It's simple, move to a nordic country if you can, but if you are rich stay put in the US.
HN hug of death:
https://web.archive.org/web/20260207195051/https://theloop.e...
I read the article but can't make any conclusion from it. Someone can explain in simpler terms?
So why have pensions rather than direct ownership and control via a 401k?
It's pretty obvious that pension fund managers have ulterior motives. It also seems insane that a bad pension fund or company directors can destroy people's retirement.
Hugged to death?
I realize there's only so much you can fit into an article, but this article glosses over a monumental shift in welfare spending in the US: the transition from defined benefit retirement plans to defined contribution. It's not so simple as a split between private and public directed asset allocation: it affects the growth of companies that offer these plans and the wealth of participants in the plans.
The US has pushed the burden of retirement onto individuals, hoping that the private sector will offer incentives like 401k matching and generous health care plan subsidies, but this is a fundamental difference in who qualifies, what they receive, and how it's funded. These effects compound wealth and income inequality. If, for whatever reason, you're locked out from a job that would help pay for these programs, there's no coming back. You are dependent on the government at the same time as the government is underfunding the program you rely on. It's not a great situation.