Savings rate of -2% for those under 35 - WSJ

Non-investing personal finance issues including insurance, credit, real estate, taxes, employment and legal issues such as trusts and wills.
fposte
Posts: 2327
Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2013 1:32 pm

Re: Savings rate of -2% for those under 35 - WSJ

Post by fposte »

UADM wrote:Anyone who wished to work with a pension could have pursued it. Nowadays, outside of a small group, you cannot.
You keep saying that, but you don't explain why 35% chance at a pension in the private sector in 1995 counts for you as universal access when the current 13% chance doesn't. I think you're whitewashing the past to contrast with the present, even though the situation doesn't need exaggerating.
bungalow10
Posts: 2311
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 6:28 am
Location: Chicago North Shore

Re: Savings rate of -2% for those under 35 - WSJ

Post by bungalow10 »

chuppi wrote: Easier said then done but if my earnings was too low and if I felt that I couldn't get the ends meet, I would sleep in my car, bathe in the gym, sleep in camp sites or something until I figured a way out of it.
I knew a guy who lived in his car at a truck stop for a short time. It was a very dangerous way to live, even for a man. I wouldn't do it as a woman or with a family. Same thing with sleeping in camp sites. The high to day is 32 degrees F. Difficult to be productive at work when you spent the night freezing your buns off.
An elephant for a dime is only a good deal if you need an elephant and have a dime.
User avatar
VictoriaF
Posts: 20122
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 6:27 am
Location: Black Swan Lake

Re: Savings rate of -2% for those under 35 - WSJ

Post by VictoriaF »

fposte wrote:
UADM wrote:Anyone who wished to work with a pension could have pursued it. Nowadays, outside of a small group, you cannot.
You keep saying that, but you don't explain why 35% chance at a pension in the private sector in 1995 counts for you as universal access when the current 13% chance doesn't. I think you're whitewashing the past to contrast with the present, even though the situation doesn't need exaggerating.
if 35% of jobs have pensions, you have to work for three different companies to get one pension--on average. If 13% of jobs have pensions, you have to work for eight companies to get a pension--again, on average. The former is more likely. However, the most important question is not the availability of a pension but it's size.

Victoria
Last edited by VictoriaF on Tue Nov 11, 2014 11:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
Inventor of the Bogleheads Secret Handshake | Winner of the 2015 Boglehead Contest. | Every joke has a bit of a joke. ... The rest is the truth. (Marat F)
UADM
Posts: 224
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 4:54 pm

Re: Savings rate of -2% for those under 35 - WSJ

Post by UADM »

Imbros wrote:US is not the only country with no formal financial education.

Maybe Baby Boomers did not like to make sacrifices either, but it looks like they really did not have to. They happened to be living in a rapidly growing economy where unemployment almost did not exist and wages were inflated.
So today's Millennial shouldn't make any sacrifices either because Baby Boomers did not have to back in the days?

The US is adopting to the new world reality. That's what I believe. Europe did go through this in 90s, and young adults eventually learned how to adopt to new economy where low wages and relatively expensive housing is the norm.
They downsized. When downsizing is not an issue in your culture, that is an easy thing to do.

Also, as far as I know, US home affordability is still better than most Europe and many developing markets. Yes, again, maybe Baby Boomers had it better. So what are we going to do about it?!
It is true that the US is not the only country with no formal financial education. However the US has insane college tuition costs. Look at Canada's tuition costs for a good comparison.

Boomers not only had it better, but their policies are what have driven us to where we are now.

What can people do it about it? Lots of things. They still will have a much harder time than previous generations and that was my point.
bungalow10
Posts: 2311
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 6:28 am
Location: Chicago North Shore

Re: Savings rate of -2% for those under 35 - WSJ

Post by bungalow10 »

fposte wrote:
UADM wrote:Anyone who wished to work with a pension could have pursued it. Nowadays, outside of a small group, you cannot.
You keep saying that, but you don't explain why 35% chance at a pension in the private sector in 1995 counts for you as universal access when the current 13% chance doesn't. I think you're whitewashing the past to contrast with the present, even though the situation doesn't need exaggerating.
I have a pension (private sector) as did my DH (also private sector). We are both 35. One thing I will point out about DH's job (and many of you have heard me complain about this before, sorry)... he may have had a pension, but his employer felt that a 401k or similar was not necessary because of the pension. It really limited our retirement savings. His pension is underfunded (currently around 70%), and I would much rather have that money in an IRA or 401k.

My parents are late boomers. They had NEITHER pensions nor 401k for most of their careers. Luckily they opened their own IRAs and funded them, but we all know that IRA limits leave a lot to be desired.

Today, at least the 401k is getting more play. It's probably much more prevalent than the 38% peak prevalence that pensions hit in their prime. Cheers to what most of us DO have :sharebeer
An elephant for a dime is only a good deal if you need an elephant and have a dime.
Bungo
Posts: 1138
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 11:28 am

Re: Savings rate of -2% for those under 35 - WSJ

Post by Bungo »

One thing that the chart shows, which I find surprising, is that the savings rate for all three groups is much higher now than it was in the pre-recession boom years (2004-2008). It makes me wonder if the definition of "savings" is excluding investment in the stock market.
Lynette
Posts: 2407
Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2014 9:47 am

Re: Savings rate of -2% for those under 35 - WSJ

Post by Lynette »

Its not as good as a pension but many companies nowadays match a percentage. Mine automatically enrolls new employees in a 401K. They also provide good tools and give us seminars. I'm a Boomer but my parents grew up in the Depression and they saved and saved and saved. It was difficult for them to spend money. Maybe something happened inter-generationally? I stayed with jobs I did not love because of the pensions. I'm very grateful today for my pensions.
UADM
Posts: 224
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 4:54 pm

Re: Savings rate of -2% for those under 35 - WSJ

Post by UADM »

fposte wrote:
UADM wrote:Anyone who wished to work with a pension could have pursued it. Nowadays, outside of a small group, you cannot.
You keep saying that, but you don't explain why 35% chance at a pension in the private sector in 1995 counts for you as universal access when the current 13% chance doesn't. I think you're whitewashing the past to contrast with the present, even though the situation doesn't need exaggerating.
I never said it was universal access and I already explained what I said. I said that the opportunity was there and a much large percent had access to it. It was 38% back then, which was 3x the amount as now, which is a much larger amount. Not only that, but the pensions now PALE in comparison to what they used to be in the 90s. Again, retire as a teacher from NYC schools and get 100k a year plus health insurance for the rest of your life. It is no where NEAR that now! So, not only is there MUCH less access to pensions, but the ones that are available are much, much worse.
UADM
Posts: 224
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 4:54 pm

Re: Savings rate of -2% for those under 35 - WSJ

Post by UADM »

Lynette wrote:Its not as good as a pension but many companies nowadays match a percentage. Mine automatically enrolls new employees in a 401K. They also provide good tools and give us seminars. I'm a Boomer but my parents grew up in the Depression and they saved and saved and saved. It was difficult for them to spend money. Maybe something happened inter-generationally? I stayed with jobs I did not love because of the pensions. I'm very grateful today for my pensions.
As you say, it is not as good. When a stock market collapse causes you to lose 40% of your retirement, those with a set pension sit pretty.
bigred77
Posts: 2049
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 4:53 pm

Re: Savings rate of -2% for those under 35 - WSJ

Post by bigred77 »

Again, the boglehead population is not the norm.

Many millenials on this site own homes, have six figure retirement accounts, six figure incomes, and no debt outside a mortgage. THIS IS NOT THE NORM!

I don't know how they calculated the saving rate thats stated but it seems in line with I'd expect. Starting out in life is tough, always has been. The quicker millenials can get on track by increasing their assets while simultaneously decreasing their liabilities, the better off they'll end up.
User avatar
czeckers
Posts: 1082
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 3:49 pm
Location: USA

Re: Savings rate of -2% for those under 35 - WSJ

Post by czeckers »

The fact that the study demonstrated a dramatic increase in savings during the recession, at a time when unemployment, particularly for the young, was nearly double that which it is now is very interesting.

It indicates to me, that the issue isn't that people are barely scraping by and unable to manage savings because they are merely surviving at a sustinence level. After all, how could they increase their savings during difficult economic times?

A more likely explanation is that people feel secure and it is easy to put off saving until "tomorrow." When "tomorrow" looks bleak, they feel compelled to save more.

Another alternative (though I'm not betting on it) is that the people surveyed were incredibly savvy investors, and saw the recession and the depressed stock prices as an excellent opportunity to goose their savings by pouring money into the stock market while the people who didn't participate in the survey were panicking. Having prefunded their retirement savings at an opportune time, they no longer need to make more contributions to their retirment savings accounts. 8-)

Guessing can be so much fun!

-K
The Espresso portfolio: | | 20% US TSM, 20% Small Value, 10% US REIT, 10% Dev Int'l, 10% EM, 10% Commodities, 20% Inter-term US Treas | | "A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step."
mortal
Posts: 497
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 11:15 pm

Re: Savings rate of -2% for those under 35 - WSJ

Post by mortal »

I have to think this study is excluding investment as well.

I'm a millennial, and from what I've seen of my friends my age, we all seem to be fairly frugal. I think part of the reason is that even those of us with good jobs (like myself) know a lot of folks who did everything right and are *still* having a hard time. It is eye opening to see smart, well educated people who find themselves searching over a year to land a job. As they say, 'There, but for the grace of God I go'.
fareastwarriors
Posts: 1405
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2012 11:31 am

Re: Savings rate of -2% for those under 35 - WSJ

Post by fareastwarriors »

I'm a millennial.

My parents never made much money but they were decent savers. That's about it though. Still no retirement fund or anything like that. I grew up really poor and it sucked. I don't want to be poor ever again so I save and invest, save and invest, save and invest.
User avatar
greg24
Posts: 4512
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 9:34 am

Re: Savings rate of -2% for those under 35 - WSJ

Post by greg24 »

Please don't get caught up in generation vs. generation arguments.

Every generation has way more grasshoppers than ants.

It doesn't take a lot of financial education to learn that you need to live below your means.

In kindergarten, if you are given two marshmallows and eat them today, you don't have any marshmallows tomorrow.
User avatar
batpot
Posts: 1284
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2013 8:48 pm

Re: Savings rate of -2% for those under 35 - WSJ

Post by batpot »

UADM wrote:
Lynette wrote:Its not as good as a pension but many companies nowadays match a percentage. Mine automatically enrolls new employees in a 401K. They also provide good tools and give us seminars. I'm a Boomer but my parents grew up in the Depression and they saved and saved and saved. It was difficult for them to spend money. Maybe something happened inter-generationally? I stayed with jobs I did not love because of the pensions. I'm very grateful today for my pensions.
As you say, it is not as good. When a stock market collapse causes you to lose 40% of your retirement, those with a set pension sit pretty.
which is precisely why they are so rare now, because the companies end up having to make up the difference.
Plus, they're harder to predict and account for than the sunk cost of a 401k matching contribution.

But yes - as an employee, pensions are much more secure - and they pay until death.
fposte wrote:
richard wrote:
Americans who were under 35 in 1995—often labeled Generation X—earned wages that were 9% higher than today after adjusting for inflation.
This is not good, especially when combined with increasing student loan debt.
I think this is really the issue, not that twentysomethings today have a notably different amount of knowledge. They're graduating with more debt into an economy where they take longer to find a job and earn less at it. I'm not surprised they have trouble saving money in that situation.

There are also some interesting findings about the failure of financial literacy education--such classes don't seem to change behavior or stick with people very long after the end of the course, so the absence of such classes isn't likely to be part of the problem here.
Definitely.
The Economist posted an interesting graph recently, showing the % of GDP owned by the top 0.1% of earners vs the bottom 90%...for the first time since the 1930s, the top 0.1 is about to overtake the bottom 90.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicd ... ly-chart-2
meaghansketch
Posts: 166
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 6:59 pm

Re: Savings rate of -2% for those under 35 - WSJ

Post by meaghansketch »

I'm on the older edge of the millenials (32) and in a creative field. I don't have access to a 401(k) (to say nothing of a match!) or a pension and most of my peers are in the same boat. Either we are 'self-employed' or working at small companies that don't offer benefits. Even though I am now working for a much larger company (and finally have health insurance because of it!), there is still no 401(k). Yes, my job and my field are are a result of my choices, but I consider myself smart to have started thinking about retirement at age 24-- it wasn't at all on my radar at 16, 17, and 18, when I was deciding my career path. And yes, I am saving-- in IRAs and in a taxable account. But having a maximum $5500/year tax-advantaged savings rather than a maximum of $20,000+ is a huge disadvantage.

I don't know the statistics on who does and doesn't have access to 401(k)s but it's not only low-wage workers who are left out. I don't understand why that tax advantage can't be made available to everyone, regardless of their job.
User avatar
goodenyou
Posts: 3602
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 10:57 pm
Location: Skating to Where the Puck is Going to Be..or on the golf course

Re: Savings rate of -2% for those under 35 - WSJ

Post by goodenyou »

There are even more staggering stats:

"The collective retirement savings gap among working households age 25-64 ranges from $6.8 to $14 trillion, depending on the financial measure. A large majority of households fall short of conservative retirement savings targets for their age and income based on working until age 67. Based on retirement account assets, 92 percent of working households do not meet targets. Under broader measures, most households still have insufficient assets: 90 percent fall short based on retirement account balances and estimated DB pension assets combined, 84 percent fall short based on total financial assets, and 65 percent fall short based on net worth."

The Retirement Savings Crisis: Is It Worse Than We Think?
By Nari Rhee, PhD
June 2013

https://www.copera.org/pdf/Misc/NIRS6-13.pdf


The Rent is too Damn High
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" | “At 50, everyone has the face he deserves”
generalzodschicken
Posts: 53
Joined: Sat Nov 30, 2013 5:02 pm

Re: Savings rate of -2% for those under 35 - WSJ

Post by generalzodschicken »

Much of this is cultural. The only thing that seems to make most people save at a high rate is the threat of death or penury via some major catastrophe. Then you get "generational memory" of things like the Great Depression, the Great Leap Forward, famines, etc. The people who live through those events tend to save much more. The rest, not so much.
yosef
Posts: 355
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 2:10 pm

Re: Savings rate of -2% for those under 35 - WSJ

Post by yosef »

meaghansketch wrote:I'm on the older edge of the millenials (32) and in a creative field. I don't have access to a 401(k) (to say nothing of a match!) or a pension and most of my peers are in the same boat. Either we are 'self-employed' or working at small companies that don't offer benefits. Even though I am now working for a much larger company (and finally have health insurance because of it!), there is still no 401(k). Yes, my job and my field are are a result of my choices, but I consider myself smart to have started thinking about retirement at age 24-- it wasn't at all on my radar at 16, 17, and 18, when I was deciding my career path. And yes, I am saving-- in IRAs and in a taxable account. But having a maximum $5500/year tax-advantaged savings rather than a maximum of $20,000+ is a huge disadvantage.

I don't know the statistics on who does and doesn't have access to 401(k)s but it's not only low-wage workers who are left out. I don't understand why that tax advantage can't be made available to everyone, regardless of their job.
How large is your company? What is your salary? I'm just curious, I've worked for a lot of companies for someone my age (39), some of them pretty po-dunk and I've never been without a 401k. Without a match yes, but without a plan, no.
User avatar
LadyGeek
Site Admin
Posts: 95696
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 4:34 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Contact:

Re: Savings rate of -2% for those under 35 - WSJ

Post by LadyGeek »

This thread has run its course and is locked (not personal nor actionable). See: A reminder that non-investing general comment threads are OT
- It must be personal. In other words, you must be asking about your own situation. You can also ask on behalf of someone specific, such as a family member.

- It must be actionable. You must be able to do something specific with the replies that will make a difference in your situation.
Wiki To some, the glass is half full. To others, the glass is half empty. To an engineer, it's twice the size it needs to be.
Locked