So Eduardo Porter wrote this, where he lets John Bogle apparently say that passive investing could fix "the greater part" of America's retirement savings "shortage".
Then two of my internet buds, Noah Smith and Ryan Decker threw down.
Now if people are approaching retirement with $104,000 and we decide that they need $500,000 or more, then clearly active investing fees are not "the greater part" of the problem. I gotta give that one to Ryan.
But, just because people do things that we think are a problem, doesn't mean it's actually a problem or crisis. Maybe people want to enjoy stuff while they are young and are willing to deal with a lower standard of living when old. I gotta give that one to Noah.
All that said, in general and on average over the long run, people are going to be notably richer from going with the low fee, buy and hold, passive investing approach. Even though his quotes in the Porter piece were messed up, I gotta give that one to Bogle.