zlacker

> Through the 401k attempt, we have shown this policy to be a failure.

401ks are a terrible on their own. It has thrown everybody for the wolves and tied people's financial wellbeing to the vagaries of the market. But there's still a flipside. Pensions should not be used to provide a level of income to maintain a lifestyle (cue anecdotes of boomers packing up and leaving for florida). Pensions should be to provide a baseline level of financial support for the essentials, perhaps a little above, say like social security but a little more. But they are not that, generally speaking. Retiring at 58 with 80% of wages - or whatever absurdities sometimes occurred - _is_ theft from the young.

>>trgn+(OP)
It should be like a layer cake. Social Security on the bottom, this keeps you from destitution. It is insurance, not an investment. Pensions are the next layer on the cake. This provides additional income from investments made during your working career, with employer contributions mandated, and with it very difficult to touch this before retirement. Australia's Superannuation system [1] is my mental model for this. You have to have strong governance around reasonable returns and payments to prevent from the absurdities you mention. It is not tied to a single employer. The final cake layer should be personal savings and investments made by someone.

This derisks everyone's risk of the usual human failing (lack of financial sophistication, adverse events, etc), while enabling those who want to invest above and beyond a mechanism to do so. Right now, it's Mad Max with some Social Security scraps [2].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superannuation_in_Australia

[2] https://www.gao.gov/financial-security-older-americans

>>toomuc+N
agreed 100%

> Mad Max with some Social Security scraps

haha! sadly