Of all generational cohorts, older millennials are most likely to generate enough income to retire comfortably, according to the latest Vanguard Retirement Readiness report.
Specifically, millennials aged 37-41 have the greatest chance of landing a comfortable retirement.
The social security insolvency boogie man gets dragged out to scare everyone at least once a generation. It really is a persistent feature of how our nation is managed.
Remembering The Circle Jerks “Shit hits the fan” from early 1980’s.
Gen X here and an older one at that.
I don’t think I’ll get SS and I will be of retirement age in the next 12 years.
My funeral will also be my retirement party.
So I’m in Canada but worked in finance for close to 20 years. I have been told outright that by the time I retire the system will be losing money (I’m 46) so we are contributing to a sunk cost. My parents are poor so they deserve the money that CPP affords them but Jesus Christ we are fucked with people living longer and it doesn’t help the largest fucking generation ever was right before my jaded ass.
That’s a weird way to say “millennial tend to have retirement plans”
And they misunderstand how social security works.
The title made it sound like we’re finally eating the rich.
That was my plan. Are… are we not doing rhat anymore?
Probably a good idea to start now before robots get more deadly
I have my fork, knife, and bib. Where are we meeting up?
deleted by creator
Worked out well last time.
This sounds like the solution is to make sure their boomer parents have accidents.
I had to pull every dime out of my 401k (only about $2.5k) just to afford to move to a cheaper apartment. I’m 36. There’s no way I’m gonna be able to retire.
in Australia 12% (used to be 10) of your salary is automatically invested for your retirement that you can’t touch until then except in extreme circumstances (or you have a shit PM who let’s anyone withdraw it during covid). even then, it will be hard to say it will be enough and you want some other side investments. if you don’t own a house, like many my age, things would be grim.
and even in bad scenarios, we accept none of us will ever see a pension. currently boomers can get a rediculous amount on top of owning a large valuable house and they will screech black and blue about “entitlements” but for everyone else it’s a “handout”
They lose their mind when you tell them the aged pension costs the taxpayer 5x what unemployment benefits do
In my country we know that for sure since so many young people are leaving the country and the rest are working minimum wages because employers are paying them on the side to avoid paying taxes. We are also not allowed to take out our pension savings, like you can in USA. So you end up working like an idiot for government to maybe pay you back money if you manage to live up to average age.
Millennials fretting about their financial future can take comfort in knowing they are on track to retire in a better financial position than they probably think.
A lot of things were supposed to be better than we thought in the beginning
A lot of things are much better. It is easy to focus on the negative without realizing how bad the past really was, or for that matter how hard things were for those in the past. sure some things are worse today - work on fixing them - bit overall things are still very good.
No they aren’t. Stop shilling. Any response that isn’t “student loan debt has been taken away, all housing prices are at the level of the early 1980s, the ceo-to-worker compensation level is the same as 1953, we have Medicaid for all, and the government is out of debt” will be discarded.
12 upvotes, 42 downvotes
This is your punishment for trying to be positive on the internet ;-D
Like what specifically? Are you factoring in what things might look like in the coming decades? Or what things already look like for a majority of Americans?
I don’t care if I can get a 4k tv for $300 if I have no emergency fund, no retirement savings and can’t cope with a medical emergency (even with insurance).
Savings is about sacrifice for today. I personally know some who are making half a million/year who are living paycheck to paycheck, while I know others making poverty income who have growing savings. It is much easier to have a “nice” life when you have more income, but living below your means is a choice that everyone could make.
somehow you have access to post your reply. Give up your internet and that would free up some money. I have no idea what else you do in life, but I’m sure there is a lot more.
Trying to understand your point here. Because I have access to an internet-connected device means that’s the reason me and others like me aren’t saving enough?
Or maybe you meant if I have this device and I’m able to save then things aren’t as bad as they seem?
There is a consequence to your choice to have internet. There is less money for other savings. Worth it is not a choice I can make for you.
I know I gave up avocado toast and am now a homeowner.
The toast guy is now saying that we need mass layoffs to teach us toast eaters a lesson about not asking for better wages.
Internet access is as basic a utility as electricity and water these days. It is nigh impossible to function in society without access to the internet and pretending otherwise is just oblivious to the point of petulance.
Women’s rights have been walked back, causing child rape victims to struggle to find abortions, to say nothing of women being forced to carry fetuses who will die upon birth. Trans rights are being shit on, to the point that gender affirming care is being denied to people even where it’s legal. Taxes for the wealthy are too low. The middle class is rare to be in. Health insurance is insanely expensive and it’s difficult to see a doctor even when you have it- emergency rooms will leave you waiting for 6 hours or more. We simultaneously have too many people, and too few children with a looming crisis of too many elderly. We have microplastics in the air, oceans, food, fetuses, everywhere. Housing is largely unaffordable across the globe. Homelessness is out of control. Massive, destructive wildfires are the new norm. Heatwaves are killing people. Migrants are clamouring to find new countries to live in (which will get worse due to climate change) causing all kinds of social frictions. The youth are anxious, depressed, and suicidal.
But please, tell me how things are good for people over all?
We have 4k porn. That is pretty much it.
Here’s a list of bad things
Yeah but they’re not AS BAD as they used to be
If I were to go back in time the the 80s, 70, 60, etc. They would have a similar list of problems that seem insurmountable, but we keep going on and things have gotten better over time.
In 1990, 1.9 billion people lived in extreme poverty, representing 36% of the world’s population. By 2019, this number had fallen to 9.2% — about 703 million people.
https://www.worldvision.org/sponsorship-news-stories/global-poverty-facts
Over the past generation, extreme poverty declined hugely, and there are more than a billion fewer people living below the International Poverty Line of $2.15 per day today than in 1990. On average, the number declined by 47 million every year, or 130,000 people each day.n
https://ourworldindata.org/poverty
Women’s access to education has improved significantly in many parts of the world. According to the National Intelligence Council’s Strategic Futures Group, there have been decades of improvements in women’s formal education
https://www.dni.gov/index.php/gt2040-home/gt2040-deeper-looks/future-of-womens-rights
Women’s financial liberation has improved in the United States. Women now have access to credit cards in their own name and can get bank loans without a male co-signer
The ACA has improved healthcare in various ways, including providing health insurance coverage to 20 million more Americans, protecting people with preexisting conditions from discrimination, and expanding Medicaid
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/10-ways-aca-improved-health-care-past-decade/
For every step back that we hyper focus on, there are two step forwards that we don’t even think about. All our problems have solutions, just don’t give into negative thoughts.
I’m always skeptical of poverty statistics because I believe the metric to meet poverty is wrong. For instance the bureau of statistics puts the poverty line at just under 15k annually. Please tell me how a person making 20k a year affords housing, food, and other basic necessities without government assistance.
15k in North America is different than 15k in the Philippines or Botswana
You’re correct but the bureau of statistics is American so that’s really where I’m talking about. However this data point doesn’t give a lot of faith that the statistic for other countries is accurate either.
They would have a similar list of problems that seem insurmountable
I’d love to hear how climate change ‘seems’ insurmountable. We aren’t even stopping ourselves making it worse, let alone actively looking to work towards fixing it.
Climate change will be tough. Even if we stop using fossil fuels, it will take decades for the environment to recover.
But wind, solar, and hydropower are all examples of renewable energy sources that are becoming viable these last few years.
Lots of countries are working to implement solutions, they still have their problems and no one is really doing enough, but these steps show us we are capable of implementing more drastic and effective changes when even conservatives can’t hide their head in the sand any longer:
-
China: China has implemented a number of policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including a carbon trading system, renewable energy targets, and energy efficiency standards[1].
-
European Union: The European Union has set ambitious targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, including a goal of net-zero emissions by 2050. The EU has also implemented a carbon trading system and invested heavily in renewable energy[2].
-
Denmark: Denmark has developed a “Global Action Climate Strategy: A Green and Sustainable World” to slash emissions and set a framework for limiting global warming below 1.5C as set by the 2015 Paris Agreement. The Danish government’s agreement outlines five goals, including increasing global climate ambition, strengthening focus on climate adaptation and sustainable development, and shifting financial flows and investments from black to green[3].
-
Brazil: Brazil has implemented policies to reduce deforestation, which is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. Brazil has also invested in renewable energy and has set targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions[6].
-
India: India has implemented policies to increase the use of renewable energy, including solar and wind power. India has also set targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and has implemented energy efficiency standards[1].
Citations: [1] A review of successful climate change mitigation policies in major emitting economies and the potential of global replication - ScienceDirect https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032120308868 [2] What are the world’s countries doing about climate change? - Imperial College London https://www.imperial.ac.uk/grantham/publications/climate-change-faqs/what-are-the-worlds-countries-doing-about-climate-change/ [3] 3 Leading Countries in Climate Policy | Earth.Org https://earth.org/countries-climate-policy/ [4] Global Climate Agreements: Successes and Failures - Council on Foreign Relations https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/paris-global-climate-change-agreements [5] A Framework for Comparing Climate Mitigation Policies Across Countries https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2022/12/16/A-Framework-for-Comparing-Climate-Mitigation-Policies-Across-Countries-527049 [6] Climate Change Mitigation in Developing Countries: Brazil, China, India, Mexico, South Africa, and Turkey - C2ES https://www.c2es.org/document/climate-change-mitigation-in-developing-countries-brazil-china-india-mexico-south-africa-and-turkey/
European Union: The European Union has set ambitious targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, including a goal of net-zero emissions by 2050.
Look I’m not saying we all lay down and die, but look at what you wrote here. A goal of net-zero by 2050. That’s twenty seven years away. We’re ultra-fucked long before then.
These were policies we needed to do 30, 40 years ago. Hell, we’re still subsidizing oil and gas, planet-wide.
it will take decades for the environment to recover.
I think you’re seriously, seriously out of touch with how bad things are. ‘Decades’ isn’t even close. When temperatures rose 5-8c, which yes is higher than we’re at (so far) it took 20-50 thousand years to recover.
It’s enough to make you want to blow up a pipeline.
I understand, I know it’s not enough but it shows we are starting to do stuff. Governments are a big slow machine.
We’re already at 1.5C and we’ve emitted enough GHGs to get us to 6-8C from feedback loops. Our only hope is they put sulphur back in the fuel to give us a few more decades of survivability.
We just had the hottest month in recorded global history, record low Antarctic sea ice (heading into southern hemisphere summer), and drought + heatwaves in the Amazon that are causing mass rivier dieoffs and forest loss.
Plus, Amazon deforestation is decreasing in Brazil but increasing in all neighbors - forest area is still decreasing fast.
Let me know if you actually want citations, these are all recent and commonly discussed.
Thwaites pinning point 5 just let loose.
Put down the hopium pipe dawg, you’re posting cringe.
-
Wait, Millennials think they will get to retire? How cute.
If they’re lucky, humanity will still exist!
Article written by a non millennial. Totally accurate source
Not me. I’m gonna just die in a gutter somewhere.
Thanks O’Bidump W. Reagordarterxon.
I’m so sick of this complacency with the idea of paying into social security your whole life to fund the boomer retirees just to have it taken from us as one final fuck you. The vocalized consensus among everyone needs to be its not getting taken from us, if anything it will be fixed and made more robust and any politician that acts to remove it from us will have their heads removed from their bodies.
Absolutely. I get the doom, but there’s no way I’m just rolling over on SS, ever.
Boomers believe social security would be gone by the time they retire. It’s been a common conspiracy thing for decades.
Basically republicans who are “we need to lower taxes and also steal the rest of the social security fund and give it to people who are already wealthy”
It’s literally a Ponzi scheme that the government just declared it to not be one. It must either explode or have ever growing generations funding it.
Wealth redistribution isn’t a ponzi scheme. Even if we do nothing to “fix” social security it will keep writing checks.
It’s an unfunded mandate. It can’t if the fund has no money. Touch nothing and the program runs out of money to pay the drawing population. Basic math.
Something as to shift or it will in fact not be able to pay out for all members drawing in it given enough time.
The program runs at reduced payouts if it’s not “fully funded”. That’s how the law is written and isn’t controversial, just not really talked about in these kinds of doomer articles.
If the program is paying you significantly less than what it should, you can’t rely on it for retirement calculations.
It isn’t enough to retire on on its own today. The program paying significantly less of its distributions as a result of being not possible to fully fund, results in many of us believing it is a program that served the elderly of today ( boomers) and not those who come later as a result of the funding to withdrawal ratio that the baby boomer generation will create.
I was responding to the claim that the program would stop working, not that the program would need larger payouts to eliminate poverty.
All it takes is one far right politician to take all that social security money for tax breaks for the rich, write a massive IOU, create rules regarding how far it has to be funded, and then declare social security bankruptcy. It’s what is happening to the USPS.
So we post into social security assuming we won’t get it to support the boomers but then they shot down student loan forgiveness, cool.
deleted by creator
Late Gen X-er here, I don’t think I’m going to see any social security money.
I already know as a GenXer I’ll get none. I’m lucky to have a pension and retirement funds.
GenX here and I’ll never be able to afford retirement. I’m hoping Carousel is a thing by then.
What’s carousel?
Reference to Logan’s Run. Life ends at a certain age so resources are never over consumed.
Capricorn15. Today is LastDay. It is time to renew at Carousel.
Edit: Sauce https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4M2vx_RCwSs
Oh, thanks very much.
That shit was kind of disturbing when I was a kid. That shit is kind of disturbing now!
From the movie Logan’s Run. It’s set in the post-Apocalyptic Future and was a way to control the Population. A crystal implanted in your hand would start blinking when you become 30. You then enter the Carousel and try to win your “Renewal”, an extension on your life. If you tried to run away you become a “Runner” and they have a special force track you down and kill you. It’s a good book and movie.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Thanks. It’s been a quarter century since I’ve seen the movie so I guess I forgot the carousel reference.
I think I’ll read the book if I go back to it. I’m looking for a book right now. Maybe I’ll just read Logan’s run. Thanks!
“Be strong, and you will be renewed.”
Yup. Those retirment seminars are a laugh. Just save more. Dude, my family needs to have a roof over their head and eat.
There’s a drug that permanently destroys the part of your brain that creates empathy. I’m planning to become a cannibal.
And all the fish, plankton, sea greens and protein from the sea that we can eat!
“Taking matters into their own hands,” as in “considering options for suicide.”
Vanguard assesses retirement readiness assuming your post-employment income should match around 68% of your annual salary.
Millennials in the 70th percentile of earners are the only demographic on track to come anywhere close to that coveted ratio. Early millennials are expected to hit 66% of their annual salary at retirement, while Gen X lags at 53% and late baby boomers at 51%.
Yay, wealthier Millennials? Way to grind that 401K
Weird to determine retirement spending based on annual income instead of annual spending. Like, if someone is only spending 40% of their income now, why would they assume they are going to increase their spending by 65% when they retire? Or otoh, if someone is spending 95-110% of their income now and that’s mostly housing and food, why would they only need 68% when they retire (especially if they’re accumulating debt)? I’m sure its mostly a result of that data being a lot easier to get and may be using assumptions about how many years someone is working and assumed savings rate required to get that amount of money (heuristics like if you have a constant inflation-adjusted income and save 30%, it takes about 30 years to save enough to retire)?
70th percentile is only ~$120K/year. A lot more than I make, but not exactly what I’d be using “wealthier” to describe, even if just as a comparative. Even at like 90th percentile (~220K/year) would still just be in the “well off” category in my mind.
People tend to spend what they earn. I have to be careful not to spend more than my paycheck every month. I know people who make less than half what I do who still do okay in life - they don’t have as nice a house or as many toys, but they have food on the table and a warm roof. I know from experience that I could cut how much I spend every month by a lot - I just don’t want to cut those extras from my life.
Many people are working long hours now saving for retirement when they plan to travel, and thus they think their spending will be more in the future. I know some who did that for years, and got cancer and died before their planned retirement age. I know others who have been traveling the world carefree for a couple decades after retiring.
All metrics are a guideline. You need to match that to your lifestyle. So if you have been living off cheap ramen for 20 years because you want to FIRE, that is going to be a factor in how much you need after the fact. Similarly, if you want to travel the world, you need to save up more.
But it is not weird to pick a semi-standardized metric, even if it doesn’t describe you perfectly.
I suggested an alternative semi-standardized metric that still wouldn’t describe everyone perfectly, but I suspect would do a better job than the one used. I don’t think its weird to use one. I think the one chosen is weird, even if I acknowledged one of the reasons why they probably used it (easy of data). Current spending would still be a terrible estimate for the FIRE-types who work in HCOL places and move to LCOL places for retirement, but I think it would much better account for ordinary 25th percentile income households who live paycheck to paycheck. But I doubt Vanguard really cares if their metrics are useful for poorer people who live paycheck to paycheck since its obvious they’re not going to have enough anyways and not exactly their target demographic.
You’re getting at my favorite article of all time, The Shockingly Simple Math of Early Retirement. Say what you will about Mr. Money Mustache or even early retirement in general, but this article really is the absolute simplest and best way to think about retirement savings. It’s why I often feel poor or pressed for money but never worry about retirement, because I max it all and pay myself first, and I know as long as my percentage is high I’m on track.
Plus even before I could max my 401k and Roth (and we recently had a kiddo so had to stop Roth for a bit) or get a high savings rate, I put in way more than was comfortable because the power of compounding is worth rice and beans and not going out drinking for a bit. Now that I’m middle aged my nest egg is huge, and we’ve been slowly able to lifestyle inflate. But I am soooo glad my younger self saved like crazy. Time flies by, and money compounds before you know it.
They should be investing in a Roth account instead of standard 401k if possible. Unless you’re sure that income taxes will be lower when you need to take out that money. Roth investing pays the tax up front, and the rest is yours to keep even after it appreciates in value over time.
And if you make enough to contribute to both a RothIRA and a 401k, you should do that and not pick one over the other.
Traditional IRAs and Roth 401ks are also things.
A 401k lets you make money on the part that would have otherwise gone to taxes. Can you show an example with numbers where paying tax up front comes out ahead of paying tax at the end?
Nope I don’t have any examples. You should invest as you see fit, after doing your own research into the options.
It’s a gamble basically but I’m gambling that taxes will be higher than the little bit more I might make on gains from the extra pre-tax money.
Maybe if you assume healthcare stays as-is, you may be able to use roths to keep your taxable-income low enough to stay under the magic number required to get the deductible/max year out of pocket savings and the potentially ~$4000s of dollars a year savings in health care costs.
Numbers:
Hypothetical case: need 30K/year after taxes if getting the MYOP savings or 34K/year after taxes if not and assuming you put in all your money now and wait 30 years to retire using 5% average returns. Assume 4% WR and 27K is the threshold for extra savings. All numbers adjusted for inflation.t401k:
Need ~213k now -> 921k in 30 years (which would be ~850k after taxes on the gains)
r401k:
Need 193k now if marginal tax rate is 10%, 197k if marginal tax rate is 12% -> 750k (no taxes paid on the gains)
Mixed (you only need to 3k/year from roth to bring taxable income down to threshold):
169K into t401k + 19-20k into r401k (10 and 12% marginal tax rates) = 189k now.Another easy case is when the current marginal tax is 0%. If you are putting money into retirement accounts when your income is under the standard deduction, then definitely Roth. Traditional literally does nothing in that case.
Of course this is a bit of a contrived example and it assumes you have the same 10-12% marginal tax rate on either side. I think most people who have the extra income to for it to be worth the time to consider the difference probably make enough now to be in higher brackets, but probably will retire with significantly lower spending than their current income. If taxes across brackets increase in the future, otoh, then paying them now would be beneficial and may give some peace of mind about that risk.
There’s so many unknowns that I think its a bit oversimplistic to assume one is simply better than the other.
That will depend on your total savings and such. If you start a 401k at 25 and contribute the max until you retire at 72: you will have a lot of money and it is likely the Roth is better just because because you have so much more taxes to pay. OTOH, if you wait until 45 to start savings and never contribute the max, when you retire at 62 you will do okay (most of your income is from SS - better hope it is still there!) but your total income will be small and so you end up in a lower tax bracket. Odds are you will be somewhere between those two extremes.
Roth and regular investment accounts often have the same annual contribution limits, but the Roth has effectively more growth just because you don’t pay taxes: 100,000 in a regular account is worth $70,000 after taxes (exact number depends on your state and tax bracket - it might be $80,000 it might be $50,000), while in the Roth it is $100,000.
There is also the gamble. Nobody knows what tax rates and deductions will be in the future. If things stay the same I can tell you what will happen, but I consider the odds of that zero - but the odds that things are close to today I think are good enough - but I have no way of know. They might make a withdrawals from a Roth taxable (this would go to court, but who knows how the court will look in 30 years). They might change the tax brackets - either up or down. They might make regular retirement withdrawals non-taxable (or taxed at a different rate). They might confiscate all retirement funds in some revolution. Or you might die before you retire. Again I think the safe bet is tax rules will be somewhat close to todays rules, and you will live to the statistical average lifespan plus a couple years - but I do not know.
That was my take away. If you earn a lot of money you can fund a good retirement.
The only other real argument I found was that millennials in general may be better off because they entered the workplace when these retirement plans activate automatically whereas boomers and gen x had to actively sign up for them.
Your retirement plan activated automatically?
Actually it’s required if you’re over the age of 30. Below that age, you can delay it. Once you hit 50, the percentage input increases significantly. I work as a state employee so it’s different than in private sector.
I think that even corporations are just enrolling people though too.
Okay, well you thinking that corporations are enrolling people has somehow not made any of the people I’ve worked for enroll or even mention retirement plans. How inconsiderate of my expirences to contradict your thoughts on the matter, please excuse me.
My employers 401k plan was automatic. Let it sit for 3 years and came on hard times around 2021. I actually lost ~15% of the money I put in. Cashed it out, opted out of automatic contributions and haven’t looked back. I don’t need some investment firm to lose my money for me, I’m already good at that on my own lol
You don’t trust the pieces of shit my taxdollars bailed out in 2009? Why don’t you trust those peices of fucking shit?
Staying out of the stock market will ensure you won’t have enough to retire on.
Here kid, have a bitcoin
You sold when it was 15% down? And outside of retirement?
For the love of god, don’t touch your retirement savings. Consider reading this series:
I needed what little was in that account because my car shit the bed on me and the repairs were more than the car was worth. Had to take that and my stimulus check to buy another beater. I’m still paycheck to paycheck and couldn’t afford to start my savings back up if I wanted to
Let me guess, you are in USA? Only there you’d be so car-dependent.
I see. I’m sorry about your situation.
All good! I appreciate the advice, genuinely
Please revisit. That’s usually a bad idea. Yes, aggressive investments can lose money in short terms like one year or less - actually there was a long term piece of advice to not invest in stocks any money you need for the next five years. However prudent investments, like an SP500 index fund , have always increased in value in like ten year periods, and over some similar period have always beaten inflation
There’s a lot to learn about investments, but
- it’s your only realistic path to fund retirement
- the magic of compounding is your best friend
- 401k contributions and returns are tax deferred until retirement
- many 401ks have additional corporate contributions - free money
401k’s can be VERY useful to most of us over the long term, so you should reconsider whether it’s good for your situation too
If I had the funds to invest, I would probably have a Roth IRA or something simple but the hard times never let up. I work 60 hour weeks and still live paycheck to paycheck. I’ve only earned enough in the last couple of months for me to get health insurance again. I can’t afford to give even 3% of my paycheck away (the minimum for my company to begin matching) at the moment and that’s not likely to change in the next year or two.
I really do appreciate the concern and if I were in a different place, I’d reconsider. I was being a bit bitter and sarcastic in my comment but I’m in no.position to save any money
I think what they meant was 401k enrollment is now included in new employee onboarding by default in most places now.
You can be an employee at places still? /j
It’s a good question for all the contractors
Ive still never had that, Im over 30 and the only retirement account I have I made myself outside of work.
Its going to depend on your field. “Tech” very much prioritizes “total compensation” with a focus on contribution matching and the like. And then affiliated fields do because people tend to branch out/lose their god damned minds.
Any medium or larger company will give everyone a 401k because it is good for the executives and 401k rules require you offer them to everyone not just the high wage earners (there are exceptions to this rule). Plus investment companies make is relatively easy to offer this type of thing to everyone.
I work in Human Care like about 25% of millennials, I don’t know many people whos orgs offered retirement to them, a lot make their employees purchase insurance through the ACA, ive seen ‘How to apply for ACA’ in onboarding handbooks and handouts, but retirement is rarer.
Yeah. There is always the issue of people not being able to understand that others have different life experiences than them. But, because anyone whoi expects to live past 60 have started to think about retirement, we also get the dunning kruger effect.
Similarly, I am not aware of any service industry jobs that really prioritize 401ks. And it seems like a crapshoot for teachers and education adjacent jobs whether they get pushed for a 401k or a pension fund that will likely get blown on hookers and blow long before they reach retirement age.
I do think that, in general, people need to educate themselves and at least have an IRA they put money into around tax season every year. But I get that even being able to do that is already incredibly privileged.
It has always been that way. More millennials than any previous generation are able to fund a good retirement is a large take away.
Many still are not funding a [good] retirement, but overall Millennials are better than their predecessors.
Pay my student loans. Yes you personally
