Inequality Soars as Retirement Benefits Dwindle for All But the Rich
The retirement forecast is quite sunnier for those at the top
A report released Thursday from the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) offers more evidence that the shift away from traditional pensions to 401(k)-like plans contributes to inequality.
As Bloomberg reported Friday, "The U.S. retirement landscape is starting to look like a Charles Dickens novel."
These "defined contribution (DC)" plans, the report notes, "have become the dominant form of retirement plan for U.S. workers," but 60 percent of all U.S. households in 2013 had no retirement savings in one. Further noting the wealth divide, GAO found:
- While 81 percent of working, high-income households had savings in a DC plan, only about 25 percent of working, low-income households had any savings in one.
- From 2007 to 2013, the average balance in such accounts held by white working households didn't significantly change, but for black working households, the average balance in plans dropped significantly--from $31,100 in 2007 to $16,400 in 2013.
Further, as noted by GAO:
According to GAO's projections, households in the lowest earning group accumulated DC savings that generated lifetime income in retirement, as measured by an annuity equivalent, of about $560 per month on average (in 2015 dollars). Yet, 35 percent of this group had no DC savings at retirement. In contrast, households in the highest earning group saved enough to receive about 11 times more per month in retirement and only 8 percent had no DC savings.
A 2013 paper from the Economic Policy Institute showed how this shift away from traditional pensions to 401(k) retirement plans has been a "disaster," fueling inequality and creating more insecure retirements.
Economist Dean Baker also noted in December that "Your retirement prospects are bleaker than ever," attributing it to "the disappearance of traditional defined benefit pensions and the failure of 401(k)-type plans to fill the gap."
"The vast majority of Americans who expect to retire in the next decade can count on little income other than their Social Security. This is true not only for low-income workers, who have struggled most of their lives, but also for millions of middle-income workers," Baker wrote. "Although Social Security is a tremendously important program, and provides a solid base that retirees can depend upon, its $16,000 average annual benefit doesn't go very far. Many if not most can expect to see sharp reductions in living standards."
And A Tale of Two Retirements, a report released last year by the Center for Effective Government and the Institute for Policy Studies, showed that 100 Fortune 500 CEOs'' retirement assets together totaled $4.9 billion, the same amount as that held by 50 million families--41 percent of American families--combined.
"The 401(k) revolution has been a disaster, yet some policymakers are calling for cuts to Social Security, which will be the only significant source of retirement income for most Americans--if they are able to retire in the first place," said A Tale of Two Retirements co-author Monique Morrissey.
Hillary Clinton said last month that "[Republicans] are calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme and want to privatize it," while both she and Democratic rival Bernie Sanders "want to make sure Social Security is vibrant and well-funded." Her current views on the issue, Max Ehrenfreund wrote last week at the Washington Post, reflect a shift towards the left, more in line with Sanders' view.
Urgent. It's never been this bad.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission from the outset was simple. To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It’s never been this bad out there. And it’s never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed and doing some of its best and most important work, the threats we face are intensifying. Right now, with just hours left in our Spring Campaign, we're still falling short of our make-or-break goal. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Can you make a gift right now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? There is no backup plan or rainy day fund. There is only you. —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
A report released Thursday from the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) offers more evidence that the shift away from traditional pensions to 401(k)-like plans contributes to inequality.
As Bloomberg reported Friday, "The U.S. retirement landscape is starting to look like a Charles Dickens novel."
These "defined contribution (DC)" plans, the report notes, "have become the dominant form of retirement plan for U.S. workers," but 60 percent of all U.S. households in 2013 had no retirement savings in one. Further noting the wealth divide, GAO found:
- While 81 percent of working, high-income households had savings in a DC plan, only about 25 percent of working, low-income households had any savings in one.
- From 2007 to 2013, the average balance in such accounts held by white working households didn't significantly change, but for black working households, the average balance in plans dropped significantly--from $31,100 in 2007 to $16,400 in 2013.
Further, as noted by GAO:
According to GAO's projections, households in the lowest earning group accumulated DC savings that generated lifetime income in retirement, as measured by an annuity equivalent, of about $560 per month on average (in 2015 dollars). Yet, 35 percent of this group had no DC savings at retirement. In contrast, households in the highest earning group saved enough to receive about 11 times more per month in retirement and only 8 percent had no DC savings.
A 2013 paper from the Economic Policy Institute showed how this shift away from traditional pensions to 401(k) retirement plans has been a "disaster," fueling inequality and creating more insecure retirements.
Economist Dean Baker also noted in December that "Your retirement prospects are bleaker than ever," attributing it to "the disappearance of traditional defined benefit pensions and the failure of 401(k)-type plans to fill the gap."
"The vast majority of Americans who expect to retire in the next decade can count on little income other than their Social Security. This is true not only for low-income workers, who have struggled most of their lives, but also for millions of middle-income workers," Baker wrote. "Although Social Security is a tremendously important program, and provides a solid base that retirees can depend upon, its $16,000 average annual benefit doesn't go very far. Many if not most can expect to see sharp reductions in living standards."
And A Tale of Two Retirements, a report released last year by the Center for Effective Government and the Institute for Policy Studies, showed that 100 Fortune 500 CEOs'' retirement assets together totaled $4.9 billion, the same amount as that held by 50 million families--41 percent of American families--combined.
"The 401(k) revolution has been a disaster, yet some policymakers are calling for cuts to Social Security, which will be the only significant source of retirement income for most Americans--if they are able to retire in the first place," said A Tale of Two Retirements co-author Monique Morrissey.
Hillary Clinton said last month that "[Republicans] are calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme and want to privatize it," while both she and Democratic rival Bernie Sanders "want to make sure Social Security is vibrant and well-funded." Her current views on the issue, Max Ehrenfreund wrote last week at the Washington Post, reflect a shift towards the left, more in line with Sanders' view.
A report released Thursday from the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) offers more evidence that the shift away from traditional pensions to 401(k)-like plans contributes to inequality.
As Bloomberg reported Friday, "The U.S. retirement landscape is starting to look like a Charles Dickens novel."
These "defined contribution (DC)" plans, the report notes, "have become the dominant form of retirement plan for U.S. workers," but 60 percent of all U.S. households in 2013 had no retirement savings in one. Further noting the wealth divide, GAO found:
- While 81 percent of working, high-income households had savings in a DC plan, only about 25 percent of working, low-income households had any savings in one.
- From 2007 to 2013, the average balance in such accounts held by white working households didn't significantly change, but for black working households, the average balance in plans dropped significantly--from $31,100 in 2007 to $16,400 in 2013.
Further, as noted by GAO:
According to GAO's projections, households in the lowest earning group accumulated DC savings that generated lifetime income in retirement, as measured by an annuity equivalent, of about $560 per month on average (in 2015 dollars). Yet, 35 percent of this group had no DC savings at retirement. In contrast, households in the highest earning group saved enough to receive about 11 times more per month in retirement and only 8 percent had no DC savings.
A 2013 paper from the Economic Policy Institute showed how this shift away from traditional pensions to 401(k) retirement plans has been a "disaster," fueling inequality and creating more insecure retirements.
Economist Dean Baker also noted in December that "Your retirement prospects are bleaker than ever," attributing it to "the disappearance of traditional defined benefit pensions and the failure of 401(k)-type plans to fill the gap."
"The vast majority of Americans who expect to retire in the next decade can count on little income other than their Social Security. This is true not only for low-income workers, who have struggled most of their lives, but also for millions of middle-income workers," Baker wrote. "Although Social Security is a tremendously important program, and provides a solid base that retirees can depend upon, its $16,000 average annual benefit doesn't go very far. Many if not most can expect to see sharp reductions in living standards."
And A Tale of Two Retirements, a report released last year by the Center for Effective Government and the Institute for Policy Studies, showed that 100 Fortune 500 CEOs'' retirement assets together totaled $4.9 billion, the same amount as that held by 50 million families--41 percent of American families--combined.
"The 401(k) revolution has been a disaster, yet some policymakers are calling for cuts to Social Security, which will be the only significant source of retirement income for most Americans--if they are able to retire in the first place," said A Tale of Two Retirements co-author Monique Morrissey.
Hillary Clinton said last month that "[Republicans] are calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme and want to privatize it," while both she and Democratic rival Bernie Sanders "want to make sure Social Security is vibrant and well-funded." Her current views on the issue, Max Ehrenfreund wrote last week at the Washington Post, reflect a shift towards the left, more in line with Sanders' view.