So it’s okay screwing retired teachers living of funds they’ve paid into their entire working career? Because that’s the typical type of person who owns stock (not directly).
No of course not. But keep in mind it's a relatively new phenomenon for most people to rely on stocks/401k/IRA for their retirement.
Prior to that retirement funds were primarily handled by pensions where the company or organisation you worked for put away money for you in a fund and for the employee there was little to no risk that this money would disappear or diminish in value. Behind the scenes the company may invest it in various ways but it was generally a "low risk" retirement fund.
The reason why every company and organisation (other than a handful of government orgs) got rid of pensions and switched to investment based retirement funds was because the risk got moved away from the company to the employee and as a result it was cheaper to operate.
And as an added bonus, now any time we want to consider raising wages or improving things for workers at the cost of shareholders profits, companies can turn around and argue "this is hurting retired people".
So no of course not I don't think retired people should be getting fucked out of the funds they've been paying into for their entire careers but they shouldn't be paying into those funds in the first place. Unless they explicitly opt into that risk, they should be getting access to a pension with guaranteed payout by default.
>The reason why every company and organisation (other than a handful of government orgs) got rid of pensions and switched to investment based retirement funds was because the risk got moved away from the company to the employee and as a result it was cheaper to operate.
The other reason you're forgetting about is that you can't count on that company actually being in business to provide your pension when you retire. Or not declaring bankruptcy to avoid their pension obligations, as I believe GM did back in 2008. With a 401k/IRA, you don't have that worry: you can contribute to it, and if your company goes belly-up, no problem (well, not for your retirement funds): your money is still there; you can get another job somewhere else and keep contributing to your retirement.
Also, what happens to your retirement funds is strongly controlled by the SEC, unlike company pensions, so there's much less risk for the employee. Of course, the stock market goes up and down a lot, but that can be avoided mostly by directing your funds into safe investments, though your returns won't be that much.
>Unless they explicitly opt into that risk, they should be getting access to a pension with guaranteed payout by default.
That's what government-run pension schemes are for. Government shouldn't be guaranteeing a pension run by a private company.
This is firmly opt-out at this point. Who offers pensions anymore outside of State/Fed (how reliable do we expect those states to be in the coming decades). You can't demand a company provide a pension so it's on you to invest for your retirement ... into what?
Companies don't provide pensions anymore because it is always cheaper for them to provide a 401k or IRA and offload that risk. People only let them do it because we had fairly substantial periods of prosperity where relying on the stock market seemed "guaranteed" even though it is anything but.
What I'm suggesting is that not providing a pension shouldn't be seen as acceptable. I don't know if I'd suggest going as far as mandating it by law but I think workers should be demanding a right to a pension for themselves and all their fellow workers at a given org or in a given industry.
The labor movement is having a bit of a revival at the moment so hopefully unions can start pushing for Qualified Direct Benefit Plans (aka pensions) to be a standard again.
> how reliable do we expect those states to be in the coming decades
The federal government provides guarantees for qualified pensions through the Pension Benefits Guarantee Corporation (https://www.pbgc.gov). Even if the states fuck up, those state employees still get their pensions.
Yes however the risks and costs are on the organization, not the individual. Even if the organization goes bankrupt or catastrophically mismanaged the fund used for the pension, the employee still gets their pension regardless of whether this occurs while or after they are working for the org.
That's the important point. The costs and risks are on the org. They can guarantee the pension with low risk investments or dollar equivalents and have effectively no risk or they can try higher risk investments in an effort to save money but at the end of the day the employee/pensioner gets the amounts promised from the beginning.
Retirement money has to be invested somewhere, otherwise it’s simply not available when people retire. Just because it’s someone else’s responsibility to fulfill a promise doesn’t change that intrinsic fact. You can’t just store production efficiently in a silo, or store money under your bed and expect that work out.
1. They can allocate measurably portions of it to low risk investments, bonds, etc.
2. A qualified direct benefit plan (which is referred to as a pension) has guarantees attached to it. Even if the company goes completely under and all that money bursts into flames, the PBGC (https://www.pbgc.gov/) will guarantee the payout of the pension to the pensioner and foot the bill.
I'm not trying to suggest that there aren't costs that need to be borne by someone but forcing the worker to bear those costs seems like it's quite obviously the wrong choice (they should be allowed to bear it if they want to though).
Bonds don’t pay out much over inflation, and most retirement plans bank on contributions making much more than inflation to be solvent. A lot of our debt is simply savings for retirement on the other side, it is very necessary for anyone to invest these days (directly or not) if they have any hope of not being destitute when they can’t work anymore. More than that, even if we left it to the government (eg a better funded Social Security), they would have to invest as well, there simply is no way around it given current moribund population growth.
Obviously society thinks it is OK. If we didn't, we wouldn't let retirement funds be dependent on how well stocks do - and we only did that after plundering other people's pensions and screwing them over.
They might indirectly own it, but it is other folks getting rich off of their money.
Realistically, no one should have risk when paying into pensions/retirement for later and it should be somewhat promised. The entire system is reprehensible as it stands.
I'd imagine the typical stock owner by worth of stock owned not remotely being a retired teacher
But the retired teachers indirect stock was also an attempt to get rid of pensions. Why don't we just support retired teachers as they are, instead of tying their well-being to some rich guys?
