Was the 80s the peak of the suburban era and the nadir of cities in the US?

[MolsonExport]

why is a company pension plan called a 401K? Does the number-letter nomenclature have any significance?

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

why is a company pension plan called a 401K? Does the number-letter nomenclature have any significance?

Some section of a law I imagine. I have a 403b rather than a 401k, which is basically identical except it's for nonprofits rather than corporations.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

why is a company pension plan called a 401K? Does the number-letter nomenclature have any significance?

It comes from Section 401(k) of IRS code.

401(k) plans were originally intended as a tax shelter for wealthy executives on top of a traditional pension. But in the late 1980s businesses realized that no one was going to stop them from gutting traditional defined-benefit pensions, so they've become the sole retirement vehicle (other than Social Security) for most people...which is disastrous, considering the median 401(k) balance of a worker nearing retirement is less than $85,000.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

Some section of a law I imagine. I have a 403b rather than a 401k, which is basically identical except it's for nonprofits rather than corporations.

Public university? I had a 403b when I worked for U. of Texas.

[jd3189]

Originally Posted by Obadno

I dont think suburbs are going anywhere as Covid and remote work really revived the whole thing.

My hope though is that modern suburban sprawl is done better, more connected and that cities aren't sacrificed or vis versa.

Canada and Australia seem to have a decent way of balancing their suburban and urban centers I think the US could learn a lot there.

Moving forward, we will have to develop more walkable suburbs. Most people in the US live in suburbs around the major cities and even if the most walkable cities ( NYC, SF, Boston, DC, Chicago, Philly) built more infill and walkable infrastructure, it would not be anywhere near the amount needed since there’s only so many people you can put into Manhattan and only so many people who would want to live in that environment.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

why is a company pension plan called a 401K? Does the number-letter nomenclature have any significance?

...and it's not a pension. When you retire, the balance is just a balance. You can annuitize it but that action would be completely independent of your company or the plan's management.

Most company 401k's have a few dozen investment options - nearly all of them mutual funds. You typically can't invest in individual stocks.

By contrast, an independent IRA lets you invest in individual stocks the same tax benefits as a 401k.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

...and it's not a pension. When you retire, the balance is just a balance. You can annuitize it but that action would be completely independent of your company or the plan's management.

Most company 401k's have a few dozen investment options - nearly all of them mutual funds. You typically can't invest in individual stocks.

By contrast, an independent IRA lets you invest in individual stocks the same tax benefits as a 401k.

Investing in individual stocks is usually a waste of time for the average person, as you're not going to beat the market except maybe out of luck.

Most 401(k)s actually have a lower rate-of-return than the old defined-benefit plans as well, largely because people choose mutual funds with high annual fees which tend to eat up essentially all of the extra rate of return.

Best thing to do by far is find an index fund which has very low fees, and put all of your money (that's not in bonds) there.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by JManc

Public university? I had a 403b when I worked for U. of Texas.

private university (UofC), but still non-profit!

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

...and it's not a pension. When you retire, the balance is just a balance. You can annuitize it but that action would be completely independent of your company or the plan's management.

Most company 401k's have a few dozen investment options - nearly all of them mutual funds. You typically can't invest in individual stocks.

By contrast, an independent IRA lets you invest in individual stocks the same tax benefits as a 401k.

Right, but 401ks/403b's often have employer matching (I have to contribute 5% of income to mine, but employer contributes 8%). I think it's structured this way because its' easier for the employer to take away part of the match compared to lowering salary (indeed, during the beginning of the pandemic, the University took a way most of the match, and then contributed a subset of it as a lump sum at the beginning of this year, which was non-ideal timing).

Hilariously, I started getting retirement benefits a month before they transitioned from a pension to a 403b, so for the one month I was eligible, I have accrued a $50/year pension. Hopefully my 403b will be worth a bit more than that...

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Most 401(k)s actually have a lower rate-of-return than the old defined-benefit plans as well, largely because people choose mutual funds with high annual fees which tend to eat up essentially all of the extra rate of return.

Luckily mine has low-cost Vanguard mutual funds, and that's where all of my money is.

My employer was getting ripped off years ago and is with a place that is now only taking .2%.

The last place was charging upwards of 1% + some of the funds were taking 1%. So they were basically gobbling up everyone's dividends.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

Hilariously, I started getting retirement benefits a month before they transitioned from a pension to a 403b, so for the one month I was eligible, I have accrued a $50/year pension. Hopefully my 403b will be worth a bit more than that...

Back in 1996 my dad thought he was making a shrewd move by jumping to the company that was destined to buy out his first company. When that event occurred four years later, they gave the people who were absorbed 14 years of pension vesting at the new company.

So these guys all ended up retiring with two healthy pensions that in combination are paying them over $100,000/yr.

My dad retired this past year and is doing fine but he continues to resent that pension situation.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by jd3189

Moving forward, we will have to develop more walkable suburbs. Most people in the US live in suburbs around the major cities and even if the most walkable cities ( NYC, SF, Boston, DC, Chicago, Philly) built more infill and walkable infrastructure, it would not be anywhere near the amount needed since there’s only so many people you can put into Manhattan and only so many people who would want to live in that environment.

That's happening on a fairly large scale in some regions.

[MolsonExport]

Thanks for the clarification on the 401(K). So it is just some legalese code, rather like Chapter 11, that has unfortunately passed into the vernacular.

It is too bad they couldn't come up with a descriptive name. Sometimes reading about the United States is needlessly perplexing, even though I live just a few miles away as the crow flies.

TVC15

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Thanks for the clarification on the 401(K). So it is just some legalese code, rather like Chapter 11, that has unfortunately passed into the vernacular.

It is too bad they couldn't come up with a descriptive name. Sometimes reading about the United States is needlessly perplexing, even though I live just a few miles away as the crow flies.

TVC15

I think it's better they don't have a descriptive name, because just about every time that happens some completely slanted propagandistic name from whoever came up with the idea ends up being the terminology.

I mean, they could be "freedom retiree accounts" or somesuch.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by eschaton

I think it's better they don't have a descriptive name, because just about every time that happens some completely slanted propagandistic name from whoever came up with the idea ends up being the terminology.

I mean, they could be "freedom retiree accounts" or somesuch.

right, it's gotten to the point where actual pensions are considered some sort of ridiculous communist thing.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

right, it's gotten to the point where actual pensions are considered some sort of ridiculous communist thing.

They do have a lot of downsides, but they're the better thing for many people, since a big chunk of the population simply cannot understand the mechanics of a 401k or IRA. I'd bet that a lot of Charles Schwab/Fidelity employees have almost nothing saved for retirement and cash out their accounts when they switch jobs.

[mhays]

They certainly can't understand, typically. On average, the more people mess with them, the worse they do. They sell low and buy high. Literally...they sell when the prices have gone down and buy when prices have risen.

Most people are suckers at the poker table that is the stock market. I suspect that was intentional when the 401(k) law was written, at least among some lawmakers.

I'm not an expert either, but by at least not buying and selling too much I've done ok.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

1970s population loss in legacy cities:

St. Louis: -27.1%*
Cleveland: -23.6%*
Buffalo: -22.7%*
Detroit: -20.5%
Pittsburgh: -18.5%*
DC: -15.6%*
Cincinnati: -14.8%*
Minneapolis: -14.6%*
Philly: -13.4%*
Baltimore: -13.1%*
Boston: -12.2%
Milwaukee: -11.3%*
Chicago: -10.7%*
NYC: -10.4%*

(*) signifies worst decade on record thus far

so we're all pretty much in agreement that some point in the late 70s or early 80s was the nadir for US legacy cities, generally speaking.

by 1990, it was clear that "something" was happening in some of them that was starting to right the ship, but it was certainly not an across the board thing.

looking at overall city-proper growth rates since 1990, a pretty clear divergence between bos-wash and the "rust-west" (hybrid region of rustbelt and midwest) appears, with a few exceptions of course.


1990 - 2020 city proper population change:

Detroit: -37.8%
Cleveland: -26.3%
St. Louis: -24.0%
Baltimore: -20.4%
Pittsburgh: -18.1%
Buffalo: -15.2%*
Cincinnati: -15.0%*
Milwaukee: -8.1%
Chicago: -1.3%*
Philly: +1.1%
DC: +13.6%
Minneapolis: +16.7%
Boston: +17.7%
NYC: +20.2%


(*) indicates an overall population loser for the past 3 decades that gained population in the 2020 census

[mhays]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

s
1990 - 2020 city proper population change:

Detroit: -37.8%
Cleveland: -26.3%
St. Louis: -24.0%
Baltimore: -20.4%
Pittsburgh: -18.1%
Buffalo: -15.2%*
Cincinnati: -15.0%*
Milwaukee: -8.1%
Chicago: -1.3%*
Philly: +1.1%
DC: +13.6%
Minneapolis: +16.7%
Boston: +17.7%
NYC: +20.2%
Seattle +42.8%

(*) indicates an overall population loser for the past 3 decades that gained population in the 2020 census

I edited the table to add Seattle, for homer purposes.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by mhays

1990 - 2020 city proper population change:

Seattle +42.8%


I edited the table to add Seattle, for homer purposes.

and that's for the same consistent 84 sq. mile land area, right? (ie. no "growth" through annexation).

that's extremely impressive population growth for a fixed-boundary US city over the past 30 years.

it's at the opposite end of the spectrum from a city like detroit. in fact, seattle just passed detroit for city proper population in census 2020.