> >My parents and other retired people I know feel they've earnt their retirement, when they really haven't.

> Hasn't anyone who can afford to retire earned their retirement? What do you mean by "they really haven't"?

I think what mattmanser is point (if this has to do with state-provided benefits and not strictly employer-provided benefits, though arguments about market performance can be made there) is that, in many cases, these benefits either 1) will not exist at all, 2) exist in a severely reduced form, or 3) will have the goal posts raised periodically (30 years until retirement for you means your children will have to work 50 years until retirement).

If that is a correct interpretation of mattmanser's argument, then he/she is effectively saying that current retirement benefits receivers are receiving their benefits only by encumbering future generations with a greater burden than they bore.

As an aside, this brought to mind the notion that perhaps there is such a thing as time inflation, where past promises don't add up in the future and thus result in moving the goal posts. I've seen this crop up more and more with state pension funds in the United States (which always seem to have assumed the most favorable (and unrealistic) rate of return on their investments).

N.B. My understanding of this stuff is pretty vague, but here's a quick summary of the arguments I've heard on the matter:

I think the grievances might be to do with the amount of money paid into a pension pot versus the size of that pot. At least in the UK, many companies offered generous final-salary pensions, which (as the name suggests) are based on your income and index-linked. These have been basically phased out now, since they're too expensive (i.e. I think they generally cost more to fund than the person originally paid in + any accumulated investment returns). However, for those people who paid into such a scheme, there's no recourse for the scheme providers but to subsidise these expensive pensions with the rest of the communal pot. This means that they necessarily must offer less generous pensions to those who are currently paying in and will draw a pension in future.

I think there are also some arguments in the UK that oil wealth was used for short-term subsidies (e.g. tax cuts), rather than put into a long-term investment fund, like Norway. The people who benefited from that are the people who were alive at the time, and the eventual beneficiaries of their wills.

I don't know how accurate this all is, so would welcome a more informed perspective too.

I'm actually on a final salary scheme but I'm only 33. If I stay in this job for a long time and work for promotions I could end up with a massive sum without even putting anything aside. If I also invest my money into the stock market then I'll be very well off in old age.