How much money Americans in their 30s have in their 401(k)s
American workers in their 30s are holding steady with their 401(k) contributions, even though their balances have dipped due to market volatility so far in 2025.
That's according to Fidelity, the largest retirement plan provider in the U.S., which manages more than 24 million 401(k) accounts. Its latest quarterly study breaks down average 401(k) balances by age group for the three months ending March 31.
Here's how much people in their 30s have in their 401(k) accounts, on average:
The year is off to a rough start, with average 401(k) balances for workers in their 30s declining by roughly 2% in the first quarter, according to data provided by Fidelity.
However, this age group has been relatively diligent in saving. Those ages 28 to 44 save an average of 13.5% of their pretax income, Fidelity reports, which is close to its recommended savings rate of 15%.
Fidelity recommends having one year's salary saved by 30 and three times your salary saved by 40. For many workers, that target can be difficult to match, considering that median income for full-time workers in their 30s is roughly $60,000 to $70,000, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data for the first quarter of 2025.
However, it's worth noting that these benchmarks apply to total retirement savings, so savers may have more put away than what's reflected in their 401(k) balance alone.
Even so, falling short of Fidelity's targets is "something I see a lot of," says Shaun Melby, a certified financial planner in Nashville. "There is a lot of 'life' that happens in your 20s and 30s that makes it difficult to max out retirement contributions."
At that age, many people are paying down student loans, having children or saving for a home — all of which can strain finances, Melby says.
If you feel behind, consider gradually increasing your 401(k) contributions, even if it's a small amount like $50. The eventual goal should be to maximize any employer match, since it gives your savings an extra boost at no cost, says Melby. Employer matches are often referred to as "free money," since they are extra dollars your employer adds to your account when you make a contribution yourself.
The more you're able to put in now, the more time those early dollars have to grow through compound interest, says Melby.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Insider
34 minutes ago
- Business Insider
I'm 80 and worked at the same company for almost 60 years. Here are the biggest lessons I learned about being successful at work.
This as-told-to essay is based on a conversation with Linda Zierolf, 80, who lives near Dayton, Ohio. She has worked at the same company since she was 18 and has no plans to retire. Zierolf, who is financially comfortable, said her company, while very different from a staffing and technology perspective, still has the same values and friendly people it had in the 1960s. Her words have been edited for length and clarity. My company is celebrating its 70th year this year, and I have been here for 56 of them. I'm still here because I really like the work and enjoy being busy. I'm not someone who can just sit around. Most of my friends are retired, but they say they wish they had worked longer. When I graduated from high school, I had barely stepped off the stage when my dad asked when I was going to get a job. Are you an older American comfortable sharing your retirement outlook with a reporter? Please fill out this quick form. We are especially interested in hearing from people 80 and older. I went to an employment agency, and the first place they sent me was an industrial wholesale company called Main Line Supply. I think I only got the job because I went to a Catholic all-girls high school, and the gentleman who interviewed me was Catholic. I still have my receipt from the employment agency I paid to get the job. Every year that I've been here, I take it to my boss and say, "Are you going to reimburse me this year?" When I started, I made $62 a week before taxes. My father worked for General Motors, and he thought I needed to work there instead. He got me an interview, and they offered me a job as a secretary for the engineering department. I would have gone from $62 to $300 a week, plus all the GM benefits. I turned them down. My father, until his dying day at 97, never understood why. Even at that young age, I knew I wouldn't like working for a big company. I would rather work for a smaller company where I figured what I did mattered and they knew who I was. My bosses came to my wedding with their families. When I started work, I was the secretary, so I took shorthand, typed letters, filed, and answered questions. From the moment I walked in, I loved every aspect of it. I worked here for five years, and then I left because I got married, and my husband was in the Army. We went to Germany for two years, and I had my children. When they were a little older, I came back. My career grew as more women became our clients When one of our largest customers got a woman buyer, my boss went to meet with her. He came back and said, "I don't think we're going to get along very well. Why don't you go up?" I was scared to death, but I drove up there, and she and I hit it off. I've been in sales ever since, mostly because of the women coming into the workforce as buyers. I would walk into these factories because all the stuff that we sell is for factory workers, and the first couple of times, the mostly male staff would not be very friendly and would give me a terrible look. I started being able to talk to them and solve some of their problems, and then we were fine. There are a lot more women than when I first started. We were all secretaries, and we really weren't out there. But it was wonderful to see the women at this company evolve. I've only asked for a raise once, and it about killed me. My boss asked, "How much do you want?" I responded, and he said, "OK, done." I was flabbergasted. Face-to-face meetings have become less necessary The original people who started this company are all gone, but my boss is now the owner. They have treated me extremely well, even as they've grown. When I first got here, we had maybe 15 employees and one location. Now, we have three locations and almost 80 employees. My boss told me I could stay and do whatever I wanted for as long as I wanted. So, as long as I feel that I'm contributing, I will stay. The biggest change is the computer. Before then, we made very few long-distance calls because we were charged for each call. Everything went through the mail, so it took a lot longer. Now, I don't know how we would ever get along without it. It gives us so much more information. Before, we would have to go through all the files by hand. Now it's right at our fingertips. In some ways, I miss the old way of doing things. The other thing that's changed for me is that with email, people don't want to see you as much. All they want is for you to reply with an email. We were used to always going out and having face-to-face meetings. One time, one of my customers got married and was expecting a baby. I got a phone call and she said, "Can you come over to the hospital?" I hopped in my car and went over there, and I was with her husband, her mother, and her while she was in labor. When my husband and I went on a vacation, if I went near any of my customers, I would go to their plant and see where my products were in use. I would also see if they're buying things from other people that they could have bought from us. I still take trips to visit customers. I've been all over the place. Every time we went to a meeting, we probably met two or three new customers we never would have met otherwise. I've taken things to customers on weekends or after work. If a customer needs something and they're going to have a shutdown, we fly it in. One change I don't like is that a lot of the people I called on used to work in factories and got the chance to come into purchasing, and knew what they were buying. I don't see that so much anymore. When someone calls me up, they just give me an item's number. They probably have no idea what that item is, where it goes, how it's used, etc. People just want to send in an order, and that's it. I've also noticed that some people who don't have a college education don't often get the chance. A couple of the buyers that I worked with came right out of the factory, and they were good because they knew what they were buying. I'm 80, but have no plans to retire During the pandemic, they didn't want me in here at all, and I just kept coming in, and they kept sending me home. We were considered an essential company, so we never closed. I asked my boss if I could stay full-time, and he said fine, but I said I'd like to work a bit from home. I come into the office on Tuesdays and Thursdays, and the rest of the time, I work from home. Work keeps my mind going and gives me a purpose. I also would never want to disappoint the friends I've made here. I've walked four half-marathons, and I'm going to do another 10k this fall. I have six grandchildren who keep me busy. I crochet a lot and make baby hats and blankets for a charity helping expectant mothers. I also garden a lot and go out with my friends to dinner or the movies. I do have a husband and a home to take care of. Putting it all together, I don't sit down very much.
CNBC
an hour ago
- CNBC
'Tariff engineering' is making a comeback as businesses employ creative ways to skirt higher duties
Would you be bothered if your coat was officially classified as a windbreaker or a raincoat, or your shoes as slippers? Businesses do care though, as classifications under a preferred category can help them pay lower tariff rates. As U.S. President Donald Trump imposes duties on friends and foes alike, manufacturers are increasingly rethinking the classification of their products and resorting to "tariff engineering" to incur lower duties, several customs lawyers, supply chain and shipping experts told CNBC. Tariff engineering — a practice that precedes Trump — involves changing an item's materials, altering its dimensions or compositions so that the finished products can be justified to fit in a different "harmonized system code," legal experts said. Although most new tariffs added during Trump's second term are broad-based, the U.S. government has carved out exemptions for certain products, leaving doors open for companies to benefit through tariff engineering, trade lawyers pointed out. After Trump unveiled sweeping "reciprocal" tariffs in April, several overseas manufacturers moved to bundle steel and aluminum elements into their final products to qualify a lower 25% duty under Section 232, said David Forgue, a partner at Chicago law firm Barnes, Richardson & Colburn. Things, however, changed quickly in June as Trump jacked up tariffs on all steel, aluminum products and derivatives to 50%, except those from the U.K. "Now that the duties are reversed, we're now seeing companies remove those elements and ship them separately again," Forgue said. There is "nothing inherently illegal or even untoward about leveraging strategic design choices that result in creating different products that are subject to different tariff classification and duty rates," said John Foote, a customs lawyer at Kelley Drye & Warren in Washington D.C. "Tariff engineering is one of the few things you can do to try to get it right and reduce your duty liability." There are over 5,000 different product classification codes that U.S. customs authority uses while assessing tariffs. These tariff classifications were determined through decades of negotiations between governments and industry bodies, often varying by product category. Winnebago Industries, an American manufacturer of motorhomes, or recreational vehicle, said in its quarterly earnings call in March that it planned to "work with outside experts to develop and implement effective [tariff] mitigation strategies, including tariff engineering and deferrals." Aneel Salman, chair of economic security at Islamabad Policy Research Institute, described the act as "clever art of outsmarting customs," as importers and manufacturers tweak products "just enough" to qualify for lower duties. "I was talking to somebody recently and they were showing me their lapel pin," said Kelley Drye & Warren's Foote. The pin, tacked onto the person's suit, featured a "festive design" with pieces of cubic zirconia at the back, Foote said. The inclusion of cubic zirconia helped the company that manufactures those pins avert a 14% tariff, as the item no longer fell under festive article category but got classified as jewelry, Foote subsequently learnt. "The value attributable to the cubic zirconia was significant enough [and] it was a relatively easy manufacturing change," Foote said. The practice of tariff engineering can be traced back to 1882, when an importer coated sugar with molasses to avoid higher duties imposed on lighter-colored sugar. In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court ruled the act perfectly legal: "so long as the goods are truly invoiced and freely and honestly exposed to the officers of customs for their examination, no fraud is committed." Since then, companies, big and small, have continued to play chess with the U.S. tariff classification system, with several household names successfully implementing strategic product tweaks to save on tariff costs. For instance, Columbia Sportswear has never been shy about its use of tariff engineering. "I have a whole team of people that work together with designers and developers and merchandisers and with customs, and to ensure that during the design process that we're considering the impact of tariffs," Jeff Tooze, the company's vice president of global customs and trade, told Marketplace during Trump's first term. Among its alterations, the company added small zippered pockets below the waist on women's shirts, allowing them to be exempted from higher duties under the U.S. customs rules. Similarly, footwear maker Converse adds fuzzy-felt fabric on the soles of its signature All Stars sneakers, rather than the typical full-rubber one, to be categorized as slippers rather than athletic shoes, helping it cut tariff drastically. Snuggies, the fluffy blanket with sleeves imported mainly from China, nearly halved its tariff costs by winning a lawsuit in 2017 classifying it as a blanket, not an item of clothing. Fast-moving consumer good and garments, apparel and footwear sectors can find it relatively easy to implement tariff engineering, said Andrew Wilson, supply chain strategist at consultancy Supplino Inc. For more sophisticated and "heavily-regulated" sectors such as automotive, aerospace, electronics and medical devices, "it's especially challenging ... because even minor changes may require extensive validation and approval," Wilson said. "You might be looking at another 12 to 24 months of testing, certification and validation in order to get that done," Wilson added, as it requires extensive collaboration across departments including design, engineering and legal team. Companies have to tread a fine between between redesigning their products and fraudulently misrepresenting product classifications. A case in point illustrating the challenges with tariff engineering is Ford Motor. The automaker had for years imported its Transit Connect van as a passenger van, then removed the second row seats to sell them as cargo vans. In doing so, Ford circumvented a hefty 25% tariff and only paid a 2.5% import duty. The U.S. Justice Department said in its ruling last year that Ford was "misclassifying cargo vans" and that the back-row seats "were never intended to be, and never were, used to carry passengers." "The article must be a 'commercial reality' at importation. The risk is that customs [may] find the changes to be "fraud or artifice," [that case] the tariff engineering may be rejected,' said Forgue. "In some cases changing certain things about a product doesn't change the essential character of what the good is," said Derek Scarbrough, founder of Global Logistical Connections. "If you add something to a shopping cart, it's still a shopping cart," he added. U.S. Customs and Border Control has developed a so-called "binding ruling" system where companies can obtain official determinations on product classifications and HTS code before importing. Adam Lees, an attorney at law firm Harris Sliwoski, who has helped clients prepare such ruling letter requests, described it as "a way for companies to get CBP's official blessing" before shipment. For businesses, even "small percentage savings can be meaningful," Lees stated, as volumes shipped could be substantial.
2 hours ago
Firms led by US military veterans deliver aid in Africa and Gaza, alarming humanitarian groups
ON A PLANE OVER UPPER NILE STATE, South Sudan -- Swooping low over the banks of a Nile River tributary, an aid flight run by retired American military officers released a stream of food-stuffed sacks over a town emptied by fighting in South Sudan, a country wracked by conflict. Last week's air drop was the latest in a controversial development — private contracting firms led by former U.S. intelligence officers and military veterans delivering aid to some of the world's deadliest conflict zones, in operations organized with governments that are combatants in the conflicts. The moves are roiling the global aid community, which warns of a more militarized, politicized and profit-seeking trend that could allow governments or combatants to use life-saving aid to control hungry civilian populations and advance war aims. In South Sudan and Gaza, two for-profit U.S. companies led by American national security veterans are delivering aid in operations backed by the South Sudanese and Israeli governments. The American contractors say they're putting their security, logistics and intelligence skills to work in relief operations. Fogbow, the U.S. company that carried out last week's air drops over South Sudan, says it aims to be a 'humanitarian' force. 'We've worked for careers, collectively, in conflict zones. And we know how to essentially make very difficult situations work,' said Fogbow President Michael Mulroy, a retired CIA officer and former senior defense official in the first Trump administration, speaking on the airport tarmac in Juba, South Sudan's capital. But the U.N. and many leading non-profit groups say U.S. contracting firms are stepping into aid distribution with little transparency or humanitarian experience, and, crucially, without commitment to humanitarian principles of neutrality and operational independence in war zones. 'What we've learned over the years of successes and failures is there's a difference between a logistics operation and a security operation, and a humanitarian operation,' said Scott Paul, a director at Oxfam America. ''Truck and chuck' doesn't help people,' Paul said. 'It puts people at risk.' Fogbow took journalists up in a cargo plane to watch their team drop 16 tons of beans, corn and salt for South Sudan's Upper Nile state town of Nasir. Residents fled homes there after fighting erupted in March between the government and opposition groups. Mulroy acknowledged the controversy over Fogbow's aid drops, which he said were paid for by the South Sudanese government. But, he maintained: 'We don't want to replace any entity' in aid work. Fogbow was in the spotlight last year for its proposal to use barges to bring aid to Gaza, where Israeli restrictions were blocking overland deliveries. The United States focused instead on a U.S. military effort to land aid via a temporary pier. Since then, Fogbow has carried out aid drops in Sudan and South Sudan, east African nations where wars have created some of the world's gravest humanitarian crises. Fogbow says ex-humanitarian officials are also involved, including former U.N. World Food Program head David Beasley, who is a senior adviser. Operating in Gaza, meanwhile, Safe Reach Solutions, led by a former CIA officer and other retired U.S. security officers, has partnered with the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, a U.S.-backed nonprofit that Israel says is the linchpin of a new aid system to wrest control from the U.N., which Israel says has been infiltrated by Hamas, and other humanitarian groups. Starting in late May, the American-led operation in Gaza has distributed food at fixed sites in southern Gaza, in line with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's stated plan to use aid to concentrate the territory's more than 2 million people in the south, freeing Israel to fight Hamas elsewhere. Aid workers fear it's a step toward another of Netanyahu's public goals, removing Palestinians from Gaza in 'voluntary' migrations. Since then, several hundred Palestinians have been killed and hundreds more wounded in near daily shootings as they tried to reach aid sites, according to Gaza's Health Ministry. Witnesses say Israeli troops regularly fire heavy barrages toward the crowds in an attempt to control them. The Israeli military has denied firing on civilians. It says it fired warning shots in several instances, and fired directly at a few 'suspects' who ignored warnings and approached its forces. It's unclear who is funding the new operation in Gaza. No donor has come forward, and the U.S. says it's not funding it. In response to criticism over its Gaza aid deliveries, Safe Reach Solutions said it has former aid workers on its team with 'decades of experience in the world's most complex environments' who bring "expertise to the table, along with logisticians and other experts.' Last week's air drop over South Sudan went without incident, despite fighting nearby. A white cross marked the drop zone. Only a few people could be seen. Fogbow contractors said there were more newly returned townspeople on previous drops. Fogbow acknowledges glitches in mastering aid drops, including one last year in Sudan's South Kordofan region that ended up with too-thinly-wrapped grain sacks split open on the ground. After gaining independence from Sudan in 2011, South Sudan has struggled to emerge from a civil war that killed nearly 400,000 people. Rights groups say its government is one of the world's most corrupt, and until now has invested little in quelling the dire humanitarian crisis. South Sudan said it engaged Fogbow for air drops partly because of the Trump administration's deep cuts in U.S. Agency for International Development funding. Humanitarian Minister Albino Akol Atak said the drops will expand to help people in need throughout the country. But two South Sudanese groups question the government's motives. 'We don't want to see a humanitarian space being abused by military actors ... under the cover of a food drop," said Edmund Yakani, head of the Community Empowerment for Progress Organization, a local civil society group. Asked about suspicions the aid drops were helping South Sudan's military aims, Fogbow's Mulroy said the group has worked with the U.N. World Food Program to make sure 'this aid is going to civilians.' 'If it wasn't going to civilians, we would hope that we would get that feedback, and we would cease and desist,' Mulroy said. In a statement, WFP country director Mary-Ellen McGroarty said: 'WFP is not involved in the planning, targeting or distribution of food air-dropped' by Fogbow on behalf of South Sudan's government, citing humanitarian principles. Longtime humanitarian leaders and analysts are troubled by what they see as a teaming up of warring governments and for-profit contractors in aid distribution. When one side in a conflict decides where and how aid is handed out, and who gets it, 'it will always result in some communities getting preferential treatment,' said Jan Egeland, executive director of the Norwegian Refugee Council. Sometimes, that set-up will advance strategic aims, as with Netanyahu's plans to move Gaza's civilians south, Egeland said. The involvement of soldiers and security workers, he added, can make it too 'intimidating' for some in need to even try to get aid. Until now, Western donors always understood those risks, Egeland said. But pointing to the Trump administration's backing of the new aid system in Gaza, he asked: 'Why does the U.S. ... want to support what they have resisted with every other war zone for two generations?' Mark Millar, who has advised the U.N. and Britain on humanitarian matters in South Sudan and elsewhere, said involving private military contractors risks undermining the distinction between humanitarian assistance and armed conflict. Private military contractors 'have even less sympathy for a humanitarian perspective that complicates their business-driven model," he said. 'And once let loose, they seem to be even less accountable.' Knickmeyer reported from Washington. Mednick reported from Tel Aviv, Israel. ___
