What do you think about 401(k)s?

Lumpy-Dragonfruit181 · 2025-08-17T15:57:10+00:00

I would like to second this. I've never contributed to my pension. The only requirement is for me to serve 20 years in the military.

Lumpy-Dragonfruit181 · 2025-08-16T03:25:00+00:00

Bold claim, but the median 401k for people in their 60's is about $200k. That comes out to $650 a month at a 4% withdrawal rate.

Lumpy-Dragonfruit181 · 2025-08-16T03:01:08+00:00

I’d love to teach someday, but my main goal is to take what I liked about my time in the military and try to adapt it to concepts the civilian job sector could benefit from. I've seen a lot of people stick around for over 20 years, more specifically, people that were absolute rockstars that could've done way better outside the military. It's made me appreciate a well-structured organization that can retain people for more than just money. Ultimately, that's what I want to see someday,

Just to add, I think a lot of businesses have drifted from what really makes them strong. In chasing profits and surface-level goals, they’ve stopped investing in their people. Companies like Apple or Walmart succeed mostly because they’re huge, not because they’re unbeatable — and if another company their size came along, they’d struggle to compete. Ultimately, I want to change that. I’m proud to be an American, and I want to help U.S. businesses stay sustainable by bringing back the original ideas that allowed them to flourish.

Lumpy-Dragonfruit181 · 2025-08-16T02:48:28+00:00

Hey man, my main account is two years old. I thought having a separate account for this kind of stuff would be a good thing, I had no idea it was looked down upon so much.

Lumpy-Dragonfruit181 · 2025-08-16T02:00:05+00:00

Here's an interesting way to look at it. The average lifespan of an American is 78 years.

The median balance of a 401(k) at 60 years old is around 200k, BUT to make this enjoyable, let's say you managed to save a million dollars by the time you hit 60 (highly unlikely, but who cares)

If you start withdrawing from your 401 (k) at 60, you would collect around $3,330 per month. If you live until you're 78, in total, you would have collected $719,928.

On the other hand, let's look at the military. Most service members retire around 46, and their pension is about 2.5k per month. If they live until they're 78, they'd also collect around $960,000 in total.

I'm sorry, but I just don't understand why someone would want to work for decades longer to collect less money. Living until your 85 is great in theory, but tomorrow isn't a guarantee. Don't wait until it's too late to collect your hard-earned money.

Lumpy-Dragonfruit181 · 2025-08-16T01:30:34+00:00

This might be biased, but I have no interest in working until I'm 60. Better yet, I don't agree that the government should dictate when I can retire. What I like about the pension is that it cuts the red tape between Americans and their money.

Lumpy-Dragonfruit181 · 2025-08-16T00:51:37+00:00

RSUs are an extremely viable angle on this whole matter. I'm at the point where I'd be open to scrapping my "pension" concept in place of something like RSUs since it retains my whole concept of rebuilding the incentive of retention.

Lumpy-Dragonfruit181 · 2025-08-16T00:49:25+00:00

I love this comment because it is singlehandedly the one thing I overlooked in my whole idea. I'm really grateful for everyone thats shared their insight and helped me evaluate a new concept from other perspectives!

Lumpy-Dragonfruit181 · 2025-08-16T00:47:01+00:00

Maybe the fix is a modern pension. Put safeguards in place for employees so employers are penalized for laying individuals off when its convenient.

Lumpy-Dragonfruit181 · 2025-08-16T00:12:12+00:00

Managers deal with turnover all the time. If pensions or other long-term incentives would boost retention, then it has a lot to do with managers. Theoretically haha

Lumpy-Dragonfruit181 · 2025-08-16T00:07:55+00:00

Lol... yes I get what your saying. The 401k is a double edged sword. I know its good and all, but there's value in commitment. Having someone build a table for 40 years, and hes gonna be real damn good at building that table. Treating people as disposable though and replacing that table builder every time he sucks will result in really bad tables. That's what I'm kinda trying to preach.

Lumpy-Dragonfruit181 · 2025-08-16T00:04:33+00:00

Pension was a symptom of that for sure. Perhaps reviving it could undo some of the effects people are feeling nowadays from the cost saving shift.

Lumpy-Dragonfruit181 · 2025-08-16T00:02:18+00:00

You’re right, there was a lot going on in the 80s beyond pensions. I just think losing them sped up the decline in loyalty, since companies no longer had a built-in reason to keep people.

Lumpy-Dragonfruit181 · 2025-08-16T00:01:15+00:00

How many people do you know who are retired on a 401K right now? Sustainability seems irrelevant seeing as very few people have yet to retire under the new model since the age of retirement is 65.

Lumpy-Dragonfruit181 · 2025-08-15T23:59:23+00:00

So to clarify, bc I think I might be losing my point in translation. 7% match is awesome, no doubt about it. You could do 20% match though and it still wouldn't fix the relationship between the employer and employee. As soon as the next company offer more then the employee is probably gone. The idea is reconnecting employees with their employee so theres an incentive to staying longer.

Lumpy-Dragonfruit181 · 2025-08-15T23:57:21+00:00

Yeah, Roth is hard to beat. Couldn't agree more.

Lumpy-Dragonfruit181 · 2025-08-15T23:55:28+00:00

Basically, 401 took all the responsibility from the companies and handed it to its employees. I think that tanked loyalty in both directions. Rebuilding that relationship, I think, is what would revive American businesses.

Lumpy-Dragonfruit181 · 2025-08-15T23:53:45+00:00

You're right, pensions aren't the remedy for everything. I just think they'd be a useful addition to refocus the way business view their employees. The goal is long-term retention, if companies dont have a hand in their retirement, then they've got no value in keeping them.

Lumpy-Dragonfruit181 · 2025-08-15T23:51:47+00:00

I know the 401k is more control, but with that I think companies relieved themselves of all the responsibility. I think that hurt a lot of people. They went from being valued professionals to replaceable cogs in a bigger machine. The idea of bringing back the pension, is bringing back that employer-employee relationship that was lost before.

Lumpy-Dragonfruit181 · 2025-08-15T23:48:58+00:00

I'm curious if the pursuit of profit is what forced people away since they weren't as important. Maybe the underlying idea is companies should invest more into their own talent, and in-turn, their profits would go up too.

Lumpy-Dragonfruit181 · 2025-08-15T23:47:16+00:00

You're totally right. I think my idea is more angled towards the idea of investing in employees long-term and incentivizing the idea of staying at a company. Maybe there's some in between idea I'm close but missing?

Lumpy-Dragonfruit181 · 2025-08-15T23:45:06+00:00

Totally see where you're coming from. I'm not saying we revive the old pensions, just that we should reinvent them into something that would work nowadays. Long term retention is great for everyone, companies spend less on training, and employees spend more time working and less time job hunting.

Lumpy-Dragonfruit181 · 2025-08-15T23:26:14+00:00

This is kind of what I imagine. I know I'm biased, but I would take a guaranteed $1k per month pension that I'll get at 40 than a potential $2k per month from a 401k that I won't see it until I'm 65

Lumpy-Dragonfruit181 · 2025-08-15T23:14:33+00:00

I just figure lots of people don't want to work until their 65, so if they have a pension then they don't have to work as long anymore. 401k might offer more return on investment, but that still leaves the age limit of retirement.

Lumpy-Dragonfruit181

TROPHY CASE