zlacker

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+(OP)
The savings are managed by bank or insurance companies' subsidiaries who are entirely unrelated to the employer. In other words it has nothing to do with mid century corporate pensions.

>>rlkf+(OP)
The real fun situation is when the 401k requires mandatory investment in the company stock.

None of the responsibility, all the moral hazard.

>>lazide+6g
This was made illegal in the US after Enron.

>>collin+Dn
For now

>>tartuf+ay
Except this time around it'll be mandatory Trump coin

>>rlkf+(OP)
The traditional way pensions were handled in the US was directly by the company and paid from company coffers. In those days, the goal of any company was to stay in business long term. One of the ways that was accomplished was by making a lifetime career with the company as attractive as possible through generous pensions.

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.

>>mystif+c91
most companies converted from pensions to self-directed plans because the cost of any benefit is essentially free compared to a defined benefit pension plan.

>>rlkf+(OP)
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+Rg2
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)?

>>roboca+Vj4
Most contractors “work” for a payroll firm that manages this for them, which is usually the recruiting firm that put them into the role.

For tax and superannuation purposes, they are PAYG employees in non-ongoing positions.