Discover the looming retirement savings crisis in America, where the average worker retires with just $955 in savings. Learn why savings are falling behind, the decline of employer pensions, and why Social Security isn't enough.
I’m certainly not going to argue that things aren’t bad. I’m not going to tell anyone that they’ve got it better than they think they do.
But I believe I’ve seen the “Most Americans have less than $1,000 saved” factoid bandied about a lot in the headlines. It calls forth such a dismal picture, I’ve been a little skeptical.
The NIRS report (PDF) clarifies that this “less than $1,000 saved” figure is based on some pretty narrow definitions of “saved.” It’s about “working-age Americans (ages 21-64),” so it includes a lot of young people with (no surprise) little or no retirement savings yet. And it’s specifically about savings in employer-organized “defined contribution” (“DC”) savings plans, chief among which is the 401(k) plan.
If you’re a 22 year old college student with a part-time job and $5,000 in the bank, you’re likely to score $0 on this metric anyway, because you probably don’t have a 401(k) yet.
And if you’re a 50-year-old self-employed person who owns a home and a fat Roth IRA, you can still score $0 on this metric. The wealth you’ve stashed in owning a home or a business doesn’t show up here.
So this “less than $1,000 saved” figure isn’t really about how much wealth Americans have saved, it’s more about access to and participation in employer-organized “DC” savings plans, which have long been touted as a private-sector alternative to (and which have almost entirely replaced) pensions.
It would absolutely be better if that figure were higher. But it gets spread around (IMHO) because of it’s emotional impact, not because it’s a particularly clear way of understanding the real-world situation.
I appreciate your critical analysis and doubt, but from my perspective I’ve been watching this problem grow for the last 20 years and it’s indeed as abysmal as this article makes it out to be. (If not worse…)
In short, real wages haven’t increased in America in well over 30ish years. Federal minimum wage hasn’t budged in nearly 20.
People have so little money now, the average American is now buying their first house at the age of 40. (The average age was around 28 in the 80’s for comparison) 40 is now the new average age of first time home buyers in America, and I find that a far better metric to analyze in determining Americans current level of savings than what’s contained in this article.
As it goes to show that working for 20 years for the average American is now how long it takes to earn enough for a house. So that’s 20 years every average American is spending at work to save for the biggest “retirement” investment this article doesn’t account for.
Home ownership is literally going to be non-existant for Gen alpha at this current rate it is changing at. As in addition to wages not increasing in decades, costs for all the basics have been increasing in that same time. Insurance rates gave increased nearly 5x in the last 20 years. Rent has more than doubled, as well as the price of all American made cars. All expenses coming from a pool that hasn’t increased in 30 years of flat wages. Which is why it’s taking so long for most Americans to save enough for their first house, let alone retirement.
It’s far worse than what this article is saying imo, because there are far better red flags to analyze than how this article approaches it. I completly agree this article isn’t doing well at supporting their claim, but also encourage a look at alternate data points, as the picture is actually far worse than what this article and most others make it seem. Imo, that’s why this study left out assets like Roth IRAs and Homeownership, because it would have painted an even worse picture, not a better one. At least imo, based on the other facts I’ve provided (but admittedly haven’t sourced, going by recent memory, so feel free to correct me).
Homeownership is just one factor exacerbated by wealth and wage inequality. The top 10% of earners account for 50% of consumer spending. This is also a record high since the 80s.
Now all of society is geared towards that 10%. Every TV show, car, restaurant, movie, and food product is trying to grab that market. So if you’re not making enough money people literally do not care what you think because you don’t have any money.
Bingo. 👍
Well said. I was using the housing market as just another indicator of the exact problem you are talking about. Mostly because it’s much easier to understand in the context of determining Americans total “savings / net worth” which relates closer to the OP.
I’m certainly not going to argue that things aren’t bad. I’m not going to tell anyone that they’ve got it better than they think they do.
But I believe I’ve seen the “Most Americans have less than $1,000 saved” factoid bandied about a lot in the headlines. It calls forth such a dismal picture, I’ve been a little skeptical.
The NIRS report (PDF) clarifies that this “less than $1,000 saved” figure is based on some pretty narrow definitions of “saved.” It’s about “working-age Americans (ages 21-64),” so it includes a lot of young people with (no surprise) little or no retirement savings yet. And it’s specifically about savings in employer-organized “defined contribution” (“DC”) savings plans, chief among which is the 401(k) plan.
If you’re a 22 year old college student with a part-time job and $5,000 in the bank, you’re likely to score $0 on this metric anyway, because you probably don’t have a 401(k) yet.
And if you’re a 50-year-old self-employed person who owns a home and a fat Roth IRA, you can still score $0 on this metric. The wealth you’ve stashed in owning a home or a business doesn’t show up here.
So this “less than $1,000 saved” figure isn’t really about how much wealth Americans have saved, it’s more about access to and participation in employer-organized “DC” savings plans, which have long been touted as a private-sector alternative to (and which have almost entirely replaced) pensions.
It would absolutely be better if that figure were higher. But it gets spread around (IMHO) because of it’s emotional impact, not because it’s a particularly clear way of understanding the real-world situation.
I appreciate your critical analysis and doubt, but from my perspective I’ve been watching this problem grow for the last 20 years and it’s indeed as abysmal as this article makes it out to be. (If not worse…)
In short, real wages haven’t increased in America in well over 30ish years. Federal minimum wage hasn’t budged in nearly 20.
People have so little money now, the average American is now buying their first house at the age of 40. (The average age was around 28 in the 80’s for comparison) 40 is now the new average age of first time home buyers in America, and I find that a far better metric to analyze in determining Americans current level of savings than what’s contained in this article.
As it goes to show that working for 20 years for the average American is now how long it takes to earn enough for a house. So that’s 20 years every average American is spending at work to save for the biggest “retirement” investment this article doesn’t account for.
Home ownership is literally going to be non-existant for Gen alpha at this current rate it is changing at. As in addition to wages not increasing in decades, costs for all the basics have been increasing in that same time. Insurance rates gave increased nearly 5x in the last 20 years. Rent has more than doubled, as well as the price of all American made cars. All expenses coming from a pool that hasn’t increased in 30 years of flat wages. Which is why it’s taking so long for most Americans to save enough for their first house, let alone retirement.
It’s far worse than what this article is saying imo, because there are far better red flags to analyze than how this article approaches it. I completly agree this article isn’t doing well at supporting their claim, but also encourage a look at alternate data points, as the picture is actually far worse than what this article and most others make it seem. Imo, that’s why this study left out assets like Roth IRAs and Homeownership, because it would have painted an even worse picture, not a better one. At least imo, based on the other facts I’ve provided (but admittedly haven’t sourced, going by recent memory, so feel free to correct me).
Homeownership is just one factor exacerbated by wealth and wage inequality. The top 10% of earners account for 50% of consumer spending. This is also a record high since the 80s.
Now all of society is geared towards that 10%. Every TV show, car, restaurant, movie, and food product is trying to grab that market. So if you’re not making enough money people literally do not care what you think because you don’t have any money.
Bingo. 👍 Well said. I was using the housing market as just another indicator of the exact problem you are talking about. Mostly because it’s much easier to understand in the context of determining Americans total “savings / net worth” which relates closer to the OP.