What about only retiring at the age of 80?!

[Rollo]

He didn't say he WANTED a retirement age of 80, he stated that for future retirees (ie us) to carry on receiving the same level of pensions our parents and grandparents received on a sustainable basis then thats the age we'd have to retire at.

Unfortunately he's right or close enough. Its pure demographics. Given that the number of retirees compared to workers is shooting up how else would you expect to ensure that the retirees don't get less in the future? Either the workers pay more or you raise the retirement age or both, and that is exactly what governments around the world are having to do.

The idea of the government paying pensions is not all that old. In Germany it extends back to about 1889, the UK dates back to 1908 and the US I think is about 1920.

Some governments have moved to the idea that the government should not be be in the business of providing services, and so we've seen in some countries a move to privatisation. The Superannuation System in Australia and the Self-invested Personal Pension program in the UK are as I see it, the first step to those governments abrogating their current responsibilities in those countries and given the tremendous turmoil over the debt ceiling in the US and future problems foreseen with Social Security, what's not to say that governments will abandon their current responsibilities there as well?

I suspect that government pensions will cease to exist in 30 years time, which is convenient because it means that I won't be getting any. So as far as I'm concerned I agree with Benmosche out of pragmatism, and I bet that AIG would like to manage those funds I'm setting aside too.

[Malbec]

The idea of the government paying pensions is not all that old. In Germany it extends back to about 1889, the UK dates back to 1908 and the US I think is about 1920.

Before that though except for the select few no pension system existed. The problem for most countries is that the retirement age of 60-65 was established when people were not expected to live long enough to collect their pensions. In the UK only 1 in 10 men were expected to reach retirement age. Now of course we not only expect to retire but to enjoy anything up to 30 years of healthy life after, and things will worsen as life expectancy rises further and birth rates drop.

I suspect that government pensions will cease to exist in 30 years time, which is convenient because it means that I won't be getting any. So as far as I'm concerned I agree with Benmosche out of pragmatism, and I bet that AIG would like to manage those funds I'm setting aside too.

Alternatively existing state pension schemes will become much harsher. In 2008 the NHS pension system was changed so that if it was in surplus the excess was taken by the treasury. If the NHS pension was in deficit the shortfall would be paid for by existing NHS employees. Heads I win, tails you lose.

[ioan]

He didn't say he WANTED a retirement age of 80, he stated that for future retirees (ie us) to carry on receiving the same level of pensions our parents and grandparents received on a sustainable basis then thats the age we'd have to retire at.

What he said is that if his business is to make huge profits then we need to take a cut or work longer and give them more money.

What do you think, why is that they are unable to give you back at least the money that you gave them during 40+ years of paying for your pension fund(s)?! It's not like you are going to live more than 30 years (in the best case) after you retire at 67 or 70!
Is it because they did sloppy work placing your money and now they do not have it?
Or is it because they pay out billions in bonuses to people who managed to produce record loses?

Unfortunately he's right or close enough.

Not even close.

Its pure demographics. Given that the number of retirees compared to workers is shooting up how else would you expect to ensure that the retirees don't get less in the future? Either the workers pay more or you raise the retirement age or both, and that is exactly what governments around the world are having to do.

And why do you think that people make less kids nowadays?
Is it not because they can not afford to raise more? Either because they are paid peanuts for their work or if they get enough money they do not have time to have and raise kids?!
Or is it because young people, who usually make kids, do not have jobs at all? What about most unemployed people being under 35?!

Old people do not generally compete with young people for jobs. Old people are usually much more skilled and experienced but are manually far less capable than school leavers and graduates and therefore are mostly employed in completely different roles.

That's hogwash. Most people around the world do jobs for which little or no qualification is needed, and in these cases all people of all ages are in direct competition for those jobs.

The comparison with the Middle East is nonsense, their young people don't have jobs because a) their governments promoted a stupidly high birth rate and b) the same governments have obstructed economic development that would otherwise have employed those youngsters.

Funny how easily we can see that happening right now in Europe.

Once the global economy picks up again there will be more jobs all round in most balanced economies.

Sure sure, good night and sweet dreams.

Raising the retirement age does raise questions though. My retirement age has been pushed up to 67 already and will probably go up further before I retire. My work requires precise hand eye coordination. How am I going to do my job when I'm that old? I will have to find another role along with all my other colleagues once we reach that age, how will that be provided for?

You're a bit egoistic there aren't you?
What about other people who have to do other kinds of jobs?

Let me tell you, generally (with very few exceptions) a healthy 70 year old person can not compete with a 25 year old one, no matter the difference he/she can bring based on their long experience, and that is for several reasons:
- they do not have the same attention span anymore
- they lose out on technology, or are often afraid of it when it first get's close to them
- they just don't have the energy to keep spinning for 8+ hours a day.

[ioan]

Before that though except for the select few no pension system existed. The problem for most countries is that the retirement age of 60-65 was established when people were not expected to live long enough to collect their pensions. In the UK only 1 in 10 men were expected to reach retirement age. Now of course we not only expect to retire but to enjoy anything up to 30 years of healthy life after, and things will worsen as life expectancy rises further and birth rates drop.

About time that the wheel turned on those thieves then, don't you think?
Making people pay a life time for something they would never get back, isn't that theft?!
Looks to me that the system was set up as a big scam just that it slowly turned around and now the scammers are the ones complaining.

Alternatively existing state pension schemes will become much harsher. In 2008 the NHS pension system was changed so that if it was in surplus the excess was taken by the treasury. If the NHS pension was in deficit the shortfall would be paid for by existing NHS employees. Heads I win, tails you lose.

This is why a change is needed, and today's politicians should be scraped as they do not serve the interests of those who elected them.
With the money I pay for pension funds in 40 years of work I could buy 4 apartments that I could rent for a monthly rent way above what my pension will eventually be!
The question is who is profiting from all that money that we pay and never get back?
I don't think any politician will even try to answer this question, ever.

[ioan]

When I'll be old ( in case I'll ever admit I'm old :laugh I want to rest and relax. Enough with hard learning and hard working!

Then you should start buying gold bars and depositing them in a Swiss bank. Otherwise no chance for that to happen.

[Malbec]

What he said is that if his business is to make huge profits then we need to take a cut or work longer and give them more money.

Read and watch the article again. The CEO mentions nothing about his own business, let alone profits from pensions. He's talking about pensions in general.

What do you think, why is that they are unable to give you back at least the money that you gave them during 40+ years of paying for your pension fund(s)?! It's not like you are going to live more than 30 years (in the best case) after you retire at 67 or 70!
Is it because they did sloppy work placing your money and now they do not have it?
Or is it because they pay out billions in bonuses to people who managed to produce record loses?

Both the AIG guy and I are talking pensions in general. The majority of pension schemes are state run especially in Europe. This is not about mismanagement of pension funds (which you would be able to track through your annual statements anyway, we're talking demographics.

Not even close.

Actually it is, you did read the article didn't you? He may be scaremongering but retirement ages will have to rise further and/or we will have to pay in more. Again its demographics.

And why do you think that people make less kids nowadays?
Is it not because they can not afford to raise more? Either because they are paid peanuts for their work or if they get enough money they do not have time to have and raise kids?!
Or is it because young people, who usually make kids, do not have jobs at all? What about most unemployed people being under 35?!

Utterly simplistic view. You think women gaining equality in society and at work has had nothing to do with the dropping birthrate? There are so many factors involved including culture and religion, the economy is not the sole factor by any means.

That's hogwash. Most people around the world do jobs for which little or no qualification is needed, and in these cases all people of all ages are in direct competition for those jobs.

Few people in the developed world do unskilled jobs. Most do jobs where experience and qualifications are needed. You're mistaking Europe with China.

Funny how easily we can see that happening right now in Europe.

Several lines up you were bleating about why birthrates were dropping through the floor in Europe, now the governments have pushed birthrates to stupidly high rates? Consistency please!

You're a bit egoistic there aren't you?
What about other people who have to do other kinds of jobs?

Let me tell you, generally (with very few exceptions) a healthy 70 year old person can not compete with a 25 year old one, no matter the difference he/she can bring based on their long experience, and that is for several reasons:
- they do not have the same attention span anymore
- they lose out on technology, or are often afraid of it when it first get's close to them
- they just don't have the energy to keep spinning for 8+ hours a day.

And how does that differ from what I said? You've just repeated my statement in a different way. Disagreeing for the point of disagreeing again?

You fundamentally misunderstand the pension timebomb. It isn't about bankers stealing money, its purely demographics. Oddly enough though, you think insulting and attacking covers for your ignorance, do you realise it merely makes your lack of understanding more obvious?

[Malbec]

This is why a change is needed, and today's politicians should be scraped as they do not serve the interests of those who elected them.
With the money I pay for pension funds in 40 years of work I could buy 4 apartments that I could rent for a monthly rent way above what my pension will eventually be!

Then don't pay into it, its simple. Use the money for something else like those apartments. Whats stopping you?

You'd be a fool not to take a serious look at how you're going to finance your retirement carefully and diversify your risks.

[ioan]

Then don't pay into it, its simple. Use the money for something else like those apartments. Whats stopping you?

The fact that they collect the money at the source, before I even get it?!
Sure thing I aint paying a private pension fund on top of it, maybe after I manage to get my own house and an apartment to fund my old days.

[ioan]

Read and watch the article again. The CEO mentions nothing about his own business, let alone profits from pensions. He's talking about pensions in general.

Because he aint the CEO of AIG? And he's got no interest in people paying into a pension fund 20% longer?

Both the AIG guy and I are talking pensions in general. The majority of pension schemes are state run especially in Europe. This is not about mismanagement of pension funds (which you would be able to track through your annual statements anyway, we're talking demographics.

Oh yes, the easy excuse it's demographics. Basically is no ones fault right?

Actually it is, you did read the article didn't you? He may be scaremongering but retirement ages will have to rise further and/or we will have to pay in more. Again its demographics.

Sure, it has nothing to do with the fact that governments blatantly mismanage pension funds using the money to cover other holes. Also it has nothing to do with many banks and insurance company which BTW happen to also have pension funds as side business lost or almost lost everything 4 years ago.
Again it is demographics which is basically no one's fault. How easy.

Utterly simplistic view. You think women gaining equality in society and at work has had nothing to do with the dropping birthrate? There are so many factors involved including culture and religion, the economy is not the sole factor by any means.

Women have been working for decades and yet they had more kids than they have now.
My parents have 4 children, by the time they were my age, yet they both had well paying jobs and worked 40 years each. I've got no kids and not planning to have any for the next 6 years.
See I am talking from experience, I wonder how you came to your conclusions that economy isn't the sole factor. Maybe it's something in the water?!

Few people in the developed world do unskilled jobs. Most do jobs where experience and qualifications are needed. You're mistaking Europe with China.

I think that you're mistaking unskilled jobs with skilled ones.
Every time I call for a skill hand worker of any kind I have to put up with crap work and high prices. I could do 99% of these so called 'skilled' jobs without a minute of training if I just had the time for it.
Breaking news: using a hammer and a screwdriver is not skilled job in my world, and no I am not in China.

Several lines up you were bleating about why birthrates were dropping through the floor in Europe, now the governments have pushed birthrates to stupidly high rates? Consistency please!

You understood bugger all, I was talking about the unemployment levels and obstructed economic growth. or do you see overall economic growth in Europe right now?

And how does that differ from what I said? You've just repeated my statement in a different way. Disagreeing for the point of disagreeing again?

Who said I disagreed? I just said you were a bit egoistic by explaining only your case.

You fundamentally misunderstand the pension timebomb. It isn't about bankers stealing money, its purely demographics. Oddly enough though, you think insulting and attacking covers for your ignorance, do you realise it merely makes your lack of understanding more obvious?

Oh the demographic excuse again, when in reality we are talking about gross mismanagement. Of public and private pension funds.
It looks more like you are insulting me while I never insulted you, unless you are one of those I cited in which case I stand by my opinion.

[Rollo]

Both the AIG guy and I are talking pensions in general. The majority of pension schemes are state run especially in Europe. This is not about mismanagement of pension funds (which you would be able to track through your annual statements anyway, we're talking demographics.

You fundamentally misunderstand the pension timebomb. It isn't about bankers stealing money, its purely demographics.

I'll take these two statements together:

AIG is a business; that means that firstly they have their interests at heart and not the general public. Assuming money is actually set aside to pay pensions, then it has to be invested somewhere and you can bet that AIG would be queuing up to get these funds under their management like any other financial company.
Those funds have to be invested somewhere and invariably they do/would end up in property/shares/bonds etc. which are all subject to varying amounts of risk. As we've seen in Australia over the past 5 years, many retirees have had great chunks of their investments wiped out and so have been forced to rely on the state-paid pension. Companies like AIG honestly couldn't give a rip if people suffer a loss.
In the mean time, superannuation firms still take their 1-2% management fees in spite of the funds under their management not generally even keeping place with inflation. In Australia at least the law allows you to set-up a self-managed-super-fund but the retail funds generally haven't done stellarly better than SMSFs on the whole. Most people I deal with usually have enough that they could set up their own SMSF but then again most people don't want the hassle. There is a break even point when it doesn't even make sense to set up your own SMSF because the audit fees would be more than 1-2% management fees which financial companies would have taken.

The point is that it actually is partially about bankers stealing money (they'd like to) and not just purely demographics.