am a financial expert.
401k's are keeping inequality from being worse.
 
tekkychick said:
by the way - again, I recommend Barbara Ehrenreich's book "Nickel and Dimed" if you want to understand how hard it is to get by on low wage jobs, much less save.
Click to expand...

Oh goody you read a book by a lefty about being poor. It must have even a harrowing experience for you. I am truly happy you survived it
 
Read the book millionaire next door.
It shows how teachers, firefighters regular joes become millionaires!
If the whiners read as much finance as they do liberal propaganda, they'd be rich too.
 
The Dude said:
Read the book millionaire next door.
It shows how teachers, firefighters regular joes become millionaires!
If the whiners read as much finance as they do liberal propaganda, they'd be rich too.
Click to expand...
meh...if iwas rich my house would be full of shoes and I'd rarely see my wife
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top