zlacker

>>gwintr+(OP)
The "5. The Human Wreckage" section is probably the most interesting - on paper, everyone came out much worse (losers identified are workers, pension holders, shareholders, investors and executives which seems superficially comprehensive).

However it is important to recall that the people who actually made all the money extracting the wealth got out years before, retiring and/or selling stock. They're bystanders now and probably happy to run the whole operation again.

Although as an aside who these people are who think corporate pensions are a good idea is beyond me. People really should be in charge of their own savings in preference to their employer, expecting some random corporation to cover the cost was always a bit crazy even when it seemed sort-of possible that the system was stable. It is easy to have some sympathy but, as a practical matter, it was never going to work and it isn't a surprise that it didn't.

>>roenxi+Hd
In Norway, the companies are required by law to pay the pensions into a special type of investment account where withdrawal are not allowed until you are retired, but you can choose your own investment profile: A mandatory 401k.

The arrangement where the _company_ controls the account seems to me to be more of a allowed delay in salary payout, to the benefit of the company, than a retirement account for the employee.

>>rlkf+MC
Australia has a similar system called Super. On top of base pay, every Australian employer has to contribute another 11.5% of a person's salary into an employee-controlled Super investment fund that the employee can only touch upon retirement or severe illness.

It's a great system.

>>kelsey+DT2
New Zealand copied it, except employee has to pay 3% (now just increased to 4%) and employer matches.

What happens with contractors in Oz? I know a nurse over there on high hourly rate, and I'm guessing part of the reason is to avoid employer contributions.

Is there a strong push for contractors throughout the Oz economy (not just government)?