Then you'll have to raise wages for government jobs dramatically. The decent pension is one of the perks that attracts people to those careers.
I think the main problem is that governments never want to pay into the pension pot during boomtimes, and then they cry poverty when the economy is in a downturn. In principle, an "immortal" entity like a state pension fund should be much better positioned to manage risk over time than a single individual with only one lifetime and one 401(k).
I don’t see the problem with paying market wages to people to avoid screwing future taxpayers.
And there is no such thing as an immortal entity. My kids and I will be paying for benefits enjoyed by my parents and grandparents. (I know there are things my ancestors have done that I have and will benefit from, but I’m strictly speaking in context of payment/benefits for defined benefit pensions).
>That's why infrastructure was much better in the past: most of the population was economically active and local governments didn't have any permanent financial burden like they have now.
They didn't have the financial burden because their ancestors didn't punt labor costs decades into the future. And given the opportunity to punt labor costs decades into the future and provide lower taxes now, how is a politician who is prudent and wishes to account for today's costs today going to win an election?
The only solution is to ban defined benefit pensions (and all deferred compensation schemes) so there no longer exists one less avenue for future taxpayers to get taken for a ride.