General Discussion

WestSeattle2

(1,730 posts)

9. This is just hypothetical - adjust the math for your personal situation. If you broke down state

Sun Dec 22, 2013, 03:45 PM

Dec 2013

income by city, you'd probably find that incomes in Seattle, San Francisco, and Los Angeles average substantially more than statewide averages would suggest. $60k in the city of Seattle is adequate; $40k borders on subsistence. Of course this is all subjective; one person's idea of adequate may differ greatly from another's. But $40k would probably be considered adequate in most of Eastern Washington.

The underlying point of my post is that 401K math really doesn't add up on a macro level. We're beginning to see that play out with boomers; subsequent generations, especially those under 44 years old, will probably have nothing but 401K income to rely on. At least some boomers have pensions plus Social Security.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

21 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

401K Math [View all] WestSeattle2 Dec 2013 OP

I have been saying something similar for years. PowerToThePeople Dec 2013 #1

I've never done the math as you've done Le Taz Hot Dec 2013 #2

Raiding isn't the problem, pushing all the risk onto individuals is. Warren Stupidity Dec 2013 #7

You can't save 3k a month into a 401k Paulie Dec 2013 #3

Correct; you have to split your retirement savings. The max contribution for a 401K is far less WestSeattle2 Dec 2013 #11

$52,000 FreeJoe Dec 2013 #20

It was always a scam. It was invented as a vehicle for high salaried executives Egalitarian Thug Dec 2013 #4

I like Social Security gulliver Dec 2013 #5

gotta stop you right from the start hfojvt Dec 2013 #6

This is just hypothetical - adjust the math for your personal situation. If you broke down state WestSeattle2 Dec 2013 #9

the Seattle metro area has over half the state's population hfojvt Dec 2013 #15

In 2011 median household income in Seattle was $45K. The overwhelming majority of retired El_Johns Dec 2013 #18

Your math doesn't include Social Security. Are you assuming it won't be around? Dawgs Dec 2013 #8

Yes, this AND what about interest on your 401K AFTER you start taking out 4% hughee99 Dec 2013 #10

And conversely, you could go years with no return on investment - none. You could lose WestSeattle2 Dec 2013 #12

So you're willing to concede a 5% return for the 40 years someone pays in, hughee99 Dec 2013 #14

Luckily you aren't providing financial consulting services. Warren Stupidity Dec 2013 #16

You did read the OP, right? hughee99 Dec 2013 #17

Hypothetically, its far easier than that in my case bhikkhu Dec 2013 #13

pensions are not magic FreeJoe Dec 2013 #19

I would rather put my trust in hundreds of companies than just one... cbdo2007 Dec 2013 #21