Are we all to blame for the poor staying poor, and the widening income gap?

Just a random thought progression I have had recently...

It seems to me that the demand of investors for continued stock increases and dividend returns results in companies continuing to find ways to meet those demands.  They increase efficiency, increase profit margins and squeeze everything they can out of workers.

Just theorizing here..

Is therefore, everyone who owns stock, either directly or through retirement plans, guilty in aiding this?  

If shareholders of Walmart demanded that the company treat workers better, would they do so by increasing the "Value" of Walmart shares?  Or McDonalds?  Or would shares slip if profit margins decreased because the company is paying employees more, thereby causing alarm to the stockholders which would escalate the pace of the price drop?  

Sadly, I predict that until the "investing public" places more monetary value on the values of a company, this trend will not cease.  This is only exacerbated by the fact that almost all of investing dollars are indirectly invested (by funds, instead of by individuals), and therefore, the need to place this value on companies gets diluted as the buying of stocks isn't done by individuals.

Maybe it's always been this way, maybe not.  I'm just as guilty as the next person when trying to calculate just how much I have to save for retirement and what rate of return I can safely expect so that I can sustain my family.  

Thoughts?

Early Retirement?

Early retirement?  "Not for me, man.  I enjoy working too much!"

Not exactly the words you usually see on a personal finance blog.  Such is my life.  I'm not really interested in retiring early.

The obvious reason:  As a government employee, I will be eligible for a retirement pension upon working for 30 years.  At that point, I'll get a monthly check (as a result of contributing 6% of my salary every year, for 30 years) equal to around 2/3rds of my (average last four years) salary when I retire.

Now, I'm not naive enough to think that won't (possibly) change as I get closer, but I work for a relatively stable State Government that has shown pretty good respect towards honoring retirees in the past.  Usually during tight budget years, or with retirement reforms, they effect only those new to the program, or those who haven't become vested yet.  Seldom do the retro-actively effect those of us with 10+ years of service.

Term versus Whole Life Example

I've not written a single personal finance thought on this blog in 13 months, but I'm feeling the urge to get a little more deliberate with writing down some of my thoughts.  My recent perspective comes from being an "experienced contributor" in the Financial Peace University (FPU) class that our church is sponsoring this fall.

While the class size is small; we started with about 18 and are down to about 10; it has proved a great reminder of Dave Ramsey's basic concepts: the 7 Baby Steps.

The lesson we went through a couple weeks ago was on insurance and covered the difference between Term and Whole Life insurance.  We both have 20 year term policies that were purchased 2 years ago as healthy 30/33 year olds.  I was curious about the difference between the two types of policies, so found a plan comparison application on the State Farm website.  (First hit on a google search of "term versus whole life insurance".)

What I found was staggering and deserves some explanation:

For starters, I selected a $500,000 policy and am comparing a 20 year term versus whole life.

Term:

• 20 years, for $32.20 per month ($370 per year, or $7,400 over 20 years)

Whole:

• level premium to age 100 (standard), $559.85 per month ($6,435 per year, or $128,700 over the same 20 years as above)

Okay, so for the price of almost 20 years of term coverage, you can get just over one year of the whole life?  Holy crap.  Who buys this stuff?

I get it...at year 21 and year 31 and whatever, my rate never increases...who cares?  Right now, I can buy a new 20 year term, if I was 55 years old for only $163.55 per month!  Still nowhere close to the $559.85 per month.

Let's put some perspective to this.  Say you just love the idea of whole life insurance because "it's a savings plan too!"  What if you were to buy a 20 year term policy for half a million dollars for $32.20 per month.  But you were comparing it to the whole life, that you were paying, so you had ($559.85-$32.20 =) $527.65 a month to save and invest.  If you were to invest this over that same 20 year period in a low-cost index fund, assuming 7.5% return, you'd have $294,761.34.  If you don't put anything else in, after only 10 more years (less than halfway into your next 20 year term, or at the end of your new 10 year term, it would be worth $607,512.42 (theoretically increasing every year until you die).  By then you're self insured by this "additional premium" fund and no longer have a need for life insurance.  The best part is that you own this fund, and heir access to it isn't dependent on an insurance company writing a check or forcing your heirs to jump through hoops to get it.

I just don't see how a whole life policy is ever a good deal.