Raise the retirement age

[muon2]

I don't favor policies that screw over young people.

How does it hurt young people to not be paying for a 66 year old's pension?

I would rather raise the retirement age and at least get a reasonable pension than retire on a below subsistence pension, or worse, see the state pension abolished.

The real screwing over of young people was getting rid of defined benefit schemes, that pretty much ensures we get to retire into poverty in any case.

Ironically it was young Gen-X'ers in the 1990's that drove the end of defined benefit plans. Workers in the new rapidly growing tech sector didn't want to stay with one firm more than a few years - in fact tech firms looked suspiciously at applicants who had worked 5 or more years with one company (my wife was working in that industry at that time). That meant those employees couldn't vest in a retirement plan, so they'd rather have their benefits in a 401k - originally designed as a supplement to a basic defined benefit pension. Eventually other older companies followed suit to compete for talent and keep pension costs down compared to the newer tech firms. Now the 401k is the supplement to Social Security which is the only defined benefit plan most workers see.

[muon2]

I don't favor policies that screw over young people.

How does it hurt young people to not be paying for a 66 year old's pension?

I would rather raise the retirement age and at least get a reasonable pension than retire on a below subsistence pension, or worse, see the state pension abolished.

The real screwing over of young people was getting rid of defined benefit schemes, that pretty much ensures we get to retire into poverty in any case.

Ironically it was young Gen-X'ers in the 1990's that drove the end of defined benefit plans. Workers in the new rapidly growing tech sector didn't want to stay with one firm more than a few years - in fact tech firms looked suspiciously at applicants who had worked 5 or more years with one company (my wife was working in that industry at that time). That meant those employees couldn't vest in a retirement plan, so they'd rather have their benefits in a 401k - originally designed as a supplement to a basic defined benefit pension. Eventually other older companies followed suit to compete for talent and keep pension costs down compared to the newer tech firms. Now the 401k is the supplement to Social Security which is the only defined benefit plan most workers see.

You're describing the upper end of the labor market. People working in factories weren't asking for "flexibility." They had it forced on them when some private equity firm bought their employer, loaded it up with debt so it could file for bankruptcy and get rid of its pension obligations, and then reincorporate as a new entity with no pensions.

At the time it is primarily in the middle of the labor market. Most of the tech labor was just out of college and willing to work pretty cheaply, hoping to catch onto a hot startup at the right time. Of course, few got the timing just right. The key was that they wanted to frequently switch employers, so it was more about the industry than the income bracket. Nonetheless, when companies that had both tech development and manufacturing, they moved their entire workforce and not just the new tech workers. When the bulk of traditional companies followed suit it wasn't because of equity buyouts, it was just boardroom decisions based on market forces.