Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, thank goodness for that turtle thingy. I do wonder how people pick up English as a second language. I guess total immersion into it helps.
I think it probably does. When dd was preparing to study Mandarin in China, she was only at Level 1, so she did the eight-week immersion course at Middlebury College in Vermont, where you are not permitted to speak English. You eat, study, and do all activities in your language. The only other interactions they had was playing volleyball against other languages.
When her dad and I picked her up, she had a hard time speaking English at first. But it worked, she was a level up.
I guess I could immerse myself into a Spanish-speaking country for eight weeks. I could ask for water, beer, wine and some other foods, lol. That's enough.
My dad hired in with Northrop Grumman in 2008. At the time, a pension was offered. By the time I hired in at Northrop, which was my first job out of college, in 2010, the pension had been eliminated.
Folks hired after NG eliminated pensions enjoy much better employer 401K contributions. Depending on market conditions, you may be better off than your Dad.
Folks hired after NG eliminated pensions enjoy much better employer 401K contributions. Depending on market conditions, you may be better off than your Dad.
Yes, although it does require employees to be diligent in self-funding their 401Ks instead of having the employer do 100% of the investing in a pension account. Previously eligible employees who had pensions would get a guaranteed post-retirement yearly payout. And while those would receive COLA increases every year, those COLA increases were just salary increases of x percent.
The difference is that newer employees can max/self-fund the 401K + ROTH IRAs if under the salary caps, and instead of getting salary increases of x percent from a pension, they will get entire account/wealth increases (or decreases) of x percent (market return) in their 401K accounts. 401K balances increase by market gain/loss > inflation-adjusted paycheck increases that don't compound, yet have guaranteed payouts. The caveat being that 401Ks have to be self-funded and/or managed, which requires people to understand how markets work, and that they shouldn't cash out early (time in the market) and so forth to reach their retirement goals.
The best of both worlds is to get a pension and self-fund either a 401K if an employer allows/offers both, or self-fund after-tax money in an investment account. A good amount of people aren't diligent enough with their money to be able to self-fund and maintain good investor behavior throughout their entire career, so the decline of pensions and reliance on Social Security are factors that affect them and may make for a less-desirable retirement as a result.
Folks hired after NG eliminated pensions enjoy much better employer 401K contributions. Depending on market conditions, you may be better off than your Dad.
i am certainly better off today with no pension and my own investments then my dad was with his post office pension and little savings .
my dad had to leave nyc and move down south to make it work. his grand kids barely knew who he was
Yes, although it does require employees to be diligent in self-funding their 401Ks instead of having the employer do 100% of the investing in a pension account. Previously eligible employees who had pensions would get a guaranteed post-retirement yearly payout. And while those would receive COLA increases every year, those COLA increases were just salary increases of x percent.
The difference is that newer employees can max/self-fund the 401K + ROTH IRAs if under the salary caps, and instead of getting salary increases of x percent from a pension, they will get entire account/wealth increases (or decreases) of x percent (market return) in their 401K accounts. ...
The best of both worlds is to get a pension and self-fund either a 401K if an employer allows/offers both, or self-fund after-tax money in an investment account. ...
The defined-benefit vs. defined-contribution tension will never be eased; too many variables, too many hardened partisans. But I do offer this psychological point...
...Suppose that a diligent saver and wise investor ends up with a massive 401K. OK, great! Now this money is… one’s possession. How able is one, to dip into said possession, to turn assets into income? A defined benefit pension is $0 formally as an asset, but its very nature lends itself to being spent… money comes in monthly, money goes out monthly. Even if a net present value calculation or other actuarial bit, valuing the pension, finds the defined-contribution lump-sum to be maybe 3X higher, the psychology is such, that the defined-contribution accumulator will starve himself to keep the portfolio going, while the defined-benefit pensioner will spend every penny gleefully without encumbrance.
I love correcting people when they tell me how "lucky" I am to be collecting my pension.
I tell them that if they did what I did, they'd have what I have. There is no luck involved.
When the rest of us think about pensions, it was "good fortune" (or call it luck, if you will) that they existed when you were able to join that employer. The employee has no influence on whether they "exist" or not. If they don't exist, you can't choose them.
Same way that starter homes "existed" when we were new buyers so we were able to get in on that. Now, starter homes don't seem to exist, so younger folks can't "choose" them.
I think we were indeed "lucky" to be able to take advantage of that. Same with pensions.
[quote=jiminnm;66658969][quote=BugsyPal;66658486]Starting now until 2030, 30.4 million Americans are expected to turn 65.
Quote:
How many of that number have already retired? Boomer birth years are 1946-1964, so boomers have been retiring for many years. I retired at 52, 25 years ago, and know many folks who retired earlier than 65. Seems that CNBC is using an issue that may be a new issue to get clicks.
Many people cannot retire before 65 due to the cost of medical insurance. I worked for Bank of America for my last 16 years of employment. The cost for my retiree medical insurance would have been $28,000 per year for my wife and I.
Seemingly the only people who can retire before 65 with affordable medical insurance are those who worked for a state or Federal government.
The defined-benefit vs. defined-contribution tension will never be eased; too many variables, too many hardened partisans. But I do offer this psychological point...
...Suppose that a diligent saver and wise investor ends up with a massive 401K. OK, great! Now this money is… one’s possession. How able is one, to dip into said possession, to turn assets into income? A defined benefit pension is $0 formally as an asset, but its very nature lends itself to being spent… money comes in monthly, money goes out monthly. Even if a net present value calculation or other actuarial bit, valuing the pension, finds the defined-contribution lump-sum to be maybe 3X higher, the psychology is such, that the defined-contribution accumulator will starve himself to keep the portfolio going, while the defined-benefit pensioner will spend every penny gleefully without encumbrance.
I've been trying to run some tax planning numbers the past week or so, and what stands out to me is that the RMD rules give the diligent 401K saver no choice but to turn his "possession" into income at age 73, no matter what. There is no escape. This inevitable conundrum has been planned for, and seemingly solved, by Uncle Sam. Isn't he generous?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
