Most workers who aren’t saving for retirement through their employers aren’t saving at all, the study found
New data suggests the average American worker has under $1,000 saved for retirement.
A report from the National Institute on Retirement Security found that the median savings for all employed adults between the ages of 21 and 64 were approximately $955. The study includes workers with 401(k) and other retirement savings plans, as well as the approximately 56 million workers who do not have access to employer-sponsored retirement plans.
Workers with retirement savings plans have a median balance of approximately $40,000 saved, according to the report. That figure is nowhere near the $1.5 million that Americans say they need to feel comfortable fully retiring.
It’s relevant context to know that while about 67% of people self-report that they are living “paycheck to paycheck” (meaning they are not actively saving any money), only 30% self-report that they are actually spending more than 90% of their income on necessities.
Point being that the majority of people who aren’t actively saving, are choosing not to, spending all of their extra income instead of saving at least some of it.
As bad as conditions are overall, a significant chunk of people are making it needlessly worse for themselves, and things are not quite as dire as they’re made to seem by sensationalist media that’s quick to report that 67% figure, but never focuses on the 30% one that’s a much better indicator of the percentage of people who are actually having trouble making ends meet.
Did you just make the Avocado Toast argument?
No. Also I specifically used the ‘90% of their income’ figure and not the 95% one shortly mentioned thereafter, because I think it’s fair that even those who are struggling the most ought to be able to have some ‘fun’ with their money.
But most people do earn enough to pay for their necessities, have fun, and save. And many people don’t save for later, even though they easily can, in the name of putting more on the ‘fun’ pile.
While I think, technically, strictly correct, the big question wild be how much they could realistically “save”, and in such a hypothetical, would it really be significantly more encouraging results.
Our, realistically speaking we are generally already looking at that reality, with people putting aside a relative pittance but still feeling that they live paycheck to paycheck, largely ignoring anything that goes toward retirement.
I get it, I’ve had relatives buy stupid expensive pickups or muscle cars with obscene payment plans while barely keeping their heads above water, but even the more careful ones barely scrape by.
In my group of friends I describe what I feel related to this as, obsession with youth/fear of aging, and consumerism/tourism rebranded as spirituality/wellness/experiences
Yea, just what people want to do. Spend basically on only necessities for years/decades just so they may have an opportunity to retire. Sounds like a great plan.
That’s a straw man, so I’m not going to bother responding beyond pointing out the fallacy. Consider engaging with what I actually said.
I’m pretty sure I did. Where do you think the money for retirement comes from? Whatever they are spending on non-necessities. Sure, some people can do that without completely forgoing luxuries, but we’re talking about the low end of income here. For any meaningful retirement, and that’s a maybe, it really is forgoing any nicities for a long time.
It would have taken a lot longer for me to build the capital for a down payment if I wasn’t frugal. It helped me save and invest a little extra each month.