Articles written like this make me incredibly angry. Stop reading headlines and audit your news. 1. The entire basis of this "news" is a study which is cited e

Articles written like this make me incredibly angry. Stop reading headlines and audit your news. 1. The entire basis of this "news" is a study which is cited exactly nowhere in the article. There is a passing reference to a "new study" by the "Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis." They don't even give a partial author list, let alone a title! 2. This is the study in question.[1] I had to dig this up on my own by piecing together specific claims with the name of the research organization and searching for them. The study appears to be closer to policy advocation than new research. 3. The author is a business management consultant who cites himself and his company for data contributing to the article, with no alternative supporting source ("Managing Defined Benefit Plans"). If there's a bias here it doesn't seem to be explicitly called out. I can't comment on the core findings of the study, but I find its presentation and reporting in this article to be disingenuous and poorly supported. I'm deeply skeptical of the headline's claim given the incredibly politicized nature of the topic, the utter lack of critical analysis and the (intentional or merely incompetent) obfuscation of source material. If you're going to start a discussion about economic policy or financial trends, please find and submit the original study. This article is just noise - it's barely capable of engaging with its source material. Why is a CNBC article on HN instead of the primary source? ___________ 1. https://www.economicpolicyresearch.org/images/docs/research/retirement_security/Downward_Mobility_in_Retirement_P_N.pdf https://www.economicpolicyresearch.org/images/docs/research/...