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.
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.
Defined contribution is a much less risky retirement scheme.
None of the responsibility, all the moral hazard.
And therein lies the problem with modern society. Whether you're an MBA wrecking a company or a voter wrecking the local economy there is no mechanism for the people who you've wronged to get at you so there's no incentive not to behave that way.
Ignore the practicalities and look at the story.
They're a promise that someone stronger than you will provide for you in your old age.
Of course, the goal should be to turn undisciplined people into disciplined ones over time.
After several iterations of this pattern throughout our history (other examples are the Leninist/Stalinist purges or the McCarthy era), perhaps it is time we seek a better path—one that doesn’t end up written in the darker pages of our history books.
(As an individual investor, I do often wonder what sort of bargains and better investment options I miss out on that investing together with two or three friends with similar retirement goals could gain me by investing together as a team. I realize that's the point of hedge funds/mutual funds, but today's hedge funds/mutual funds themselves have tiered fee structure pools based in staked investment and it never feels like an even playing field if I'm trying to manage my own investments even with the competition between hedge funds/mutual funds today.)
They hear of possible returns like 10-15% and shrug and look at bear markets as harmful to their wealth.
Really an education issue but it is complicated. Stuffing money in a mutual fund is risky and also not an option if you are behind. A lot of people are behind.
First is the megarich, then is the wealthy, and then its the baker and then it´s you... barely doing better than them.
In modern times, retirement is pretty much exclusively through private investment accounts (401k and similar) into which your company may directly deposit funds. Nowadays it'd be a crazy risk to pin your retirement 100% on a single company. The company could fail, raid the pension fund, or just decide to not pay anymore. All those things happened and that's why we use private investment accounts now.
There are still some traditional pension plans, notably the US postal service. But they're very rare now.
If your argument is basically assuming "[these people] managed the situation so stupidly they triggered a social collapse" then it is an excellent strategy to try doing things differently. The aim should be to make things better, not worse with different people in charge.
Funny what incentives get you. We had incentives for long term consistent strength (people holding stocks for dividends) and got it. Today we hold for short term gambling profits so we get gambling style shell games of companies.
It's a great system.
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)?
For tax and superannuation purposes, they are PAYG employees in non-ongoing positions.
So do the poor not have any resources, or do they have sufficient resources to bully the rich? Because if they have enough resources to cause other people problems they should maybe consider trying to use those resources to better themselves instead.
They don't have much, but they have more than enough to get much better results if they behaved in a sensible and organised fashion. If nothing else, a lot of poor people live in democracies and have the numbers to ram policy through if they have enough neurons to separate good ideas from bad [0]. I suppose it depends on what you want to call poor, but if they've got the numbers, time and energy to wreck things then they've certainly got the numbers to effect positive change.
I'd agree most people probably aren't up to the challenge; but searching for a better way is a much better strategy than being all "we're going for a replay of la Terreur!".
[0] The political process is pretty devastating evidence that they don't, it appears the best effort in a well educated place like the US was either Trump or the US Democrats. Hard to tell which attempt is more pathetic. Most voters have nearly no idea abut complex issues like creating prosperity.
The US political system works like the ruling classes want it to work, no more and no less. The poor are simply performing some choreography.