• His disclosures, both from his final year in Congress and his time as Minnesota governor, also show no mutual funds, bonds, private equities, or other securities.
  • No book deals or speaking fees or crypto or racehorse interests.
  • Not even real estate. The couple sold their Mankato, Minnesota, home after moving into the governor’s mansion, for below the $315k asking price).
  • snooggums@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    Have fun choosing when to retire based on whether the stock market recently crashed.

    I knew 3 people who had to put off their retirements around 2009 so the market could recover.

    • Vent@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      4 months ago

      There are targeted retirement funds that target a retirement year and slowly transition from stocks into bonds/less risky positions as that date approaches. Those are generally a better idea for retirement savings than broader market funds for the reason you described.

      And it’s not like retirement immediately liquidates your 401k. There’s just some minimum that you need to take out per year which isn’t very high. Roth IRA’s don’t have a minimum distrust requirement until after the death of the owner.

      • snooggums@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        4 months ago

        Pensions avoided each person needing to individually make all those choices by centralizing the same thing into an efficiently managed centralized process with rrliable results. The only thing splitting it up by individuals did was increase the overhead on retirements to funnel the money to the wealthy while allowing the elderly to be blamed for not taking care of their own retirement.

        • Vent@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          4 months ago

          I agree, 401ks are stupid and were invented as more of a tax loophole for the wealthy than as an every-man’s retirement fund. But they’re cheaper for business so that’s what we’re stuck with.

          That’s not what I was talking about at all, though. I was just pointing out that if you have enough money to save for retirement, there are ways to relatively easily invest and grow your money while still mitigating risk and staying mostly hands-off.

          Fun fact about pensions. At their height, only about 45% of private-sector workers actually had a pension. Having one was undoubtedly better, on average, than having a 401k today. But they weren’t the utopian retirement solution that we (including myself) like to pretend they were. A majority of the population didn’t benefit from them at all, and the less-fortunate were essentially in the same or worse spot as they’re in today.

          • snooggums@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            4 months ago

            At their height, only about 45% of private-sector workers actually had a pension.

            Yeah, but while the number of employees who have acess to retirement options (68%) is higher, the number who chose to participate (51%) isn’t significantly higher as of 2021. This probably includes some crappy options not nearly on par with pensions.

            Another problem is the shift from pensions to personal options is also used by conservstives to say we don’t really need social security. Honestly I would rather change social security to have a higher payout rate and collect more for it by removing the cap and collecting it from businesses based on sales/business income (not just profits). That would balance out the jobs being lost to automation while tying retirement to the economy as a whole. With a solid guaranteed level of retirement income the option to save up would not be a necessity to actually retire.

        • cabron_offsets@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          4 months ago

          Bro, your choice. I find it quite odd that you’re unable to see the wisdom of holding assets that appreciate with time.

          It’s not especially hard to grasp these concepts. I’m teaching them to my 10-year old.

          • snooggums@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            4 months ago

            I guess the people whose income hasn’t kept up with productivity should be spending the money they don’t have on assets that appreciate with time instead of taking advantage of employer 401k matching. Great advice!

            • cabron_offsets@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              4 months ago

              By your own admission, you know 3 people with retirement accounts. I’m not talking about people without a single dollar of discretionary income, and nor were you - at least not before you engaged in this discussion, in defense of what is clearly a dogmatic view.

              Why don’t we stop this, you go your way, I’ll go mine.

              • snooggums@midwest.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                4 months ago

                By your own admission, you know 3 people with retirement accounts.

                I knew three people with retirement accounts who wanted to retire around 2009.

                I also know a lot of other people with a wide variety of retirement accounts, pensions, and other investments. I have savings in IRAs, 401k, and will receive both state and federal retirement payments.

                But since you apparently think I can only know the things I mentioned this is clearly unproductive.