General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: 401Ks are a disaster: Column [View all]HughBeaumont
(24,461 posts). . . it's that most workers either aren't that well compensated or didn't start early enough (the "shoulda/woulda/coulda" victim blamer's favorite "go-to"s) that this plan could even work as a supplement when retirement hits.
Here's some perspective - I got my first 401(k) and now have a second one (haven't rolled the first one over, which I'll get around to).
In 15 years of almost constant contribution to these things, both of which are balanced and run the gamut of money market funds to index funds to foreign stock funds, I have a whopping 80 thousand dollars. Even after compound interest, matches, near-maximum contribution . . . in 15 years, that's all I have. The worst part about it is that most retirees would be happy to have THAT much.
Think that in the next 18-20 years, I'm magically going to even reach half a million? REALLY? To retire by 2033, you would need at least several hundred thousand dollars minimum, even if your house is paid off (snicker), to last the rest of your life. It would take a miracle life with zero landmines, all the right moves and no stock market crashes to accomplish that. It's NOT happening. Also, I better hope I never have an uninsureable illness during this period.
What you make has everything to do with how comfortable your retirement's going to be, if you're able to retire at all. That's why no one can retire, because if they're not having to start from scratch at 53, they lost it all in unbridled corporatism's stock follies.