Ever wonder why journalists rank about as high as Boko Haram on the popularity scale with the general public? (Rhetorical question)
Reason No. 1,547,663 is a recent story in The Washington Post; a straight news story, mind you, not an opinion piece. Here’s the lead:
We already know that the 401(k) has not been a great solution for improving Americans’ retirement security. But a series of new—and slightly depressing—charts from the Economic Policy Institute point out more of the ways that the retirement accounts are falling short.
Lies, damned lies and statistics. The tell is the author’s assertion that 401(k)s exacerbate “income inequality,” which immediately piqued our partisan radar. What she doesn’t say is that the Economic Policy Institute is a labor movement-affiliated think tank founded by Robert Reich, former Clinton Administration labor secretary and popular progressive writer.
Not surprisingly, many in the labor movement—particularly government workers—still love their defined benefit pension plans, even as they’ve gone the way of the dodo for the vast majority of their private sector counterparts. And who can blame them?
We have no quarrel with the Economic Policy Institute, which wears its political stripes on its sleeve (even though it still nonetheless describes itself as nonpartisan). We have a big problem with The Washington Post, which conveniently fails to mention EPI’s affiliations, founders or funding sources; it simply presents the findings as fact. Those tempted to lean on the nonpartisan tag described above should remember all think tanks bill themselves as nonpartisan, which is how they maintain their 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status. Anyone want to argue the Center for American Progress or American Enterprise Institute are apolitical?
As for the supposed failure of the 401(k), plenty of charts exist that tell a very different story, as well as first-hand accounts of saving success. Alicia Munnell of the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College—who could hardly be labeled industry shill or right-wing sycophant—recently had her road to Damascus moment, and finally admitted that her research finds 401(k) plans and like savings vehicles on par with defined benefit replacement rates.
Expect more deceit on the subject from the consumer press —it’s an election year.
With more than 20 years serving financial markets, John Sullivan is the former editor-in-chief of Investment Advisor magazine and retirement editor of ThinkAdvisor.com. Sullivan is also the former editor of Boomer Market Advisor and Bank Advisor magazines, and has a background in the insurance and investment industries in addition to his journalism roots.
So basically you spend an entire article attacking the EPI report. But all you do is attack their political leanings. You don’t even grapple with any of the issues they brought up. This sends up my ‘partisan radar’.
I have no problem with EPI or the report, and specifically say so in the piece. As stated, I have a big problem with the Washington Post for not disclosing EPI’s agenda. Again, the Post article is straight news, not opinion.
Not much is new here. The media spends a great deal of time looking for panic provoking headlines intended to inflame public opinion to sell advertisements and subscriptions. High quality journalism is a thing of the past. The public reads them and takes them as gospel. EVEN today with all the education available many do not take advantage of their company 401k. They don’t even go for the matching contribution. Many others also still SELL right at the bottom as always, locking in losses when doing nothing would be better long term.
At the end of the day, all an advisor can do is help those that seek or want help and the rest will have what they have in retirement. For many, it is already too late. Millions of Boomers have nothing and will work until they die. A great lesson for the next generation, but one that currently is going unheeded.
So your problem is with their politics, not the substance of their article? Step one in 401k reform — admit that people who have a life & health license are not even close to qualified to set up these fee-heavy plans. Admitting to the problems can lead to solutions. Please be sure to not email me any more of your political nonsense.
Dear Turd and all other fellow travelers,
Here is the problem; government intervention in the employee – employer relationship.
Here is the solution; prohibit government from interfering in the employee – employer relationship.
Employing this solution will eliminate the politics period.
After all if you don’t like the retirement plan provided by your employer then don’t participate or find a better employer and/or start your own retirement plan.
Occam’s razor is a very sound approach in this case.
In fact embracing this straight-forward approach is the only civilized way to permanently solve the “problem.”
Resorting to any kind of barbaric government “solution” is morally repugnant to all civilized individuals.
And if some of you still somehow feel justified in forcing me to adopt your so-called “solution” under the threat of government violence then am I not justified in using force to resist said violence? Or, instead using government to do my dirty work for me in some other manner, shape or form? In effect a permanent war against each other. Who wins in that scenario?
Whether a dictator, theocracy, an oligarchy, a republic or a solid majority initiate violence has no bearing on the morality of the act…it is wrong every time.