Anna's Deep Dives

_{Just facts, you think for yourself}

Public vs. Private Pensions

Defined Benefit (DB) Plans: Promises, Funding, and Risks

Defined Benefit (DB) plans offer retirees a fixed income based on salary and years of service. Employers fund and manage these plans, bearing the investment risk.

These plans were once widespread. In the 1970s, 90% of U.S. private sector workers had DB plans. That number has since declined as employers shift toward defined contribution (DC) models.

Still, DB plans remain a pillar of retirement security in many regions. In the UK, over 4,500 active DB schemes hold a combined surplus of £239 billion, with an average funding ratio of 148.5%. Yet, not all are in surplus—461 UK schemes reported deficits in 2024, highlighting uneven outcomes.

Surpluses bring new debates. Some firms are reallocating excess funds to bolster DC plans. Schroders, for instance, plans to redirect 10% of its surplus toward employees. Meanwhile, the UK government seeks to unlock £160 billion from DB funds for national investment—an idea that has sparked concern among pension trustees.

Outside the UK, Canada’s pension landscape is evolving. With rising market risks, companies are increasingly transferring DB liabilities to insurers. The Canadian pension risk transfer market is now valued at $10 billion.

Emerging threats like cyberattacks, climate volatility, and governance failures add new layers of risk to DB plan management. Even well-funded systems must stay vigilant.

Defined Contribution (DC) Plans: The 401(k) Boom, Risk Shifting to Individuals

Defined Contribution (DC) plans have become the dominant retirement model. These plans rely on individual and employer contributions, with payouts determined by market performance. Unlike DB plans, there are no guaranteed benefits—the investment risk falls squarely on the worker.

The most prominent DC vehicle in the U.S. is the 401(k), which holds $11.1 trillion of the $40 trillion in national retirement assets. Employees can contribute up to $23,500 annually, plus an extra $7,500 if over 50. Employers often match a portion of contributions.

While DC plans offer flexibility, they also expose workers to volatility. In 2024, early withdrawals from 401(k)s rose to 5%, as many Americans tapped savings for emergencies like rent and healthcare. Many savers underfund their plans or make poor investment choices.

To increase participation, the SECURE 2.0 Act now requires auto-enrollment in new plans at contribution rates of 3% to 10%. Yet only 57% of small employers offer retirement plans, citing cost and administrative complexity.

DC plans symbolize the broader shift in responsibility—from institutions to individuals. But without better tools, advice, and defaults, many workers risk falling short in retirement.

Hybrid Models and Variations Across Different Countries

To address the trade-offs of DB and DC models, some countries are adopting hybrid systems that share risk between workers, employers, and governments.

In India, the Unified Pension Scheme will launch in 2025 for 230,000 government workers, guaranteeing 50% of the last drawn salary. Andhra Pradesh has already rolled out a Guaranteed Pension System offering similar benefits, plus healthcare support.

The UK introduced a Collective Defined Contribution (CDC) plan for Royal Mail employees in 2023. This model pools member assets and shares risk collectively, aiming to deliver more predictable incomes without full employer guarantees.

Tennessee’s RetireReadyTN program blends a pension with a 401(k)-style account and has saved the state over $480 million. The Netherlands is transitioning its entire pension system to DC by 2028, but with solidarity-based buffers to reduce risk exposure for individuals.

Canada is promoting Pooled Registered Pension Plans to extend coverage to small businesses. In Australia, the mandatory superannuation system—where employers contribute to individual accounts—has earned the country high marks in global pension rankings.

Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia is raising its retirement age from 58 to 65 to align with longer life expectancy and increase women’s workforce participation.

The Nordic model stands out for blending strong public pensions with universal services, ensuring high replacement rates. But elsewhere, generosity can become a burden. Spain’s pension-to-GDP entitlement ratio of 507% highlights long-term fiscal stress.

Hybrid and country-specific models reflect a global search for balance—between flexibility and security, solvency and fairness. As demographics shift and work evolves, this experimentation will define the future of retirement.

The 401(k) Illusion

How the 401(k) Became the Default Retirement Plan in the U.S.

The 401(k) began as a tax loophole. In 1978, Congress added Section 401(k) to the tax code, allowing workers to defer taxes on retirement contributions. Initially seen as a supplement to traditional pensions, it quickly evolved into a replacement.

By the early 1980s, companies began phasing out defined benefit plans in favor of 401(k)s. These new plans shifted retirement responsibility from employers to employees. Companies liked the lower cost. Workers were attracted by tax advantages and employer matches.

By the 1990s, the 401(k) had become the dominant U.S. retirement vehicle. Today, over 90% of large employers offer them, and they hold $8.9 trillion in assets. Contribution limits in 2023 were $22,500, with a $7,500 catch-up for those over 50.

Automatic enrollment helped boost participation. The SECURE Act 2.0 requires new plans to start employees at 3% of salary. Some firms now report participation rates above 90%. Target-date funds—auto-adjusting portfolios based on age—now hold 29% of 401(k) assets, and mutual fund fees have dropped to 0.31%.

But 401(k)s were never designed to carry the full weight of retirement. As pensions disappeared, they became the default by necessity—not by design. Millions now rely on a system built for flexibility, not security.

Common Misconceptions About Contribution Rates, Matching, and Returns

Misunderstandings about 401(k) plans are widespread—and costly.

Many workers overestimate employer contributions. A typical match is 50% of the first 6% of salary. Contributing less than that leaves free money on the table.

Others believe they need large sums to start saving. In reality, even small, consistent contributions can compound over decades. Time, not size, is the biggest driver of growth.

Another misconception: just enrolling is enough. Most automatic enrollment settings default to a 3% contribution rate—far below the 10% to 15% that experts recommend. Without manual adjustments, many fall behind without noticing.

Some workers assume their 401(k) will grow steadily, but markets are volatile. In 2025, a 10% downturn erased $5 trillion from retirement accounts. Even diversified target-date funds lost value.

Fees are often ignored but matter immensely. A 1% difference in annual fees can reduce a retirement balance by hundreds of thousands over a lifetime. Yet many savers don’t know what their plan charges.

And averages can mislead. While the average 401(k) balance was $132,300 in 2024, the median was far lower—meaning most workers have significantly less. Just 20% of people over 55 had more than $447,000 saved.

The result: many Americans are underprepared—and unaware.

Challenges: Insufficient Savings, High Fees, and Market Volatility

The core problem with 401(k)s isn’t the concept—it’s the reality.

Nearly 46% of U.S. households had no retirement savings in 2023. Among those with accounts, the median balance was just $87,000—far below the $1.46 million most people believe they’ll need to retire comfortably.

Access is uneven. Roughly 28 million workers lack employer-sponsored retirement plans. Another 22 million have access but choose not to participate. Part-time and low-income workers are least likely to be covered.

Income disparities fuel gaps in participation and matching. Nearly 75% of low-income workers have no plan at all, and among those who do, 82% receive no employer match. Without incentives, saving becomes harder to justify.

Fees quietly drain accounts. A 3% annual fee can cut a retirement balance in half compared to a 1.25% plan. Many savers are unaware of what they pay, and hidden costs in mutual funds and administrative layers go unnoticed.

Market volatility adds further risk. A 10% market drop—like in 2025—can set back savings dramatically, especially for older workers with little time to recover. Automatic features are meant to help, but many plans start contributions too low. Worse, 60% of workers opt out of automatic increases within a year.

The result is a growing group of workers aging into retirement with too little saved, too much risk, and no guaranteed income. The 401(k) may have been an innovative tool—but it was never meant to stand alone.

The Underfunded Public Pensions Dilemma

Magnitude of the Funding Gap: State, Municipal, and National-Level Underfunding

Public pension systems across the U.S. face a persistent and systemic funding shortfall. As of 2022, the average funding ratio for state and local plans was just 77.1%, with some local plans funded at less than 20%. By 2024, total unfunded liabilities stood at approximately $2.5 trillion—down from a peak of $6 trillion in 2020, but still dangerously high.

Illinois remains the most extreme case. The state holds $144 billion in pension debt and a funded ratio of only 46%. In fiscal year 2026, Illinois plans to contribute $11.7 billion—$5.1 billion short of the $16.8 billion required.

New Jersey's system is just 52.4% funded. Despite plans to contribute $7.16 billion in 2024, the state remains well below the 80% threshold often cited as minimally adequate. Oklahoma’s teachers’ retirement system is similarly strained, undercut by 19 unfunded cost-of-living adjustments since 1975 that created nearly $16 billion in liabilities.

Municipal systems are under stress as well. In Forest Park, Illinois, police and fire pensions are just 35% funded. San Francisco holds $5.6 billion in unfunded pensions and $3.9 billion in retiree healthcare liabilities. Across California, pension obligations have worsened budget deficits—contributing to the state’s $38 billion shortfall for 2024–2025.

Nationally, the picture darkens further when factoring in retiree health obligations, which reached $680 billion in 2021. Combined with long-term Social Security and Medicare shortfalls, the U.S. faces over $80 trillion in future unfunded commitments.

Public pension underfunding is more than a budgetary headache. It crowds out spending on infrastructure, schools, and emergency services—and risks undermining the financial security of future retirees as fewer workers enter the system.

Accounting and Actuarial Assumptions That Mask True Liabilities

On paper, many public pension plans appear healthier than they truly are—thanks to overly rosy assumptions and flexible accounting practices.

Plans often assume long-term investment returns of 7% or higher. When actual performance falls short, the gap between assets and liabilities widens rapidly. A 1% change in the discount rate can raise total obligations by up to 20% of GDP. Yet few policymakers grasp this risk.

Some states also rely on outdated mortality and wage growth tables, underestimating how long retirees will live and how much benefits will grow. Others assume low inflation, which compresses liability projections until reality proves otherwise.

Smoothing techniques further obscure true liabilities by spreading losses over several years, delaying recognition of bad investment periods. In some cases, asset values are inflated by booking expected—not actual—returns.

For example, in 2021, strong markets briefly lifted the average funded ratio for state plans to 82%. But this masked deeper problems: 21 states still faced negative amortization, meaning they weren’t even covering the interest on their pension debt.

In California, 12 of the 15 largest cities cannot fully pay their bills. Los Angeles alone carries $11 billion in pension debt and $2.4 billion in healthcare obligations. San Jose faces $3.5 billion in unfunded pensions, putting police and fire services at risk.

Even internationally, questionable assumptions shape policy. Quebec reformed its approach by focusing on long-term funding rather than short-term solvency. While this reduces immediate pressure, it gambles on future investment performance.

These assumptions and accounting choices delay reform and mislead the public. Transparency is essential to prevent today’s problems from becoming tomorrow’s crisis.

Political and Economic Pressures Preventing Adequate Reforms

The largest barrier to pension reform isn’t math—it’s politics.

Cutting benefits or raising retirement ages is deeply unpopular. Elected officials often avoid these steps to preserve support from unions, retirees, and public-sector workers.

In Illinois and New Jersey, chronic underfunding has persisted for decades. Despite billions in annual contributions, both systems remain near or below 50% funded. Political will to enact structural reform remains elusive.

Some states even reverse progress. In Oklahoma, lawmakers considered a return to defined benefit plans for teachers—despite rising liabilities and a budget that already allocates over $448 million for pensions.

Globally, political resistance is common. In France, deficit pressure and political fragmentation have stalled reform efforts, with mass protests erupting over retirement age increases. In the U.K., the pension “triple lock” ensures benefits rise with inflation, wages, or 2.5%—whichever is highest—costing an estimated £1.5 billion extra per year by 2030. Yet politicians fear removing it.

Romania plans a 12.1% pension hike in 2025, despite widening deficits. Leaders fear that cancelling the increase would trigger unrest. In Japan, younger workers distrust the system entirely, as the national fund covers only 48% of retiree income. In China, 28% of the population will be over 60 by 2040, yet workers are opting out of the system, hollowing its foundation.

Economic stress adds urgency but not action. California lost $44 billion in projected revenue in 2024, worsening its already large budget gap. Yet pension promises remain untouched. The longer governments wait, the harder the fix becomes.

Across countries, aging populations, rising costs, and short-term politics form a gridlock that’s preventing the bold reforms necessary to stabilize public pensions. Without intervention, these systems may become the next major fault line in global finance.

We don’t take shortcuts, chase headlines, or push narratives. We just bring you the news, straight and fair. If you value that, click here to become a paid subscriber—your support makes all the difference.

Table of Contents

(Click on any section to start reading it)

1. Introduction

• Setting the Stage

  • Why “The Great Retirement Crisis” Deserves Our Attention

  • Overview of Global Retirement Trends and the Urgency of Reform

  • Brief Roadmap of What This Deep Dive Will Cover

• Historical Perspective: How Did We Get Here?

  • Early Pension Systems: From Informal Support to State-Backed Programs

  • Evolution of Retirement: From Defined Benefit (DB) to Defined Contribution (DC) Plans

  • Key Milestones in Pension Policy Development Around the World

2. Understanding Pension Systems

• Public vs. Private Pensions

  • Defined Benefit (DB) Plans: Promises, Funding, and Risks

  • Defined Contribution (DC) Plans: The 401(k) Boom, Risk Shifting to Individuals

  • Hybrid Models and Variations Across Different Countries

• The 401(k) Illusion

  • How the 401(k) Became the Default Retirement Plan in the U.S.

  • Common Misconceptions About Contribution Rates, Matching, and Returns

  • Challenges: Insufficient Savings, High Fees, and Market Volatility

• The Underfunded Public Pensions Dilemma

  • Magnitude of the Funding Gap: State, Municipal, and National-Level Underfunding

  • Accounting and Actuarial Assumptions That Mask True Liabilities

  • Political and Economic Pressures Preventing Adequate Reforms

3. Global Demographics and Their Impact

• Aging Populations Worldwide

  • Low Birth Rates, Longer Life Expectancies, and the Shrinking Workforce

  • Dependency Ratios: Fewer Workers Supporting More Retirees

  • Case Studies: Japan, Europe, the U.S., and Emerging Markets

• Socioeconomic Consequences

  • Pressure on Healthcare and Social Security Systems

  • Changing Family Structures and the Erosion of Traditional Elder Support

  • Potential for Intergenerational Conflict vs. Intergenerational Solutions

4. The Economics of Retirement Systems

• Investment Returns & Market Dynamics

  • Why Returns Matter: Compounding vs. Inflation

  • Impact of Low-Interest-Rate Environments on Pension Portfolios

  • Asset Allocation Strategies in the Face of Market Volatility

• Government Policies & Fiscal Constraints

  • Tax Incentives vs. Pension Obligations: Balancing Short-Term Budgets with Long-Term Commitments

  • Monetary Policy Implications (e.g., Quantitative Easing) on Pension Solvency

  • The Political Economy of Pension Reform: Winners and Losers

• Corporate and Personal Finance Implications

  • Rising Corporate Pension Liabilities and Their Impact on Financial Statements

  • Household Debt and Inadequate Retirement Savings

  • Behavioral Finance: Why People Struggle to Save Enough

5. Case Studies & Global Comparisons ^{_{(Premium Members Only)}}

• United States

  • Social Security’s Solvency Issues

  • State Pension Crises: Illinois, Kentucky, New Jersey

  • The 401(k) Evolution and Proposed Reforms

• Europe

  • Generous State Pensions vs. Budget Deficits

  • Pension Reforms in Greece, Italy, and Germany

  • Ongoing Debates About the Sustainability of Pay-as-You-Go Systems

• Asia

  • Japan’s Super-Aged Society: Lessons for the Rest of the World

  • China’s Rapidly Aging Population and Nascent Private Pension Sector

  • Singapore and South Korea’s Hybrid Approaches to Retirement Funding

• Emerging Markets

  • Rapid Demographic Shifts and Informal Labor Markets

  • Pensions in Latin America: From Chile’s Privatization Experiment to Reforms in Brazil

  • Unique Structural Challenges and Innovative Solutions in Africa

6. Potential Solutions and Future Outlook ^{_{(Premium Members Only)}}

• Policy Reforms

  • Raising Retirement Ages and Adjusting Benefit Formulas

  • Incentivizing Private Savings and Employer-Based Contributions

  • New Models: Notional Defined Contribution (NDC) and Auto-Enrollment Systems

• Technological and Financial Innovations

  • Robo-Advisors and FinTech for Retirement Planning

  • Blockchain and Digital Assets: Potential for Transparent, Lower-Fee Investment Platforms

  • Micro-Pensions and Mobile-Based Solutions in Developing Markets

• The Role of Individuals and Employers

  • Financial Literacy: Empowering Individuals to Make Better Decisions

  • Reimagining the Employer-Employee Relationship: Shared Contributions, Matched Savings

  • The Gig Economy and Its Implications for Retirement Planning

• Scenario Planning: The Next 20–30 Years

  • How Demographics, Automation, and Economic Shifts Might Shape Retirement Systems

  • From Crisis to Opportunity: Reinventing Retirement in an Era of Longer Lifespans

  • The Global Dimension: International Cooperation or Competition?

Baked with love,

Anna Eisenberg ❤️