are we pretending 401ks don’t have penalties for withdrawals now
No one is pretending anything. You're just clearly unfamiliar with these things. A 401k is a type of brokerage account, but it is also a retirement account. Regular non-retirement brokerage accounts have no penalty of any kind. You would just sell some sort of security (yes, during market hours probably) and the funds would be available immediately. Yes, it technically takes a business day to settle the trade, but that is usually obscured by the brokerage who just deposits the funds immediately. A 401k is certainly not the only kind of brokerage account, nor is it what anyone is referring to when it's called a "brokerage account" instead of "401k" explicitly.
Sooo you didn’t watch the video… he was reading the questions verbatim.
"46% said they don't have $500 saved for an emergency." He's obviously reading the results of a study verbatim. That is not the question. And, like the other poster said, I've seen this trick before. The question can be something like "do you have at least $500 in savings dedicated to emergencies" and the respondent will go "it's not earmarked for emergencies, so no."
No one is pretending anything. You're just clearly unfamiliar with these things. A 401k is a type of brokerage account, but it is also a retirement account. Regular non-retirement brokerage accounts have no penalty of any kind. You would just sell some sort of security (yes, during market hours probably) and the funds would be available immediately. Yes, it technically takes a business day to settle the trade, but that is usually obscured by the brokerage who just deposits the funds immediately. A 401k is certainly not the only kind of brokerage account, nor is it what anyone is referring to when it's called a "brokerage account" instead of "401k" explicitly.
This is a hilariously lazy attempt. What percentage of people making 60-100k have a second brokerage account aside from a 401k? I’m betting it’s less than 10%, which falls in the 46%.
"46% said they don't have $500 saved for an emergency." He's obviously reading the results of a study verbatim. That is not the question. And, like the other poster said, I've seen this trick before. The question can be something like "do you have at least $500 in savings dedicated to emergencies" and the respondent will go "it's not earmarked for emergencies, so no."
Again, making assumptions, can you show me the study you said is a trick?
If you can't be bothered to look up the study he's citing and I can't be bothered to look up the study he's citing, I think we're at an impasse. I default towards assuming studies are fabricated bullshit. You default towards taking them at face value. It doesn't really make that much of a difference. We both agree that the financial state of the average person is fucked anyway, even if we disagree on the amount of trust that can be placed in "the experts."
No one is pretending anything. You're just clearly unfamiliar with these things. A 401k is a type of brokerage account, but it is also a retirement account. Regular non-retirement brokerage accounts have no penalty of any kind. You would just sell some sort of security (yes, during market hours probably) and the funds would be available immediately. Yes, it technically takes a business day to settle the trade, but that is usually obscured by the brokerage who just deposits the funds immediately. A 401k is certainly not the only kind of brokerage account, nor is it what anyone is referring to when it's called a "brokerage account" instead of "401k" explicitly.
"46% said they don't have $500 saved for an emergency." He's obviously reading the results of a study verbatim. That is not the question. And, like the other poster said, I've seen this trick before. The question can be something like "do you have at least $500 in savings dedicated to emergencies" and the respondent will go "it's not earmarked for emergencies, so no."
This is a hilariously lazy attempt. What percentage of people making 60-100k have a second brokerage account aside from a 401k? I’m betting it’s less than 10%, which falls in the 46%.
Again, making assumptions, can you show me the study you said is a trick?
If you can't be bothered to look up the study he's citing and I can't be bothered to look up the study he's citing, I think we're at an impasse. I default towards assuming studies are fabricated bullshit. You default towards taking them at face value. It doesn't really make that much of a difference. We both agree that the financial state of the average person is fucked anyway, even if we disagree on the amount of trust that can be placed in "the experts."
Fair enough