Former employees revealed new details with Business Insider about the Nvidia CEO's email communication style after insiders recently told The New Yorker that Huang's memos are like Japanese haiku.
Three former Nvidia workers said Huang's emails are usually concise, no more than six lines long, and he expects people to cut to the chase.
One likened it to a short "TL;DR type approach," meaning "too long; didn't read." The ex-Nvidia worker said: "It was explained early on that you have to get it down to a staccato type of email, and the whole company ran like this — not just Jensen."
A former Nvidia executive said it was a way to "foster the crystallization of priority and thought."
He told BI: "You'd get in trouble for sending a super-long email to him. Emails at Nvidia are double-spaced, one sentence per line, and probably no more than five or six lines."
He added: "The idea was to nail down what you have to say, send it, and if he, or others, need more information, then it's a conversation, not another email."
The former exec said identifying key points is essential to get people to pay attention. It's a useful communication technique that quickly summarizes complex topics, but may not come easily.
The people BI spoke to said "Nvidians" are expected to email Huang and their managers the top five priorities they're working on each week to help people focus.
Another person said these lists help Huang get a "quick pulse check" on what's happening across the company. It would sometimes lead to him suggesting employees from different departments or regions talk and collaborate on challenges.
The expectation for a well-crafted email is reminiscent of Jeff Bezos' six-page memo that Amazon staff circulate at the beginning of a meeting. Bezos has said that the memos are read in silence and serve as a way to better formulate ideas.
Nvidia declined to comment.
Do you work at Nvidia or have insights to share? Contact the reporter at jmann@businessinsider.comor via Signal at jyotimann.11
Negativity is a nonstarter for many bosses, Alvina Miller, a careers advisor at Career Success Australia, said.
"Persistent negativity can create a toxic work environment and affect team morale," she told BI. "Bosses appreciate solutions-oriented attitudes rather than ongoing complaints."
Sure, work can often be annoying, but instead of focusing on the frustrating aspects of a project, Miller said employees should calmly acknowledge the challenges and then offer streamlined solutions.
Nguyen Huy, founder of Hawaiin T-shirt company Trendy Aloha, offered similar sentiments, saying endless complaining can dampen a team's spirit.
So, next time you want to rant about work with your coworker, make sure the boss isn't within earshot.
2. Waiting to be told what to do
Bosses value proactive self-starters, career experts said. Conversely, employees who wait to be told what to do may appear to lack initiative.
"Don't wait to be given projects or told what to do — use your brain and figure out what needs to be done," Katherine Kirkinis, a career coach for Wanderlust Careers, said. "Create a plan, get permission to move forward, and do it."
Managers may become easily frustrated by employees who can't figure out how to spend their time, and a repeated lack of initiative could spark some bosses to start micromanaging, Kirkinis added.
Workplace experts said employees need to demonstrate early and often that they can identify problems, suggest fixes, and execute solutions.
"Instead of saying, 'What should I do next?' consider proposing a plan of action with, 'I've noticed we need to address X. Here's how I think we can tackle it'," Miller added.
3. Failing to follow up
Communication is key in the workplace.
"Not following up on tasks or updates can be a major source of frustration. It leaves managers in the dark and can disrupt workflow," Prerika Agarwal, founder and CEO of Inspiration Careers, said.
Kraig Kleeman, CEO of The New Workforce and founder of Z-Branding, said his company almost lost a client once because someone forgot to send a simple follow-up email, adding that follow-ups at his company are not just encouraged but expected.
Employees should provide regular updates, even when there's no significant progress. Keeping all parties informed is crucial to maintaining trust and transparency on a team, Agarwal added.
Finding a sweet spot between communicating too little and too much can be challenging. But Huy said he would almost always rather hear too much than be left in the dark.
micromanager boss using magnifying glass keep looking at employee working.
Nuthawut Somsuk/Getty Images
4. Asking too many questions
On the flip side, your boss probably doesn't want to hear from you too often. Employees should be mindful of how often they are asking their managers questions, workplace experts said.
While it's normal for new employees to need extra help, bosses appreciate people who can solve their own problems and who keep questions direct.
"No one is going to fire you for asking too many questions, but you may be perceived as anxious, lacking confidence, and unable to figure things out on your own," Kirkinis said.
Good managers understand that questions are a natural part of the learning process, Agarwal added, and the best bosses are patient in answering. However, employees can avoid annoying their managers by bundling questions rather than sending them one by one.
"This not only respects the manager's time but also shows that the employee is organized and considerate," she said.
5. Procrastinating
Time management is among the most valued employee skills, career experts said, and nothing irks a boss more than procrastination.
"Procrastination is like slow poison for productivity," Kleeman said. "When workers put off their tasks, it not only impacts how well they do but also pulls down the whole team."
Managers expect their employees to make effective use of their time, Stephen Greet, CEO and cofounder of BeamJobs, said. Even during downtime, employees can find ways to take on more work, participate in professional development activities, or look for ways to simply procedures and increase productivity, he added.
"Employees who are seen to be passing the time or doing non-work related things during downtime may come across as not being totally committed to their jobs or the success of the company," Greet said.
Ultimately, good employees need to do more than simply meet their deadlines, Kleeman said. They need to show they are dedicated and dependable.
6. Gossiping
No gossip is juicier than workplace gossip. Talking about your coworkers and colleagues scratches a primal itch. But bosses might not appreciate the backhanded chatter, career experts said.
"Some people use gossip as a way to bond, but gossip can be hurtful, especially in the workplace," Kirkinis said.
Melissa Meyers, a leadership and transition coach, said employees should never talk about their peers behind their backs. Embracing diversity of thought and people's disparate opinions is imperative to a well-functioning team, she added.
"If something is bothering you about another person you are working with, take it up with them first rather than involving your boss," Kirkinis said. "Eventually, if your boss needs to be involved, so be it, but try to work it out among yourselves."
Sabina Horrocks is looking to return to work after taking three years off to care for her daughter.
Sabina Horrocks
Sabina Horrocks plans to re-enter the workforce after her mini-retirement in a lower-stress role.
She and her husband achieved financial independence with a net worth near $2 million.
Many financially independent millennials are rejecting early retirement, seeking fulfilling work.
Sabina Horrocks, 41, recently stepped away from her six-figure managerial position to care for her young daughter. But after three years of mini-retirement, she's itching to return to work.
She and her husband have a net worth of just below $2 million, and both made similar incomes before she quit in 2021. Her husband has since doubled his income and has little intention of stopping, even though both could step away and retire early.
When her daughter enrolls in kindergarten soon, Horrocks said she will return to the workforce but not to the high-stress position she held. Instead, given the luxury to pursue her passions, she's considering financial coaching or planning as options.
"We didn't do anything extraordinary — I'd say the way we became millionaires is quite boring," she told Business Insider. "That's the thing I think most people don't understand. Becoming wealthy isn't hustles, dealmaking, and flash. It's discipline and consistency over time."
Many millennials who have achieved financial independence — where people have enough to cover expenses without relying on work — are rejecting the "retire early" part of the FIRE acronym. Some have tried out retirement but dislike the lack of structure, while others have stepped down from high-stress positions but have embraced more casual work. Some continue rising the ranks to teach their kids strong work ethics.
Discovering financial independence
Horrocks' parents came to the US in the 1970s and struggled to find work. She grew up lower-middle class in the outskirts of Chicago, and while she said her parents never had trouble putting food on the table, she lived a very modest lifestyle.
She got a scholarship for her first two years of college, though she regrets not getting a computer science or math degree. Her first job was with a union, which didn't pay well. She also met her husband young, and they married after both secured their first corporate jobs.
Right after their marriage, she said they were approached by a company trying to sell them financial services to help plan their financial futures. While they thought it was a scam at first, they realized this was a wake-up call to start reading up on how to plan for the next five, then 10 years. Their No. 1 change was saving much more of their income.
"I had never thought about our future financial goals. Nobody's ever really talked about in my house, aside from affording certain things," she said. "We were always trying to save, and my parents would go to four grocery stores on the weekends to save $3 on bread and eggs."
For instance, their first home was a one-bedroom, one-bath condo that cost $137,000, significantly smaller than the homes their friends in similar financial situations were purchasing. In the late 2000s, her husband said there was no reason to spend $350,000 on a condo in a city with tons of fees when they could get a larger home in the suburbs for half the price.
"My husband and I have always worked together as a team, and we've treated finances in our marriage like a business. We've always had transparency, goals, and shared effort," she said. "We treat income as household income, not mine or yours. I personally don't understand how marriages can survive with no transparency and a 'my' mentality."
After the housing bubble burst, their home lost $60,000 in value, and tenants rushed out of the building while others foreclosed. They were worried about what to do next, though they rented out the condo a few years later and purchased a townhome.
Strategies for achieving financial independence
After doing some reading, they decided to cut back on their costs. They sold one of their cars, purchased a modest home, and limited their spending on travel and nights out with friends. They also plowed money into investments such as ETFs and individual stocks early on.
She admits they initially went a little overboard with budgeting, such as pushing beauty salon visits to the next month so they didn't exceed their budget. She said it "created a monster" initially, though strict budgeting helped them stay on track to reach their longer-term goals.
They tried buying investment properties right after the bubble, and they acquired six condos for about $50,000 to $70,000 each. They made a $1,000 monthly profit from them, and she thought they would quit their jobs and do this full-time. Her husband hated it, though, and over time they eventually sold all their properties and put that money into retirement accounts.
She continued to work up the corporate ladder, learning more about data models, Excel, and languages like SQL. Early in her career, a major layoff axed nearly her entire department, and she and her husband continued to work "extremely hard" to have a cushion in case of layoffs.
In the 2010s, she bounced around a few companies as a sales operations manager, developing processes to improve efficiency and grow client bases. She also got an MBA, which her company helped pay for.
She made about $120,000 a year by the time she quit, similar to her husband. Over the years, she and her husband built a net worth upwards of $1 million, and she quit knowing that they would be fine in case of future layoffs or an emergency.
"I think work is not the goal. People get so career-driven, thinking they need to become vice presidents or become a manager to 30 people," she said. "To me, work is just work. What's important is your friends and having time to do the thing you really want to do."
She and her husband have a net worth of nearly $2 million. This includes about $1.16 million in retirement accounts, $460,000 in an after-tax brokerage account, $250,000 in home equity, $30,000 in an HSA, $25,000 in a 529, and $25,000 in savings.
Rejecting 'RE' and returning to work
After she had her baby, her husband took paternity leave while she returned to her managerial position. She recalled having eight hours of meetings one day that she had no desire to attend, and she decided that day to quit.
"I didn't want to be locked in a room for eight hours talking about how the website should be or picklist values when I could just be here with my baby," she said. "My husband was like, you can just quit. We have enough money coming in from rental properties, my husband was doing pretty well at his job, and I was work-optional."
They've become more relaxed about their spending and invest in meaningful experiences. Last month, she decided to go on a transatlantic cruise with her daughter and mom.
"We're at a point now where we're able to do things like that, and I think it was because, in our 20s, we made some big sacrifices," she said. "We had a small wedding, we lived in a small place, we've only had one car for most of our marriage."
Still, Horrocks thinks she's ready to return to the workforce. She no longer needs to strive for the highest-paying or most prestigious position, and she's considered becoming a financial coach to help people achieve their financial goals.
"I think a lot of Financial Advisors make finance complicated and don't make it transparent in a real everyday way," she said. "Also, a lot of financial advisors don't have their client's best interests at heart and aren't wealthy themselves."
She acknowledges she feels some imposter syndrome, questioning if people would listen to a stay-at-home mom, though she said she wants to help people become financially confident. She also hopes to continue writing for her blog, the Moneyaires.
"Who better to learn from than someone who has walked the walk?" she said.
Millions of Americans are trapped in their homes thanks to rising mortgage rates. But a genius rule lets Danish homeowners dodge the lock-in effect.
Getty Images; Alyssa Powell/BI
The typical home loan in America is a gift. It's also a trap.
Most US homeowners have loans that guarantee they'll pay the same amount each month for decades, regardless of inflation or the shifting winds of the economy. These are called 30-year fixed-rate mortgages, and they offer rare bright spots of certainty in the housing market's endless cycle of booms and busts. Lock in a favorable rate, and you're on the steady track to prosperity.
But these sweetheart deals can cause big problems. When mortgage rates shoot up, as they did over the past two years, many would-be sellers decide they don't want to move after all. Sure, a new home could be nice, but trading up would mean parting ways with a cheap mortgage rate. What may have been a welcome change suddenly sounds like a painful, expensive divorce. So they sit tight. A gummed-up housing market is good for nobody: First-time buyers can't find enough homes for sale, and wannabe sellers remain trapped in places that are either too big or too small. This is called the lock-in effect — and it could linger for decades.
"Unfortunately, we've known about the lock-in possibility for many, many years," John Campbell, a Harvard economist, told me. "But we didn't fix the roof while the sun was shining, and now it's raining."
Economists and housing wonks are obsessed with this uniquely American problem. One estimate suggests the lock-in effect prevented more than 1 million people from selling their homes in the span of just a year and a half, a steep toll considering about 5 million homes exchange hands in a typical year. I used to think of these golden handcuffs as an inevitable side effect of the magical 30-year fixed mortgage. But it doesn't have to be this way. The answer to our problems may lie thousands of miles away … in Denmark.
Many homeowners in Denmark, like their American counterparts, enjoy 30-year fixed-rate mortgages. But thanks to a quirk of their housing-finance system, Danish sellers are able to earn a profit when they trade in their low mortgage rates for more-expensive ones, making it easier to move even when rates rise. As a result, the Danes dodge the lock-in effect entirely.
Implementing a similar system in the US would require an overhaul of our mortgage market and would almost surely be met with lots of foot-dragging from regulators and investors. But the alternative — twiddling our thumbs until the next Housing Ice Age — is far worse. Maybe it's time we take a page out of the Scandinavian playbook instead.
Buyers may remember the pandemic-era housing market for its worst qualities: the bidding wars, the late-night doomscrolling on Zillow, the smug investors bragging on TikTok about how many homes they flipped that month. But regular house hunters scored a pretty good deal in at least one respect: Home loans were outrageously cheap. The typical 30-year mortgage rate plummeted to a record low of about 2.65% in late 2020, according to Freddie Mac. Existing homeowners pounced on the opportunity, too, refinancing their mortgages to get new loans with cheaper rates.
As the Federal Reserve began pushing up borrowing rates in the spring of 2022, hoping to reel in rising inflation, mortgage rates went vertical. Rates doubled in less than a year, with the typical rate nearing 8% in October, a 20-year high. Rates have fallen a little since then, but they're still hovering at about 7%. In the grand scheme of things, that's not crazy at all — buyers who bought homes in the early '80s may recall rates closer to 18%. But for buyers and homeowners who got used to rock-bottom rates in the decade after the financial crisis, the reversal was chilling.
A recent working paper from the Federal Housing Finance Agency estimated that the lock-in effect prevented 1.3 million home sales between mid-2022 and the end of 2023. The vast majority of US mortgages have fixed rates — about 96% at the end of last year — and 63% of those had rates below 4%. The agency estimated that with rates at about 7%, these homeowners would pay roughly $500 more each month on their mortgage if they got a new rate on a house of the same value. If you do a little convoluted math to figure out what all those extra payments would be worth in today's dollars, it'd be like taking $60,000 and lighting it on fire, according to the FHFA's calculations.
Even if rates were to fall to 6% or 5.5%, "you're still going to have people who are not going to move, who are not going to give up their house forever, basically," Will Doerner, an economist at the FHFA and a coauthor of the paper, told me. "It's going to take a heck of a change for them to ever want to get rid of those mortgages."
OK, so maybe you're not shedding any tears on behalf of these homeowners sitting on piles of equity and their sweet, sweet mortgage rates. But the lock-in effect warps the entire housing market. Fewer sellers means buyers compete for a smaller pool of available homes, driving up prices and locking out many first-time and low-income buyers. It means many people who want to move — to find a better job, start a family, upgrade, or downsize — don't have that option. A once theoretical hang-up has turned into a massive headache.
Unfortunately, we've known about the lock-in possibility for many, many years. But we didn't fix the roof while the sun was shining, and now it's raining.
These golden shackles are a problem only in America. In Canada, the UK, or Australia, you can get a loan with a fixed rate for maybe five or 10 years, but then it'll adjust periodically to match the swings in the economy. Homeowners in these countries may not have to grapple with the same lock-in effect, but their monthly budgets get hit when borrowing rates go up.
Then there's Denmark, the only other country in which similar 30-year fixed-rate mortgages are widely available — more than half of Danish borrowers have them. And just as they have in the US, rates for those mortgages have risen sharply. Over the course of 2022, the typical rate for a 30-year mortgage in Denmark climbed by roughly 4 percentage points, the largest jump in 40 years. But Denmark's housing-finance system is almost perfectly designed to shield it from the lock-in effect. And it's all thanks to a bit of financial magic known as covered bonds.
I really wish these things had sexier names, because if 30-year-fixed mortgages are gifts to homeowners, then covered bonds are straight-up miracles. Here's how they work: When a bank gives a mortgage to a homebuyer, it creates matching bonds that it sells to investors. The bank gets cash to extend more loans, and the owners of these covered bonds get a steady stream of payments from the people paying back the mortgage. The value of the bonds, and therefore the value of the underlying mortgages, rises and falls like any other asset traded in the financial markets. When borrowing rates for new mortgages go up, the value of bonds tied to older, cheaper mortgages goes down — in the eyes of investors hungry for higher returns, a loan that pays 7% interest is worth more than one that pays only 3%. This does not mean, however, that the value of the actual house has dropped; even if bond investors aren't as keen on the underlying loan, there may be plenty of regular buyers who still want the house. So far, this system of pooling together mortgage bonds and selling them to investors is pretty close to the American way of doing things. The real magic happens later, when it comes time to settle up.
When US homeowners pay off their mortgages, they have only one option: pony up the amount left on the loan. But when Danish homeowners pay off their mortgages, they have two choices: pay back the balance of their home loan, same as Americans, or pay the market value, which is the amount their covered bonds would trade for on the open market. If interest rates go up and the value of those bonds falls below the amount remaining on their loan, it becomes cheaper for the Danes to pay off their mortgages.
Here's an example in dollars: Let's say the face value of a mortgage, or the amount a homeowner would have to pay to get rid of it, is $500,000. But then interest rates rise by, say, 4 percentage points. In the US, this turn of events would trap many homeowners in their house; they would have to not only pay back the $500,000 but get a new mortgage with higher interest payments. In the Danish model, the same situation could work out in the homeowner's favor. That's because as general interest rates rise, the market value of the covered bonds, and therefore the underlying mortgage, drops. So instead of having to pay back the entire mortgage, the Danish homeowner could go out and buy back matching bonds for, let's say, $400,000. If they sell their home for $700,000, they get to pocket $300,000 instead of only $200,000 (not including pesky fees, of course).
This lucky Danish homeowner may have to turn around and buy another home with a higher rate, sure, but the profit from paying back their loan at its market value gives them a buffer to do so. Danes don't even have to sell their house to unlock their savings — they can choose to refinance. In that case, they would have to borrow only $400,000 instead of $500,000 to pay off the original loan. Again, the interest rate on the new loan is higher, but the principal balance is lower, so the monthly payments would stay roughly the same.
In essence, Danes reap all the rewards when rates go up and face none of the downside risks when rates fall. Their mortgages are also assumable, which means sellers can hand off their loans to qualifying buyers. As a result, Danish homeowners don't cling to their low-rate mortgages the way Americans do. Their setup "eliminates the lock-in effect," Campbell told me.
While the Danish system may seem complex, it's not totally absurd to think we could adopt something similar here. It would take a lot of work: overhauls of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, a massive education campaign for consumers, and maybe even an act of Congress. It's not as if you can just wave a wand and grant homeowners permission to start paying back their mortgages at market value — the existing contracts explicitly lay out the repayment terms, and mortgage bonds are bundled together here in a way that makes it impossible to pluck one out of the pool as they do in Denmark.
Anything that gives consumers protection from rising interest rates would come at a cost, too. Banks would demand borrowers pay higher interest rates from the start of their loans, Jesper Berg, the former director of the Danish Financial Supervisory Authority, told me. Danish mortgage rules are stricter in other ways that favor the lender: Borrowers are required to put down 20% of the home's price, and foreclosures are speedy thanks to a more creditor-friendly legal system.
I just think it's a more efficient system that will prevent problems for both individual borrowers who get stuck and for the economy as a whole.
But there's still a way forward. There is some precedent for sweeping changes to mortgages — think back to the financial crisis in the mid-2000s, when the government instituted massive programs like HARP to help underwater homeowners refinance their mortgages. It required investor buy-in and lots of rule changes to rework existing loan terms, but it showed a willingness to adapt in dire circumstances.
Campbell isn't some starry-eyed dreamer who thinks we can snuff out these issues overnight. Embracing the Danish approach to mortgages would require much bigger changes than the recession-era programs, and mortgage reform tends to move at a glacial pace. But the lock-in effect is the kind of intractable problem that demands big solutions. The Danish model combines the best of the US mortgage market — the stability, the cost savings for homeowners — with consumer protections to ensure they're not held hostage by those same perks. The Danes can move around during times when it would make little financial sense for US borrowers to do so. That's not just good for buyers or sellers or mortgage loan officers — it's good for everyone.
"I just think it's a more efficient system that will prevent problems for both individual borrowers who get stuck," Campbell told me, "and for the economy as a whole, which suffers when people get locked in."
James Rodriguez is a senior reporter on Business Insider's Discourse team.
A New Mexico guaranteed basic income program offered immigrant and undocumented households across the state $500 a month for a year.
Sean Pavone / Getty Images
New Mexico's basic income pilot provided $500 monthly to 330 immigrant households.
Pandemic relief excluded many immigrants, leading to economic hardship for undocumented families.
The pilot showed improved employment and education outcomes for participants.
New Mexico's basic income pilot set out to fill a gap in America's financial safety net: many immigrants aren't able to access help.
Pandemic-era relief was largely restricted to US citizens, leaving undocumented households and families with mixed citizenship status without stimulus, rental assistance,or unemployment checks.
With growing economic need, community leaders in New Mexico decided to try a different strategy — no-strings-attached cash payments.
"Mixed-status immigrant families don't always enjoy the same public benefits that other families and workers do because of their status," Marcela Díaz, executive director of economic justice organization Somos Un Pueblo Unido, told Business Insider."What does it look like for them to have an extra $500 a month? How does it affect food security, their health, their well-being, and educational outcomes?"
Beginning in February 2022, the guaranteed income program served 330 mixed-immigration status households. Participants received $500 a month, no strings attached, for a full year. Fifty randomly selected households had their payments extended for an additional six months.
The New Mexico Economic Relief Working Group — a coalition of community organizations and nonprofits, including Somos Un Pueblo Unido, New Mexico Voices for Children, and UpTogether — administered the program, and funding came from private donors and philanthropy.
The pilot joins the ranks of over 100 basic income pilots that have launched across the US since 2019. In contrast to traditional social services, the programs allow families to choose how they spend the money. Participants have told BI they have used cash payments to pay rent, afford groceries, pay off debt, and support their families.
New Mexico's program is among the first basic income programs to operate at the state level and to specifically serve immigrant households.
The pilot's success has also provided momentum for future basic income programs in the region. A new state-funded pilot cash program for people enrolled in workforce training programs passed in the New Mexico House in February. The $1 million project, which seeks approval in the state Senate, would help participants cover housing, food, and transportation for three years.
"People use the money to feed themselves and to keep a roof over their head," Javier Rojo, senior research and policy analyst with New Mexico Voices for Children and author of the pilot report, told BI. "They use it very wisely to put themselves in a better position economically in the future."
With basic income, participants saw improved employment and education outcomes
The New Mexico pilot served mixed-status households in 13 counties across the state. The program's state-level scope allowed participants in both rural and urban areas to benefit.
Almost all pilot participants were families with children. Ninety-five percent reported having to use household savings to pay bills, 85% reported beinghousing insecure, and 74% lacked health insurance.
Before the pilot began,participants in rural areas experienced higher housing and food insecurity than urban participants but also saw better employment incomes after the program concluded. Basic income reduced the amount of urban participants who skipped basic necessities to pay for housing by 13% by the end of the pilot.
The children of participants were also more likely to be learning at their grade level and on track to graduate than before the basic income.
A woman in Doña Ana County also said her job security improved because she was able to buy a cell phone.
"I clean houses. At the beginning of the pandemic, I didn't have a phone, so it was very difficult for me to connect with potential clients," she told researchers, "With the help of my new phone, I've been able to set up more appointments and create a more stable work schedule."
Republican legislatures continue to seek to ban basic income across the US, saying it will make low-income Americans too reliant on government assistance.
Rojo, however, said the New Mexico pilot results show that participants became more active in the labor market with the support of cash payments. Some families reported using their basic income to secure the transportation or childcare they needed to support a full-time work schedule.
Going forward, he would like to continue seeing basic income used at the city, state, and federal level to support low-income families.
"People know best what their needs are and people know how to use their money to better themselves," he said. "Trust them."
Have you benefitted from a guaranteed basic income program? Are you open to sharing how you spent the money? If so, reach out to this reporter at allisonkelly@businessinsider.com.
Most Gen Zers prefer in-person or hybrid work setups over fully remote work.
For some young workers, having flexibility in their jobs is nearly as important as how much they get paid.
In a survey of Gen Zers in the US by the career platform iHire, 81.3% said choice over "when, where, and how" they would do a job was either "extremely" or "very" important.
That was nearly in line with the 82.2% who said having a potential employer offer a "fair and competitive" salary was either extremely or very important.
The survey involved nearly 1,100 Gen Zers and took place in March and April.
The findings highlight what's a priority for some among the youngest slice of the labor force. That matters, in part, because Gen Zers are likely to overtake boomers in terms of full-time US workers in 2024. While finding desk jobs is harder for some people than a few years ago, some employers are still struggling to find workers.
The office looks good
Unlike some older workers, a majority of young people appeared eager to head into the office, according to the survey. Nearly 56% of Gen Zers said they wanted to work in person all the time, and about one in four wanted a hybrid setup. Only about 18% wanted to work remotely full time.
Other surveys have shown the desire for an in-person connection. In late 2023, Seramount, a professional services and research firm, interviewed workers from various generations. As Business Insider previously reported, nearly three-quarters of Gen Zers told Seramount they preferred a hybrid setup. But only about half of the workers in older generations said the same.
That approach — in the office some days and at home on others — appears to be the routine many companies have adopted.
Being for four days
Another type of flexibility young people said was a priority — even more than unlimited paid time off and remote work — was having a four-day workweek. Some employers in recent years have conducted experiments with working four, eight-hour days for the same pay as five days. Other employers have tried the 4-and-a-half-day workweek.
In the survey, nearly 59% of Gen Zers said they preferred flex time. About 45% said a four-day workweek was a top draw. And about four in 10 said unlimited PTO was a priority; nearly 38% said the same about working remotely.
The survey also highlighted hurdles some young people say they could face in landing a role. One in three Gen Z respondents said negative stereotypes about their generation would hurt their job search or career advancement in the next year.
Among more than 250 employers iHire surveyed, some respondents complained about some young people having a sense of entitlement, unrealistic expectations, or insufficient office etiquette.
The survey respondents also generalized about young people being "tech savvy" and "socially conscious."
Stacie Haller, the chief career advisor at Resume Builder, previously told BI that generational badmouthing in the workplace is nothing new.
In a recent Resume Builder survey, about one-third of hiring managers said they didn't want to bring in young workers or those who are older.
"Every generation gets talked about. The millennials, at one point, were entitled. Nobody wanted to hire them," Haller said. "And now they're the age group that's biased against everybody else."
Grace Ryu often takes selfies with her dad when they pass each other at work in the same hospital.
Courtesy of Grace Ryu
Grace Ryu helped her 60-year-old dad get a job at her workplace when he retired as a business owner.
Ryu vouched for her dad and sat with him during his Zoom job interview to translate.
It's the first time her dad ever received health insurance through an employer and a 401(k).
My dad owned a wide variety of businesses. We grew up in Maryland, where he ran a mini-mart in downtown Baltimore. Many Koreans owned liquor stores and mini-marts back in the 1990s, and when my dad talks about that business, he says those were the good days when he made a lot of money.
He worked every day from Sunday through Saturday and only took time off for one weekend in the summer when we went on a family trip to Ocean City. He even worked every holiday.
Because he worked a lot, I don't have too many childhood memories with him. But I do remember that every night after work, he'd go into his room, take out all the money he earned that day, and count it all before dinner time. I thought, "Wow, my dad is so rich."
Ryu with her dad as a child.
Courtesy of Grace Ryu
My mom told me that he works hard so that he can take care of our whole family, which includes our grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins. Of course, I didn't understand the kind of burden that was at the time — I was only 6 years old — but I just knew whatever my dad was doing was super important.
My dad owned many businesses
My dad moved us from Baltimore to California for better business opportunities in 2001, when I was 9 years old, but it was harder out here than it was in Maryland. He owned a dry cleaning business for a few years, but that was more of a struggle than owning a mini-mart, with more work and less revenue.
He eventually moved on to owning a small deli shop with the help of his brother. He did this, alongside my mom, for 16 years. My dad worked the grill and made the hot dishes while my mom took customer orders and packed the food.
In 2021, a little after the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, their lease was coming to an end. They had two options: either renew it for another five years or sell the business and find something else to do.
My parents chose to sell because I was pregnant, and they wanted to be close to their future grandkids.
I vouched for my dad at my job
My dad told me that he still wanted to work after he sold the lease. He wasn't ready to retire — mostly for financial reasons.
He talked about working with my cousin in a dental lab or doing transportation for the elderly, but those jobs either required him to learn a whole new skill or get some type of license. He's been in the food industry for the last 16 years, and while my dad is sharp for a 60-year-old, I didn't think a big career pivot was the right move for him.
That's when I thought he could get a job working in the kitchen at the hospital where I worked. I talked to the manager of food services at my hospital and asked if they'd give my dad a job in the kitchen. I vouched for my dad and explained to the manager the different skill sets he picked up from owning all his businesses.
Whatever I said worked because my dad landed the job. He had a formal Zoom interview, which I attended to help with any translation. We were thrilled — the job came with benefits, so for the first time, my dad was receiving health insurance through an employer and signing up for a 401(k).
At first, helping my dad at work was challenging
As ecstatic as we were about him getting this job, going through the onboarding was a beast. He's lived in America for 36 years, yet his English was barely at an elementary reading level. This was mostly because my mom took on most of the administrative work when it came to the business. She was the one who talked to the customers, vendors, and inspectors while my dad hid in the back, cleaning and doing whatever else my mom needed him to do.
Ryu's mom and dad standing outside their deli in California.
Courtesy of Grace Ryu
A big part of me was relieved I'd be close by to help him if he had any questions since I knew the hospital and how it worked. I knew helping my dad navigate through the hospital's system wouldn't be a problem, but being the middleman between him and others was difficult.
The language barrier was one thing, but the other challenge was his unfamiliarity with modern technology — he has never owned or used a computer in his life and struggles to even use his smartphone.
I had to fill out all of his onboarding paperwork since it was all online, and he couldn't be placed on some of the easier jobs, like taking orders for patients or administrative work. He was placed in the kitchen, where he plates patients' trays for mealtimes and does the dishes.
He wanted to quit after a few days
Working at the hospital was the first time my dad had a boss other than himself, and I think he might've felt looked down on because of it. Many traditional Korean men pride themselves on owning their own businesses and making a lot of money.
The first few days of work were the hardest for my dad, so hard that he wanted to quit. The language barrier, the cultural differences, and the technological illiteracy all became too much for him to handle.
I never pressured him to stay because I knew this job would be challenging for him. I told him I'd support him if he decided to quit, but my hope was that he would stay so that I could help him out with whatever problems came his way since we were in the same building.
It took him two months to feel comfortable at his job, and he absolutely loves it now. In fact, he loves work so much that he picks up extra shifts. He's learned more English so he can voice his concerns and ask questions to his supervisor, and he's always so excited to introduce me to his coworkers even though he's already introduced them to me before.
I love working with my dad
When I have a shift on the same day as my dad, I like to visit him in the kitchen. One day, on my way out, I looked back and saw my dad doing the dishes — and I wanted to cry. He was all wet, and seeing him do such a hard and thankless job broke my heart. The only reason I knew my dad was OK was because of how he looks as he works: he's always smiling with so much enthusiasm and joy.
In the 30 years I've seen him work, his demeanor and work ethic have never changed. Whether stocking groceries, ironing clothes in 100-degree weather, or making a big order of 100 breakfast burritos at 4 a.m., he never complains. He's taught me to do all things with joy, especially in my workplace.
Ryu and her dad taking a selfie.
Courtesy of Grace Ryu
I love the days I get to take breaks with my dad. We sit in the cafeteria and talk about how work is going, if there are things he needs me to do, or our family dinner plans. Ever since my dad started working with me, I've documented our time together. I always want to film myself watching him at work.
People in the hospital probably think I'm crazy for taking selfies with my dad and filming myself saying hi to him, but honestly, I don't care because I'm so insanely proud of him. He's my role model and the most hardworking and happiest person I know. I love working with my dad.
Grace Ryu is a registered nurse also studying to be a family nurse practitioner. She's a wife and new mom and loves spending time with her family in her free time.
Jean Kang left a successful career in Big Tech to pursue entrepreneurship full-time in February.
Kang enjoyed the perks of the industry but felt overwhelmed by the hustle culture and mental strain.
Now she enjoys the freedom of setting her own schedule as a content creator and career coach.
This as-told-to essay is based on a conversation with Jean Kang, a 31-year-old senior programmer who's worked at Meta, Pinterest, Intuit, LinkedIn, and Figma in San Francisco. It's been edited for length and clarity.
I always wanted to work in Big Tech, and when I graduated from college, I made it happen.
From sales to account management, customer success, and program management, I pivoted more than seven times and landed dream roles at Intuit in 2014, Meta at the beginning of 2017, Pinterest at the end of 2017, and LinkedIn in 2020.
For the last two and a half years, I was a strategic program manager at Figma, earning over $300,000 a year in total compensation.
I accomplished my dream, but I decided to give it all up.
Working in Big Tech has lots of perks
I loved learning how each of these big companies operated. It was amazing to see world-class people build teams and always be on the cutting edge of technology like AI and machine learning. I was always fascinated, learning something new, and having fun.
My favorite company I worked for was Figma because I had it all — kind bosses, fun projects, amazing products, and growth opportunities.
I was spoiled with tech benefits in every role — great pay, free food, remote work, gym memberships, massages, and more. At LinkedIn, we had monthly InDay, where employees take the day to focus on themselves, the company, and the world. At Pinterest and Meta, there was free breakfast, lunch, dinner, drinks, and snacks.
I have to admit, the perks started to get to my head. I wanted more and more and never felt truly satisfied. I left companies for the next opportunity if I didn't feel aligned with my bosses or the work culture, or felt underpaid. Other times, I chose to leave to put my family first, like when I became the primary caretaker for my mother.
My mental health was impacted
I felt pressure to do things fast and navigate red tape. I often waited for approval from senior leadership, and it could take a few months to launch a project.
The hustle culture felt overwhelming at times. The pressure to beat the competition and overdeliver was stressful. I would work up to 12-hour days and on weekends. My life became my work, and accepting that I let work define me was difficult.
I realized I was just making big companies more money. It got to a point where I thought to myself, why am I working so late when I'm not curing cancer?
It felt like I was in an elusive Silicon Valley club — almost like "Mean Girls." The people around me would only talk about other tech companies and tech advancements and only hang out with other tech workers. I didn't feel like I belonged.
I knew when it was time to go
After a round of layoffs in January 2023, many of us were humbled. I realized that tech was no longer safe, I was replaceable, and I needed to invest in what truly mattered — my well-being, family, and relationships.
I'd been juggling a few side hustles in the evenings after work for over a year, and they changed my life. After getting a taste of entrepreneurship while working my 9-to-5, I couldn't help but wonder, what if I went all in on myself? If other people can do it, why can't I?
I decided to quit in February. My biggest fear was failing, but I knew I'd regret not betting on myself and could always land another job after I tried this. I did have savings, but what gave me peace was knowing I could lean on my husband for support.
My side hustles led to becoming a content creator and career coach full-time.
Since leaving Big Tech, I feel like a new person
I'm so much happier now. I used to have really bad Sunday scaries, and they disappeared overnight. I no longer have anxiety — I used to think about work all the time, and now, I sleep peacefully knowing I don't have to please anyone but myself.
I love working remotely as my own boss instead of in an office for someone else. It's incredibly liberating to work wherever and whenever I want. The flexibility is now a non-negotiable for me.
Freedom is another huge perk of my new life. After leaving my job, I took two weeks off with my husband to travel to Japan and Korea, and it was the best trip ever. I felt liberated knowing I wouldn't return to work, anxiously thinking about how much work awaited me.
I now choose what projects make me happy and don't give myself too much pressure to succeed. I work 30 to 40 hours and some weekends now, but not because I have to — I want to.
The success I've had so far is encouraging to me
I thought I wanted to give myself one year to test being an entrepreneur. If I had realized this life wasn't meant for me and craved stability beyond the money, I would've considered returning to a 9-to-5 job.
Instead, I'm on track to exceed six figures by the end of 2024, I've grown my LinkedIn into a huge, supportive community, landed multiple five-figure brand deals, gained many clients, and sold out my career cohort.
I miss working with smart and kind people and having steady pay with great benefits, but the benefits of my freedom outweigh all of those perks. I'm building the life of my dreams. This is freedom.
More and more "forever renters" are giving up on buying a home or choosing not to own one.
Renters have more flexibility and avoid ownership costs but aren't building home equity.
We asked four experts why the trend is on the wise — and whether it's a shrewd move.
Owning a home has been the keystone of the American dream for generations, but a growing number of people expect to rent one their entire lives.
These "forever renters" vary widely in their reasons for not pursuing home ownership.
Some have simply given up on buying a home due to affordability, as house prices have climbed to record levels, mortgage rates have surged to multi-decade highs, and saving for a down payment has become unfeasible as living costs soar. Others prefer the flexibility to move and freedom from ownership costs that renters enjoy.
Homeownership and renting have numerous pros and cons, making it hard to say whether forever renters are acting shrewdly or making a big mistake.
Business Insider asked four experts to weigh in on the trend. Here are their comments, lightly edited for length and clarity:
1. Grant Wilson, assistant professor of marketing and innovation, University of Regina
"There is a misconception that all renters can't afford to purchase a home or condo. In fact, there is a growing trend toward individuals and families choosing to rent versus buy. Some rent-versus-buy decisions reflect larger market conditions such as inflation, interest rates, and downpayment requirements, but certainly not all.
"My research finds that lifestyle renters — those that choose to rent over buy — 'perceive renting to have affordability, flexibility, location, and limited liability benefits over home ownership.'"
2. Eunjee Kwon, assistant professor of real estate, University of Cincinnati
"Home ownership is important because rent payments do not build equity, and there is always the potential for rent increases, making renting less affordable over time. Renters also face less stability due to eviction or non-renewal risks, especially in major US cities.
"However, renting could offer several advantages over homeownership. It provides greater flexibility for relocation, which is beneficial for younger adults seeking job opportunities. Renters avoid large down payments and the varying costs of homeownership, such as mortgage payments, taxes, maintenance, and repairs. Additionally, real estate is a less liquid asset and a large portion of household assets, exposing households to market fluctuations."
3. David Brasington, Kautz chair in political economy, University of Cincinnati
"The historical return to homeownership over the last 50 years in the US is about 4% per year, and the average return to stock ownership over the same time is 10%. On the surface, stock ownership is a no-brainer, but stock returns are more volatile, and the biggest return to home ownership is that you get your rent back when you sell the house: it's like living there rent-free.
"But then you have to calculate all the costs of owning a home, like maintenance and repair, lawn upkeep, insurance, and so forth. There's also a question of financing. To rent, you have to come up with monthly rent plus a deposit. To buy, you have to come up with a down payment of 20%. It's also cheaper to change the place you're renting than the place you're buying because of real-estate agent fees."
4. Colin Lizieri, professor of real estate finance, University of Cambridge
"In the Anglosphere, there seems an unspoken assumption that owner-occupation is the 'natural' form of housing tenure — the 'American dream' of owning a house and a car — that is reinforced in the media and reflected in public policy.
"But in other successful Western economies, many adults remain in rental housing for much or all of their lives: Germany or Switzerland, for example, where over half of households rent, with a much higher proportion in cities.
"If markets were efficient, then households would be able to choose freely between renting and buying, with the lower capital costs and greater mobility of the former set against any investment potential of the latter. Housing affordability is essentially about supply, not tenure."
An age-old question
Forever renters, whether they've been priced out of buying a home or they're choosing to rent for the long run, stand to lose by handing cash to their landlord each month. They could be paying down a mortgage to gradually gain ownership of a home, which they would likely be able to sell for a profit or pass on to their loved ones.
Renters often have less control and certainty over their living situation as well. But at the same time, they can more easily pick up and move; they avoid a massive downpayment and tying up a huge chunk of their net worth in a single asset; they escape ownership costs like maintenance and insurance; and they might be more able to save and invest each month and earn better returns than a homeowner.
The right option clearly depends on personal and financial circumstances and goals, and people's local rental and housing markets.
But it's worth questioning whether home ownership should hold such primacy in people's minds and propel the nation's housing policies when that isn't the case in other countries.
Government incentives can drive up housing demand far beyond the available supply, pushing up prices and exacerbating the affordability crisis. That's a concern that should live rent-free in all our minds.
A few years ago, Nathaniel Hudson-Hartman, 38, calculated that he'd need about $1.5 million in savings to retire comfortably in his sixties.
"I was making roughly $50,000 a year between my W-2 job and gig work, and I hope to enjoy retirement for about 30 years," he said.
As of March, the Portland-based gig driver had roughly $100,000 in his 401(k) from a previous job and about $12,000 across other savings and investment accounts.
In other words, he still has a ways to go.
The average millennial said they expected to need about $1.7 million in savings to retire comfortably, according to a Northwestern Mutual survey of 4,588 US adults conducted by the Harris Poll between January 3 and January 17. However, the average millennial reported roughly $63,000 in retirement savings so far.
Meanwhile, the Census Bureau's 2022 survey of consumer finances found that only about 62% of Americans between the ages of 35 and 44 had a retirement account like a 401(k), and among those who did, the median balance was $45,000.
!function(){“use strict”;window.addEventListener(“message”,(function(a){if(void 0!==a.data[“datawrapper-height”]){var e=document.querySelectorAll(“iframe”);for(var t in a.data[“datawrapper-height”])for(var r=0;r<e.length;r++)if(e[r].contentWindow===a.source){var i=a.data["datawrapper-height"][t]+"px";e[r].style.height=i}}}))}();
A common rule of thumb when it comes to retirement savings is that by age 30, one should have saved up 100% of what they make in a year. So if one earns a $75,000 salary at 30, they should have $75,000 in total across their savings, retirement accounts, and other assets. While millennials will need more money to retire comfortably, many are far away from the savings milestone experts suggest.
However, millennials have their own unique set of obstacles compared to boomers. Millennials are more saddled with student debt than prior generations and face some of the worst housing affordability levels relative to income ever seen. What's more, the future of the US Social Security system is uncertain, and longer expected lifespans — while a positive development — will require more retirement savings.
How to figure out how much retirement savings you need
Tiffany Bell, a 36-year-old business management professional based in Houston, didn't always take retirement savings seriously.
When she was 23, she said she didn't participate in her company's 401(k) plan. But after about a year of "chastising" from one of her supervisors, she said she finally gave in.
"Their harping significantly changed the course of my life over the next decade," she told Business Insider.
Over the past 10 years, Bell said she's meticulously tracked her budget and focused on saving. She now has roughly $280,000 in savings and retirement accounts.
That's way ahead of many of her peers, but it might not be enough.
Bell would like to retire around age 65 but isn't sure this will be possible.Using the NerdWallet retirement calculator, she estimated she'd need several million dollars in savings to retire comfortably. Assuming a 4% annual investment return on her $280,000 savings, she'd have about $900,000 in 30 years, her target retirement date. She'd have to invest an additional $40,000 each year to get to $3 million in savings by age 65.
Initially, she put into the calculator that she'd need 80% of her annual pre-retirement income — which is currently in the six figures — to maintain her lifestyle in retirement. But when the calculator spit out a savings goal of over $6 million — which felt impossible — she tried 40% instead. This provided a $3 million savings goal, which she said still felt out of reach, but is a more realistic goal for now.
"Ideally, I'd like to overshoot the target and actually have something to pass down to family," she said. "But it is depressing to think I might not even be able to save enough for myself."
Fidelity recommends that people plan to need between 55% and 80% of their annual pre-retirement income to fund a retirement lifestyle they're satisfied with, though it depends on one's personal circumstances.
While saving for retirement can be a challenge, developing retirement savings goals — and figuring out if they're realistic — is a crucial yet complicated part of the process.
For example, the suggestion that people should have saved 100% of their salary by age 30, has many issues, experts say. One of them is that people don't always start working at the same point in their 20s, said Chris Chen, a certified financial planner and cofounder of financial advisory firm Insight Financial Strategists.
"A lot of the time, when kids graduate from college, not very long thereafter, there might be graduate school, and that's going to put a dent in their style," Chen told Business Insider. "And for these people, getting to the level of one-times earnings can be very difficult."
Meanwhile, he said, salaries for those who don't go to graduate school often won't be as high as those who do.
Another problem with the rule is that the cost of living varies greatly depending on where one lives, says Judi Leahy, senior wealth advisor for Citi Personal Wealth Management. In big cities, costs are going to be much higher, but this is where job opportunities for some industries are concentrated.
"If you're living in New York, it's going to be harder to save money than if you're in Montana," Leahy said.
While financial advisors say you should have savings that equal your salary at 30, they recommend that people have three times their annual salary saved by 40.
While still difficult, this one should be easier to achieve, in part because of the law of compound interest on previous savings, Chen said. When one is invested in securities like a bond or dividend-paying stock, they can choose to reinvest the yields they earn. Doing this repeatedly then snowballs the total return for the investor.
In addition to speaking with a financial advisor, some free online retirement tools — like those from Vanguard, Bankrate, and NerdWallet — may be able to help people develop more personalized retirement goals,experts told BI.
But these tools aren't without their limitations. Bell — who used one of those calculators — said her future is too uncertain to accurately assess her retirement needs. For instance, Bell doesn't know where she'll be living when she retires and if that home will be paid off. What's more, she can't anticipate what health needs she'll have when she stops working.
"I have no idea where I'll be at that point in my life," she said. "To me, it seems almost impossible to guess what is really needed."
To be sure, many millennials may feel similar to Bell: It can seem impossible to predict how much you'll need for possibly 20 or 30 years of your life without an annual salary. Even if someone saves what they think is enough, there's no telling exactly how much they'll need for any family emergencies or health crises that arise. If it turns out they haven't saved enough, the lack of a social safety net in the US means they may be forced to work well past their desired retirement age.
How millennials can get their retirement savings back on track
While some millennials are struggling financially, it's not all doom and gloom when it comes to their retirement prospects.
A Vanguard report released in October found that early millennials — people between the ages of 37 and 41 — were better positioned for retirement than older generations. Vanguard attributed this in part to the passage of the Pension Protection Act in 2006, which it found made it easier for Americans to join their workplace retirement plans and increase their savings rates over time.
In a Fidelity survey conducted last December — in partnership with consumer research firm Big Village — of more than 2,000 US adults with an investment account, 75% of millennials surveyed said they were confident they'd be able to retire when and how they want. The survey found that millennials started saving for retirement earlier than both Gen X and boomers. What's more, Fidelity research published last year found that, since 2020, millennials have seen a larger increase in median income than any other generation.
But experts told Business Insider that for the other millennials who are behind on their retirement savings, there are a few tricks that can make up for lost time.
First, start saving whatever you can, when you can. Nilay Gandhi, CFP senior wealth advisor at Vanguard, told Business Insider that he recommends people put between 10% and 15% of their annual pre-tax income toward retirement savings.
Second, make sure you are putting money into a retirement account like a 401(k) or a Roth IRA — which offers diversified investments and tax advantages — and getting any deposit matches that your company might offer. Many firms match deposits up to a certain percentage of an employee's salary. The maximum one can contribute to a Roth IRA, which is funded by post-tax deposits, is $7,000 in 2024. For a 401(k), which is for pre-tax deposits, the maximum this year is $23,000.
"They should religiously put their money in there, whether it is the Roth version or the traditional version, and at the very least pick up the match," Chen said.
Third, if you have an investment portfolio, make sure it has the right mix of stocks, bonds, and cash.
Leahy said that those in their 30s may want to think about leaning more heavily into stocks given their longer investing timeline and higher risk tolerance. Older investors may want to consider higher allocations to safer options like fixed-income assets, she said.
"If you're trying to play catch up at 45 or 55 and you think you want to go all in on equities, it might not be your best bet," she said.
The concern for some millennials isn't that they don't have the money to put toward retirement savings, it's that they're investing it too conservatively, Rita Assaf, vice president, retirement savings at Fidelity Investments, told Business Insider.
Assaf said Fidelity's research found that millennials have seen the largest drop in "age-appropriate asset allocation," meaning they're holding too much of their savings in cash and bonds than she would typically recommend.
"These indicators point toward a trend of millennials taking a more conservative approach to investing, which likely stems from the fact they have multiple other savings priorities of their own," she said. "The concern is that millennials may not end up with the appropriate mix of assets to help them adequately achieve their retirement goals."
While a solid investment strategy is important, allocating more money toward saving is the most important step.
"If an individual is not saving enough, even the best investment strategy is unlikely to help them reach their goal," Gandhi said.
Savings outside a retirement account are also important, Chen said, and one should start by building up at least six months of expenses for an emergency fund. One way to do this is to have money deposited directly from their paycheck into a separate account. And with certificates of deposit paying annualized rates around 5% at the moment, Leahy said savers are even more incentivized to hold onto their money.
Both Leahy and Chen also agreed that credit card use should be avoided for those who are not highly confident that they can pay off their balance every month.
"Do not maintain a credit card balance. That's a great way to erode capital because the card is charging you anywhere from 12% to 22%," Leahy said. "So that item that you bought that was on sale that you really didn't need wasn't worth it."
But for some millennials, following most of this advice might not be enough for them to reach their retirement goals. It could force them to join the millions of Americans working well into their sixties and later.
Bell, for example, has started coming to terms with the possibility that she might have to work later in life than she initially hoped.
"I'm fortunate to be in an industry that allows you to work well past retirement age because it's not very physically intensive," she said.
Similarly, Hudson-Hartman said he takes comfort from the fact he enjoys working — and has an income stream he can count on well past age 70 if necessary.
"I always planned to do gig work part-time in my later years," he said. "I plan to just dial it back and work during busy times and keep my mornings and afternoons free."