[something123]

Or you know.. set aside money for retirement on your own terms?

I feel like recent history has shows that pension plans plans are a disaster for companies b/c you're just offsetting costs into the unknown future when you may not be able to afford it. (see american car companies and unionized labor)

It also seems to attracts complacent people ie. lifers (see gov't sector)

Though there are irritating artificial tax benefits, I always would rather get cold hard cash

[distances]

At least in most of Europe that is not an option. There's no opt-out of national pension systems, except perhaps for entrepreneurs.

On the plus side, your future pension is not dependent on the success of your employer, a much larger crisis (as in Greece now) is required before your retirement is in danger.

On the minus side, it's dependent on the success and long-term planning of the country, and any kind of early retirement may be impossible/harshly penalized.

Personally I would prefer to handle it on my own, but on the whole I really appreciate that everyone is guaranteed a stable and healthy retirement.

[morgante]

At least a socialized national system gives you flexibility of moving between employers without losing your benefits. It's arguably on par with individual retirement accounts and vastly superior to company-based retirement.

[something123]

However this eliminates a company's ability to retrain workers. Though maybe a modern company should anticipate high employee mobility

[morgante]

How does this eliminate a company's ability to retrain workers?

I'm not seeing the link between defined benefit company-sponsored retirement plans and retraining.

[TheCoelacanth]

The US has its own nationally administered pension scheme called "Social Security". The problem is that the amount that is pays is so small that anyone who wants to live better than a near-poverty-level lifestyle in retirement needs a private supplement.

[heartbreak]

Well that and it was poorly managed and is currently operating "paycheck to paycheck".

[smacktoward]

1) Even if all payments into the Social Security trust funds stopped today, they'd have enough cash on hand to cover payments for 37 months. (see https://www.socialsecurity.gov/finance/)

2) Assuming tax collections for Social Security remain at the same level they are today, the trust funds won't run out of money until the year 2034. (See https://www.nasi.org/learn/socialsecurity/future-finances)

So there's a gap between what they're collecting and what they're paying out, but "will be a problem 20 years from now" is quite a bit different from "living paycheck to paycheck." And since the Social Security Administration doesn't have control over either the amount of revenue they get or the amount of benefits they pay out -- those decisions are all made by Congress, not SSA -- it's difficult to argue that any of this is their fault.

[heartbreak]

Poor phrasing on my part. I'm not sure projected spending outstripping projected income is any better than being paycheck to paycheck though.

Definitely agree with you that SSA is not at fault here.

[TheCoelacanth]

What if you had predicted years in advance that it would happen and saved up a bunch of money to cover it?

[seivan]

That's easier said than done in countries with high taxes. If people are supposed to save for yourself, don't lie to them claiming that their taxes will ensure a decent retirement.

[something123]

that's kinda a separate issue... that's maybe a problem with the tax system in the US?