The pensions are the reason why the US federal government will always bail out the stock market at large. All the investments the defined benefit pensions make are in those stocks (or correlated with them).
I'd rather take the gains from all companies in the US (or merely even be allowed to invest in whatever I want) than to utilize a pension from a specific company I worked for, for 40 years. Pensions are not even guaranteed to be paid out, there have been many examples in the past 30 years about this case, if the company goes bankrupt, doesn't have enough money, etc.
More often, I notice the people who advocate for pensions over 401ks or stocks know nothing about what the stock market is really like. Yes, if you put it all on GME or AMC, you'll lose your money, but as OP shows, you will make considerable wealth if you put it into VTI or another total stock market fund.
As the post I was replying to said:
> The point is that, despite massive economic growth (GDP quintupled) and very high rates of inflation (in the 1970's) during that 17-year period, at the end of those 17 years the market was valuing what at the time was the most prominent index of blue-chip companies at the same market capitalization they had at the beginning of the 17 years.
That's the point, the stock market is not related to the economy. You're not getting the gains. You're getting whatever scraps the bored rich people playing poker with each other accidentally drop off the table.
> That's the point, the stock market is not related to the economy. You're not getting the gains. You're getting whatever scraps the bored rich people playing poker with each other accidentally drop off the table.
I am, though. I am getting the gains. Over the past X years, my and my family's gains from investing in the total stock market in the last 50 years (not even outliers like Google or Amazon or GameStop) have been enormous, on average 7% real as TFA shows. Maybe you're not, if you're not investing, but the stock market has consistently given us gains. Again, most people who mention the kind of "rich boys club" reasoning have been in my experience people who don't, won't, or can't invest in the stock market.
The house always wins.
[1] There's a bazillion, here's one. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/worried-retiring-during-marke...
[2] https://www.parkworth.com/blogs/how-worried-should-you-be-ab...
Again, if you're not investing, that's your problem, but don't blame it on the stock market itself. Thinking it's just another casino where you have to get "lucky" will cost you a lot of money in the future.
Edit: I just took a look at your links, they literally contradict the retirement doom and gloom you're referring to. From [1]:
> Historically Speaking, You Shouldn't Panic When the Market Crashes
> Nevertheless, history says that most well-diversified portfolios can and do recover over time.
> What Retirement Savers Can Do
> Even though the situation may seem dire given the long time horizon to recovery, there are multiple ways to guard against asset depletion. For example, investors can avoid selling off assets in a down market by holding one to two years' worth of planned withdrawals in cash. Worldwide, high-net-worth individuals often keep 21-28% of their assets in cash or cash equivalents, with the percentage leaning towards the higher end of the range during times of market crisis. This also opens an opportunity for better buys when the market eventually improves.
> Being flexible with withdrawal rates is also key to mitigating sequence risk. Morningstar analysts recommend: withdrawing a fixed percentage of your portfolio's value every year, not adjusting your withdrawal rate for inflation (i.e. not increasing your withdrawal percentage when inflation is high) or using a so-called guardrail approach where you reduce your withdrawal rate if it surpasses a set threshold.
That doesn't mean that there are no risks. There are always risks but the math allows us to quantify those risks and make informed choices. Executing an effective strategy requires understanding the data, identifying an approach that fits your goals and then, most of all, the financial discipline to rigorously stick to the plan over many years despite emotional ups and downs (eg fear in downturns, exuberance in upswings).
Personally, I've been executing such a plan for decades now and I can assure you it feels nothing like a "casino" or gambling. Instead, it's downright boring. Once a year I make a predetermined algorithmic rebalance to the broad portfolio and otherwise I do nothing and don't even think about it. When the portfolio was way up a couple years ago, I didn't cash in any extra nor even 'celebrate'. Now that the portfolio is down this year, I'm not selling or thinking about cutting "losses." Why? Because they aren't losses unless I need to sell and I don't need to sell now because those prior "winnings" from a few years ago are more than enough to cover several more years of downturn if necessary. So far, the overall multi-decade results are substantially ahead of plan.
Makes you think that perhaps the stock market is not a great reflection of any on-the-ground reality, and that then makes you wonder what it is a reflection of, and... well, best not to think about it. Let's destroy pensions and put all of our savings into this casino run by the wealthy.