Quote:
Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
1. Thats not what I said, but I agree with your non-reply.
2. The admin costs should be born by the person who holds the investment, rather than an employer. If the business was not manging a pension, it would have ZERO expenses, right? You got an option that beats $0.00 in admin expenses?
3. I'm not justifying my own choices at all. IRAs are a good way for people to save. But its goddamned sad thing that business has to play nanny.
|
1. If businesses did not play nanny, they would have crappier workers. Pensions attract people with skills. If Johnny Jr. knows the factory did right by John Sr., he'll go work there are work hard. If Johnny Jr. knows the factory did wrong by John Sr., he'll flee the area and/or get his friends to go out on strike and/or bomb the place. The history of the owner/power holder having responsibility for the workers/dependents goes way back. I think it's wired in, to some extent. There will always be brave mavericks like you, though. Plus, under your system, I'm going to try to have kids so as to have someone take care of me in my old age. Do you really want my spawn in the world? No.
2. Why are you so against economies of scale and efficiency? What is wrong with you? You should have to grow/kill your own food and chop your own firewood. I'm trading my labor, in part, for the economies of scale I get in knowing I am getting cheaper money management than I could ever hope to get if I had some broker investing in stocks, or even through individual mutual funds.
3. IRAs suck, and someone has to play nanny. I think your view would change if your grandparents and great aunts and great uncles all moved in with you. And your wife's.
You are being more ignorant than usual. Just give it up and focus on the terrorism stuff.
