Let's create an independent company for retirements.

I was wondering about how unfair it is that people can work their whole lives and not have a retirement. What could we do as a society to setup an independent retirement company that every company has to pay into for every employee they have

That's a really thought-provoking question! The idea of setting up an independent retirement company funded by all employers for every employee could be a great solution to ensure a secure retirement for everyone.

Here are some steps that could be taken to make this idea a reality:

1. Establish a legal framework: This would require passing laws that make it mandatory for all companies to contribute a certain percentage of their employees' salaries to this independent retirement fund.
2. Set up an independent governing body: This body would be responsible for managing the retirement fund, investing the contributions wisely, and disbursing the funds to retirees.
3. Ensure transparency and accountability: Regular audits and reports should be made public to ensure that the retirement fund is being managed responsibly and that all employees are getting their fair share.
4. Educate and engage employees: Employees should be made aware of their rights to a secure retirement and encouraged to monitor their contributions to ensure that their employers are fulfilling their obligations.

This would ensure that people can move between companies and keep their retirement

Absolutely! One of the major advantages of this system would be portability. Instead of having multiple retirement accounts tied to different employers, individuals would have a single account that follows them throughout their career. This would not only make retirement planning simpler and more transparent for employees but also encourage job mobility without the fear of losing retirement benefits.

what would be objections to this plan by companies?

Companies may have a few objections to this plan:

1. Increased costs: Requiring companies to contribute to an independent retirement fund would increase their labor costs, which they might argue could hurt their competitiveness.
2. Loss of control: Companies that currently offer retirement benefits often use them as a tool to attract and retain employees. Moving to an independent retirement system would take away this control.
3. Administrative burden: Smaller companies, in particular, might argue that the additional administrative requirements of contributing to and reporting on an independent retirement system could be burdensome.
4. Lack of customization: A one-size-fits-all retirement system might not work for every company or industry. Some companies might prefer to tailor their retirement benefits to their specific workforce.

how to overcome these objections?

To overcome these objections, the following steps could be taken:

1. Gradual implementation: Rather than requiring companies to make large contributions to the independent retirement fund immediately, the contribution rate could be phased in gradually over several years. This would give companies time to adjust to the increased labor costs.
2. Incentives for compliance: Companies that contribute to the independent retirement fund could be offered tax breaks or other incentives, which would help offset the increased costs.
3. Simplified administration: The independent governing body could be responsible for the majority of the administrative work associated with the retirement fund, reducing the burden on companies.
4. Flexibility: While the basic structure of the retirement fund would be the same for all companies, there could be some flexibility in terms of contribution rates or investment options to allow companies to tailor the system to their specific needs.
5. Education and outreach: By engaging with companies and explaining the benefits of an independent retirement system, such as increased employee retention and satisfaction, companies may be more likely to support the plan.

if someone was working part-time could we scale the required retirement payment to the actual number of hours they worked in a week, so folks that work 20 hours would only have 50% of their retirement paid in that week.

Yes, absolutely! Scaling retirement contributions to the actual number of hours worked could be a fair and flexible way to ensure that part-time workers are still able to save for retirement, while also taking into account the reality of their variable hours.

Here's how it could work:

1. The independent retirement fund could set a standard contribution rate, for example, 5% of an employee's hourly wage.
2. For each hour worked, the employer would contribute 5% of the employee's hourly wage to the retirement fund.
3. So, if someone worked 20 hours in a week, their employer would contribute 5% of their hourly wage for each of those 20 hours. If they worked 40 hours the next week, their employer would contribute for each of those 40 hours.
4. This approach would ensure that part-time workers are still able to save for retirement, even if they work variable hours from week to week.
5. It would also be fair to employers, as they would only be required to contribute to the retirement fund for the hours that an employee actually works.