The Saving Advice Forums - A classic personal finance community.

Stop contributing to traditional retirement plans?

Collapse
X
Collapse
Forum Posts
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Stop contributing to traditional retirement plans?

    US economy may be stuck in slow lane for long run


    Yahoo News Story


    WASHINGTON (AP) — In the 4½ years since the Great Recession ended, millions of Americans who have gone without jobs or raises have found themselves wondering something about the economic recovery:

    Is this as good as it gets?

    It increasingly looks that way.

    Two straight weak job reports have raised doubts about economists' predictions of breakout growth in 2014. The global economy is showing signs of slowing — again. Manufacturing has slumped. Fewer people are signing contracts to buy homes. Global stock markets have sunk as anxiety has gripped developing nations.

    Some long-term trends are equally dispiriting.

    The Congressional Budget Office foresees growth picking up through 2016, only to weaken starting in 2017. By the CBO's reckoning, the economy will soon slam into a demographic wall: The vast baby boom generation will retire. Their exodus will shrink the share of Americans who are working, which will hamper the economy's ability to accelerate.

    At the same time, the government may have to borrow more, raise taxes or cut spending to support Social Security and Medicare for those retirees.

    Only a few weeks ago, at least the short-term view looked brighter. Entering 2014, many economists predicted growth would top 3 percent for the first time since 2005. That pace would bring the U.S. economy near its average post-World War II annual growth rate. Some of the expected improvement would come from the government exerting less drag on the economy this year after having slashed spending and raised taxes in 2013.

    In addition, steady job gains dating back to 2010 should unleash more consumer spending. Each of the 7.8 million jobs that have been added provided income to someone who previously had little or none. It amounts to "adrenaline" for the economy, said Carl Tannenbaum, chief economist for Northern Trust.

    And since 70 percent of the economy flows from consumers, their increased spending would be expected to drive stronger hiring and growth.

    "There is a dividing line between a slow-growth economy that is not satisfactory and above-trend growth with a tide strong enough to lift all the boats and put people back to work," said Chris Rupkey, chief financial economist at Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi. "That number is 3 percent."

    The recovery had appeared to achieve a breakthrough in the final quarter of 2013. The economy grew at an annual pace of 3.2 percent last quarter. Leading the upswing was a 3.3 percent surge in the rate of consumer spending, which had been slack for much of the recovery partly because of high debt loads and stagnant pay.

    Yet for now, winter storms and freezing temperatures, along with struggles in Europe and Asia, have slowed manufacturing and the pace of hiring.

    Just 113,000 jobs were added in January, the government said Friday. In December, employers had added a puny 75,000. Job creation for the past two months is roughly half its average for the past two years. A third sluggish jobs report in February would further dim hopes for a breakout year.

    "Three months in a row would mean the job market is taking a turn for the worst," said Stuart Hoffman, chief economist for PNC Financial Services.

    Former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers and Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman have suggested that the economy might be in a semi-permanent funk. In November, Summers warned in a speech that the economy is trapped by "secular stagnation." By that, he meant a prolonged period of weak demand and slow growth.

    If the United States hasn't already slipped into that period, the CBO predicts it could over the next four years. That's when the retirements of baby boomers would start to restrain growth.

    The economy will expand 2.7 percent in 2017 before declining to an average of 2.2 percent through 2024, the CBO estimates. That's about as sluggish as the current recovery has been, on average, so far.

    There are no documented examples of an economy that had to emerge from a financial crisis while simultaneously absorbing the effects of an aging population, noted Harvard University economist Carmen Reinhart, who has researched eight centuries of crises with her colleague Ken Rogoff.

    "These things are new," she said.

    Many Americans who endured the worst of the downturn remain wary, sensing that the recession caused an enduring downshift. Some businesses are still reluctant to hire despite higher revenue.

    Consider Linda Tool & Die in Brooklyn. The company slashed its average workweek to 32 hours after the recession struck. Those cuts helped preserve employees' health care benefits. It also enabled the 61-year old company to invest in technology to try to stay competitive in a tough environment.

    But as business has improved with more orders from aerospace companies, CEO Mike Dimarino has chosen overtime over hiring.

    "I'd rather give the people who stuck with me during the dark days a few extra bucks," he said.

    Likewise, some people have downshifted to careers they view as better safeguards against a downturn. One is Phillip Romine, 28, who said he now prizes job security over the allure of overtime pay.

    Before being laid off by General Motors in 2009, Romine had been building Chevy and Pontiac sedans in Michigan.

    Many months after his layoff, GM offered to rehire Romine. His answer? No thanks. Romine chose to stay in school and complete his associate's degree.

    Now a physical therapist, he finds fulfillment in serving people. Yet he feels his generation may never match his parents' lifestyle. His father's GM factory pay was enough to buy a home on several acres with a swimming pool — something Romine regards as a fantasy for him and his generation.

    "I feel like right now I'm maintaining," he said.

    An economy that grew faster than 3 percent would likely make it easier for the 3.6 million other Americans who have gone without a job for more than six months to find work.

    By his own count, Brian Perry has applied for nearly 1,500 jobs since being let go as a law clerk in 2008. The 56-year old Perry lives in Rhode Island, where the 9.1 percent unemployment rate is 2.5 percentage points above the national average.

    Perry remains optimistic that a job is forthcoming. He thinks a more robust economy would create better opportunities for the long-term unemployed like him.

    "More growth equals more potential," he said. "If you hire more people, there's more money in their pockets."

    The weakness of the recovery stems in part from the usual lingering hangover from financial crises, according to research by Harvard's Reinhart and Rogoff. Their research shows that it takes a decade to fully heal. Last month, they released a paper suggesting that the U.S. economy has actually fared well during this recovery compared with other economies that have suffered a financial crisis.

    And Reinhart noted that their records show no precedent for an economy that emerged from a financial crisis while facing a profound demographic shift.

    She does offer a smidgen of optimism: History suggests that economies that seem doomed can sometimes enjoy sudden turnarounds and unexpected bursts of energy. American consumers were walloped by high gasoline prices and low growth in the 1970s. Yet the feared downward spiral never happened as the economy roared through the 1980s.

    "Financial crises do not last forever," Reinhart said. "A decade is a long time. But a long time is not the same as forever."
    I'm increasingly curious if it's a better idea to pay off my house and ditch traditional retirement vehicles for the time being. Thoughts? In 30 years, basically I'd be banking on explosive growth at this point to make things right, if the next ten years are going to be completely flat or keeping pace with inflation?
    History will judge the complicit.

  • #2
    If you stop contributing to your retirement plan, how do you plan to support yourself [and family] once you cease working? Might it not be a better plan to keep an eye on your investments and make changes as the economy changes.

    I think it was all doom and gloom in Great Depression. I think it was all doom and gloom when the stock market tanked October 1987. I think I read all doom and gloom in 2008 and was terrified but I stuck with my investment plan. There are stacks of problems in various countries all different. In the UK the banks have not written off billions in bad debt. They've just moved NFL into another category that sounds so much better than Junk Bonds and presume the government aka TaxPayers will cover the loss. Japan has an aging population that can't be reversed and their homogeneous policy doesn't allow immigration. Many countries are being destroyed by corruption of their leaders.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by ua_guy View Post
      I'm increasingly curious if it's a better idea to pay off my house and ditch traditional retirement vehicles
      Ditch traditional retirement vehicles in exchange for what? If you stop funding your 401k or IRA, where will you invest your money for the future? That leaves taxable investing as your alternative which doesn't sound like a good option. Why would you not want to take full advantage of tax-free or tax-deferred growth?
      Steve

      * Despite the high cost of living, it remains very popular.
      * Why should I pay for my daughter's education when she already knows everything?
      * There are no shortcuts to anywhere worth going.

      Comment


      • #4
        I'll chime in with something I learned from someone on here (probably DisneySteve): why go all or nothing? Instead of either retirement investment or payoff house, why not do both? Max your 401k and IRA's, then instead of investing in the market with taxable dollars, pay some extra on the house each month. That way you get the best of all worlds. I am actually considering this myself now that I have discovered how much a mortgage drains the monthly income.

        EDIT: I just changed my mortgage payment from once a month to once every 2 weeks. Adds an additional payment each year. A small change, but going in the right direction. Yeah.

        I guess my answer is I would not stop investing in my tax deductible / deferred retirement accounts to payoff the mortgage. I might divert some or all of my taxable savings into paying off the mortgage.

        Tom
        Last edited by corn18; 02-11-2014, 07:29 AM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Math time!

          $17,500 into a 401K, deferred taxes on that money at 33% = $5800

          or

          $11,700 after paying those taxes and that money applied to home mortgage.


          After 30 years, the 401K, if invested in 3% CDs would have $843,766


          The $11,700 paying down a 4% home loan would represent a return of $668,142.04


          Result: 401k wins.

          Comment


          • #6
            I agree with the others.

            The home mortgage is most likely at a historically low fixed rate--you have that locked in, and inflation protected.

            If you were to exclusively focus on paying off your home mortgage, you might miss out on the next market expansion--whenever that might be. I think diversification and steady investing is the best strategy.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Like2Plan View Post
              I agree with the others.

              The home mortgage is most likely at a historically low fixed rate--you have that locked in, and inflation protected.

              If you were to exclusively focus on paying off your home mortgage, you might miss out on the next market expansion--whenever that might be. I think diversification and steady investing is the best strategy.
              Right, I would not focus 100% on my mortgage, regardless of interest rate.

              But what if you have a low mortgage rate, and are able to pay it off in a shorter time? Then you would be sitting in full equity. When the time comes to move into your next house, you'll have all that bank and possibly not have to open a mortgage. In fact, our next house will likely cost 80% of our current house, by design.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by JoeP View Post
                But what if you have a low mortgage rate, and are able to pay it off in a shorter time? Then you would be sitting in full equity. When the time comes to move into your next house, you'll have all that bank and possibly not have to open a mortgage. In fact, our next house will likely cost 80% of our current house, by design.
                I agree with you that there is a certain satisfaction (and feeling of security) with having the mortgage paid in full. Maybe, that is part of your diversification. But, I would not do that to the exclusion of saving and investing for retirement.

                But, all the models that I have seen suggest that (over 30 years time) you will be money ahead to invest the money in a well diversified portfolio outside the house and then take the proceeds and pay the house off in lump sum (if that is still your goal).

                In your case, would it matter if you had a pile of liquid assets you've acquired for the purpose of buying your next house or you get a larger settlement check at closing?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Right now I do contribute the maximum allowable IRS contribution to my 403b. At most, I would consider backing off my contribution down to my employer match (5%) because that's free money. At the least, I've become increasingly skeptical of the market, and having a home to live in that I own free and clear looks/feels much more important than numbers on a paper that can become worth nothing without any consequence to the people that contributed directly or indirectly to that loss. Financial markets are increasingly complex. The market shifts with every sneeze and hickup with Europe and China, and the market realizes losses even upon lower than expected economic growth these days, even though the economy did post positive numbers. It feels like the banks continue to rake away money from people like me who do not come from wealth and the only money I gain is through working.

                  There seems to be this "thou shalt..." mentality with regards to retirement contributions, and I understand why it's good to funnel income into financial markets *if* the end scenario plays out. It counts on gainful employment over the same time period, a prolonged period of good health, and favorable market conditions from the beginning of the withdrawal period until the funds are exhausted, with natural death hopefully arriving first. It would be different if I had a positive outlook for our global markets and with regard to our country's well being, but I don't. I see it being overrun by greedy and stupid people to put it very plainly, simply, and as blunt as possible. Nobody can forecast the next 10 years accurately, but I think the article reflects a realistic outlook for growth (i.e. minimal or flat). I'm not saying I'm going to stop building assets for retirement, but what I'm saying is an investment vehicle that became popular in the 1980's is no longer looking like a very attractive or believable option for guaranteed stability.

                  I feel continually encouraged to own what I have, to not buy what I don't need, and to buy things of real value that either benefit me and my longevity, and not put real money towards a statistical game that is beginning to feel stacked against people in my position. Sacrifice now, just so it can all be lost later? Please show me where I am not the ONLY person taking risk in that whole equation.
                  History will judge the complicit.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    You don't have to put your retirement savings into the market. They can sit in cash or cash equivalent accounts earning next to nothing. But it sounds like you have more esoteric reasons for paying off your house and that is OK. If that works for you and your style, then I say make it a goal, make it happen and never look back. I wonder if anyone ever regrets paying off their mortgage?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by ua_guy View Post
                      Please show me where I am not the ONLY person taking risk in that whole equation.
                      You have to go with what your risk tolerance is, so you can sleep at night.

                      All I can do to tell you the tale of 2-401ks--true story. One 401K (I'll call it my 401k) was invested almost exclusively in govt bonds for about 28 years. The other 401K (I'll call it DH's) was started 11 years after mine and was invested in a diversified portfolio. DH's 401K value now exceeds mine by about 15%. By the way, DH's 401K weathered several pretty significant downturns--like in 2002 and 2008, for example.

                      Obviously, we would have had some issues if we were counting on drawing income from DH's 401k during the downturn. (What we probably would have done is drawn from mine which was only minimally impacted by the downturns.)

                      We could be due for a correction, but I have no way of being able to predict that. But, I just don't think it will stay that way for the next 10 or 20 or 30 years...

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by ua_guy View Post
                        Please show me where I am not the ONLY person taking risk in that whole equation.
                        I am more concerned about the risk of inflation eroding away purchasing power, which makes the markets very attractive, but I have a very positive outlook for the future economy. That article was all doom and gloom, and frankly I don't believe any of it. There will certainly be a few bad apples, where greed can screw things up, and we will certainly go through a couple more bubbles, but for a long term investment, a diversified portfolio, with low fees is a no brainer for me.

                        You certainly don't have a lot of trust in investing, which means you should probably adjust your asset allocation accordingly. As KTP and Tomhole pointed out, you can still use a tax advantage account with low risk securities, money market, bonds... whatever. You don't have to give up the tax advantages of a retirement plan.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by autoxer View Post
                          I am more concerned about the risk of inflation eroding away purchasing power, which makes the markets very attractive, but I have a very positive outlook for the future economy. That article was all doom and gloom, and frankly I don't believe any of it. There will certainly be a few bad apples, where greed can screw things up, and we will certainly go through a couple more bubbles, but for a long term investment, a diversified portfolio, with low fees is a no brainer for me.

                          You certainly don't have a lot of trust in investing, which means you should probably adjust your asset allocation accordingly. As KTP and Tomhole pointed out, you can still use a tax advantage account with low risk securities, money market, bonds... whatever. You don't have to give up the tax advantages of a retirement plan.
                          Just curious, but what leads you to believe in a very positive outlook for the economy? Most of the data I've seen suggests we are still recovering from a recession, at a pace that is aggravating at best. The recovery is also riding on an extremely fragile platform with China and Europe becoming even more significant players in our financial health, along with an impending presidential office change come 2016. I also wouldn't call what we experienced as the Great Recession in 2008 to be the pop of a bubble. Bubbles are things like runs on energy futures, or gold, business sectors like the technology markets because the advent of a new type of popular device. A bubble isn't taking 95% of Americans off at the knees...
                          History will judge the complicit.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by ua_guy View Post
                            Just curious, but what leads you to believe in a very positive outlook for the economy? Most of the data I've seen suggests we are still recovering from a recession, at a pace that is aggravating at best. The recovery is also riding on an extremely fragile platform with China and Europe becoming even more significant players in our financial health, along with an impending presidential office change come 2016. I also wouldn't call what we experienced as the Great Recession in 2008 to be the pop of a bubble. Bubbles are things like runs on energy futures, or gold, business sectors like the technology markets because the advent of a new type of popular device. A bubble isn't taking 95% of Americans off at the knees...
                            I guess I'm an optimist, because I spend more time focusing on the positive things. I see more companies bringing production from China back to the United States. I see more local business owners reporting good business conditions and expanding. I see the construction industry coming back in my area.

                            There is always going to be new markets affecting different sectors. There is always going to be an upcoming presidential election or an upcoming debt ceiling debate. And there will always be certain sectors spiraling out of control. In the recent past we saw the housing and financial sectors crash. In the future something has to give with 'higher education' and student load debt, because they are rising much faster than incomes. And the demand for energy will be a bumpy ride. We know all of these things are going to affect the market, but they are just bumps, not long term stagnation. I would rather own shares of growing companies than my house. And when the market pulls back, I will buy even more shares.

                            I do agree with you on a couple things:
                            I feel continually encouraged to own what I have, to not buy what I don't need, and to buy things of real value that either benefit me and my longevity,
                            I've always lived below my means and I am continually scaling back my consumerism. And despite what I said above, I did refinance to a 15 year mortgage, but I am investing every surplus penny for the future. I am investing for the long term, so reading the 'data' and letting my emotions make decisions would be detrimental to my long term plan.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by KTP View Post
                              Math time!

                              $17,500 into a 401K, deferred taxes on that money at 33% = $5800

                              or

                              $11,700 after paying those taxes and that money applied to home mortgage.


                              After 30 years, the 401K, if invested in 3% CDs would have $843,766


                              The $11,700 paying down a 4% home loan would represent a return of $668,142.04


                              Result: 401k wins.
                              Also, add a 401k match on top of the $17500 contribution and it skews the analysis even more in favor of the 401k.

                              Also, I wouldn't put much stock in this article as being an accurate reflection of what's to come over the next decade (I think we'd all be hard pressed to find an article written in 2004 that accurately forecasted the ten year period between '04 and '14). That's why a balanced approached to investing between stocks, bonds, mutual funds, real estate etc... makes the most sense.
                              “Compound interest is the eighth wonder of the world. He who understands it, earns it … he who doesn’t … pays it.”

                              Comment

                              Working...