You're not including the defined contribution retirement plans, which are a vehicle for investment.
N.B. I believe 'pension' ≡ 'defined benefit' is an American English thing, which may the source of the confusion. I, my employer, and my provider refer to my private, defined-contribution plan as a pension.
You’re also forgetting all the people without pensions, but with IRAs and/or 401ks. And then the many more with brokerage accounts. And young people seem to have jumped headlong into Robinhood.
However less than 2.3% of hourly workers (not total workers, but hourly workers) make minimum wage, yet those that claim a good stock market doesn’t benefit most people would argue fiercely over minimum wage which affects only a tiny fraction of workers. So we should be applauding something that benefits “only” 13% of the workforce (though that 13% number with pensions is misleadingly low as pointed out by other comments.)
Indeed, "what are pension funds"? I don't have a pension. No one I know personally has a pensions. The younger or non-tech people I know have little to none in their 401k.
I entered the workforce about 10 years ago and I genuinely don't even know what a pension is. I know what a retirement plan is, and employer matching. I guess a pension is something different from that.
A pension is a plan where your employer promises to pay you money _after you retire_, in perpetuity. In the "olden days", or when working for the government, one often would work at the same employer for 20+ years, and a pension is a way for that employer to support you. (My dad has multiple pensions from when he worked at a large company, and then later for the local county government.) In general, it scales up the longer you worked for a company. This was back when companies and employees were "loyal" to one another.
When people say "pension" at least in the US they usually mean a defined benefit retirement plan, i.e. you get $X/month based on salary and years of service starting at age Y.
By contrast, a 401(K) is a defined contribution plan. You put however much money in, maybe get matching, and you can take money out after a certain age based on how much you put in and how much it grew.
Defined benefit used to be a lot more common but it's become less so for a variety of reasons including tax law changes. Today you see them mostly in government jobs like teachers.
Worse, many of those with pensions find themselves one day without one... Look at the hundreds of bankrupt orgs that have somehow, been able to simply walk away from their obligations. The only people who hold pensions these days are govt workers. People who do not contribute to the economy.
Don't know any state or federal workers? Traditional pensions are still offered by about 84% of state and local governments. That's cops, teachers, etc.
FYI - California teachers do not pay into SocialSecurity. Their pension is 100% on the backs of the tax payers of CA. Market performance is irrelevant as their pensions are paid regardless of performance.
Market performance is only irrelevant as far as the amount the retirees see on their checks -- it's relevant to CA taxpayers because the money has to come from somewhere if the market underperforms.
Yes, that was my point. The market investments are not what is driving the pension's long term value. The underwriting by the state is what makes it valuable. The markets are simply an avenue for growth, or as was the case in the past, losses...
Which is one of the reasons that pensions fell out of favor for employment in the private sector. They were traditionally very oriented towards long-term (a decade or more) employment with a single company. With typical employment in a lot of sectors--certainly including tech--a large majority of workers would basically end up getting little or nothing out of a traditional pension.
And most never will. The ones left are awful and full of restrictions, and can be taken away at any time for any reason, even if it's illegal in your state.
Well said- sometimes i feel that HN is basically a practice for people on how to reply to toxic emails from coworker. "I should have framed it like this"
I agree with what another person has said on github- the rust community on reddit is incredibly toxic. The last time such a thing happened, there were losers who made personal attacks on Nikolay. Then Nikolay showed up in comments being angry that he had helped that particular loser only a few days back.
Its easy to create blog posts and comments about RIIR, its not easy to actually write code.
If anybody actually wants to fix this issue and prevent it from happening again, I'd start by instantly banning /r/rust users for 3 days anytime they do a circlejerk.
