Follow-on to previous post

After watching The House I Live In, which tracks the problems caused by the War on Drugs in the US, maybe the idea of a minimum guaranteed income isn’t such a long shot.

According to the Washington Post, US taxpayers spend around $30,000 per year for federal inmates.   That includes a lot of folks being incarcerated for non-violent drug crime.  According to the film above, perhaps one of the biggest causes for these offences is the lack of employment or other economic opportunity.  So: in a world where a lot fewer people may have economic opportunity due to the hollowing-out effect of technological displacement, maybe guaranteeing minimum income of around $30,000 for folks not breaking the law isn’t such a stretch??

Take the company match?

I just heard this question asked again…. as a new employee, should I contribute to the company 401(k) or company pension, in order to get a company match?

This head-shaker is easy: YES.  For the avoidance of doubt, my strong opinion is:

• Contribute at least as much as required to receive full match.
• From there, consider contributing more: I have read in several places (Rational Expectations among them) that young folks need to contribute about 20% of salary to feel reasonably confident of a retirement in their late-60s.