• Barbarian
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Would you prefer pensions to lose most of their value to inflation?

      • Illuminostro@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        15
        ·
        11 months ago

        Would you prefer to they lost their value due to some rando picking the wrong stock, or from a total market collapse?

        • Sodis@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          11 months ago

          A total market collapse and after that the economy does not recover? I guess we will have more serious problems than pensions then. These funds are highly diversified. It’s not like they gamble all on one company.

        • neolazy@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          That’s why the stocks aren’t picked individually at all. They are picked in the opposite way to ensure that no single stock, industry, country can cause a total loss. By this diversification investing into stocks is for example safer than keeping the money in the local economy, as it introduces some decoupling from the economy of the country of the fund and the funds value. Meaning it can still pay out money (introduce value) even if there’s a local collapse, as such it’s a stabilizing force for the economy.

          Regarding a total collapse, you’d need to specify what you mean exactly. The term is just to wide to discuss and address concerns.

          • Illuminostro@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

            The point is parasites are gambling with, and profiting from, assets that were aquired through other people’s labor. It’s often mandatory for blue collar workers, and if they don’t want participate, they’re penalized for withdrawing their money.

            If this offends you, I don’t care. This entire “industry” is parasitic, and immoral. And so are the people who defend it.

            • neolazy@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              11 months ago

              If you think all investing is parasitic gambling and aren’t willing listening to arguments I’m sorry for you.

              I’m noy offended by other opinions and I’m willing to change my position (although of course that will require lot’s of points for such strong positions).

              Just calling something bad without elaborating is not a useful addition to any discussion, so if you don’t want to argue actual the actual merits of your opinion you won’t convince anyone, you’ll just get positive feedback from people tyat already have your opinion. So, I guess, enjoy your bubble?

              • Illuminostro@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                11 months ago

                I’m sorry if I gave you the idea that I care about your opinion, or anyone else’s on the matter. 401Ks are gambling with someone else’s retirement money. If you’re involved in this “business,” you should be ashamed of yourself. We’re done.

                #fuckmiltonfriedman

    • Takios@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      11 months ago

      You can see the alternative in Germany. A considerable amount of tax money has to go into the pension fund just to keep it alive. It’s the biggest part of our budget!

      • taladar@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        To be fair a large part of that is the ridiculous assumptions built into the system from the start, as far as I recall they assumed something like an 18% population growth from generation to generation as a minimum. This obviously won’t work if you have past giant generations retiring at times when the current generation is much smaller.

      • tryptaminev 🇵🇸 🇺🇦 🇪🇺@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        obvious. By the magic of an ever increasing population in an ever growing economy. That worked super well between 1950 and 2000 when the populations grew by something between 50 and 200% in most western nations. Its just the people today not wanting to work 5 jobs and raise 4 kids that ruin it.