SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
retirement
'That’s Not Winning': Record Numbers of US Workers Are Raiding Their 401(k)s in Trump Economy
"Instead of helping, Trump made the largest healthcare cuts in American history and doubled down on his costly tariff taxes," said Rep. Brendon Boyle.
Mar 04, 2026
Even as President Donald Trump has declared that the US is in a "golden age" with the "greatest" economy on record, the Wall Street Journal reported on Wednesday that a record number of US workers are dipping into their retirement savings.
The Journal cited recent data from Vanguard Group showing that 6% of the 401(k) plans it administers took a hardship withdrawal in 2025, up from 4.8% that took such a withdrawal in 2024.
The top reasons for such withdrawals last year were avoiding eviction or paying off medical expenses, according to Vanguard.
The Journal noted that the Vanguard data about hardship withdrawals comes as "more Americans are falling behind on debt payments, including on some types of mortgages, putting them at risk of foreclosure," and "the average income of clients seeking help from credit-counseling agencies is rising."
Some Democrats quickly pounced on the Journal report, which they said undercut Trump's rosy assessment of the US economy.
"Record numbers of Americans are raiding their 401(k)s to avoid eviction or pay medical bills," wrote Rep. Mike Levin (D-Calif.). "That's not winning."
Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.) pointed to the Journal report and accused Trump and the GOP of exacerbating these problems with the cuts to Medicaid contained in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that the party passed in 2025.
"A record number of Americans are dipping into their retirement savings just to stay afloat," wrote Boyle, the ranking member of the House Budget Committee. "A leading cause: Skyrocketing healthcare costs. Instead of helping, Trump made the largest healthcare cuts in American history and doubled down on his costly tariff taxes."
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) responded to the report by saying, "This is not the golden age Donald Trump promised."
Andrew Bates, former senior deputy press secretary for President Joe Biden, also pointed to the GOP budget law as a key reasons for Americans' deteriorating financial security.
"The GOP in Washington makes the biggest healthcare and energy cuts in history, just to lower taxes for the rich," he wrote. "'Golden Age' for Jeffrey Epstein’s surviving friends, shittiness for everyone else."
Ann Larson, co-founder of Debt Collective, noted that while the data on 401(k) withdrawals is disturbing, it doesn't tell the whole story of the dire overall state of Americans' finances.
"This is bad, but add in the almost half of older Americans who have ZERO retirement savings to pull from," Larson wrote, "and the picture is even more horrifying."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Air Force Under Trump Will Force Senior Trans Service Members to Retire Without Benefits
"Trans people have served this country with honor," said Rep. Pramila Jayapal. "They deserve dignity—not betrayal."
Aug 07, 2025
The families of transgender service members in the U.S. Air Force could lose hundreds of thousands of dollars in denied retirement benefits due to a memo sent by the military branch this week.
As Reuters reported Thursday, an official at the Air Force informed transgender members with 15-18 years of military service that they would no be eligible for early retirement and would instead be forced to leave the Air Force without retirement benefits. Some transgender troops had previously been told they could retire early.
"After careful consideration of the individual applications, I am disapproving all Temporary Early Retirement Authority (TERA) exception to policy requests in Tabs 1 and 2 for members with 15-18 years of service," wrote Brian Scarlett, the acting assistant secretary of the Air Force for manpower and reserve affairs.
The memo means that many service members whose applications for early retirement had already been approved will have those approvals rescinded.
The decision follows the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in June that cleared the way for the U.S. Department of Defense to ban openly transgender Americans from serving in the military. President Donald Trump signed an executive order earlier this year to impose such a ban.
"This is just betrayal of a direct commitment made to these service members."
Last week, in a court filing related to transgender service members' lawsuit against the administration, the Department of Justice denied that the plaintiffs are transgender, instead calling them "trans-identifying individuals."
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said there would be "no more pronouns" and "no more dudes in dresses" permitted in the military at a press conference in May, and transgender service members have recently reported facing bigotry as they've departed the service.
Military.com reported last month that one 20-year transgender veteran of the Army was told by an instructor of a mandatory pre-retirement course that she and her classmates should cross out the words "pronoun, gender, diversity, and inclusion" from their workbooks.
The incident, she said, was "yet another reminder that it doesn't matter how much they say, 'Thank you for all the effort you put in and that your contributions are valuable'... because at the end of the day, they're having us manually go in and remove our own contributions from all the documentation."
The attempted "removal" of any record of transgender people's service now extends to their retirement benefits, according to the memo sent August 4, with service members who have served for close to two decades being given the option to quit or be forced out, with lump-sum payments instead of benefits.
Shannon Minter of the National Center for LGBTQ Rights told Reuters the memo was "devastating."
"This is just betrayal of a direct commitment made to these service members," said Minter.
Reuters reported that the memo included a question-and-answer section, with one question reading, "How do I tell family we're not getting retirement benefits?"
The Air Force suggested long-serving transgender members tell their loved ones to "focus on the benefits you do retain," such as Department of Veterans Affairs benefits and "experience," and to seek counseling services.
"The Air Force told transgender service members to prepare for early retirement—then changed course and is now forcing them out with no benefits at all," said U.S. Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.). "Trans people have served this country with honor. They deserve dignity—not betrayal. We must speak out and fight back, always."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Disaster in the Making': Trump to Open 401(k)s to Crypto, Private Equity Vultures
"Stuffing private equity, crypto, and other 'alternative assets' into 401(k)s is about propping up scams and bailing out an industry that's run out of buyers," said one critic.
Aug 07, 2025
U.S. President Donald Trump is expected to sign an executive order on Thursday that would allow private equity and cryptocurrencies into Americans' 401(k)s, appeasing corporate interests that lobbied for the change and disregarding warnings about the risks it poses to retirement accounts.
Citing an unnamed senior White House official, CNN reported that "the order calls for the Labor Department and Securities and Exchange Commission to issue guidance to employers about providing access to those alternative investments in their retirement accounts."
The private equity industry has been working for years to gain access to a portion of the roughly $12 trillion that Americans have saved in workplace retirement plans.
"This is the holy grail for private equity," Axios reported Thursday, noting that federal rules currently bar most defined-contribution plans from investing in private equity and crypto. Both industries spent big on the 2024 election; the investment management behemoth BlackRock, whose CEO has advocated opening 401(k)s to private equity, donated to Trump's inaugural committee.
James Baratta and Whitney Curry Wimbish noted in The American Prospect earlier this year that "there was added desperation from the industry" for access to 401(k)s "because of their dire need for cash amid weakening performance and fewer deals."
"Some firms have begun mortgaging their own funds for money to pay out limited partners," they added. "Retail investors represented trillions in untapped potential."
"Private equity executives have enriched themselves by the billions, taking high fees and other charges from working people's hard-earned retirement savings in pension funds."
Helaine Olen, managing editor at the American Economic Liberties Project and a longtime personal finance columnist, said in a statement Thursday that "stuffing private equity, crypto, and other 'alternative assets' into 401(k)s is about propping up scams and bailing out an industry that's run out of buyers—and it's being done at the expense of Americans' retirements everywhere."
"There's a reason most employers didn't bite when Trump tried this the first time and why the private investments industry has put on such a thick lobbying campaign," said Olen. "These funds are high-fee, risky, and opaque. Private equity consistently underperforms the S&P 500. This is a windfall for billionaire fund managers and a disaster in the making for regular Americans trying to save for retirement."
Last week, the Americans for Financial Reform Education Fund and American Federation of Teachers released a report warning that if private equity is given a foothold in 401(k)s, "millions of workers saving for retirement would be exposed to higher risks and steep fees in products that lack basic investor protections and transparency requirements."
The report found that private equity profitability "has been in a year-over-year decline" for the past two decades and that "fee structures—paid directly by investors or indirectly through portfolio companies—are prone to extensive manipulation."
Lisa Donner, co-executive director at Americans for Financial Reform Education Fund, said that "private equity executives have enriched themselves by the billions, taking high fees and other charges from working people's hard-earned retirement savings in pension funds."
"Now they want fees from the trillions of dollars in individual retirement accounts," Donner added, "putting millions of more people at risk."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Sanders Proposes 'Pensions for All' as Trump Aims to Open 401(k)s to Private Equity Vultures
"We can no longer tolerate a rigged retirement system that allows the CEOs of large corporations to receive massive golden parachutes for themselves, while denying workers a pension after a lifetime of work," said Sen. Bernie Sanders.
Jul 17, 2025
U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders introduced legislation Thursday aimed at addressing the nation's retirement security crisis as President Donald Trump reportedly prepared an executive order that would give private equity vultures easier access to the 401(k) plans that have overtaken traditional pensions.
Sanders' (I-Vt.) Pensions for All Act would require big corporations to either provide their workers with a pension plan that is at least as generous as the one enjoyed by members of Congress or "pay into the federal retirement system at a level that ensures all of their workers receive the same amount of retirement benefits" as lawmakers.
The senator characterized the new bill as a supplement to his proposal to expand Social Security benefits.
"We can no longer tolerate a rigged retirement system that allows the CEOs of large corporations to receive massive golden parachutes for themselves, while denying workers a pension after a lifetime of work," Sanders said in a statement. "If we are serious about addressing the retirement crisis in America, corporations must be required to offer all of their workers a traditional pension plan that guarantees a monthly income in retirement."
"And if corporations refuse to offer a decent retirement plan, their workers must be allowed to receive the same type of pension that every member of Congress receives," the senator added. "If we can guarantee a defined-benefit pension plan for members of Congress, we can and we must provide that same level of retirement security to every worker in America."
"Every member of Congress has a guaranteed pension—for life. If it's good enough for them, it's good enough for the people who build this country."
Sanders introduced his bill after The Wall Street Journal reported that Trump is expected to sign an executive order in the coming days "designed to help make private-market investments more available to U.S. retirement plans"—a move that one critic called "a dangerous scheme to fleece savers."
"The retirement system is supposed to serve workers, not Wall Street," wrote Oscar Valdés Viera, a policy analyst with the advocacy group Americans for Financial Reform. "We need policies that strengthen retirement security and allow people to retire with dignity—not policies that invite hidden fees, reduced transparency, and elevated risk. Allowing predatory private equity and private credit funds to infiltrate 401(k)s would result in a massive transfer of wealth from small investors and workers to the richest men on Wall Street."
Supporters of Sanders' legislation similarly argued for retirement system reforms that benefit workers, not Wall Street and corporate executives.
Shawn Fain, president of the United Auto Workers—which has pushed the so-called Big Three automakers to restore traditional pension plans—said Thursday that "the billionaire class gutted pensions in pursuit of profit, and Washington let it happen."
"CEOs walk away with golden parachutes while working people walk into retirement with nothing," said Fain. "Meanwhile, every member of Congress has a guaranteed pension—for life. If it's good enough for them, it's good enough for the people who build this country. The retirement crisis is real, and it's time for Congress to act."
In a summary of the new legislation, Sanders' office observed that just 9% of private-sector workers in the U.S. currently have access to traditional defined-benefit pension plans—down from 44% in 1975.
"The results for workers have been tragic," Sanders' team continued, noting that "in our country today, nearly half of older workers between the ages of 55 and 64 have no savings at all and no idea how they will be able to retire with any shred of dignity or respect."
"If Congress can provide over $1 trillion in tax breaks for the top 1% and over $900 billion in tax breaks for large corporations," Sanders said Thursday, "please do not tell me that we cannot afford to make sure that every worker in America can retire with the dignity and the respect they deserve."
Keep ReadingShow Less
NY Court Ruling Will Force Retired Workers Into Privatized, For-Profit Medicare Advantage Plans
"Nobody will ever want to work for New York City again. Zero trust. Medicare Advantage is a bait and switch scam & betrayal. Enough!" wrote one New York City councilmember.
Jun 19, 2025
New York State's highest court on Wednesday ruled against city retirees who had sought to block an effort by Mayor Eric Adams' administration to move them onto a for-profit, privatized Medicare Advantage plan.
In a unanimous decision, New York Court of Appeals Judge Shirley Troutman wrote that petitioners in the case are not entitled to "promissory estoppel" cause of action, the argument that the retirees throughout their employment with the city were promised traditional Medicare benefits when they retired.
According to Gothamist, "the court also ruled that the retirees did not have a legally binding promise from the city that their coverage would remain unchanged." The Wednesday ruling overruled a state Supreme Court judge’s decision that had prevented the Adams administration from making the switch, though the Court of Appeals said there were still issues in the case that should be sent back down to the Supreme Court, a lower court in New York's state system.
Medicare Advantage plans are run by private health insurers who receive money from the federal government to provide Medicare-covered services. Medicare Advantage enrollment around the country is growing, though the Medicare Advantage system has been accused of offering poor care and boosting corporate profits. A 2022 investigation by The New York Times found that major health insurers have exploited Medicare Advantage to juice their profits by billions of dollars.
The move to switch the city's 250,000 retirees to Medicare Advantage stems from a 2018 agreement between leaders in city government and major public employee unions to cut $600 million from the city's healthcare spending, according to the outlet The City.
"While we are disappointed in the ruling by the Court of Appeals, the solution to protecting seniors' healthcare has always been with the City Council and the mayor," said Marianne Pizzitola, leader of the Organization of Public Service Retirees, which opposes the switch.
"The City of New York should never, ever be screwing over retirees—and neither should the courts. Nobody will ever want to work for New York City again. Zero trust. Medicare Advantage is a bait and switch scam & betrayal. Enough! City Hall clearly doesn't care about retirees," wrote Justin Brannan, New York City Council Finance Committee Chair and Democratic candidate for city comptroller, in response to the ruling.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Calls Tariff Madness a 'Beautiful Thing to Behold' as Global Markets Crater
"If the 4.8% fall in S&P 500 futures at the Asian opening isn't reversed, then it's on course for its worst three-day selloff since the Black Monday crash of October 1987."
Apr 07, 2025
U.S. President Donald Trump late Sunday openly embraced the global chaos sparked by his sweeping tariffs, careening headlong into a potentially catastrophic trade war as worldwide financial markets plummeted and American retirees began to panic.
In a post on his social media platform, Trump declared that his tariffs are "already in effect, and a beautiful thing to behold."
"Some day people will realize that Tariffs, for the United States of America, are a very beautiful thing!" Trump wrote as recent retirees and people near retirement expressed fear and astonishment at the swift damage the president's policy decisions have done to their investment accounts.
One retiree, a 68-year-old former occupational health worker in New Jersey, told NBC News that she is "just kind of stunned, and with so much money in the market, we just sort of have to hope we have enough time to recover."
"What we've been doing is trying to enjoy the time that we have, but you want to be able to make it last," the retiree, identified as Paula, said on Friday. "I have no confidence here."
Trump's post doubling down on his tariff regime came as Asian markets cratered and U.S. stock futures opened bright red, signaling that Monday will bring another broad sell-off in equities. One of Trump's top economic advisers claimed in a Sunday interview that the president is not intentionally crashing the stock market, even as Trump—returning from a weekend golf outing in Florida—characterized the tariffs as "medicine."
"I don't want anything to go down," the president said. "But sometimes you have to take medicine to fix something."
Bloomberg's John Authers wrote early Sunday that "if the 4.8% fall in S&P 500 futures at the Asian opening isn't reversed, then it's on course for its worst three-day selloff since the Black Monday crash of October 1987."
Though the stock market and the economy are not synonymous, economist Josh Bivens recently noted that they are currently "mirroring each other: Stock market weakness is reflecting broader economic weakness."
"While the stock market isn't the economy, the stock market declines we have seen in recent weeks are genuinely worrying," wrote Bivens, the chief economist at the Economic Policy Institute. "They are a symptom of much larger dysfunctional macroeconomic policy that will likely soon start showing up in higher unemployment and slower wage growth for the vast majority."
Keep ReadingShow Less
How to Know When to Retire, If You Can Even Afford It
From the highest offices in politics to the smallest janitorial offices, older Americans are delaying retirement for a host of reasons from pride to financial precarity to a fear of being left behind.
Sep 11, 2024
The Washington Post headline reads: “A big problem for young workers: 70- and 80-year-olds who won’t retire.” For the first time in history, reports Aden Barton, five generations are competing in the same workforce. His article laments a “demographic traffic jam” at the apexes of various employment pyramids, making it ever harder for young people “to launch their careers and get promoted” in their chosen professions. In fact, actual professors (full-time and tenure-track ones, presumably, rather than part-timers like me) are Exhibit A in his analysis. “In academia, for instance,” as he puts it, “young professionals now spend years in fellowships and postdoctoral programs waiting for professor jobs to open.”
I’ve written before about how this works in the academic world, describing college and graduate school education as a classic pyramid scheme. Those who got in early got the big payoff—job security, a book-lined office, summers off, and a “sabbatical” every seven years (a concept rooted in the Jewish understanding of the sabbath as a holy time of rest). Those who came late to the party, however, have ended up in seemingly endless post-doctoral programs, if they’re lucky, and if not, as members of the part-time teaching corps.
Too Broke to Retire
For the most part, I’m sympathetic to Barton’s argument. There are too many people who are old and in the way at the top of various professional institutions—including our government (where an 81-year-old, under immense pressure, just reluctantly decided not to try for a second term as president, while a 77-year-old is still stubbornly running for that same office). But I think Barton misses an important point when he claims that “older workers are postponing retirement… because they simply don’t want to quit.” That may be true for high earners in white-collar jobs, but many other people continue working because they simply can’t afford to stop. Research described in Forbes magazine a few years ago showed that more than one-fifth of workers over age 55 were then among the working poor. The figure rose to 26% for women of that age, and 30% for women 65 and older. In other words, if you’re still working in your old age, the older you are, the more likely it is that you’re poor.
Older workers also tend to be over-represented in certain low-paying employment arenas like housecleaning and home and personal healthcare. As Teresa Ghilarducci reported in that Forbes article:
Nearly one-third of home health and personal care workers are 55 or older. Another large category of workers employing a disproportionate share of older workers is maids and housekeeping cleaners, 29% of whom are 55 or older and 54% of whom are working poor. And older workers make up 34% of another hard job: janitorial services, about half of whom are working poor. (For a benchmark, 23% of all workers are 55 and up.)
We used to worry about “children having children.” Maybe now we should be more concerned about old people taking care of old people.
Why are so many older workers struggling with poverty? It doesn’t take a doctorate in sociology to figure this one out. People who can afford to retire have that option for a couple of reasons. Either they’ve worked in high-salary, non-physical jobs that come with benefits like 401(k) accounts and gold-plated health insurance. Or they’ve been lucky enough to be represented by unions that fight for their members’ retirement benefits.
However, according to the Pension Rights Center, a nonprofit organization working to expand financial security for retirees, just under half of those working in the private (non-governmental) sector have no employment-based retirement plan at all. They have only Social Security to depend on, which provides the average retiree with a measly $17,634 per year, or not much more than you’d earn working full-time at the current federal minimum wage, which has been stuck at $7.25 an hour since 2009. Worse yet, if you’ve worked at such low-paying jobs your entire life, you face multiple obstacles to a comfortable old age: pay too meager to allow you to save for retirement; lower Social Security benefits, because they’re based on your lifetime earnings; and, most likely, a body battered by decades of hard work.
Many millions of Americans in such situations work well past the retirement age, not because they “simply don’t want to quit,” but because they just can’t afford to do so.
On the Road Again
It’s autumn in an even-numbered year, which means I’m once again in Reno, Nevada, working on an electoral campaign, alongside canvassers from UNITE-HERE, the hospitality industry union. This is my fourth stint in Washoe County, this time as the training coordinator for folks from Seed the Vote, the volunteer wing of this year’s political campaign. It’s no exaggeration to say that, in 2022, UNITE-HERE and Seed the Vote saved the Senate for the Democrats, reelecting Catherine Cortez Masto by fewer than 8,000 votes—all of them here in Washoe County.
This is a presidential year, so we’re door-knocking for Vice President Kamala Harris, along with Jacky Rosen, who’s running for reelection to Nevada’s other Senate seat.
Government, especially at the federal level, is clearly an arena where (to invert the pyramid metaphor) too many old people are clogging up the bottom of the funnel.
When I agreed to return to Reno, it was with a heavy heart. In my household, we’d taken to calling the effort to reelect Joe Biden “the death march.” The prospect of a contest between two elderly white men, the oldest ever to run for president, both of whom would be well over 80 by the time they finished a four-year term, was deeply depressing. While defeating Donald Trump was—and remains—an existential fight, a Biden-Trump contest was going to be hard for me to face.
Despite his age, Joe Biden has been an effective president in the domestic arena. (His refusal to take any meaningful action to restrain the Israeli military in Gaza is another story.) He made good use of Democratic strength in Congress to pass important legislation like the Inflation Reduction Act. That kitchen-sink law achieved many things, including potentially reducing this country’s greenhouse gas emissions by 40% by 2030, allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices directly with pharmaceutical companies (while putting a $2,000 annual cap on Medicare recipients’ outlays for drugs), and lowering the price of “Obamacare” premiums for many people.
Still, Biden’s advanced age made him a “terrible, horrible, no good, very bad” candidate for president. Admittedly, a win for 59-year-old Kamala Harris in Nevada won’t be a walk in the park, but neither will it be the death march I’d envisioned.
Old and In the Way?
Government, especially at the federal level, is clearly an arena where (to invert the pyramid metaphor) too many old people are clogging up the bottom of the funnel. Some of them, like House Speaker emerita Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), remain in full possession of their considerable faculties. She’s also had the grace to pass the torch of Democratic leadership in the House to the very able (and much younger) Hakeem Jeffries, representing the 8th district of New York. Others, like former California Senator Dianne Feinstein, held on, to paraphrase Rudyard Kipling, long after they were gone. Had my own great heroine Ruth Bader Ginsberg had the grace to retire while Barack Obama was still president, we wouldn’t today be living under a Supreme Court with a six-to-three right-wing majority.
What about the situation closer to home? Have I also wedged myself into the bottom of the funnel, preventing the free flow of younger, more vigorous people? Or, to put the question differently, when is it my turn to retire?
I haven’t lived out the past three stints in Reno alone. My partner and I have always done them together, spending several months here working 18 hours a day, seven days a week. That’s what a campaign is, and it takes a lot out of you. I’m now 72 years old, while my partner is five years older. She was prepared to come to Reno again when we thought the contest would be Trump versus Biden. Once we knew that Harris would replace him, however, my partner felt enormous relief. Harris’ chances of beating Trump are—thank God—significantly better than Biden’s were. “I would have done it when it was the death march,” she told me, “but now I can be retired.”
Even when people’s material needs are met, as is the case for the luckiest retirees in this country, they can suffer profound loneliness and an unsettling disconnection from the social structures in which meaningful human activity takes place.
Until Harris stepped up, neither of us could imagine avoiding the battle to keep Trump and his woman-hating, hard-right vice presidential pick out of office. We couldn’t face a Trump victory knowing we’d done nothing to prevent it. But now my 77-year-old partner feels differently. She’s at peace with retirement in a way that, I must admit, I still find hard to imagine for myself.
I haven’t taught a college class since the spring semester of 2021. For the last few years, I’ve been telling people, “I’m sort of retired.” The truth is that while you’re part of the vast army of contingent, part-time faculty who teach the majority of college courses, it’s hard to know when you’re retired. There’s no retirement party and no “emerita” status for part-timers. Your name simply disappears from the year’s teaching roster, while your employment status remains in a strange kind of limbo.
Admittedly, I’ve already passed a few landmarks on the road to retirement. At 65, I went on Medicare (thank you, LBJ!), though I held out until I reached 70 before maximizing my Social Security benefits. But I find it very hard to admit to anyone (even possibly myself) that I’m actually retired, at least when it comes to working for pay.
For almost two decades I could explain who I am this way: “I teach ethics at the University of San Francisco.” But now I have to tell people, “I’m not teaching anymore,” before rushing to add, “but I’m still working with my union.” And it’s true. I’m part of a “kitchen cabinet” that offers advice to the younger people leading my part-time faculty union. I also serve on our contract negotiations team and have a small gig with my statewide union, the California Federation of Teachers. But this year I chose not to run for the policy board (our local’s decision-making body), because I think those positions should go to people who are still actually teaching.
Those small pieces of work are almost enough to banish the shame I’d feel acknowledging that I’m already in some sense retired. I suspect my aversion to admitting that I don’t work for pay anymore has two sources: a family that prized professional work as a key to life satisfaction and—despite my well-developed critique of capitalism—a continuing infection with the productivity virus: the belief that a person’s value can only be measured in hours of “productive” labor.
Under capitalism, a person who has no work—compensated or otherwise—can easily end up marginalized and excluded from meaningful participation in society. The political philosopher Iris Marion Young considered marginalization one of the most ominous forms of oppression in a liberal society. “Marginals,” she wrote, “are people the system of labor cannot or will not use,” a dangerous condition under which a “whole category of people is expelled from useful participation in social life and thus potentially subjected to severe material deprivation and even extermination.”
Even when people’s material needs are met, as is the case for the luckiest retirees in this country, they can suffer profound loneliness and an unsettling disconnection from the social structures in which meaningful human activity takes place. I suspect it’s the fear of this kind of disconnection that keeps me from acknowledging that I might one day actually retire.
Jubilation and Passing the Torch
The other fear that keeps me working with my union, joining political campaigns, and writing articles like this one is the fear of the larger threats we humans face. We live in an age of catastrophes, present or potential. These include the possible annihilation of democratic systems in this country, the potential annihilation of whole peoples (Palestinians, for example, or Sudanese), or indeed, the annihilation of our species, whether quickly in a nuclear war or more slowly through the agonizing effects of climate change.
But even in such an age, I suspect that it’s time for many of my generation to trust those coming up behind us and pass the torch. They may not be ready, but neither were most of us when someone shoved that cone of flame into our hands.
Still, if I can bring myself to let go and trust those coming after me, then maybe I’ll be ready to embrace the idea behind one of my favorite Spanish words. In that language, you can say, “I’m retired” (“retirada”), and it literally means “pulled back” from life. But in Spanish, I can also joyfully call myself “jubilada,” a usage that (like “sabbatical”) also draws on a practice found in the Hebrew scriptures, the tradition of the jubilee, the sabbath of sabbaths, the time of emancipation of the enslaved, of debt relief, and the return of the land to those who work it.
Maybe it’s time to proudly accept not my retirement, but my future jubilation. But not quite yet. We still have an election to win.
Keep ReadingShow Less
CEO Greed Feasts on the Sweat of Low-Paid Workers—And Here’s the Proof
One-hundred S&P 500 firms with the lowest median wages, a group we’ve dubbed the “Low-Wage 100,” blew $522 billion over the past five years on stock buybacks.
Aug 29, 2024
The Lowe’s home improvement store spent $43 billion on stock buybacks over the past five years. With that sum, the big box chain could’ve given each of its 285,000 employees a $30,000 bonus every year between 2019 and 2023.
The extra cash would’ve meant a lot to Lowe’s workers—half of whom make less than $33,000 per year. Meanwhile, the retailer’s CEO, Marvin Ellison, raked in $18 million in 2023.
The evidence is stark. CEOs of leading U.S. corporations are focused on short-term windfalls for themselves and wealthy shareholders rather than on long-term prosperity for their workers—or their companies.
Another sign of Lowe’s skewed priorities? The company plowed nearly five times as much cash into buybacks as it invested in long-term capital expenditures like store improvements and technology upgrades over the past five years.
Lowe’s ranks as an extreme example of a corporate model focused on pumping up CEO pay at the expense of workers and long-term investment. But such skewed priorities are actually the norm among America’s leading low-wage corporations.
The Low-Wage 100
This year’s edition of the annual Institute for Policy Studies Executive Excess report finds that the 100 S&P 500 firms with the lowest median wages, a group we’ve dubbed the “Low-Wage 100,” blew $522 billion over the past five years on stock buybacks. Nearly half of these companies spent more on this once-illegal financial maneuver than they spent on capital investment vital to long-term competitiveness.
Why the fixation on buybacks? This is a CEO pay-inflating financial scam, pure and simple. When companies repurchase their own shares, they artificially boost share prices and the value of the stock-based compensation that makes up about 80% of CEO pay. An SEC investigation confirmed that CEOs regularly time the sale of their personal stock holdings to cash in on the price surge that typically follows a buyback announcement.
Our Executive Excess report also looks at low-wage corporations’ expenditures on employee retirement security. The answer? Peanuts, compared to their buyback outlays.
The country’s 20 largest low-wage employers spent nine times as much on stock buybacks as on worker retirement plan contributions over the past five years. Many of these firms boast of their “generous” matching benefits, typically a dollar-for-dollar match of 401(k) contributions up to 4% of salary. But matching is meaningless for workers who earn so little they can’t afford to set aside anything for what should be their “golden years.”
Take Chipotle, for instance. The Mexican fast food chain spent over $2 billion on stock buybacks over the past five years—48 times as much as the firm contributed to employee retirement plans. Meanwhile, 92% of Chipotle workers who are eligible to participate in the company’s 401(k) have zero balances. That’s hardly surprising, since the chain’s median annual pay is just $16,595.
The evidence is stark. CEOs of leading U.S. corporations are focused on short-term windfalls for themselves and wealthy shareholders rather than on long-term prosperity for their workers—or their companies.
As UAW President Shawn Fain put it in his primetime DNC convention speech: “Corporate greed turns blue-collar blood, sweat, and tears into Wall Street stock buybacks and CEO jackpots.”
Solutions to Executive Excess
Public outrage over CEO shakedowns helped the UAW win strong new contracts last year with the Big Three automakers. Support for policy solutions is growing as well. The Democratic Party platform calls for quadrupling a new tax on stock buybacks. And a recent poll shows huge majority support among Democrats, Republicans, and Independents alike for proposed tax hikes on corporations with huge CEO-worker pay gaps. The Executive Excess 2024 report offers an extensive menu of additional commonsense CEO pay reforms.
It’s important to remember that it hasn’t always been this way. Forty years ago, big company CEO pay was only about 40 times higher than worker pay—not several hundreds of times higher, as is typical today. And just 20 years ago, most big companies spent very little on stock buybacks. At Lowe’s, for example, buyback outlays between 2000 and 2004 were exactly zero.
Corporate America’s perverse fixation on enriching those at the top is bad for workers and bad for the economy. With pressure from below, we can change that.
Keep ReadingShow Less
The GOP Is Just Fine With Greedy Scammers Cheating Seniors Out of Their Retirement Savings
Republicans have declared war on the middle class people trying to plan ahead for their Golden Years.
Aug 13, 2024
Recently, a retired woman seeking advice wrote into MarketWatch’s financial advisor, saying:
“I was ‘financially set’ after my husband died. But my current adviser lost $500,000 over the last few years, and then a new adviser said my portfolio was ‘a mess’ and wants 1.25% to fix it. What’s my move?”
She was the victim of an unethical financial advisor hustling decades of churning commission-based products that essentially transferred her money into his pocket. As she told MarketWatch, “The adviser was paid per trade.”
President Biden wants to do something about this.
“This is about basic fairness,” Biden said when announcing a new rule to protect people like her. “People are tired of being played for suckers.”
He added:
“Bad financial advice by unscrupulous financial advisers driven by their own self-interest can cost a retiree up to 1.2% per year in lost investment. That doesn’t sound like much but if you’re living long, it’s a lot of money. Over a lifetime, it can add up to 20% less money when they retire. For a middle-class household, that can amount to tens of thousands of dollars over time.”
But Republicans have declared war on Biden and middle class people who want to save for retirement.
Odds are you’ve never heard of their shock troops: Judge Jeremy Kernodle or Judge Reed O’Connor, both federal judges appointed to Texas districts by Donald Trump and George W. Bush respectively.
For reference, both are hard-core rightwingers: Kernodle was one of the 13 federal judges who pledged not to hire clerks from Columbia University after the student demonstrations there against Israel’s destruction of Gaza; O’Connor struck down the Gun Control Act of 1968 and tried to take down Obama’s Affordable Care Act.
But even if you’ve never heard of them, they’re trying their best to have a huge impact on your ability to comfortably retire when the time comes, or on how you can live off your retirement funds if you’re already past 65.
Republicans... claim to believe in a mythical so-called “free market” where giant corporations and sleazy brokers can rob us of our retirement and then make campaign contributions to the GOP with some of that money.
Millions of Americans use investment advisors to manage their retirement funds; the total that could be affected by these judges’ actions is, according to The Washington Post yesterday, more than $770 billion.
While there’s a wide variety of companies and financial products (insurance, annuities, 401Ks, simple investment accounts, etc.) people use to invest their retirement funds, the advisors and brokers who handle them on your behalf basically fall into two categories: those who’re looking out first and foremost for your interests and those who’re looking out first and foremost for ways they can siphon off your funds into their own pockets.
Those advisors and brokers who are looking out for you are called “fiduciaries,” an industry and legal term that requires them to put your interests ahead of their own. Typically, this means they don’t sell products that pay them a commission, but instead work on a simple and transparent fee basis. It also means they won’t churn your account just to earn per-trade fees.
Most of those agents and companies that aren’t fiduciaries are working in what could be described as the wild west of finance: they’re constrained by fraud and embezzlement rules but can easily shave off part of your savings with every transaction they make on your behalf simply by putting you into products that pay them a commission.
And those commissions aren’t chicken feed: just for Americans who put their money into annuities, if all brokers and agents selling them were required to act as fiduciaries, the people buying those annuities would save over $32 billion over the next decade.
Commissions on insurance-based products can run as high as 70% of the first year’s payment, and can hit 10% on annuities. Advisors who churn your investments can drain your funds before you realize what’s happened to you, and there’s usually no recourse to get your money back.
It comes down to America having a regulated investment industry where it’s against the law to rip off its customers by hustling high commission products versus being a country where every American is at the mercy of unscrupulous investment advisors who’re getting rich by shaving a few points in commissions off every trade or financial product bought or sold on our behalf.
To deal with this problem and make America a safe place for average citizens to save for retirement, the Biden Labor Department put into place earlier this year a set of rules that would require most investment advisors and insurance brokers to act as fiduciaries and put their customers’ interests first.
The industry immediately sued in the courtrooms of judges Kernodle and O’Connor, who, three weeks ago, put the DOL fiduciary rules on hold pending appeals.
Democrats, of course, are on the side of average American consumers and retirees, which is why the Biden Labor Department put those rules into place requiring a huge chunk of the investment industry to operate as fiduciaries.
Republicans, on the other hand — including the two judges mentioned earlier — claim to believe in a mythical so-called “free market” where giant corporations and sleazy brokers can rob us of our retirement and then make campaign contributions to the GOP with some of that money.
Contributions, for example, to Representative Virginia Foxx (R-NC), whose top contributor according to opensecrets.org is Apollo Global Management and who’s top two donating industries are “retired” and “securities and investment.” Of the $2,938,046 in cash-on-hand Foxx has for her campaigns, a mere $38,896 came from individual under-$200 donors.
Foxx, in exchange for this retirement industry largesse, has sponsored legislation in the House of Representatives that would permanently bar the Labor Department from putting fiduciary requirements into law.
While shilling for the investment industry, she pretends she’s defending the little guy — a popular Republican scam — saying that requiring investment advisors and brokers to put the customer first and not shave commissions off of their retirement funds would “eliminate options for working-class Americans, reduce their ability to retire and limit their access to financial advice.”
And arguably that’s at least partially true. Fiduciary requirements do “eliminate” the option of buying products that rip you off and also “limit” your access to bad financial advice that will leave you poorer than when you started. But, to Foxx’s concern, they also prevent the industry from extracting that estimated $33 billion in fees and commissions from your pension, annuity, IRA, 401k, etc.
Republicans in the House are also going to try to zero out of the Labor Department’s budget any money that could be used to enforce the rules if they survive in the courts; expect that to be part of the GOP’s threat to shut down our government this fall if they don’t get their way.
Every day, it seems, brings new examples of the stark differences between Democrats and Republicans, this merely being the most recent.
Of course, there won’t be a peep about this on Fox “News” or rightwing hate radio, keeping GOP voters safely and quietly in their ignorant little bubble.
The rest of us, however, can see what’s going on with Republican scams at every level from taxation to climate policy to protecting our retirements.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Biden Labor Department Finalizes Pro-Worker Rules on Overtime, Retirement Savings
"Democrats are delivering for working people!" declared Rep. Pramila Jayapal as the AFL-CIO noted that GOP ex-President Donald Trump "gutted the rules that required overtime pay for millions of workers."
Apr 23, 2024
Roughly 4.3 million U.S. workers will now be eligible for overtime pay under a new rule finalized Tuesday by President Joe Biden's Labor Department—in stark contrast to his Republican predecessor's rules that severely limited the number of workers who were eligible for required compensation when they worked more than 40 hours per week.
Under the new rule, employers will be required to pay overtime premiums to salaried workers who work more than standard full-time hours if they earn less than $1,128 per week, or about $58,600 per year.
Former President Donald Trump, now the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, may now have to defend his 2020 rule that set the overtime pay threshold at just $35,500 per year, leaving out millions of workers.
U.S. Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) noted that the updated rule was "a major piece" of the Executive Action Agenda released by the Congressional Progressive Caucus, which she chairs.
"This is a HUGE pro-worker initiative by President Biden," said Jayapal. "Democrats are delivering for working people!"
Acting Labor Secretary Julie Su, who Biden has nominated to fill the role permanently, said it is "unacceptable" that lower-paid workers "are spending more time away from their families for no additional pay," while hourly workers are eligible for overtime pay.
"This rule will restore the promise to workers that if you work more than 40 hours in a week, you should be paid more for that time," said Su. "The Biden-Harris administration is following through on our promise to raise the bar for workers who help lay the foundation for our economic prosperity."
The Labor Department posted a chart on social media showing how under Trump's policy, only workers who earn less than $688 per week are eligible for required overtime pay. The full rule is set to go into effect in January 2025.
The chart offers a "good split screen with the GOP," said Slate reporter Mark Joseph Stern.
"It isn't just that Trump's Department of Labor fought overtime pay—it's also that Trump appointed anti-labor judges who are about to block Biden's new rule," he said.
The former Republican president's appointed judges could also block a new Federal Trade Commission rule introduced on Tuesday, which blocks companies from including noncompete clauses in workers' contracts.
"Both reforms happened because of Biden and in spite of Republicans," said HuffPost labor reporter Dave Jamieson.
Along with the overtime rule, the Labor Department announced a new policy aimed at safeguarding people's retirement savings from their financial advisers' conflicts of interest.
The finalized retirement security rule requires "trusted investment advice providers to give prudent, loyal, honest advice free from overcharges," said the department. "These fiduciaries must adhere to high standards of care and loyalty when they recommend investments and avoid recommendations that favor the investment advice providers' interests—financial or otherwise—at the retirement savers' expense."
"Under the final rule and amended exemptions, financial institutions overseeing investment advice providers must have policies and procedures to manage conflicts of interest and ensure providers follow these guidelines," the agency said.
Liz Shuler, president of the AFL-CIO, said the nation's largest labor federation has "been pushing for the fiduciary and overtime rules since the Obama administration."
"It's really this simple," said Shuler. "Every worker deserves their fair share of the wealth they help create and every worker deserves to make sure their hard-earned money is secure."
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy