My gut feeling is that the population of commenters here may exhibit some selection bias. As in, leveling criticism that the article doesn't include "investment vehicles" is a negative may be a valid point in some circles, but as a profile of the general population in the US, is a valid approach. With housing having gone through a giant bubble cycle and rents approaching all-time highs IIRC, there really isn't any extraneous income to invest (well, save) with a large portion of the population. I'll refer to the following chart as relevant to supporting my perspective:
The vast majority of the population is not saying "I have nothing in savings" because all their money is tied up in yachts and Manhattan real estate; it's because they have no money.
Thank you for that take on it. As a 30 something, I've been "coached" over time that savings is for liquidity in the case of an unexpected event - loss of job for X months (cover bills with savings), medical emergency (cover bills with savings), or potential family development (need to purchase vehice for teenager). These events are not supposed to be covered by "dipping" into retirement funds, e.g. IRA or 401k.
The ideal method of financial planning I was taught is to invest for retirement through financial products which minimize risk and are not liquid assets, while concurrently saving in a "traditional" account.
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/im...
reply