How’s Your 401(k) Doing?

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

The Great Recession took a big toll on 401(k) retirement plans. The chart below, from the Employee Benefit Research Institute, shows the general volatility of 401(k) accounts: they go up smartly during booms (1996-99, 2002-07) and plummet during busts (2000-02, 2007-08). The average account took a 30 percent hit when the housing bubble burst in 2008.

In general, average 401(k) account balances have grown fairly steadily over the past two decades. But 401(k)s have two big problems. The first is volatility. If you were 55 when the Great Recession hit, you’ve made up most of the losses from 2008 and your account balance is probably close to where it was in the mid-aughts. But if you turned 65 in 2008 and were planning to retire that year, you were screwed.

Second, account balances just aren’t very big. The chart below understates retirement readiness since it shows averages for all workers. The actual median account balance for workers in their sixties is in the neighborhood of $50,000 or so. But even that isn’t much: it provides an annual annuity of only a few thousand dollars. That’s nice to have, but it’s hardly a windfall.

Of course, one other thing to keep in mind is that less than half the population has a pension of any kind, and that’s always been true. Over the past three decades, defined-contribution plans like 401(k)s have grown while defined-benefit plans have mostly disappeared. But over that entire period, less than half of all private sector workers have had either kind of pension. For the rest, the big debate over pensions is strictly academic. They rely almost exclusively on Social Security and always have.

This is just one part of the retirement puzzle, of course. More on the bigger picture tomorrow.


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend