Teresa Ghilarducci: The 401(k) Retirement System Has Failed

January 30, 2009 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (25)

Americans lost over $1 trillion in their 401(k)s in 2008. Ouch! Evidence, says Teresa Ghilarducci, a New School for Social Research economist, that America needs to radically alter how workers save. She proposes eliminating the tax breaks for 401(k)s and replacing them with guaranteed retirement accounts. Under Ghilarducci's plan, outlined in her book When I'm Sixty-Four: The Plot Against Pensions and the Plan to Save Them, all workers who don't have a traditional pension would be required to contribute 2.5 percent of their income to a government account with a 2.5 percent employer match. A 3 percent return above inflation would be guaranteed by the government. U.S. News asked Ghilarducci about her controversial retirement plans. Excerpts:

What's wrong with the 401(k) retirement system?

The biggest problem with the 401(k) retirement system is the people who need them the most don't get the biggest benefit from the government subsidy. The people who get the biggest subsidy are in the highest tax bracket. The biggest problem with 401(k)s in general is that the contributions into the 401(k) are voluntary on the part of the employee. Sometimes, the employee gets help from the employer match, but it's not guaranteed. Because the employee puts the money in it, employees think of it as a savings account for hardships and for retirement. Because of the ability to take money out before you retire, it's not enough when you retire. The employee also has to make investment decisions. Most workers are not well suited to make those decisions. And they can't spread the risk over time. Basically, a pooled fund can pool it over many life spans, but a worker has only an individual time span to plan for. There is also market risk, and there is very little they can do to hedge against that risk.

If 401(k)s are serving investors so badly, why do people like them?

What they wrongly say is that the stock market does better than the government would. But your 401(k) is not in the stock market. Your 401(k) is in mutual funds, and you have to pay a fee for that. Because of fees and because of common mistakes that people make in managing their own money, the average returns have been about 3 percent without an inflation adjustment. They also see high-profile plans being terminated. When there are no other better options that are available, it's the best they have.

How will GRAs fix the retirement system?

After 30 years of experience with voluntary participation in the 401(k) system, in my opinion, it has failed. The only retirement system that all people have is Social Security and Social Security isn’t enough. We need a universal supplement to Social security so that everyone can retire. Personal savings and employer pensions were supposed to fill in that role. I expect that the government will spend a considerable about of time figuring out a way to have a supplement to Social Security. It might not be my plan, which is mandatory and pays for the subsidy by scaling back the 401(k) system. I see a more gradual introduction of a GRA.

Is a 3 percent interest rate above inflation enough to get people to a secure retirement?

Barely. It is the minimum that the government can guarantee and itself not run the risk of not being able to pay it. If you save 5 percent of your earnings, it is enough to get middle-income workers 70 percent of their preretirement earnings in retirement. Without that supplemental guarantee, they are getting about 40 percent from the Social Security system.

What should retirement savers with depleted 401(k)s do now, under the current system?

My best advice is to keep saving in your 401(k) account, but look very carefully at where you are investing. Invest in low-fee index funds. If you can't tolerate the stock market going up and down, then you should probably buy index bonds. In my 401(k), I have a balance between stocks and bonds, and I have the lowest fees possible. I don't try to time the market. People should not sell their assets low.

Tags:
401(k),
retirement

Reader Comments Read all comments (25)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

The proposal is an excellent one. It's too bad most people don't have the background to understand just how good it is. As she correctly points out, 401(k)s and other self-directed defined contribution plans are no solution for guaranteeing retirement income.

The idea that each of us is supposed to be his own financial analyst is incredibly naive. It is convenient for the mutual funds that eat up our fees, and it is convenient for competing professional investors who eat amateur investors alive. I'm not my own cardiologist or tailor or butcher. Division of labor is the hallmark of an efficient economy.

Hard as it may be to believe, traditional defined-benefit funds do what they do very efficiently. They are managed by professionals. They have no definite cash-out date (each participant retires at his own date, so on the average, retirement is predictable), which means that the fund never has to sell in the trough. They are large enough that they cannot be wiped out. They aggressively file derivative suits when mismanagement damages their bottom line. For a given benefit level, a defined-benefit plan will perform as well as a defined-contribution plan for a significantly lower cost.

So why are companies shifting to defined-contribution plans such as 401(k)s? There are two reasons. One is that defined-benefit plans are over-regulated, and compliance is expensive. The other is that, with a defined-contribution plan, the participants are actually getting a much *lower* level of benefit. So the companies are getting liabilities off their books, but the employees are getting little in return.

Poverty among the elderly was suppressed in the 1960s, because so many retiring workers had pensions. The Baby Boomers are in for a hideous surprise.

Alex of NY 4:49PM March 11, 2013

Ghilarducci's proposal is idiotic. Social Security is going broke now. How is it that the new GRA is going to be "invested" any better than the Social Security "Trust Fund"? Now if Ghilarducci simply wants to increase the amount everyone receives, we are back to the same problem - either people save more (which they don't want to do) or the government prints money (which will eventually make the system collapse). The bottom line is there is no free lunch. The GRA is simply a socialist excuse to expand our bloated Government even further.

Armando of NJ 5:16PM May 31, 2012

If the program is elective I say let's try it. If it is mandatory I say forget it. The Wall Street crowd will always oppose the middle classes' access to wealth that does not flow from their greedy little priviledged paws. Wall Street should be so well regulated that we should know every time they fart. Their greed and homage to pure capitalism is the real source of our decline. They chase the buck not the enrichment of our society. They have preyed on our freedoms in the marketplace to destroy our marketplace and have moved overseas. They have moved our factories to Communist China;therefore, proof that capitalism has no real Democratic roots. I have never heard of a Labor Union moving a factory overseas. By the time they get through with our new Health Plan it will be more costly than a home mortgage and will eventually lead to a forced Universal Health plan run by the government, which I oppose. Let the workers and the middle class have another option rather than a 401k that could and has proven

to be fertile ground for the greedy ba#@$%s on Wall Street.

Joe Scovel of UT 1:58PM October 28, 2010

Planning to Retire

Senior editor Emily Brandon tells you how to get ready financially for retirement and to make your golden years the best they can be.

advertisement

Our retirement readiness calculator will provide a rough idea of how long your retirement savings and income will last.


advertisement