Nevin's Data "Points"

  A new study shows how a proposed government-run retirement program said to increase coverage could actually undermine the nation’s retirement readiness. The  report  — by Morningstar’s Spencer Look and Jack VanDerhei (yes, that Jack VanDerhei) — considers the potential effects of the Retirement Savings for Americans Act (RSAA) on retirement-income adequacy for Generation Z and millennial workers. The  proposed legislation  — which aims to expand retirement coverage for American workers by creating a federal retirement plan for those not covered through their employer — has been introduced in both the House and the Senate. [i]   The legislation has been positioned as a means of helping close the coverage gap — of creating not only an opportunity for those without access to a retirement plan at work to save for retirement, but to receive the incentive of a matching contribution from the federal government. How then, would such a proposal undermine the natio...

“What if the entire retirement-crisis narrative playing out in opinion polls, the government, and the media was a massive case of confirmation bias?” That’s the provocative position of an intriguing new white paper titled “ America’s ‘Retirement Crisis’: The Emperor Has No Clothes ” by  Andrew Biggs . [i]   Readers of my work will note that with frightening regularity there are any number of assertions, “studies” and surveys all painting a dismal picture of the state of the nation’s retirement—each and every one embraced and promoted with attention-grabbing headlines without so much as a question as to the veracity of the underlying data, the logic of the conclusions drawn, or the motivations of the proponents that have drawn them. Consequently, I was delighted to come across this paper that provides a detailed, thoughtful, and data-driven analysis that focuses on a number of points that have been made (and uncritically trumpeted by the media) by none other than Teresa Ghilard...

Critics of the 401(k) have moved way beyond mere bad-mouthing—and are now openly advocating actions that would undermine support for, and participation in, those programs. It started with criticism of the 401(k) itself—how it was “never intended” to be a primary source of retirement income—as though that precluded the possibility. There were the insinuations that later became outright claims that—despite evidence to the contrary—401(k) plan benefits were “ upside down ” and that tax benefits accrued only to the rich. Then reports—based on small samplings of data—that employer matching contributions didn’t really impact/influence contribution levels—and that the match was…“ unfair ”—or “ exploiting naïve myopic workers .” More recently, there was the  pining for the defined benefit plan design , even though it never really provided the level of benefits promised for most—and even though the vast majority of workers in the private sector  never even had that as an option —and ev...