2020 Presidential Election

[CrazyNotCrazie]

Interesting article on the divide in the Democratic Party and the issues around playing to the left end of the party vs. the center, both in terms of the primary and the general election.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/10/o...gtype=Homepage

[sagegrouse]

Not to mention, so much of the question about who can beat Trump or not greatly depends on what the economy does over the next 18 months. As Clinton once said, "It's the economy, stupid".

I agree which is largely why, "IMO, it looks like four more years of Trump." The U.S. economy is strong and it now looks like the Fed is not going to harm it by raising the Fed Funds rate in 2019 or 2020. The employment situation is historically strong and employers are starting to substantially increase internal minimum wages and overall wages. Most people like the increases in their 401k balances. The wealth effect appears evident in consumer spending.

Never heard Bill Clinton say that, but it was James Carville's standard line during the 1992 campaign. Carville, along with Paul Begala, ran the campaign.

IMHO, where the H got trampled outside the Palm Beach County election center in 2000, 2020 will be a very "personal" election. With Trump, we now know what we got -- totally different from any other president (although I was pretty young when James Buchanan and Andrew Johnson were in the White House). The question is whether the American people will sign up for four more years of it.

[Bostondevil]

I agree which is largely why, "IMO, it looks like four more years of Trump." The U.S. economy is strong and it now looks like the Fed is not going to harm it by raising the Fed Funds rate in 2019 or 2020. The employment situation is historically strong and employers are starting to substantially increase internal minimum wages and overall wages. Most people like the increases in their 401k balances. The wealth effect appears evident in consumer spending.

Legit question - do most voters have 401k accounts?

[Acymetric]

Legit question - do most voters have 401k accounts?

No, I believe the number is something around 30-35%. As I understand it, a much higher percentage have access to 401k through their employer but don't take advantage.

[Reilly]

On the Dem nominating schedule: http://crystalball.centerforpolitics...e-a-long-slog/

Didn't realize a candidate must get 15% of the vote to be awarded delegates in any caucus or primary.

[Indoor66]

On the Dem nominating schedule: http://crystalball.centerforpolitics...e-a-long-slog/

Didn't realize a candidate must get 15% of the vote to be awarded delegates in any caucus or primary.

How does that comport with the Make Every Vote Count concept?

[Reilly]

How does that comport with the Make Every Vote Count concept?

Oh, every vote counts, it's just that some count for nothing. Sorta like how every prayer is answered, but sometimes the answer is "no".

[Jeffrey]

No, I believe the number is something around 30-35%. As I understand it, a much higher percentage have access to 401k through their employer but don't take advantage.

True, many people do not take advantage of a company matching contribution. I wonder how many of them buy coffee at Starbucks?

[Jeffrey]

Legit question - do most voters have 401k accounts?

Very legit and, IMO, scary situation. I'm not sure the situation will improve as many millennials job hop their way to retirement.

[luburch]

Very legit and, IMO, scary situation. I'm not sure the situation will improve as many millennials job hop their way to retirement.

What is the industry average on time-to-vest? I mostly see 2-3 years.

[Acymetric]

What is the industry average on time-to-vest? I mostly see 2-3 years.

I think 100% vested is becoming increasingly common...at least both of my employers have been set up that way so far.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

I think 100% vested is becoming increasingly common...at least both of my employers have been set up that way so far.

My current employer (financial services) vested immediately, but match didn't start for a year (6% match). My prior employer (also financial services) had a 20% per year vest on their match (5% match). At both places your own contribution was yours immediately.

At my prior employer I had a colleague who was late-50s, MBA from a top 4 business school, 30 years in financial services. He had been quite successful, gotten laid off in his mid-50s, landed working with me at a lower pay and title level, but still doing fine. Through various conversations I knew that he had been pretty good about saving for retirement, college, etc so definitely had some money in the bank, and he didn't live lavishly. After he had been there about two years I asked him about his 401k contribution. He said he didn't make one, as at his new, lower pay level mainly went to living expenses. I told him that he should at least contribute to the level to maximize his match and worst case draw down savings for living expenses as he was leaving tax-free income plus the match on the table. He insisted that his plan was better. I could not understand how he did not understand this concept. Unfortunately, there are many people like that out there.

[Jeffrey]

What is the industry average on time-to-vest? I mostly see 2-3 years.

True, it's shortened over time. About 20 years ago, most were 5 year cliff (0% to 5 yrs., !00% after 5 years) and 7 year graduated. Now, most are 3 or 4 year graduated.

[Jeffrey]

My current employer (financial services) vested immediately, but match didn't start for a year (6% match).

At my prior employer I had a colleague who was late-50s, MBA from a top 4 business school, 30 years in financial services. He had been quite successful, gotten laid off in his mid-50s, landed working with me at a lower pay and title level, but still doing fine. Through various conversations I knew that he had been pretty good about saving for retirement, college, etc so definitely had some money in the bank, and he didn't live lavishly. After he had been there about two years I asked him about his 401k contribution. He said he didn't make one, as at his new, lower pay level mainly went to living expenses. I told him that he should at least contribute to the level to maximize his match and worst case draw down savings for living expenses as he was leaving tax-free income plus the match on the table. He insisted that his plan was better. I could not understand how he did not understand this concept. Unfortunately, there are many people like that out there.

I sure hope people read and reflect on the very insightful post above!

Someone with a top 4 MBA (which requires financial aptitude) and 30 years industry experience does not understand it's prudent to contribute 6% (dependent on salary) of their income to a 401k and immediately make a 100% guaranteed return (6% match, vested immediately) on their contribution.

Skip Starbucks and save $5 per day on coffee. Invest it for 40 years in a 401k and what do you have if the stock market averages a 10% historic return? $807,700

[RPS]

Skip Starbucks and save $5 per day on coffee. Invest it for 40 years in a 401k and what do you have if the stock market averages a 10% historic return? $807,700

This is a popular meme and true at least to a point. Other perspectives are here and here. Full disclosure: I am friendly with Ritholtz, Olen and Bach.

[Jeffrey]

This is a popular meme and true at least to a point. Other perspectives are here and here. Full disclosure: I am friendly with Ritholtz, Olen and Bach.

I disagree with their message and analysis!

My $5 coffee introduction is a beginning, not an end. It introduces people to the great power of compounding a relatively small amount of money. When I do volunteer work, I introduce this concept and ask people to then track every dollar they spend for the next 30-90 days. Our second meeting usually begins with the person saying, "I can't believe how much money I spend on X and Y". And, there's my opening to spending and savings habits.

[gus]

I disagree with their message and analysis!

My $5 coffee introduction is a beginning, not an end. It introduces people to the great power of compounding a relatively small amount of money. When I do volunteer work, I introduce this concept and ask people to then track every dollar they spend for the next 30-90 days. Our second meeting usually begins with the person saying, "I can't believe how much money I spend on X and Y". And, there's my opening to spending and savings habits.

[dudog84]

I'd rather have a penny doubled every day for a month.

[RPS]

I disagree with their message and analysis!

And you agree with Bach.

My $5 coffee introduction is a beginning, not an end. It introduces people to the great power of compounding a relatively small amount of money. When I do volunteer work, I introduce this concept and ask people to then track every dollar they spend for the next 30-90 days. Our second meeting usually begins with the person saying, "I can't believe how much money I spend on X and Y". And, there's my opening to spending and savings habits.

I agree ("beginning" is the key).

I love xkcd.

Still, $100 invested in cash (3-month U.S. Treasury bills) in 1928 would be worth $2,063.40 as of January 1, 2019; $100 in bonds (10-year U.S. Treasury notes) would be worth $7,308.65, and $100 in stocks (S&P 500) would be worth $382,850.00.

I'd rather have a penny doubled every day for a month.

Me too.

[gus]

Still, $100 invested in cash (3-month U.S. Treasury bills) in 1928 would be worth $2,063.40 as of January 1, 2019; $100 in bonds (10-year U.S. Treasury notes) would be worth $7,308.65, and $100 in stocks (S&P 500) would be worth $382,850.00.


Me too.

Or, to put it in the terms that started this conversation... approximately 5,000 cups of coffee invested in 1928 would be worth approximately 413 now.