43
submitted 1 week ago by silence7 to c/nyt_gift_articles@sopuli.xyz
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] silence7 2 points 1 week ago

The virtue of the old employer-sponsored pensions is that they forced contributions. Letting people decide means that lower-income wages will fall so that people can't contribute.

Social Security wasn't ever meant to be enough; it was mean to be something minimal.

[-] KevonLooney@lemm.ee 8 points 1 week ago

Social Security is forced contributions from employers and employees. It's the same thing, just on a national level. And the original intention doesn't matter. Social Security is changed all the time. Old people always need more money.

[-] Clent@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

Social Security wasn't ever meant to be enough; it was mean to be something minimal.

People like to claim this but no one ever attempts to prove it because it's right wing bullshit. It's one of the reason used to justify the reduced value of the payouts against inflation.

[-] silence7 1 points 1 week ago

Look at what the payments were in say, 1950 — about 10% of the average yearly wage. That's not a retirement; that's a little bit to keep you going.

this post was submitted on 08 May 2024
43 points (100.0% liked)

New York Times gift articles

331 readers
131 users here now

Share your New York Times gift articles links here.

Rules:

Info:

Tip:

founded 9 months ago
MODERATORS