Hacker News Reader

Comment by babyshake | Hacker News Reader

More important, in my opinion, is autopay should generally be opt-out rather than opt-in. That is to say, you should provide your funding source when opening the account and some manual action should be needed on your part to decide to pay less then the balance automatically. It would be reasonable to allow you to choose between the minimum and full balance, but I've experienced some dark patterns making it difficult to setup autopay, and autopay setting "mysteriously" resetting by themselves. Banks should have zero incentive to make being responsible more difficult than it already is for most people.

View on HN

> autopay should generally be opt-out rather than opt-in

I’d much rather be late on a payment than unexpectedly drain my cash.

It's not unexpected because you're checking your statement summaries when they arrive and being notified of transactions as they happen. Right?

Because not having those things set up by default is how people spiral in predatory fees.

People are human and life is hard (especially in the US, unnecessarily so). Good policy understands this, and protects the human while not overly encumbering business. This regulation is entirely reasonable based on the data [1] with regards to costs incurred.

This is the same reason 401ks will be gone soon [2]; we told a lie that pensions were untenable, foisted the responsibility on humans (who laughably were expected to be able to be sophisticated with regards to these matters, contrary to the evidence [3]), and now we have an entire cohort moving through 55+ to death who have little to no retirement savings to speak of [4]. Because policy failed them, and all those previous pension contributions went to shareholders instead. We don't have to argue this here, but it is to demonstrate systemic failures.

But see, we can make better policy. It is easy, and it scales (versus unrealistic expectations of the human). We outlaw the predatory behavior.

[1] https://www.consumerfinance.gov/data-research/research-repor...

[2] https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-02-20/retire... | https://archive.today/jdfPv

[3] https://www.cnbc.com/2023/01/19/heres-how-much-people-say-la...

[4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39578810 (citations)

I'm so confused about how, on the one hand, I keep seeing articles about the enormous wealth transfer that's expected to happen, but at the same time, articles saying retirees don't have any money. Which is it?

Pretty much the only thing I would definitely trust less than any random individual on the street to manage savings well for retirement would be government. I don't know who or what should do it instead when people aren't working more than a few years at any given company, but it sure as hell shouldn't be government.

> I'm so confused about how, on the one hand, I keep seeing articles about the enormous wealth transfer that's expected to happen, but at the same time, articles saying retirees don't have any money. Which is it?

This is sort of silly? Older generation estates and owners have to pass their wealth down to somewhere, either their children or other causes. Concentrated wealth via ultra high net worth estates is moving between generations [1] [2], it's not being spread like butter across everyone.

> Pretty much the only thing I would definitely trust less than any random individual on the street to manage savings well for retirement would be government. I don't know who or what should do it instead when people aren't working more than a few years at any given company, but it sure as hell shouldn't be government.

Social Security is one of the most efficient benefits systems in the country, and expenses are less than private annuities (~0.5%) [3]. It is entirely possible to create effective pension management systems besides what the US has today [4]. We have made a choice not to. We could make better choices.

“You can always count on the Americans to do the right thing, after they have exhausted all the other possibilities.” ― Churchill

[1] https://content.knightfrank.com/resources/knightfrank.com/we... ("Knight Frank 2024 Wealth Report")

[2] https://ustrustaem.fs.ml.com/content/dam/ust/articles/pdf/20... (2022 Bank of America Private Bank Study of Wealthy Americans: The impact of shifting generational attitudes amid an historic wealth transfer) [Only 27% of the ultra wealthy are self made; 70% of Americans who hold more than $3 million are over 56 years old.]

[3] https://www.cbpp.org/research/policy-basics-top-ten-facts-ab... ("Policy Basics: Top Ten Facts about Social Security")

[4] https://www.cnbc.com/2022/10/13/these-countries-have-the-bes... ("These countries have the best pension systems in 2022—and the U.S. didn’t make the list")

Weird, because as I understand it, government intervention is the only way an appreciable amount of people ever had retirement savings

The government basically invented the notion of "retirement" in the first place, too, though. There was no historical precedent for just stopping working before you physically couldn't anymore, in which case you generally died very shortly thereafter.

At the time U.S. social security was invented, the age at which you could draw benefits was higher than the average life expectancy, the thought being, "Well you've put in as much good work time as most people do when they die, so if you live longer than that, we'll take care of you."

This whole notion of a decade or more of "retirement" being totally normal is extremely novel, and I'm not at all sure it's good for people. Is it good not to have to do physically demanding work when you're 70? Sure. But as a culture, we would benefit an awful lot from learning from elders in advisory roles, if we didn't idolize the innovative flash-in-the-pan-probably-won't-work-but-let's-try-it-anyway startup mentality.

Both. The average net worth of retired Americans is over $1million. But the median net worth is ~$200,000 (according to recently released data from the Federal Reserve).

I'm not familiar with the articles but where I live it wouldn't be surprising for an elderly person to have a million dollar home and not much free cash, since they bought and paid it off decades ago. So that is 'wealth' but not easily accessible as 'money'.

I doubt 401ks are going anywhere. It’s one thing to write an article about it and a whole other to actually get a law passed. Congress can’t even get rid of daylight savings time, which no one likes.

Every 2 year election cycle, ~3.6M voters over 55 will have aged out, and 8M voters will have turned 18. Today's Congress is not tomorrow's Congress, but I admit patience will be required as the electorate and the reps elected turn over.

The missing bit though is that those 401ks are taxed later than now. A politician who wants to pay for their policy (good) but doesn't want to raise taxes (bad) can just move the timings of that tax bill to juice the books. Its been proposed in the past, along with the implications of changing the RMDs to boost government income.

If blowback is preventing politicians from raising taxes why wouldn’t blowback stop them from killing the 401k?

Caveat: The first time autopay screws up, you will feel an overwhelming urge to murder the party responsible for processing said transaction.

Ask me how I know...

^This. A lot of people, myself included, got very upset with T-Mobile's decision to take away the autopay discount of $5 per line unless you gave them your credit card or bank account number. I changed carriers after they decided they wanted to take away grandfathered rate plans and reasssign customers to the latest, high-priced plans with all kinds of unnecessary stuff added.

The last straw for me was a couple years ago, when my health insurance turned over to the new (calendar) year...and I got double billed.

OODLES OF FUN LET ME TELL YOU

At the very least it proved to me that ACH payments through my bank were terribly unreliable and never to be trusted again. Now, everything goes through a credit card, which means I'm earning a not insignificant number of points every year just to keep the ball in the air.

I get the idea that this doesn't work for everything, because processing fees are an occasionally necessary evil if you go this route, but it is infinitely less stressful knowing that if there's a screwup, I'm not (directly) involved.

Case in point, my parents had their main checking account compromised a few months back and getting everything put back together after tearing it all down was weeks of effort that probably took a couple years off someone's life.

Do. Not. Recommend.

> It's not unexpected because you're checking your statement summaries when they arrive and being notified of transactions as they happen. Right?

Do you design your software assuming users always do things in a well thought out, fully rational and responsible way? If so, I'd love to hear how that works out! :)

Then turn off autopay

> Banks should have zero incentive to make being responsible more difficult than it already is for most people.

Presumably interest should be banned as well?

I read your comment as trying to troll/lampoon him.

There's times where banks seem to deliberately screw your payments, etc, up. There's no sane legal regime where they should make paying your balance artificially difficult.

Of course they should be able to charge a reasonable amount of interest for the use of credit.

I’d note that compounding interest is already a “late fee.” The longer you hold the debt the larger it becomes, exponentially. In a meaningful way late fees are double dipping.

There's a difference between "paying interest because you didn't pay off your entire balance" and "paying a $40 late fee because you forgot the payment was due at 10:59AM Eastern Time and you were an hour late".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com