Connect with us

Finance

America is facing a retirement crisis, and Princetonians are not immune to it

Published

on

America is facing a retirement crisis, and Princetonians are not immune to it

The following is a guest contribution and reflects the author’s views alone. For information on how to submit a piece to the Opinion section, click here.

We often consider Princeton, like many other elite universities, to be the golden ticket for a life of success. But outside of the Orange Bubble, there is a dire warning for us all: managing our personal finances has become much more challenging, even for those with high incomes. In response to the retirement crisis, the University must emphasize the importance of financial literacy to its students.

The retirement crisis originates from our current financial struggles. As of November 2023, 62 percent of U.S. consumers are living paycheck-to-paycheck. Household credit card debt is at a record high of $1.08 trillion. Many Americans do not have a sufficient emergency fund, and 22 percent have none at all. 

Consequently, many Americans are also not on track for their retirement. 47 percent of Americans are at risk of being unprepared for retirement, and 28 percent of Americans have no retirement savings at all. The Social Security program is projected to deplete its reserves in 2034, which will reduce retiree benefits to 77 percent of the original amount. While the cost of retirement is persistently increasing, our savings are not keeping up. 

Unfortunately, the financial situation of younger Americans is even worse. A study from the National Bureau of Economic Research found that millennials “had less median and mean wealth in 2016 than any similarly aged cohort between 1989 and 2007.” In fact, 70 percent of millennials are living paycheck-to-paycheck, which is more than any other generation according to the study. The verdict is clear — America is in a retirement crisis, and it’s not getting any better for younger generations.

Advertisement

So then, how does this concern a student at Princeton? Fundamentally, aren’t elite universities supposed to set students on the path towards financial success? 

After all, it is not entirely baseless to assume that Princeton graduates will be unaffected by the retirement crisis. By age 34, the median annual income for Princeton graduates is $90,700. Even outside Princeton, many graduates of elite universities will earn well above the median national household income of $74,580. Princeton recently expanded its 100 percent grant-based financial aid to all students with a family income up to $100,000, and now 83 percent of “recent seniors” graduating debt-free.

However, even a six-figure income is no longer synonymous with financial security. As of November 2023, 45 percent of American consumers earning at least $100,000 annually were living paycheck-to-paycheck. Why then, are there so many people — those we typically consider “financially successful” — struggling with their finances? Simply put, we don’t keep enough of what we earn. But we already know the solution to that problem. Most of us — if not all of us — already are aware that we should form good financial habits. Some of the most common financial regrets cited in the survey are “not saving for retirement early enough,” “not saving enough for emergency expenses,” and “taking on too much credit card debt.” The real challenge lies in actually implementing that solution. 

As psychologist Hal Hershfield notes, the challenge in preparing for our financial future is that our future selves often feel like complete strangers to us. In “Your Future Self,” he explains that “we tend to think that the feelings we have in the future will somehow be less intense than the ones we have now.” Because our long-term financial goals often feel like a far-too-distant future, younger generations often do not save for their retirement. As a result, we lose our most valuable resource in investing: time. 

For instance, let’s suppose that starting at age 25, you contribute $100 monthly in an investment account that compounds 10 percent annually. If you retire at age 67, you would have approximately $645,164. However, if you started investing at age 35 instead, you would end up with approximately $241,365. The snowball effect of compound interest can make the difference in achieving our financial goals (you can experiment with compound interest using this calculator). 

Advertisement

In an effort to address this issue, Princeton maintains a website on financial literacy that contains various resources for its students. A notable example is the newly-released program iGrad, which offers multiple self-assessments, articles, and videos on personal finance.

However, Princeton ultimately fails to sufficiently emphasize the importance of financial literacy as a crucial lifelong skill to its students. The University does not require students to study financial literacy, and as a result, treats personal finance as an optional aspect of its education.

Get the best of ‘the Prince’ delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe now »

But the reality is that financial literacy is not optional. Personal finance is just as critical as learning how to communicate with others and analyze the world. We make financial decisions on a daily basis, such as purchasing food, ordering goods online, or paying for transportation. Although Princeton boasts a generous financial aid program to reduce student debt, it has yet to focus on truly equipping its students with the ability to manage their own finances after graduation. If Princeton sincerely intends to prepare its students for a life of success and service, it must treat financial literacy as a mandatory skill for all students. This could be achieved through a new course requirement or an online training program, which would educate students on topics such as the importance of investing early, the function of various financial products, and how to create an effective budget. 

Advertisement

Many of us will likely be making some of the most important financial decisions of our lives after our time at college, such as applying for a mortgage, choosing an insurance plan, or investing for retirement. But without any prior experience or guidance, it will be difficult for recent graduates to make the optimal choice. 

Staying on top of our monthly expenses, let alone preparation for retirement, is now an increasingly daunting task. While it may seem like a far-too-distant future now, there eventually will be a day when we decide to retire. Don’t let your future self regret the financial choices you make today.

Jason Seo is a first-year undergraduate from Atlanta, G.A. intending to major in Economics. He can be reached at jason.seo@princeton.edu.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Finance

Oregon Legislature passes controversial campaign finance changes

Published

on

Oregon Legislature passes controversial campaign finance changes
play

Legislators passed a bill March 5 to modify forthcoming changes to Oregon’s campaign finance system despite outcry from good government groups who say the bill creates new loopholes.

Those groups were key in creating House Bill 4024, which was created and passed in 2024 in place of warring ballot measures seeking to overhaul the system.

That legislation included new limits on contributions, including capping individual spending on statewide candidates each cycle at $3,300, and other changes. Parts of the bill were set to go into effect in 2027 and 2028.

Advertisement

Under the new proposal, House Bill 4018, the limits would still begin in 2027, but disclosure requirements and penalties would be pushed to 2031. It also gives the Secretary of State money to update the campaign finance system, but far less than the office previously thought it might need.

Representatives voted 39-19 to pass the bill. A few hours later, the Senate passed it 20-9.

Fourteen of the “no” votes in the House were Democrats, including Reps. Tom Andersen, D-Salem, and Lesly Muñoz, D-Woodburn.

Muñoz told the Statesman Journal she voted against the bill after hearing from people upset with the bill’s process.

Advertisement

Six Democratic senators cast a “no” vote on HB 4018.

Oregon campaign finance reform advocates say they were left out of negotiations

After working together in 2024, advocates said Speaker of the House Julie Fahey, D-Eugene, “ghosted” them.

Good government groups said the bill does far more than address necessary technical fixes to HB 4024.

HB 4018 is “a complete betrayal of the deal that was made two years ago,” Norman Turrill of Oregon’s League of Women Voters said.

Advertisement

Should the bill be signed by Gov. Tina Kotek, the groups said they will push their own changes through a 2028 ballot initiative.

Those advocates have outlined at least 11 different changes they believe the bill creates. The bill’s contents were first shared through a Feb. 9 amendment that was posted after 5 p.m., hours before it received a public hearing in an 8 a.m. work session on Feb. 10 and later, Feb. 12.

Secretary of State Tobias Read told legislators in January his office was requesting $25 million as a placeholder to fund a new campaign finance system for the state. Read was not secretary of state when House Bill 2024 was passed and his office is now working to implement the bill’s changes on a fast approaching deadline.

An additional amendment to the bill instead gives the Secretary of State’s Office $1.5 million for staff, some of whom would be tasked with updating the state’s current system.

House members agreed March 4 to send the bill back to committee, presumably to be amended. A 5 p.m. committee meeting was canceled about an hour after initially being announced.

Advertisement

A work session on HB 4018 was moved to the next morning. After an hour of delay, legislators convened and finished the meeting, moving the bill back to the floor without any changes, in less than three minutes.

A new campaign finance bill, Senate Bill 1502, was introduced and scheduled for a public hearing and work session March 4.

The bill is “very simple,” Senate Minority Leader Bruce Starr, R-Dundee, said. It tells the Secretary of State’s Office to draft a bill for the 2027 session with necessary campaign finance improvements from HB 4024 and HB 4018.

Three senators voted against the bill March 5. It now moves to the House. Legislators have a March 8 deadline to end the session.

“SB 1502 would not correct the severe damage to campaign finance reform that will occur, if HB 4018 B is enacted in this session,” Dan Meek of Honest Elections Oregon wrote in submitted testimony.

Advertisement

Lawmakers appear unsatisfied, but supportive, toward Oregon campaign finance bill

House Majority Leader Ben Bowman, D-Tigard, said HB 4018 made positive changes but acknowledged it was “a challenging vote for many of us.”

“We are implementing this whole new system that is new for all of us, and there are a lot of opinions and there are a lot of details to figure out,” House Minority Leader Lucetta Elmer, R-McMinnville, said. Elmer and Bowman carried the bill in the House. “With that being said, we’re moving forward in good faith, knowing that we’ll also be coming back next year to make sure that those details and all those kinks are worked out.”

Rep. Mark Gamba, D-Milwaukie, said he was concerned about the bill and the “non-inclusive process” that led to it.

Gamba pointed to a letter from the Washington, D.C.-based Campaign Legal Center that states in part that the bill “would substantially revise critical campaign finance reforms enacted two years ago in Oregon” and weaken the state’s campaign finance law.

The current bill is not the only possibility for moving forward, Sen. Jeff Golden, D-Ashland, told lawmakers. Proposed amendments that would have extended implementation timelines without the additional changes were ignored, he said.

Advertisement

“House Bill 4024 and this bill, 4018, have two things in common. One, they were thrown together in a few days behind closed doors, mostly by organizations who dominate campaign funding in the current system,” Golden said. “And two, very few legislators understand what is actually in these bills.”

He urged lawmakers to abandon the system created in House Bill 4024 as an “uncomfortably expensive learning experience” and develop a new plan based on successful programs in other states.

Sen. Sara Gelser Blouin, D-Corvallis, also spoke against the bill on the Senate floor.

“The concern that I had and that my constituents had was technical changes are one thing, but it should not be increasing the amount of money that candidates can take in or hold or carry over,” Gelser Blouin said. “Unfortunately, as it’s drafted, this bill does all of those things.”

HB 4024 is too complicated and “unimplementable” without the fixes in HB 4018, Starr said.

Advertisement

Sen. Lew Frederick, D-Portland, agreed, saying HB 4018 and SB 1502 give reassurance about a system he has concerns about.

“If there were no cameras and the lights were off, I think most people would agree this is not the bill we want,” Rep. Paul Evans, D-Monmouth, said.

Some lawmakers expressed similar feelings of discontentment with the bill in Ways and Means and one of its subcommittees on March 3, but said they felt it was important to make some progress on the issue. Discussions could happen again in 2027, they said.

Rep. Nancy Nathanson, D-Eugene, who ultimately voted in favor of the bill, said March 3 supporting it “is a very painful choice to make.”

Statesman Journal reporter Dianne Lugo contributed to this report.

Advertisement

Anastasia Mason covers state government for the Statesman Journal. Reach her at acmason@statesmanjournal.com or 971-208-5615.

Continue Reading

Finance

Paramount ally RedBird says using Middle East money to help buy Warner Bros. could be a good idea

Published

on

Paramount ally RedBird says using Middle East money to help buy Warner Bros. could be a good idea

  • Last year, Paramount said it would use $24 billion in funding from Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi, and Qatar to help buy WBD.
  • Now that Paramount has won that deal, it won’t say whether that’s still the plan.
  • A key Paramount backer suggests that Gulf money would be a good thing for this deal.

We still don’t know if Paramount intends to use billions of dollars from Gulf states like Saudi Arabia to help it buy Warner Bros. Discovery.

But if Paramount does end up doing that, it wouldn’t be a bad thing, says a key Paramount backer.

That update comes via Gerry Cardinale, who heads up RedBird Capital Partners, the private equity company that helped finance Larry and David Ellison’s acquisition of Paramount last year and is doing the same with their WBD deal now.

In a podcast with Puck’s Matt Belloni published Wednesday night, Cardinale wouldn’t comment directly on Paramount’s previously disclosed plans to use $24 billion from sovereign wealth funds controlled by Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi, and Qatar to help buy WBD.

Instead, he reiterated Paramount’s current messaging on the deal’s financing: The $47 billion in equity Paramount will use to buy WBD will be “backstopped” by the Ellison family and RedBird — meaning they are ultimately on the hook to pay up. The rest of the $81 billion deal will be financed with debt.

Advertisement

Cardinale also acknowledged what Paramount has disclosed in its current disclosure documents: It intends to sell portions of that $47 billion commitment to other investors: “We haven’t syndicated anything at this time,” he said. “We do expect to syndicate with strategic, domestic, and foreign investors. But at the end of the day, that alchemy shouldn’t matter because it’ll be done in the right way.”

And when asked about concerns about Middle Eastern countries owning part of a media conglomerate that includes assets like CNN, Cardinale suggested that could be a plus.

“I think we want to be a global company,” he said. “You look at what’s going on right now geopolitically. What’s going on right now geopolitically out of the Middle East wouldn’t be, the positives of that would not be happening without some of those sovereigns that you’re referring to.”

He continued:

“The world is changing. We can stick our head in the sand and pretend it’s not, or we can embrace globalization and the derivative benefits both geopolitically and otherwise that come from that. Content generation coming out of Hollywood is one of America’s greatest exports.
I firmly embrace the global nature and orientation that we bring to this from a capital standpoint, from a footprint standpoint, etc. At the end of the day, I do understand some of the concerns that you’ve raised, but that will work itself out between signing and closing because at the end of the day, worst-case scenario, Ellison and RedBird are 100% of this thing.”

All of which suggests to me that Paramount still intends to use money from Gulf-based sovereign wealth funds to buy WBD.

What I don’t understand is why the company won’t say that out loud. Does that mean it’s still negotiating with potential investors? Or that it’s reticent to disclose outside investors, for whatever reason, until it has to? A Paramount rep declined to comment.

Advertisement

Continue Reading

Finance

Crypto bill hits new impasse, raising doubts over its future

Published

on

Crypto bill hits new impasse, raising doubts over its future
Talks on landmark crypto legislation have hit a new impasse after banks said they could not back a compromise pushed by the White House, a development that cast doubt on whether the bill will pass this year and sparked criticism from President Donald Trump ​who accused lenders of trying to undermine it.
Continue Reading

Trending