Podcasts > The Daily > Was the 401(k) a Mistake?

Was the 401(k) a Mistake?

By The New York Times

In this episode of The Daily, the evolution of the 401(k) retirement savings system in the United States is examined. Originally intended as a tax-advantaged perk for executives, the 401(k) gained popularity as companies sought to move away from financially burdensome pension plans—a shift that some argue has undermined retirement security for many workers.

The episode explores the limitations and criticisms of the 401(k) model, including lack of access for lower-income workers and the inability to generate sufficient retirement savings for a large segment of the population. It weighs proposed solutions, such as a government-administered universal retirement plan, and touches on the philosophical debate around whether retirement should be viewed as a privilege or a right in today's society.

Listen to the original

Was the 401(k) a Mistake?

This is a preview of the Shortform summary of the May 20, 2024 episode of the The Daily

Sign up for Shortform to access the whole episode summary along with additional materials like counterarguments and context.

Was the 401(k) a Mistake?

1-Page Summary

The transition from pensions to 401(k)s

The 401(k) plan emerged as a tax-advantaged way for companies to reward executives, not as a broad-based retirement system. Legislation in 1978 provided the legal framework for companies to offer these plans more widely.

As pensions became financially burdensome for companies, 401(k) plans gained popularity, aligning with Reaganomics' philosophy of individual responsibility. Benefits specialist Ted Benna recognized how 401(k)s could offer tax-advantaged retirement plans broadly.

How the 401(k) system was intended to work

The "ideal" 401(k) scenario envisioned workers contributing consistently with employer matching over decades, allowing investments to grow into sizable nest eggs for retirement. However, many workers lack access to employer 401(k) plans, and lower-income workers often cannot afford contributions.

Shortcomings of the 401(k) system

Retirement expert Theresa Ghilarducci argues that 401(k)s disproportionately benefit the affluent and reinforce existing wealth disparities, failing to provide retirement security for many Americans. 49% of those aged 55-65 have no retirement savings, and 10-20% of seniors live in poverty, according to Steinberger.

Financial setbacks can also deplete modest 401(k) balances. Ghilarducci views the shift from pensions to 401(k)s as an abdication of society's responsibility to ensure retirement security for workers.

Proposed solutions

One alternative discussed is a government-administered universal retirement savings plan with matching contributions to incentivize participation from all Americans. This has bipartisan Congressional support based on proposals from Ghilarducci and others.

The discussion touches on the philosophical debate over whether retirement should be viewed as a privilege or a right, implying that a more collective approach may be needed to honor the idea of retirement as a right in practice.

1-Page Summary

Additional Materials

Clarifications

  • Reaganomics was an economic philosophy associated with President Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. It emphasized reducing government intervention in the economy, promoting lower taxes, deregulation, and free-market principles. The idea of individual responsibility in Reaganomics meant placing more emphasis on individuals to make their own financial decisions and take charge of their economic well-being. This philosophy influenced policies like the promotion of individual retirement accounts, such as 401(k) plans, as a way to shift the burden of retirement savings from companies to individuals.
  • Pensions became financially burdensome for companies due to factors like increasing life expectancies, market volatility affecting investment returns, and the need for companies to fund pension obligations over the long term. This financial strain led many companies to shift towards 401(k) plans, which transferred the investment risk and responsibility from the company to the individual employees. The shift to 401(k)s allowed companies to reduce their long-term financial liabilities associated with traditional pension plans. This transition was also influenced by changing economic conditions and regulatory environments that made maintaining traditional pension plans less attractive for many companies.
  • Tax-advantaged retirement plans are special accounts or investment vehicles that offer tax benefits to encourage saving for retirement. Contributions to these plans are often tax-deductible, meaning you can reduce your taxable income by the amount you contribute. Additionally, the investment growth within these accounts is tax-deferred, allowing your money to grow without being taxed annually. Withdrawals in retirement are typically taxed at a potentially lower rate, providing a tax advantage compared to regular investment accounts.
  • The disproportionate benefits of 401(k)s for the affluent stem from higher-income individuals being able to contribute more to their accounts, receive larger employer matches, and access better investment options, leading to greater wealth accumulation compared to lower-income earners. This disparity exacerbates existing wealth gaps and can result in a more significant financial cushion for the affluent during retirement, while lower-income individuals struggle to build substantial retirement savings through 401(k) plans.
  • A government-administered universal retirement savings plan is a proposed system where the government sets up a retirement savings account for all individuals, with contributions possibly matched by the government to encourage saving. This plan aims to provide a retirement savings option for all Americans, especially those who do not have access to employer-sponsored retirement plans like 401(k)s. It is designed to address the shortcomings of the current retirement system and ensure more widespread retirement security. The idea has gained bipartisan support in Congress as a potential solution to improve retirement savings and address wealth disparities.
  • The philosophical debate over retirement as a privilege or a right revolves around whether retirement benefits should be seen as something earned through individual effort (privilege) or as a fundamental entitlement that society should ensure for all citizens (right). This debate questions if retirement security should be dependent on personal savings and investments (privilege) or if there should be collective mechanisms in place to guarantee a basic level of retirement income for everyone (right). It touches on broader discussions about social welfare, economic equality, and the role of government in providing for citizens' well-being in their later years. The argument for retirement as a right suggests that access to a secure retirement should not be solely based on individual circumstances or financial success but should be a universal expectation supported by societal structures.

Counterarguments

  • While 401(k) plans may have initially been for executives, they democratized access to retirement savings for many workers who might not have had any retirement benefits otherwise.
  • The financial burden of pensions on companies can be seen as unsustainable, especially for smaller businesses or those in competitive industries where profit margins are thin.
  • The philosophy of individual responsibility can empower individuals to take control of their financial futures rather than relying on potentially unstable pension funds.
  • Ted Benna's recognition of the broader application of 401(k)s can be viewed as an innovative approach to expanding retirement savings options.
  • The "ideal" 401(k) scenario does not account for the varying financial literacy levels among workers, which can impact the effectiveness of these plans.
  • Access to 401(k) plans has increased over time, with many small businesses now offering them through simplified programs like the SIMPLE 401(k).
  • Some lower-income workers may benefit from the Saver's Credit, a tax credit designed to incentivize retirement savings among lower earners.
  • While 401(k)s may benefit the affluent more in some cases, they also provide a flexible savings option that can be more portable than traditional pensions as workers change jobs.
  • The statistic that 49% of those aged 55-65 have no retirement savings may not account for other assets or forms of savings that individuals may have.
  • The poverty rate among seniors has decreased historically, and 401(k)s could be part of a diversified approach to reducing senior poverty further.
  • Financial education and planning can mitigate the risk of depleting 401(k) balances due to financial setbacks.
  • The shift from pensions to 401(k)s reflects broader economic changes and the need for more adaptable retirement solutions in a dynamic labor market.
  • A government-administered universal retirement savings plan could face implementation challenges and may not be as effective as enhancing existing retirement savings incentives.
  • Bipartisan support does not guarantee the effectiveness or efficiency of a proposed solution.
  • The philosophical debate over retirement as a privilege or a right does not necessarily imply that a collective approach is the only way to honor retirement as a right; market-based solutions can also play a role.

Get access to the context and additional materials

So you can understand the full picture and form your own opinion.
Get access for free
Was the 401(k) a Mistake?

The transition from pensions to 401(k)s as the dominant retirement savings system

Michael Steinberger delves into the shift from employer-provided pensions to 401(k) plans in the United States, examining the implications for the large number of Americans approaching retirement.

Origins of the 401(k) plan

The 401(k), a staple of retirement savings, was not originally designed as a comprehensive retirement system but as a way to provide tax-advantaged perks to executives.

The 401(k) emerged as a tax-advantaged way for companies to reward executives, not as a broad-based retirement system

Companies used tax-deferred savings plans to give executives deferred compensation - paying bonuses into these accounts to be accessed upon retirement or the executive leaving the company.

The legal murkiness of these tax-advantaged plans for executives was cleared up in 1978 with the passage of legislation including Section 401(k), which specified how profit-sharing arrangements could be structured. Initially seen as a minor provision, it eventually paved the way for the widespread adoption of these plans.

Decline of pensions and rise of 401(k)s

Pension plans, once the backbone of retirement security for workers in prominent industries, began to wane, giving rise to the era of 401(k) plans for a wide range of employees.

Pensions became financially burdensome for companies, especially in declining industries like steel and auto

As industries like steel and auto faced downturns, the cost of providing pensions became increasingly burdensome. This burden led corporations to pivot away from traditional pensions towards 401(k) plans, which were more financially sustainable for employers.

401(k)s aligned with the Reaganomics philosophy of individual economi ...

Here’s what you’ll find in our full summary

Registered users get access to the Full Podcast Summary and Additional Materials. It’s easy and free!
Start your free trial today

The transition from pensions to 401(k)s as the dominant retirement savings system

Additional Materials

Clarifications

  • The legislation in 1978, including Section 401(k), clarified the rules for profit-sharing plans, allowing employees to defer a portion of their salary into a retirement account. This change enabled companies to offer tax-advantaged retirement savings plans to a broader range of employees beyond just executives. Section 401(k) laid the groundwork for the widespread adoption of 401(k) plans as a retirement savings vehicle in the United States.
  • The emergence of 401(k) plans aligned with Reaganomics, a political and economic philosophy introduced during Ronald Reagan's presidency in the 1980s. Reaganomics emphasized individual economic empowerment and responsibility, which resonated with the shift towards 401(k) plans that required employees to take charge of their retirement savings. This philosophy of self-reliance and individual investment decisions was reflected in the transition from traditional pensions to 401(k) plans, marking a significant change in retirement savings systems in the United States.
  • Pension plans became financially burdensome for companies in declining industries like steel and auto due to factors such as increased life expectancy leading to longer retirement periods, economic downturns affecting company profitability, and the rising costs of funding pension obligations amidst changing regulatory requirements.
  • Tax-advantaged retirement plans for executives allowed companies to provide deferred compensation by depositing bonuses into special accounts. These plans deferred taxes on the contributions and investment gains until withdrawal, offering executives tax benefits. Legislation in 1978, including Section 40 ...

Counterarguments

  • While 401(k) plans do promote individual responsibility, they also shift the risk from employers to employees, which can be problematic for individuals who are not financially literate or who experience economic hardship.
  • The decline of pensions may not be solely due to their financial burden on companies; it could also be attributed to a broader shift in corporate priorities, focusing more on shareholder value than on employee benefits.
  • The alignment of 401(k)s with Reaganomics might overlook the fact that not all individuals have equal opportunities or resources to save for retirement, potentially increasing inequality.
  • The idea that 401(k) plans are more financially sustainable for employers does not consider the potential long-term societal costs associated with a workforce that is inadequately prepared for retirement.
  • The assertion that companies began matching 401(k) contributions to encourage participation doesn't address the variability and sometimes inadequacy of these matches, nor the fact that many employees may not be able to contribute enough to receive the full match.
  • The shift to 401(k) plans may not fully account for the changing nature of work, including the rise of gig work and other non-traditional employmen ...

Get access to the context and additional materials

So you can understand the full picture and form your own opinion.
Get access for free
Was the 401(k) a Mistake?

How the 401(k) system was intended to work and help workers save for retirement

The 401(k) plan was designed as a mechanism to aid workers in saving for retirement, providing the potential for a secure financial future.

The "ideal" 401(k) scenario

Workers contribute consistently, with employer match, allowing investments to grow over decades

In the envisioned 401(k) scenario, here’s an example of a worker named Ted, who enters the workforce in the 1980s. He establishes a 401(k) account through his company and makes it a point to consistently max out his contributions to benefit from compound interest. As his income rises over the years, he continues this disciplined saving approach. Additionally, his employer contributes to the plan through a matching system, which increases the total amount of Ted's retirement savings. Over the decades, these consistent contributions, along with market growth, allow Ted’s investments to burgeon, eventually leading to a sizable retirement nest egg.

Disciplined saving and market growth leads to sizable retirement nest eggs

For workers like Ted, the 401(k) system is ideal because it rewards long-term, disciplined saving with employer support. It allows an individual's retirement savings to benefit from the ups and downs of market fluctuations, growing over time due to compound interest. Given enough time, these savings can accumulate to the point where they provide a stable financial foundation for retirement.

Obstacles to the 401(k) vision

Many workers lack access to 401(k) plans through their employers

However, this ideal scenario is not universally applicable or attainable for every worker. One significant obstacle is that many workers, about half of all private sector employees, do not have access to employer-sponsored retirement savings plans at a ...

Here’s what you’ll find in our full summary

Registered users get access to the Full Podcast Summary and Additional Materials. It’s easy and free!
Start your free trial today

How the 401(k) system was intended to work and help workers save for retirement

Additional Materials

Clarifications

  • Compound interest is the interest calculated on the initial principal and also on the accumulated interest from previous periods. This compounding effect allows investments to grow faster over time compared to simple interest. The more frequently interest is compounded, the more significant the impact on the growth of the investment. Over long periods, compound interest can substantially increase the value of an investment due to the exponential growth it generates.
  • Employer matching contributions in 401(k) plans are when an employer agrees to match a portion of the employee's contributions to their retirement account, up to a certain limit. This matching contribution is essentially free money added to the employee's retirement savings by the employer. It serves as an incentive for employees to save for retirement and can significantly boost the growth of their retirement funds over time. The matching formula can vary by employer, but it's a valuable benefit that helps employees accelerate their retirement savings.
  • Tax-deferred growth in 401(k) ...

Counterarguments

  • The 401(k) plan, while designed to aid workers, may not be the most effective or equitable means of ensuring retirement security for all, as it relies heavily on individual financial literacy and market performance.
  • Consistent contributions with employer match are ideal but may not reflect the economic realities of all workers, particularly those in gig or part-time jobs without such benefits.
  • Disciplined saving assumes a level of financial stability that not all workers have, and market growth is not guaranteed, as seen in periods of economic downturn.
  • The lack of access to 401(k) plans for many workers highlights a systemic issue in retirement planning, suggesting a ...

Get access to the context and additional materials

So you can understand the full picture and form your own opinion.
Get access for free
Was the 401(k) a Mistake?

The problems and shortcomings of the 401(k) system, including financial inequality and lack of access

Steinberger and Barbaro, along with retirement expert Theresa Ghilarducci, present a critical view of the 401(k) system, highlighting its inequities and its failure to provide retirement security for a significant portion of Americans.

Disproportionate benefits for the affluent

401(k)s reinforce existing wealth and income disparities

Steinberger and Barbaro suggest that the 401(k) system has worked well for the affluent but has failed many others, hinting at the ineffectiveness of the system in bridging the gap of financial inequality. Theresa shares a perspective that the system tends to disproportionately benefit those who are already well-off and leaves others with little to nothing saved for retirement.

Originally, 401(k)s were designed as a way for the wealthy to protect some of their money from taxes. This origin has perpetuated throughout the system's existence, reinforcing the wealth and income disparities instead of mitigating them.

Failure to provide retirement Noahsecurity for many

Millions of Americans approach retirement with little to no savings

Steinberger provides alarming statistics demonstrating the system's shortcomings: 49% of Americans aged 55 to 65 have no retirement savings, and 10 to 20 percent of all seniors live in poverty. These figures show that the 401(k) has failed to provide adequate retirement security for a significant proportion of the population.

From the outset, there were serious concerns about the shifting burden of retirement saving to workers. Ghilarducci's concerns about access to 401(k)s resonate in this regard, especially for lower and middle-income Americans who might not have 401(k) access due to employers not offering them or lack of means to contribute.

Ghilarducci views the shift to a 401(k) system as an abdication of the social contract, where ...

Here’s what you’ll find in our full summary

Registered users get access to the Full Podcast Summary and Additional Materials. It’s easy and free!
Start your free trial today

The problems and shortcomings of the 401(k) system, including financial inequality and lack of access

Additional Materials

Clarifications

  • Steinberger and Barbaro criticize the 401(k) system for benefiting the wealthy more than others, exacerbating financial inequality. Theresa Ghilarducci argues that the system fails to provide adequate retirement security for many Americans, especially lower and middle-income earners. She believes the shift to 401(k)s neglects the societal responsibility to ensure retirement security for workers. Ghilarducci's career has focused on highlighting the shortcomings of 401(k)s and advocating for reforms to address these issues.
  • The 401(k) system originated in the U.S. in the late 1970s as a provision in the Revenue Act of 1978. Initially intended as a tax-advantaged way for high-income earners to defer income, it later evolved into a primary retirement savings vehicle for many Americans. Over time, the responsibility for retirement savings shifted from employers offering traditional pensions to employees managing their own 401(k) investments. This transition has raised concerns about financial security and access to retirement benefits for a broader segment of the population.
  • The social contract in the context of retirement security implies a societal obligation to ensure citizens have financial stability in their later years. It suggests that there is a mutual understanding between individuals and society that retirement should be a period of security and dignity. When this contract is perceived as broken, as with criticisms of the 401(k) system, it signifies a failure to uphold this shared responsibility. The concept underscores the idea that retiremen ...

Counterarguments

  • 401(k) plans offer tax advantages and employer matching contributions that can benefit participants across income levels, not just the affluent.
  • The voluntary nature of 401(k) contributions empowers individuals to take personal responsibility for their retirement savings.
  • The portability of 401(k) plans can be advantageous for workers who change jobs frequently, unlike traditional pension plans.
  • 401(k) plans can offer a wide range of investment options, allowing individuals to tailor their retirement savings to their own risk tolerance and financial goals.
  • Financial education and planning resources are increasingly available to help individuals make the most of their 401(k) plans, regardless of income level.
  • Some lower-income workers may benefit from tax credits, such as the Saver's Credit, which can incentivize retirement savings even for those with modest incomes.
  • The problems with 401(k) plans may not be inherent to the system itself but rather with broader economic issues, such as wage stagnation and income inequality.
  • Efforts to expand access to retirement savings plans, such as state-sponsored auto-IRA programs, are underway to address the coverage gap among workers without employer-sponsore ...

Get access to the context and additional materials

So you can understand the full picture and form your own opinion.
Get access for free
Was the 401(k) a Mistake?

Proposed Solutions or Alternatives to the Current 401(k) System

Amidst the dialogue about the inadequacy of the current 401(k) system, there is an implicit recognition of the need for new solutions, such as a government-run retirement savings program that could provide more security and accessibility to all Americans.

Government-administered universal retirement plan

One proposed alternative discussed by Steinberger is a government-administered universal retirement savings plan, similar to extending the Thrift Savings Plan model to all Americans. This would allow for government matching contributions which Steinberger explains could significantly incentivize participation in the retirement plan. The immediate growth seen from matching contributions, either from an employer or the government, could encourage more people to save for retirement.

There is also emerging bipartisan support for such a program. Legislation before Congress, based on Ghilarducci and Hassett's proposal, has garnered sponsorship from both sides of the aisle, signaling potential for a consensus on expanding retirement planning access and encouraging savings among the American population.

Underlying philosophical debate

Barbaro and Steinberger touch upon a deeper philosophical debate over retirement: should it be viewed as a privilege or a right? The pension system era lent to the idea of retirement as a right, whereas the shift towards 401(k) systems seems to have moved the concept towards a view of retirement as a pr ...

Here’s what you’ll find in our full summary

Registered users get access to the Full Podcast Summary and Additional Materials. It’s easy and free!
Start your free trial today

Proposed Solutions or Alternatives to the Current 401(k) System

Additional Materials

Clarifications

  • The Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) is a retirement savings and investment plan for federal employees, including members of the uniformed services. It operates similarly to a 401(k) plan in the private sector, offering tax-deferred investment options. The TSP allows participants to contribute a portion of their salary to various investment funds, providing a way to save for retirement with potential for growth over time. Participants can choose between different investment options, such as government securities, bonds, and stock funds, to build their retirement savings.
  • The "pension system era" typically refers to a time when pensions, which are retirement funds provided by employers, were more common than the current 401(k) system. Pensions guaranteed regular payments to retirees, contrasting with 401(k) plans where retirement income depends on individual contributions and investment performance. This shift from pensions to 401(k) plans has raised debates about whether retirement should be seen as a right or a privilege in society. The discussion around this transition often involves considerations of social responsibility and individual financial planning for retirement.
  • The debate over retirement as a privilege or a right revolves around differing perspectives on whether retirement benefits should be considered an earned privilege based on individual efforts or a fundamental right guaranteed to all citizens by the government. This discussion delves into the historical evolution of retirement systems, from pension-based models that implied a right to retirement to the current 401(k) systems that emphasize individual responsibility and financial planning. It questions the balance between personal accountability for saving and the societal duty to ensure adequate retirement security for every ...

Counterarguments

  • Concerns about the efficiency and effectiveness of government-run programs, given historical issues with bureaucracy and mismanagement.
  • The potential for a one-size-fits-all government plan to be less flexible or responsive to individual needs compared to private retirement savings options.
  • The risk of reduced innovation and competition in retirement savings solutions if a government program dominates the market.
  • The possibility that government matching could lead to increased public spending and higher taxes to fund the program.
  • The argument that personal responsibility for retirement savings encourages better financial planning and literacy.
  • The potential for moral hazard if individuals believe they do not need to save for retirement because they expect the government to provide for them.
  • The concern that a universal plan might disincentivize saving among ...

Get access to the context and additional materials

So you can understand the full picture and form your own opinion.
Get access for free

Create Summaries for anything on the web

Download the Shortform Chrome extension for your browser

Shortform Extension CTA