I guess that part of the premise would need to include what exactly is a fit retirement plan. Is it a plan that allows people to retire? The terminology alone would seem to suggest that. Is it a plan which might assist people in their goal of retiring, but doesn't cost an employer very much? Is it a plan, jury rigged over the years, to assist politicians in their never ending goal of changing stuff to help them get re-elected?
I'd like to believe that a fit retirement plan or retirement system will allow participants to retire after a normal working lifetime. 30 years ago, we had such a system, and it existed without 401(k) plans. But, I guess I must be mistaken, as clearly, that system has not survived. But, it's not been without outside influence -- largely Congress. You see, every year or two for the last 30, when it's come time to develop a budget for the upcoming fiscal year and the country has needed some revenue enhancers, Congress looks to the retirement system. And, it's a really cool solution, too, because nobody understands what Congress is doing (and that includes Congress), but it doesn't affect Congressional retirement benefits.
In his Origin of the Species, Mr. Darwin did not have to consider Congress, or even Parliament.
The 401(k) system cannot be the correct answer. It has too many rules. And, many of the rules and goals conflict with each other. Consider a system containing all of these features.
- If your low-paid don't participate to a great enough extent, your high-paid aren't allowed to.
- If you don't communicate the plan and its benefits to the low-paid, they won't participate to a great extent.
- If you do communicate the plan and its benefits to the low-paid, then the plan is useful to the high-paid, but it costs the company more, cutting into profits.
- Cutting into profits competes with the goals of the management team.
- This affects dividends paid to shareholders which, in theory, is the reason a person holds shares in a company.
And, this is now the primary retirement vehicle for the majority of US companies.
But, wait, we have a Presidential election coming up in just over a year. And, with that, 33 or 34 Senate seats are up for grabs as well as 435 seats (actually a bunch of them are not contested) in the House of Representatives. With those elections will come a bunch of new allegiances. Will your Congressman or Congresswomen be aligned to the Occupy movement, the Tea Party, the Green, the Libertarians or some other group? How about the others? I'm not smart enough to tell you. But, I am smart enough to know that the allegiances of the new group will be different than those of the existing group. So, with this new group will come retirement plan change.
Maybe this change will be 401(k) biased. Maybe it will revolutionize retirement plans. But in any event, it will do something.
And, you heard it here first, my bet is that they will do something stupid.
If we look at the way things are now, though, people in the workforce are just not going to be able to retire. Yes, some will, but most won't. Certainly, they won't be able to by age 65. What's so special about age 65? It's been a retirement age for a long time. When it first came about, those who were fortunate enough to outlive that age usually didn't do it by too much. Now they do. So many argue that the working lifetime should be extended. But companies don't want to keep the post-65ers employed. These days, they seem to prefer that with the post-55ers as well. And, for that matter, by the time people hit age 65, most of them are just worn out from full-time work.
The 401(k) isn't going to fix it. Maybe we need a fitter plan.