8 ms·

There's something really insidious about tying 401ks and other retirement accounts to the stock market. People including myself end up with a large portion of o

There's something really insidious about tying 401ks and other retirement accounts to the stock market. People including myself end up with a large portion of our assets essentially gambled on the future success of US corporations. It gives some false legitimacy to this idea that our media is constantly pushing, that if the stock market is going well then regular Americans are doing well.

bleuchase 5y ago
> There's something really insidious about tying 401ks and other retirement accounts to the stock market. Insidious? That’s a bit rich. You can allocate money in your 401k however you want. It’s self-directed. If you don’t like stocks keep it in bonds or cash.
- ask_b123 5y ago
  Right! I wish my country's 401k equivalent was self-directed.
- discardedrefuse 5y ago
  > If you don’t like stocks keep it in bonds or cash. This is disingenuous advice considering all financial vehicles for savers have been gutted. You can't even hedge inflation without the stock market (or real estate, if you can afford the buy-in). Take a look at some historical CD rates. https://www.bankrate.com/banking/cds/historical-cd-interest-rates/ https://www.bankrate.com/banking/cds/historical-cd-interest-...
  - imtringued 5y ago
    Well, savings have risen exponentially for a century. Maybe it's time for that to stop? I mean think about all the people that would have to be in debt for you to have savings. The economy clearly has too much debt and therefore too much savings. If this is driven by demographics, e.g. old people saving for retirement while there are no young people willing to provide for them when they are old, then really the problem isn't the fact that the bank doesn't want to lie to you any longer (the bank is currently lying btw), it's the fact that nobody will be there to take care of you.
  - jebus989 5y ago
    > You can't even hedge inflation without the stock market (or real estate, if you can afford the buy-in). See also: treasury inflation-protected securities (TIPS).
    - discardedrefuse 5y ago
      The shortest maturing TIPS is 5 years. While you can sell your TIPS early, it has to be through the secondary market. And that involves transferring your TIPS to a 3rd party broker (and fees). I can't imagine its worth the trouble unless you need to get out of a 10 or 30 year TIPS. TIPS doesn't compare at all to a personal savings account.
      - jebus989 5y ago
        Erm, just buy a TIPS fund like VIPSX from Vanguard.
        discardedrefuse 5y ago
        First, my whole point is to stay out of the markets. Your suggestion to buy VIPSX is the exact opposite. Second, go compare the past year of VIPSX vs inflation you'll see that VIPSX is shit. Inflation has steadily increased by 5%, but VIPSX has been all over the place (it was actually down 2% last month) and is currently only up 1%. This is, again, not what normal people need.
        jebus989 5y ago
        Your points in order were: 1. There's no way to hedge against inflation (you didn't know TIPS existed) 2. Having learned about TIPS you assert they're illiquid and can't be traded easily (you didn't know about TIPS funds) 3. Having learnt about TIPS funds you don't the recent returns of a specific fund (you don't know that TIPS adjustments lag reported inflation numbers)
        discardedrefuse 5y ago
  - everfree 5y ago
    > This is disingenuous advice considering all financial vehicles for savers have been gutted. When you say "all financial vehicles for savers", you're really just referring to liquid savings products tied to the federal funds rate, right? Of course when the government stops handing out money to savings account holders, savings account holders will no longer be making money. Corporate bonds are an alternative way to earn some interest in a low-rate environment without owning stocks. Also, REITs are an affordable way to gain exposure to real estate without a minimum buy-in. For people who need real estate exposure but can't afford to buy a whole building, they are really underrated. Finally, the market is pricing in several rate hikes this year, so your savings account interest rate may actually be revived soon anyways.
    - discardedrefuse 5y ago
      Yes, I am kinda referring to liquid savings products. But it doesn't have to be just that. I think people need simple products that aren't tied to all the shenanigans that go down on wall street. Which is really nothing right now; not even real estate. Someone mentioned TIPS below, but its kinda complicated and not very liquid (5 year maturity, secondary market). I've been watching the rate hikes. The cynic in me says borrowing rates will rise, but consumer savings rates will not rise in step, nor will housing prices fall accordingly. But I guess we'll see.
      - everfree 5y ago
        US savings accounts is a very competitive industry that's traditionally been very responsive to underlying rates changes. All it takes is for a single bank to decide to raise their consumer rates in response to the rates they're turning around and getting from the fed (more accurately the inter-bank lending rates, but the fed has tight control over that market). I agree that it would be great to add more simple savings products, but you have to ask the question of where the yield will come from. If yields don't come from the fed (dictating inter-bank lending rates), and they don't come from the private sector (wall st), then where else can yields come from? What novel yield stream could a new savings product be built on? At the end of the day, people wake up and go to their jobs to produce things, and every penny you earn in value in a savings account (past inflation) has to ultimately come from them, but not until it filters through the wall st machine.
  - bleuchase 5y ago
    > This is disingenuous advice It’s not advice. It’s reality. You don’t need to hold stocks in your 401k if you don’t want to. What happens as a result is your responsibility.
- dhosek 5y ago
  Most 401(k)s have around 20 options at most (of which half or more will be target date funds). My current employer's 401(k) steals $4.33/month from my account for management fees which is on top of the management fees for the individual funds' management fees.
  - bleuchase 5y ago
    And what about the other half? Probably options with fewer or no stocks. You can also do in-service rollover to an IRA somewhere else with more options and no custodial fees.
    - dhosek 5y ago
      I don't know that I've ever had the option of an in-service rollover. I googled it and saw: > According to the Profit Sharing Council of America (PSCA), up to 77% of 401K plans include a provision for in-service 401K rollovers. Many of these only allow plan rollovers when a worker reaches a triggering event such as reaching retirement age, disability, plan termination or reaching the age of 59 ½ years. So even many of those who are in the 77% who have in-service rollovers available don't qualify for them.
sbelskie 5y ago
I can understand that feeling but what offers average Americans a better option for growing and securing wealth than investing (most) savings in the stock market?
- programmarchy 5y ago
  Unlike American corporations, it'd probably have to be decentralized, highly liquid, and ideally trustless, but I can't think of anything like that. However, another strategy could be a basket of currencies in developing countries. They won't be immune to the cascading effects of an imploding US dollar, but theoretically would rebound better.
- eatsyourtacos 5y ago
  Why should that be how it works though? We should be taxing people more, and guaranteeing much higher social security so we don't have to gamble our savings in a giant ponzi scheme. It shouldn't be on the individual to be lucky that a massive recession doesn't hit when they want to retire.. or depend on the market making a few percent a year just to survive.
  - Auracle 5y ago
    Most 401ks are probably in funds that automatically start allocating more and more bonds as they approach retirement age. And frankly, if I could stop contributing to social security and invest it instead I would in a heartbeat. It’s effectively a Ponzi scheme that relies on more and more citizens paying in. That’s unsustainable, and by the time I retire I’m sure they’re at least going to move the age to collect up.
    - JKCalhoun 5y ago
      I've learned to relax about Social Security. I look at it as "diversification" of my retirement sources. I don't want all my eggs in the 401K basket either.
      - 5y ago
pydry 5y ago
If you're an elite you want to tie the fortunes of the wider population to your own. It's a good way to secure your position. The stock market doesnt keep going up because of the economy. It does so because of politics.
- imtringued 5y ago
  What? The US economy is still growing pretty quickly compared to Europe.
- FredPret 5y ago
  Maybe it goes up because the businesses it represents keep making more money? And they make more and more money thanks to the exponential forward march of technology, thanks in part to the people on this forum. This has held true through thick and thin from the Industrial Revolution on
  - disambiguation 5y ago
    let's be sure to also give thanks to inflation and cheap over seas labor!
    - FredPret 5y ago
      Inflation causes a rise yes but profits have been going up even faster. That cheap labour isn’t so cheap anymore either, all those Eastern sweatshops are starting to compete for workers, driving wages up
eatsyourtacos 5y ago
This is 1000000% true. The entire system is completely broken. It is literally designed to make the markets keep going up, which as usual benefits the wealthy far more than the average person. And people who are even middle class barely really benefit from it. While the lower class and poor don't benefit at all. I choose not to participate in "investing" because it's not investing. It's literally gambling. You can't control what a company does. You can't control if a pandemic hits just when you want to retire and your assets as cut in half. Instead of real retirement plans, higher guaranteed social security.. they have shifted nearly all the risk to the individuals and essentially forced them to just put money in the markets which artificially inflate the value of everything. And they just hope the ponzi scheme continues.
- imtringued 5y ago
  Well, the gold standard and any currency modeled after it, e.g. fiat is just a gold standard that can be mined infinitely, it's still expensive permanent money. You have these forced contracts that demand permanence in a world without permanence. It's a ponzi scheme because people age and die but gold doesn't. Imagine running a ledger, you are owed 50 years of work by person A. Person A dies. You are still owed 50 years by the rest of society. Society just lost 50 years of work because person A died so the rest of society must work harder to honor your ledger. That's where the ponzi scheme originates from. The idea that you are owed something that is no longer in this world. A gold standard is a ponzi scheme and since modern day fiat is just a stretched gold standard it is a ponzi scheme too.
- awillen 5y ago
  But how do you fund higher guaranteed social security? You need more money, which means either higher taxes or more people earning taxable money. The speed of population growth is declining, which is a big problem for the latter, and the former clearly has its limits. You're saying stocks are a Ponzi scheme, but as a solution you're proposing something that constantly needs more people paying in money or it will collapse... sounds like a Ponzi scheme.
  - JKCalhoun 5y ago
awillen 5y ago
I would say it adds real legitimacy to that idea. The more people who have their 401ks in the stock market, the more it is true that when the stock market rises, people are doing well. Also, what alternative do you propose? You need an investment vehicle that can handle enormous sums of money from people who will potentially have no understanding of how it works. That doesn't leave many options.
JKCalhoun 5y ago
Surely every 401K plan allows for bonds. Further, my 401K allowed for indexes tracking foreign markets, real estate.... I don't doubt that the majority of people exposure to stocks are U.S. markets, to be sure. But perhaps, to that end, the government (Feds) are more likely to respond to collapses in the U.S. Stock market than other forms of investment. I don't know that I believe it myself, but I'm proposing that maybe the "safe" money is in U.S. Stocks.
mvc 5y ago
It was super annoying when I returned to the UK with my dual UK/US wife and we couldn't invest in the same passive funds (or rather, we could, but at punitive tax rates) because US seems to like their citizens wherever they live in the world to invest in the US. Nice bit of protectionism you got there. Fair enough for the Maniforts/Bidens of the world wheeling and dealing on a global stage. Less fair for those of without spare thousands to burn on financial advisors.
- zhdc1 5y ago
  > It was super annoying when I returned to the UK with my dual UK/US wife and we couldn't invest in the same passive funds (or rather, we could, but at punitive tax rates) because US seems to like their citizens wherever they live in the world to invest in the US. I guess you're talking about PFIC. Are you also a US citizen? If not, iirc your wife is allowed to gift you 164K USD a year, which you can then use to invest however you see fit. If you somehow still have access to a US broker, as far as I'm aware you're allowed to purchase and own US ETFs through them. PFIC only applies to non-US domiciled funds.
fennecfoxen 5y ago
Much (but not all) of US economic activity occurs at publicly traded US corporations. Even tax revenues are reasonably well correlated to their success. A major exception is real estate, but if you own a home, then you are implicitly basing part of your retirement on that ownership already. So what else would you base a retirement based upon? Empty promises from politicians whose have no incentive to deliver on them because their term ends long before these promises are fulfilled? We have that in the public sector already, that's why there's dozens of pension crises looming, from Sacramento to Boston and half the states in between. We also have that to a limited extent with Social Security, which is likewise heading for a major shortfall. And nobody really actually likes Social Security — I mean, they may be in favor of it existing, but everyone who can afford it has a private pension with a lot of holdings in the stock market, to supplement Social Security, and cover its shortcomings, and no one would trade that for more Social Security, because it would mean they end up with a lot less in the end.
scarface74 5y ago
Do you have an alternative? Would you trust the government to manage it?
- fullshark 5y ago
  Social security is the alternative and it's going to be inadequate for most of the people posting here I'm sure.
  - gruez 5y ago
    And how do you think social security works? You either have a prefunded model, which has to still invest in something (ie. stocks), or a pay as you go model, which is essentially taking money from our children to fund our retirement.
    - imtringued 5y ago
      Your children will be the ones doing the work. If the problem is a lack of children then capital based retirement won't solve that.
zzbzq 5y ago
There's always been paranoia around what you say, but now I believe it's probably propaganda by the pension fund industry. With pensions it was still tied to the stock market (but sometimes including non-public investments) but was more open to outright corruption, as a fund could just choose to invest in some bunk asset as a way of giving away all the money.
vishnugupta 5y ago
Incidentally, I'm currently reading/researching on financialization and came across this short, well accessible paper[1] on the topic. It shows how 401(k) and such retirement funds played a big role in fuelling the financialization activities. The paper title is "Fueling Financialization: The Economic Consequences of Funded Pensions" [1] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/10957960211062218 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/109579602110622...

bleuchase 5y ago

> There's something really insidious about tying 401ks and other retirement accounts to the stock market. Insidious? That’s a bit rich. You can allocate money in your 401k however you want. It’s self-directed. If you don’t like stocks keep it in bonds or cash.

ask_b123 5y ago
Right! I wish my country's 401k equivalent was self-directed.
discardedrefuse 5y ago
> If you don’t like stocks keep it in bonds or cash. This is disingenuous advice considering all financial vehicles for savers have been gutted. You can't even hedge inflation without the stock market (or real estate, if you can afford the buy-in). Take a look at some historical CD rates. https://www.bankrate.com/banking/cds/historical-cd-interest-rates/ https://www.bankrate.com/banking/cds/historical-cd-interest-...
- imtringued 5y ago
  Well, savings have risen exponentially for a century. Maybe it's time for that to stop? I mean think about all the people that would have to be in debt for you to have savings. The economy clearly has too much debt and therefore too much savings. If this is driven by demographics, e.g. old people saving for retirement while there are no young people willing to provide for them when they are old, then really the problem isn't the fact that the bank doesn't want to lie to you any longer (the bank is currently lying btw), it's the fact that nobody will be there to take care of you.
- jebus989 5y ago
  > You can't even hedge inflation without the stock market (or real estate, if you can afford the buy-in). See also: treasury inflation-protected securities (TIPS).
  - discardedrefuse 5y ago
    The shortest maturing TIPS is 5 years. While you can sell your TIPS early, it has to be through the secondary market. And that involves transferring your TIPS to a 3rd party broker (and fees). I can't imagine its worth the trouble unless you need to get out of a 10 or 30 year TIPS. TIPS doesn't compare at all to a personal savings account.
    - jebus989 5y ago
      Erm, just buy a TIPS fund like VIPSX from Vanguard.
      - discardedrefuse 5y ago
        First, my whole point is to stay out of the markets. Your suggestion to buy VIPSX is the exact opposite. Second, go compare the past year of VIPSX vs inflation you'll see that VIPSX is shit. Inflation has steadily increased by 5%, but VIPSX has been all over the place (it was actually down 2% last month) and is currently only up 1%. This is, again, not what normal people need.
        jebus989 5y ago
        Your points in order were: 1. There's no way to hedge against inflation (you didn't know TIPS existed) 2. Having learned about TIPS you assert they're illiquid and can't be traded easily (you didn't know about TIPS funds) 3. Having learnt about TIPS funds you don't the recent returns of a specific fund (you don't know that TIPS adjustments lag reported inflation numbers)
        discardedrefuse 5y ago
- everfree 5y ago
  > This is disingenuous advice considering all financial vehicles for savers have been gutted. When you say "all financial vehicles for savers", you're really just referring to liquid savings products tied to the federal funds rate, right? Of course when the government stops handing out money to savings account holders, savings account holders will no longer be making money. Corporate bonds are an alternative way to earn some interest in a low-rate environment without owning stocks. Also, REITs are an affordable way to gain exposure to real estate without a minimum buy-in. For people who need real estate exposure but can't afford to buy a whole building, they are really underrated. Finally, the market is pricing in several rate hikes this year, so your savings account interest rate may actually be revived soon anyways.
  - discardedrefuse 5y ago
    Yes, I am kinda referring to liquid savings products. But it doesn't have to be just that. I think people need simple products that aren't tied to all the shenanigans that go down on wall street. Which is really nothing right now; not even real estate. Someone mentioned TIPS below, but its kinda complicated and not very liquid (5 year maturity, secondary market). I've been watching the rate hikes. The cynic in me says borrowing rates will rise, but consumer savings rates will not rise in step, nor will housing prices fall accordingly. But I guess we'll see.
    - everfree 5y ago
      US savings accounts is a very competitive industry that's traditionally been very responsive to underlying rates changes. All it takes is for a single bank to decide to raise their consumer rates in response to the rates they're turning around and getting from the fed (more accurately the inter-bank lending rates, but the fed has tight control over that market). I agree that it would be great to add more simple savings products, but you have to ask the question of where the yield will come from. If yields don't come from the fed (dictating inter-bank lending rates), and they don't come from the private sector (wall st), then where else can yields come from? What novel yield stream could a new savings product be built on? At the end of the day, people wake up and go to their jobs to produce things, and every penny you earn in value in a savings account (past inflation) has to ultimately come from them, but not until it filters through the wall st machine.
- bleuchase 5y ago
  > This is disingenuous advice It’s not advice. It’s reality. You don’t need to hold stocks in your 401k if you don’t want to. What happens as a result is your responsibility.
dhosek 5y ago
Most 401(k)s have around 20 options at most (of which half or more will be target date funds). My current employer's 401(k) steals $4.33/month from my account for management fees which is on top of the management fees for the individual funds' management fees.
- bleuchase 5y ago
  And what about the other half? Probably options with fewer or no stocks. You can also do in-service rollover to an IRA somewhere else with more options and no custodial fees.
  - dhosek 5y ago
    I don't know that I've ever had the option of an in-service rollover. I googled it and saw: > According to the Profit Sharing Council of America (PSCA), up to 77% of 401K plans include a provision for in-service 401K rollovers. Many of these only allow plan rollovers when a worker reaches a triggering event such as reaching retirement age, disability, plan termination or reaching the age of 59 ½ years. So even many of those who are in the 77% who have in-service rollovers available don't qualify for them.

sbelskie 5y ago

I can understand that feeling but what offers average Americans a better option for growing and securing wealth than investing (most) savings in the stock market?

programmarchy 5y ago
Unlike American corporations, it'd probably have to be decentralized, highly liquid, and ideally trustless, but I can't think of anything like that. However, another strategy could be a basket of currencies in developing countries. They won't be immune to the cascading effects of an imploding US dollar, but theoretically would rebound better.
eatsyourtacos 5y ago
Why should that be how it works though? We should be taxing people more, and guaranteeing much higher social security so we don't have to gamble our savings in a giant ponzi scheme. It shouldn't be on the individual to be lucky that a massive recession doesn't hit when they want to retire.. or depend on the market making a few percent a year just to survive.
- Auracle 5y ago
  Most 401ks are probably in funds that automatically start allocating more and more bonds as they approach retirement age. And frankly, if I could stop contributing to social security and invest it instead I would in a heartbeat. It’s effectively a Ponzi scheme that relies on more and more citizens paying in. That’s unsustainable, and by the time I retire I’m sure they’re at least going to move the age to collect up.
  - JKCalhoun 5y ago
    I've learned to relax about Social Security. I look at it as "diversification" of my retirement sources. I don't want all my eggs in the 401K basket either.
    - 5y ago

pydry 5y ago

If you're an elite you want to tie the fortunes of the wider population to your own. It's a good way to secure your position. The stock market doesnt keep going up because of the economy. It does so because of politics.

imtringued 5y ago
What? The US economy is still growing pretty quickly compared to Europe.
FredPret 5y ago
Maybe it goes up because the businesses it represents keep making more money? And they make more and more money thanks to the exponential forward march of technology, thanks in part to the people on this forum. This has held true through thick and thin from the Industrial Revolution on
- disambiguation 5y ago
  let's be sure to also give thanks to inflation and cheap over seas labor!
  - FredPret 5y ago
    Inflation causes a rise yes but profits have been going up even faster. That cheap labour isn’t so cheap anymore either, all those Eastern sweatshops are starting to compete for workers, driving wages up

eatsyourtacos 5y ago

This is 1000000% true. The entire system is completely broken. It is literally designed to make the markets keep going up, which as usual benefits the wealthy far more than the average person. And people who are even middle class barely really benefit from it. While the lower class and poor don't benefit at all. I choose not to participate in "investing" because it's not investing. It's literally gambling. You can't control what a company does. You can't control if a pandemic hits just when you want to retire and your assets as cut in half. Instead of real retirement plans, higher guaranteed social security.. they have shifted nearly all the risk to the individuals and essentially forced them to just put money in the markets which artificially inflate the value of everything. And they just hope the ponzi scheme continues.

imtringued 5y ago
Well, the gold standard and any currency modeled after it, e.g. fiat is just a gold standard that can be mined infinitely, it's still expensive permanent money. You have these forced contracts that demand permanence in a world without permanence. It's a ponzi scheme because people age and die but gold doesn't. Imagine running a ledger, you are owed 50 years of work by person A. Person A dies. You are still owed 50 years by the rest of society. Society just lost 50 years of work because person A died so the rest of society must work harder to honor your ledger. That's where the ponzi scheme originates from. The idea that you are owed something that is no longer in this world. A gold standard is a ponzi scheme and since modern day fiat is just a stretched gold standard it is a ponzi scheme too.
awillen 5y ago
But how do you fund higher guaranteed social security? You need more money, which means either higher taxes or more people earning taxable money. The speed of population growth is declining, which is a big problem for the latter, and the former clearly has its limits. You're saying stocks are a Ponzi scheme, but as a solution you're proposing something that constantly needs more people paying in money or it will collapse... sounds like a Ponzi scheme.
- JKCalhoun 5y ago

awillen 5y ago

I would say it adds real legitimacy to that idea. The more people who have their 401ks in the stock market, the more it is true that when the stock market rises, people are doing well. Also, what alternative do you propose? You need an investment vehicle that can handle enormous sums of money from people who will potentially have no understanding of how it works. That doesn't leave many options.

JKCalhoun 5y ago

Surely every 401K plan allows for bonds. Further, my 401K allowed for indexes tracking foreign markets, real estate.... I don't doubt that the majority of people exposure to stocks are U.S. markets, to be sure. But perhaps, to that end, the government (Feds) are more likely to respond to collapses in the U.S. Stock market than other forms of investment. I don't know that I believe it myself, but I'm proposing that maybe the "safe" money is in U.S. Stocks.

mvc 5y ago

It was super annoying when I returned to the UK with my dual UK/US wife and we couldn't invest in the same passive funds (or rather, we could, but at punitive tax rates) because US seems to like their citizens wherever they live in the world to invest in the US. Nice bit of protectionism you got there. Fair enough for the Maniforts/Bidens of the world wheeling and dealing on a global stage. Less fair for those of without spare thousands to burn on financial advisors.

zhdc1 5y ago
> It was super annoying when I returned to the UK with my dual UK/US wife and we couldn't invest in the same passive funds (or rather, we could, but at punitive tax rates) because US seems to like their citizens wherever they live in the world to invest in the US. I guess you're talking about PFIC. Are you also a US citizen? If not, iirc your wife is allowed to gift you 164K USD a year, which you can then use to invest however you see fit. If you somehow still have access to a US broker, as far as I'm aware you're allowed to purchase and own US ETFs through them. PFIC only applies to non-US domiciled funds.

fennecfoxen 5y ago

Much (but not all) of US economic activity occurs at publicly traded US corporations. Even tax revenues are reasonably well correlated to their success. A major exception is real estate, but if you own a home, then you are implicitly basing part of your retirement on that ownership already. So what else would you base a retirement based upon? Empty promises from politicians whose have no incentive to deliver on them because their term ends long before these promises are fulfilled? We have that in the public sector already, that's why there's dozens of pension crises looming, from Sacramento to Boston and half the states in between. We also have that to a limited extent with Social Security, which is likewise heading for a major shortfall. And nobody really actually likes Social Security — I mean, they may be in favor of it existing, but everyone who can afford it has a private pension with a lot of holdings in the stock market, to supplement Social Security, and cover its shortcomings, and no one would trade that for more Social Security, because it would mean they end up with a lot less in the end.

scarface74 5y ago

Do you have an alternative? Would you trust the government to manage it?

fullshark 5y ago
Social security is the alternative and it's going to be inadequate for most of the people posting here I'm sure.
- gruez 5y ago
  And how do you think social security works? You either have a prefunded model, which has to still invest in something (ie. stocks), or a pay as you go model, which is essentially taking money from our children to fund our retirement.
  - imtringued 5y ago
    Your children will be the ones doing the work. If the problem is a lack of children then capital based retirement won't solve that.

zzbzq 5y ago

There's always been paranoia around what you say, but now I believe it's probably propaganda by the pension fund industry. With pensions it was still tied to the stock market (but sometimes including non-public investments) but was more open to outright corruption, as a fund could just choose to invest in some bunk asset as a way of giving away all the money.

vishnugupta 5y ago

Incidentally, I'm currently reading/researching on financialization and came across this short, well accessible paper[1] on the topic. It shows how 401(k) and such retirement funds played a big role in fuelling the financialization activities. The paper title is "Fueling Financialization: The Economic Consequences of Funded Pensions" [1] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/10957960211062218 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/109579602110622...