13 ms·
The solution is to not offer pensions.
by friedman23 7y ago
The solution is to not offer pensions.
- behringer 7y agoThat's a great short term solution, but then what do you do with society's old people? We still haven't yet seen what's about to happen with the destruction of pensions in the US.
- Bombthecat 7y agoGermany will probably find out soon...
- ChuckNorris89 7y agoHow so? Germany's population is aging, but they're also importing immigrants like there's no tomorrow to ballance things out.
- Bombthecat 7y agoIt will take two or three generations before they make (enough) money to pay for the "high pensions" of old Germans... And even we get a ton of new people. The old generations are still more.. M
- distances 7y agoFor someone not familiar with the German situation, do you have some article or other details to clarify?
- xkde 7y agoThe same thing as the thousands of years prior to pensions?
- fzeroracer 7y agoSocieties did one of the following: 1. Had the government or community take care of the elderly. 2. Criminalize poverty and force them to work or be imprisoned. 3. Let them die. Even the Roman Empire had pension for people that served in the military. You can take your pick as to which system you'd prefer, but pensions have quite literally existed for thousands of years in some form.
- xkde 7y ago4. Personal saving / investing. 5. Lean on family (super common, even in several non-American societies today) It’s disingenuous to assert that the alternative to no pension is blood in the streets.
- behringer 7y agoA pension is a personal savings. Back when pensions were actually offered by companies, you'd often choose your company by not just your paycheck, but by the retirement plan they offer. You would literally turn down jobs that might pay better but offer no pension. If that's not saving your money, then what is?
- xkde 7y agoBecause pensions aren’t portable. They lock you into a particular organization. 401k, stocks, savings accounts, etc, do not. Pensions (in the private sector, public ones are another ball of wax entirely) do not protect you against inflation. You have no control over what they’re invested in (which in some cases, is the pension manager’s retirement). There are much better options available.
- walshemj 7y agoYou can move pensions and you can sack the manager and replace them as one of the biggest UK DB ones has done
- fzeroracer 7y ago
- learc83 7y agoWhich one? Have a dozen children so that you have plenty of people to take care of you in your old age, or die impoverished?
- lotsofpulp 7y agoEither? Dozen children is hyperbole, but 3 to 5 children, as well as an extended family for support. But it takes a lot of sacrifice to achieve, which no younger person I know of is interested in. One can also plan to off themselves once they're unable to support themselves. I say plan, because I'm sure saying it is easy, but when it comes time to do it, it'll be much more difficult.
- nsxwolf 7y agoIt's also a great incentive to not alienate your children.
- rootusrootus 7y ago> But it takes a lot of sacrifice to achieve, which no younger person I know of is interested in I almost involuntarily typed "OK Boomer" in response to that. *I'm Gen X, not a Millenial, but still
- lotsofpulp 7y agoI’m also in the younger generation, but we are choosing to live in more expensive cities and being further educated and prioritizing high incomes as opposed to starting to have kids at a younger age. There is no value judgment here about the choices, but I would consider it a sacrifice to give up partying in one’s 20s to raise a family capable and willing to support you. Of course, it may also not be a good choice since earning power of those who have children in younger 20s might be greatly reduced.
- fzeroracer 7y agoPeople are prioritizing expensive cities because that's how you get higher income. You get higher income by being educated. And you need higher income to raise kids because raising kids is incredibly expensive especially if you don't have a higher income job's provided healthcare. This has absolutely nothing to do with partying. And if you're choosing to have kids for the purpose of having a support network when you're older, that's kind of a fucked up rationalization for it. At that point, society has failed you somewhere along the way. Even ancient societies had other methods of supporting the elderly in the community or through some form of welfare.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- leetcrew 7y agoI always feel like I'm missing something fundamental when I read these debates. unless the only alternative is "no retirement plan", why would you ever want a pension? wouldn't you be much better off having your employer dump the funds in your 401k?
- xkde 7y agoAs a general rule, the returns are better in 401k, yes. This assumes that it’s invested in something with good growth potential (U.S. stock index funds, etc) and not money market funds or something highly speculative, of course.
- throwaway5752 7y agoMaybe. Pensions, like social security, are better understood as longevity insurance. Pensions are complicated by lump sum payouts, survivor benefits for spouses, and a bunch of other things. But you collect them for life. If you live a short time, the 401k might be a better outcome and the beneficiaries of your will can inherit the wealth (or your spouse, if you outlive them, vs reduce survivor benefits). If you live a long time, it's overwhelmingly likely you have not saved up enough for it, and short of letting the elderly eat cat food and die on the street, the costs of that outcome are socialized to the rest of us.
- leetcrew 7y agoI guess the risk pooling is the part that I didn't fully appreciate. still AFAIK, most pensions are not inflation adjusted, so if you live for a long time, you risk "running out of money" anyway.
- jsmith99 7y agoIn the UK these pension schemes, known as 'defined benefit', legally have to be inflation adjusted. There is still loads of risk to the employer as they are on the hook for any future shortfall. Shortfalls are common as there is huge correlation of risk, such as actuaries systematically under estimating gains in life expectancy. That's why most such schemes are in deficit.
- coldtea 7y agoSo, like in some third world shithole?