Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.
π Be Nice!
ποΈ Community Standards
𧬠Keep it Real
π½οΈ Credit Where Credit is Due
π Post Formatting
π¬ Post Frequency/SPAM
π΄ββ οΈ Internationalization (i18n)
SΓ, por favor [Spanish/EspaΓ±ol]πΏ Moderation
Note: This is not a rule, but a helpful suggestion.
When posting images, you should strive to add alt-text for screen readers to use to describe the image you're posting:
Another helpful thing to do is to provide a transcription of the text in your images, as well as brief descriptions of what's going on. (example)
We deserve pensions and have really fucked up letting corporations rob us of them, along with all the other things they've slowly stolen from the working class.
That being said, a 401k absolutely can be more than enough to retire on, as long as you start investing young
How are you Americans defining a pension? As I read it, a 401k is a Defined Contribution plan invested in stocks/shares, with contributions from the employee and employer.
Which matches a normal UK definition of a DC pension plan, do you only class Defined Benefit schemes as a "pension"?
The 401k offloads the duty of the company to ensure the pension is solvent to another company.
The other company is a for profit company that intends to make money off of you, but they also take fees so even if they lose your money they get the fees. Itβs a relatively no loose for them while you could lose everything.
All in a vehicle not tied to the original business where the original business can say oh nooooooo so sorry
It has the benefit of portability but tbh unless you are already βwell offβ and making enough to live comfortably you are not likely to be able to contribute to your 401k at a level that will afford you a retirement.
And on top of that, every 401k I've ever had has a vesting scheme. So if you're not with the company 6+ years, they take a portion of your 401k that they contributed, whether or not you quit or they fire you.
So even the employee match isn't a guarantee (assuming they match at all).
It's not guaranteed the employer will contribute. Half of them (including mine) do not. It's simply a tax deferred portfolio in that case.
Thanks for the insightful replies, I'm really sorry for you guys living in the "land of the free", at-will employment, union busting, shitty retirement options etc etc.
I hope either things improve (doubt) or you can leave. β€οΈ
Would that I could. If it were me alone I probably would have left the country years ago. But I have my husband and he is close to his family. They are already unhappy that we don't live in the same state as them. (My own family are pieces of Trumper Evangelical shit and I don't speak to them anyway)
Sorry - I'm a fucking freak and I like this stuff.
Pensions generally are Defined Benefit plans versus 401(k), which are Defined Contribution plans. There are some definitions that lump (k) in with "pensions", but they are quite different.
DB says "do XYZ and the plan guaranties a fixed percentage of your average earnings at retirement". The benefit (or the result) is defined.
DC says "employee/employer can make contributions with specific advantages, and what you have at retirement depends on what you put in, and ROI, and market magic". The contributions are defined.
The reason a (k) plan is powerful is that earnings compound in a tax advantaged environment, and there are fiduciary guardrails around plan administration and governance that better protect investors than the open market.
Pension plans in the US are basically dead or dying - variety of reasons, but volatility of everything and eroding labor negotiating power are easy to blame. Ballooning cost of these plans is also a real problem. Because a pension promises a given outcome, the employer can have enormous liabilities to fund the plan. Inflation, volatility, and business outcomes can put the company in the position where the liability to the pension becomes an overwhelming burden.
401(k) is a really powerful investment tool, with or without an employer match. I wish more young employees understood them better, and were more interested in using them. It's easy to pine for the pension plans of the past - they have problems of their own that (k) plans do not. Pensions are really designed so that an employee stays at a job for a long period of time before they bear full fruit. A (k) plan is more flexible and transferrable.
Wish I had a pension, but I also don't have much faith in any company in the private sector having the staying power to make a pension the basket where all my retirement eggs would sit. DC plans can help solve for that.
NNNNNNNEREEEEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRDDD
I was listening to a conversation from the London school of economics and this British right winger literally tried to use "the US citizen actually owns more capital within the business sector than us in the UK" as a positive...
Mother fucker that's our goddamn retirement gamble. You lucky fuckers have pensions.