High earners capture most of the benefits of the 401(k) match
Add Axios as your preferred source to
see more of our stories on Google.
Illustration: Tiffany Herring/Axios
A mainstay of 401(k) retirement plans, the employer match, mostly benefits top earners and exacerbates income inequality in the U.S., finds a new study from Vanguard.
Why it matters: The 401(k) is a linchpin of the American retirement system, but as a record number of Americans are now turning 65, worries are rising that these plans aren't adequate, particularly for lower earners.
Catch up fast: The Vanguard report builds on a paper out late last year from economists at MIT, Harvard, Yale, and the Census Bureau.
- They found that these matches amplify differences in how much different groups save for retirement — Black and Hispanic workers contribute less to these accounts. And the rich (and their children) save more.
How it works: To incentivize workers to save for retirement, employers typically contribute to employee 401(k) accounts by matching some portion of the employee contribution.
- Vanguard found a wide range of match programs. In the most typical, if an employee puts in 6% of her income, the company will match half — meaning she's socking away an amount equal to 9%.
- Employers contribute $212 billion a year to worker 401(k)s, per Vanguard — 58 cents per dollar participants saved.
By the numbers: Looking at data from more than 1,300 companies' 401(k) plans, the researchers found that the top 20% of earners within a company receive 44% of employer contributions.
- The bottom 20% receive just 6% of the money.
- "The system seems to be rewarding those who already can and do save the most," says Fiona Greig, global head of investor research and policy at Vanguard.
Follow the money: Vanguard finds the top 20% pull in 39% of the income — before considering these 401(k) matches.
- The 401(k) contributions are even more disproportionate — the top earners receive an 11% larger share of employer contributions than income.
- The bottom take in 29% less than their share of the income.
The researchers also conclude that employer matches aren't incentivizing workers to save more money for retirement — those who save more are typically those who earn more money and can better afford to save.
- Only 13% of workers contribute the exact amount required to get the maximum employee match, suggesting that it alone is not much of an incentive to save, the researchers say.
Auto-enrollment, in which workers are put into 401(k)s and must opt-out if they don't want to participate, could promote more retirement savings for low-income workers, they conclude.
- So could "nonelective contributions," where an employer puts money into your 401(k) even if you contribute nothing.
Zoom out: We are in the midst of a "silver tsunami," in which 4.1 million Americans will turn 65 annually, this year through 2027, a record number per data from the Alliance for Lifetime Income.
- And these folks will be "going it alone," as Felix Salmon reported in April. They're the first generation to rely on private savings like 401(k)s instead of pensions.
- Those private savings, even combined with Social Security, may not be enough to sustain their lifestyles.
The bottom line: With a retirement crisis looming, workers need the money from those 401(k) matches — but that money is not distributed equitably.
