3 ms·

There isn't going to be some sort of general rule on this. Some pension funds deal entirely in government issue bonds that won't be harmed. Other funds are oper

There isn't going to be some sort of general rule on this. Some pension funds deal entirely in government issue bonds that won't be harmed. Other funds are operated similar to how Warren Buffet operates; the pension fund literally buys major infrastructure. So you certainly can't blanket statement this one. Furthermore, every major country passed in exactly the same year(2014) that pension funds can now cut benefits to stay solvent. This was done by Obama, Harper in Canada, and really no political partisanship at all; right wing and left wing did this across the high income countries. http://www.pensionrights.org/issues/legislation/summary-pension-cutback-provisions-multiemployer-pension-reform-act-2014 http://www.pensionrights.org/issues/legislation/summary-pens... So fundamentally the author is wrong. Pension funds arent going to be destroyed. The pensioners are the ones who will be taking cuts. Grandpa is going back to work; even though he still has a pension.

dragonwriter 7y ago
So, your argument against the articles claim that boomers will be hurt because of the impact on pensions is that it's wrong because pensions will just cut their benefits? I'm not sure that qualifies as the article being “wrong” so much as not being completely clear on why it's thesis is correct.
- sleepysysadmin 7y ago
  >Pension Funds Are Going To Be Destroyed In The Next Recession https://www.dictionary.com/browse/destroyed https://www.dictionary.com/browse/destroyed The article I read is arguing that Pension funds will no longer exist. Pension funds wont be going anywhere.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    The hyperbolic use of “destroyed” to mean adversely impacted, including in performing a thing’s intended function is so common than it may even exceed literal use of the term. The thesis of the article (as is usually the case) is not the headline, but (as laid out in the last two sentences of the first paragraph) that the impacts of the e next recession won't be limited to Millenials but born heavily by boomers through the impact on pensions. (Though, I would argue, it would also literally destroy pension funds, but as a more distant effect of causing them to be perceived as not delivering value, but that's entirely outside the focus.)
    - sleepysysadmin 7y ago
      >The hyperbolic use of “destroyed” to mean adversely impacted, There was no hyperbole there. It was at best clickbait. I would accept clickbait; but my default understanding on that article is that they are proposing the end of pensions. >Though, I would argue, it would also literally destroy pension funds, but as a more distant effect of causing them to be perceived as not delivering value, but that's entirely outside the focus.) Pensions are pyramid schemes. It's a valid argument to be made. The author for sure is going down that route.

dragonwriter 7y ago

So, your argument against the articles claim that boomers will be hurt because of the impact on pensions is that it's wrong because pensions will just cut their benefits? I'm not sure that qualifies as the article being “wrong” so much as not being completely clear on why it's thesis is correct.

sleepysysadmin 7y ago
>Pension Funds Are Going To Be Destroyed In The Next Recession https://www.dictionary.com/browse/destroyed https://www.dictionary.com/browse/destroyed The article I read is arguing that Pension funds will no longer exist. Pension funds wont be going anywhere.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  The hyperbolic use of “destroyed” to mean adversely impacted, including in performing a thing’s intended function is so common than it may even exceed literal use of the term. The thesis of the article (as is usually the case) is not the headline, but (as laid out in the last two sentences of the first paragraph) that the impacts of the e next recession won't be limited to Millenials but born heavily by boomers through the impact on pensions. (Though, I would argue, it would also literally destroy pension funds, but as a more distant effect of causing them to be perceived as not delivering value, but that's entirely outside the focus.)
  - sleepysysadmin 7y ago
    >The hyperbolic use of “destroyed” to mean adversely impacted, There was no hyperbole there. It was at best clickbait. I would accept clickbait; but my default understanding on that article is that they are proposing the end of pensions. >Though, I would argue, it would also literally destroy pension funds, but as a more distant effect of causing them to be perceived as not delivering value, but that's entirely outside the focus.) Pensions are pyramid schemes. It's a valid argument to be made. The author for sure is going down that route.