231–240 of 247 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The insurance company is effectively acting as a giant escrow account on behalf of the employees/retirees. The employer pays into the account at whatever rate is required to fully fund retirements. The insurance company manages those funds. If the employer goes bankrupt, the funds are not accessible by raiders/PE firms.
This already exists. It's called a 401(k).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This already exists. It's called a 401(k).
Not really. A pension you get your money until you die - there is no possibility of running out. A 401k you can live longer than expected and run out of money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oliver is a journalist, though. That's why Snowden granted him an interview first, before anyone else in the world. Sure, he's humorous, but he's not offering his opinions except in the most general terms. He follows facts, not hype.
I thought he was a comedian.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's lots of evidence milk isn't as good for you as the dairy industry advertises.
And also lots of evidence for the contrary.
So show a dairy industry advertisement, and show that milk is actually better than THAT. :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If its healthy during infancy why would it be unhealthy during adulthood?
Because the average adult doesn't need such a high concentration of fat and calories in a single drink / bowl of cereal / piece of cheese etc. If it was healthy and natural you'd be drinking your mother's milk as an adult, but I'm sure you aren't.
This doesn’t mean consuming a moderate amount of milk is somehow unhealthy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> " There's lots of evidence milk isn't as good for you as the dairy industry advertises." lol at this ridiculous comment. Present the evidence please. How many millions of years do you think mammals have been drinking milk for?
dairy consumption is very strongly linked to prostate cancer: Dr. Miller gave a huge talk about this. You can find it on Youtube. Also, there's the China study, one of the largest ever studies in china showing that dairy and meat consumption are strongly linked to cancers and diseases even within a genetically homogenous population. some portions of the population had cancer rates of 400 times higher than other areas…
Who is Dr Miller. Does he present his research in medical journals, or just on YouTube? Got a link to a research paper? "Look it up on YouTube" isn't a valid response when someone asks for proof of something...
> " Also, there's the China study..."
China's a big place. Lots of studies going on, I'd imagine. Again - got a link to a research paper?
How about this: https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/causes-of-canc...
"Milk and dairy are good sources of calcium and protein which are needed as part of a healthy, balanced diet. Calcium is important for teeth and bone health.
Studies looking into the link between cancer and dairy products have not given clear results. There is evidence that dairy products could reduce the risk of bowel cancer, but we cannot say for sure that this is the case. There is no strong evidence linking dairy products to any other types of cancer. We need further research to find out more about the links between dairy products and cancer risk."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok. But even with a sensible investment strategy a major economic decline close to your retirement can result in you getting a lot less than you expected, right? It just seems to me a pension should principally offer a reasonable level of certainty (to those that choose to have it).
The thing is that pensions aren't magic money trees. They're invested in the market just like anything else. So if there's a major economic decline close to your retirement, they may well become insolvent. Maybe they'll be bailed out (with basically other people's money) or maybe they won't be. (Pensions also don't really protect you if inflation spikes.) Individual investors do have the option of investing in things…
DC retirement plans heap all correlated market risk on individual retirees.
Given that the risks of an underfunding are greater than an overfunding, that market returns are exogenous to the merits of any given retiree, and the goal is to supply adequate income to live on in retirement, the arguments in favour of a DB plan, a payment mandate by the employer, a government backing, and severe penalties for malfeasance, including clawbacks to investors and creditors of deadbeat employers, seems more than appropriate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sure if serious.meme A defined benefit plan is (nominally) funded by the employer with little or no input from the employee at time of investment or distribution. A 401k is funded by the employee, with the employee managing contribution level, fund investment, and eventually distributions. They're only the same, if by same you mean "retirement plans". The details are substantially different.
A 401k is an account, funded by a mix of employer and employee contributions, that's beyond reach of bankruptcy. That part is the same. The only bit that's different is the self-management of assets, of which many companies are happy to do, increasingly for lower and lower fees. 0.2-0.3% being common which I bet goes toe-to-toe with good pension managers. They really aren't that different.