[kommunicate]

I realize there's only so much you can fit into an article, but this article glosses over a monumental shift in welfare spending in the US: the transition from defined benefit retirement plans to defined contribution. It's not so simple as a split between private and public directed asset allocation: it affects the growth of companies that offer these plans and the wealth of participants in the plans.

The US has pushed the burden of retirement onto individuals, hoping that the private sector will offer incentives like 401k matching and generous health care plan subsidies, but this is a fundamental difference in who qualifies, what they receive, and how it's funded. These effects compound wealth and income inequality. If, for whatever reason, you're locked out from a job that would help pay for these programs, there's no coming back. You are dependent on the government at the same time as the government is underfunding the program you rely on. It's not a great situation.

[csense]

Defined benefit plans have a fatal flaw: If the promised benefits don't match investment returns, the difference has to come from somewhere. It comes from some combination of broken promises, higher taxes, higher interest rates and inflation. All of which are political hot potatoes.

Defined contribution plans don't have the same flaw. What you get out of it depends on how much money you put in and how much alpha your investments get. If you don't have enough to support a comfortable lifestyle in retirement, it's not the government's fault, it's user error: You didn't put enough money in, or you didn't invest it properly. The politicians set up systems to help you; "If you didn't use them properly, too bad, so sad, but it's not our fault," they say.

[Marsymars]

There's also the inescable truth at the root of supporting retirees (and others who aren't working) - in the end, people who aren't working are being supported by those who are working. Investments, pensions, etc. are all just an abstraction around that fundamental reality.

[spwa4]

There's also the inescapable truth about what purpose pensions served. They effectively create a massive amount of debt, "owned by" retirees, owed by regular people, managed by bank bosses and politicians. Surprisingly, they changed the social contract enormously: nobody got a choice. Everyone had to pay the new debt, MASSIVE debt, to take care of the elderly. The then barely existing elderly.

Which brings the question ... WHY did they do this?

Politicians: to spend the money (and not on retirees, on their own projects), in other words: when it comes to money, ideally you do not own, but do decide what money is spent on.

Banks (and the rich in general): to redirect a percentage of the money to themselves in 1000 different ways. They can't really get money unless there is large amounts of socially accepted debt in society, it doesn't work: can't get blood from a stone.

Now, when this leads to the problem that either the money disappears, or the social contract behind the debt disappears (ie. either pensions drop to almost nothing, and the spending/social contract (ie. if pensions aren't paid out/aren't livable the willingness of people to pay for pensions disappears, and the debt ... oh dear god the horror ... disappears, and with it the lifeblood of banks and the rich). Then of course panic sets in, and suddenly when THEY get in trouble any law change imaginable is suddenly on the table.

The scary part is the obvious solution, the only solution really. You know what would solve the pension crisis without destroying the social contract? If the elderly were to die (a lot) faster. That is the only way the politicians can keep spending and banks can keep their profits. Which is exactly what Trump's doing with the enormous increase in medical costs. For the elderly it's simple: pay ... or die. That's the new social contract here. In other words: in what I'm sure will come as a total surprise to everyone, when democrats get control again, they will see how much it costs, how much of their projects it would kill ... and then will not refund Obamacare to anywhere near the level before Trump and they will in fact vote to keep this new social contract in place.

Of course reality is simple: politicians and the rich are promising pensions to everyone, and the really obvious truth is starting to become glaringly fucking obvious: they're lying. One way or another, you're not getting the pension you paid for, you're not getting the medical care you're paying for. You paid the money, and ... you're NOT getting the service you paid for! You also, of course, don't get to stop paying, in fact they're demanding more now. You don't get to stop working. Obviously, politicians don't want to be called to account for that one.

Kill the elderly: it's either that ... or take the money from the rich. Easy choice, no?