4 ms·
I get the pattern you're highlighting, but I don't think the example with bonds is very good. A lot of other factors going on.
by vineyardmike 5y ago
I get the pattern you're highlighting, but I don't think the example with bonds is very good. A lot of other factors going on.
- maerF0x0 5y agoplease list some for our education/discussion :)
- vineyardmike 5y agoWell the idea that risk is transferred to individuals via employment makes a ton of sense for reasons you highlighted. Companies basically were just selfish and realized they can get away with it. To continue the trend, look at uber which uses "contractors" to get even less obligations from workers. "Gig economy" workers proves your point even more. BUT bond yields and the like are result of gov policy and QE that aren't made to provide employers with risk aversion (directly, cheap credit is good for avoiding risk). They were made to address economic issues unrelated to employment. This required riskier investments to get 7+% yield, but its not companies doing the shift like other examples. I think a better way to prove your point was the transition from Pensions to 401k's since this dramatically changes the "save enough to retire" risk, while providing less risk to companies on funding employee retirements.