this post was submitted on 07 Feb 2026
430 points (98.2% liked)

News

35749 readers
3274 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Most workers who aren’t saving for retirement through their employers aren’t saving at all, the study found

New data suggests the average American worker has under $1,000 saved for retirement.

A report from the National Institute on Retirement Security found that the median savings for all employed adults between the ages of 21 and 64 were approximately $955. The study includes workers with 401(k) and other retirement savings plans, as well as the approximately 56 million workers who do not have access to employer-sponsored retirement plans.

Workers with retirement savings plans have a median balance of approximately $40,000 saved, according to the report. That figure is nowhere near the $1.5 million that Americans say they need to feel comfortable fully retiring.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Stiffneckedppl@lemmy.world 88 points 1 week ago (4 children)

I'm sure the situation is dire, but I'm not sure it communicates an accurate picture by lumping in 21 year olds with people who've been in the workforce for decades.

21 yr olds who are just entering the workforce or are in college aren't expected to have much, if any, retirement savings at that stage in their lives.

A better picture would be to break it down by age group. Still not a pretty picture, I'm sure.

[–] straycatstrut@discuss.tchncs.de 53 points 1 week ago (2 children)

They've done that in the research, it's just a clickbait headline with very, very light details. After following a few clicks I found the PDF [1] in which they break it apart by many groups and factors (age, race, savings plan, income, student loan debt, all sorts of stuff) and that $955 figure falls under the "workers who do not have $1 in a DC" (meaning workers with no access to a savings plan). For those with access, the number is $40,000 average.

[1] https://www.nirsonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/NIRS_2026-Retirement-in-America-FINAL.pdf

[–] evenglow@lemmy.world 14 points 1 week ago (2 children)

For those with access, the number is $40,000 average.

Which is both in the article and OP summary.

[–] Steve@startrek.website 12 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

$40,000 still approaches zero. Its one or 2 years of expenses at best.

[–] straycatstrut@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Why, you're welcome for the link to the PDF! I'm glad you enjoyed reading it and appreciate your insightful and loquacious feedback on the matter at hand. You are a true gem of the lemmyverse, evenglow.

[–] USSEthernet@startrek.website 6 points 1 week ago

Evenglow, thoughts arrive like butterflies Oh, he don’t know, so he chases them away

[–] Vorticity@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

Median and average are not the same. Median is going to be skewed very low compared to average in this case.

[–] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I didn't start having meaningful savings until my mid 20s. When i bought a house paying off the mortgage became a priority over saving for retirement. I'll be better off paying less interest and reducing my expenses faster than I would be collecting interest on that money. In theory i could out perform my mortgage interest rate by trading stocks, but that is a lot riskier than paying off the mortgage.

[–] My_IFAKs___gone@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Trading stocks is probably the worst investment strategy any normal person with a market-unrelated job and life responsibilities could pursue, with almost guaranteed losses in the long term. Good on you for identifying the high risk early in life- never forget it. That being said, there's very strong arguments for investing in stocks, but do it the boring way: large blended ETFs with a low expense ratio (like VTI, VTV, VOO, VXUS, or the Boglehead favorite: VT) or mutual funds. Don't "trade," buy and hold and try to forget you even have a brokerage account housing those blended, diversified funds. Try to use tax-advantaged vehicles as much as possible, like a Roth IRA or a Roth option in a 401k. Your mortgage APR is what? 4-7%? The market should definitely outperform that in the long term, and you can reduce your exposure to acute transient shifts even more by dollar cost averaging into your savings. I'm all for paying off debt as quickly as possible, for the psychological benefit, but there's also the rate race of your investment's probable APY vs your debt's APR.

[–] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

I've been diversifying into some long term stock options in some of my savings accounts. I live quite frugally so I am able to still save a bit while paying a bit extra to my mortgage. So far I've done pretty good in the markets but my trading accounts aren't significant sums of money, when they do well I sometimes wish I invested more but when a stock is down bad I'm reminded why I keep those sums low.

People underestimate what even $50 a month can do over time. Sure it might not be down payment money but it could be enough to build a safety net so you can try a new job or move somewhere else with a bit more behind you.

[–] ZoteTheMighty@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

This is still a shockingly low number. If you graduate with a bachelors and get a job our of college and contribute to a 401k, you should easily hit 1k saved within a year. If you didn't go to college and started working at 18, you'll be making less, but should still be able to save 1k by 22. Even shitty employers have retirement programs, it's just that most hourly workers won't take the time to sign up. There's only one way the median can be 1k, and that's because at least 40% have $0 saved and the whole system is completely broken for them.

[–] Mirshe@lemmy.world 2 points 6 days ago

This also seriously depends on the employer. One of the first things that gets slashed during benefit cuts is reitrement accounts, because they're an easy target and you're not "losing" the money.

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Wouldn't surprise me at all if the average retirement savings of those in their 50s is like $100,000

[–] damnedfurry@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

I'm slightly heartened to see the average is higher than I thought