> The WEF (World Economic Forum) defines a shortfall as anything less than what’s required to provide 70% of a person’s pre-retirement income via public pension

> The WEF (World Economic Forum) defines a shortfall as anything less than what’s required to provide 70% of a person’s pre-retirement income via public pensions and private savings. So people aren't saving enough to retire with 70% of their pre-retirement income. From the paper: > We have assumed that current global conventions of retiring between 60 and 70 are maintained, and that individuals do not simply remain in the workplace longer. I don't see how this is a financial bomb. 70% of pre-retirement income is pretty arbitrary. The paper discusses this in the context of increasing life expectancy, but doesn't take into account people working longer which seems the natural thing to happen. > Still, an overwhelming majority of the short-fall comes from government programs. In order to address this problem, governments must adequately and proactively fund their entitlements too, either by increasing taxes or by cutting benefits. Individuals alone cannot save enough to compensate for the unrealistic promises their governments have made. A better solution would be to stop providing public defined benefit pensions. Instead switch over to defined contribution. Defined benefit encourages government agencies to make promises in the future that they won't be around to carry out. As a worker, I wouldn't want to trust my retirement to the political process over 50 years. Defined contribution prevents you from kicking the can down the road and not properly fund the person's retirement