[YWall39]

European pensions are predominantly unfunded, and promises typically amount to 3.5 times GDP. The prevailing view among those who have looked at this is that nobody under the age of 40 will get anything close to what is promised. The only exception is Netherlands, and maybe Sweden. Leaving private pensions the only option.

[dachris]

The real exception is Norway with its https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Pension_Fund_of_Nor...

[YWall39]

Yes, their government should be able to honor their promises.

[vkou]

Basic demographic analysis will point out that in a world with a declining and aging population, private investments are probably not going to be doing so hot, either.

Wealth creation requires work. Retirees don't work, but still require a portion of the wealth that workers create to live.

It doesn't matter if it's a government pension or a 401K investment, a declining worker population will mean that you'll have the exact same retirement problem. Government pension require people working and being productive and paying taxes. Your investments will only produce returns if people are working and being productive (in which case they are also probably paying taxes).

Unless, you know, you do some wealth redistribution, away from people who own all the means of production, to the people who don't. Then they former will be the ones with a problem. It won't generate more net wealth, but it would certainly prevent a large portion of it from being locked up in the hands of a small elite.

Or, alternatively, more automation and high taxes on robots.

Privatizing the problem of pensions is just an accounting trick. It doesn't actually solve the problem.

[dsheets]

It depends on how the problem is defined.

Do private pensions solve the “I hope I have money in old-age” problem better in a fundamental way? No.

Do they solve the “I want to pay more now to have more later” problem better? Probably in most systems.

Do they solve the “what is the fair value of grandpa’s pension this month” problem? Definitely yes.

If you want guarantees, the state can pull tricks to make you believe that the world is static… for a while. Eventually, reality will force the state to price pensions in line with demographics or suffer increasingly severe budget crises.

In the past, your children were your pension. This is a private system. When responsibility for old-age is distributed without accounting for monetary or demographic contribution, politicians can promise the moon. Stop eating the young.

[potato3732842]

There's no fundamental reason that we can't save for retirement in a world with a roughly static population.

What we can't do is continue to use pyramid scheme math. Everyone more or less needs to set aside their own surplus for retirement over the course of their lives. Of course this gets financialized away such that the current workers pay the current retirees and whatnot but the math still holds. Basically at scale average people's entire lives can no longer be run based on net neutral or net debt with reliance upon market growth to have surplus available to spend at the end of it. We'll have to run a surplus and set some aside.

[ahmeneeroe-v2]

You are exactly right.

Put another way, retirees who are no longer actively building/operating society, require that someone else does actively build/operate society. If there are fewer people left to do that, retirement will necessitate a decrease in quality of life (for everyone, not just the retiree).

How to solve for this? Not sure but the west will need to figure this out.

[YWall39]

I am more optimistic. I always suggest automatically dropping x% of ones income into an index fund. At the least it will hedge against the very real chance governments will not be able to deliver on their promises.

[Ekaros]

I think I need to start looking into African index funds... Or just figure out the way out when I have run out of money...

[hakfoo]

We always forget that people actually consume services, not dollars. What if instead of a pension or Social Security delivered as a cheque, we provided a basket of highly subsidized services, essentially state-funded retirement homes?

These can be delivered on enormous government scale, potentially bringing unit costs down far below what individuals can achieve.

It could be an effective way to create an evergreen economic engine in regions that have had poor development-- dropping a community of 200,000 retirees into a Rust Belt city creates tens of thousands of infrastructure and support jobs.

Private retirement schemes could, of course, deliver additional luxuries, but it would be a huge stabilizing influence to know that nobody is going to have to try to drag themselves back into the workforce at 92 because their 401(k) ran out and they can no longer afford their rent.

[HWR_14]

Is 3.5 times GDP a high number? To pay out over the next 40-50 years?

[09thn34v]

why is that? why couldn't the private approach (withholding x amount per paycheck, adding to a pension fund) work at scale?

[equalsione]

People are living longer after retirement (over 10 years longer since the 1970s) and birth rates have fallen. Expenditure surpasses income eventually. There are other factors but that seems to be the main issue.