Saying that "you'd have to know the future" is just an overly dramatic way of talking about risk, and her points are overblown for effect. I could see your argument in a thread about healthcare, say, but we are talking about personal money, on top of any (current) insurance or social programs. There is no universal personal risk elimination system that smooths out risks due to the stock market, personal circumstances, etc. and makes sure we are never forced to live a less comfortable life than we anticipated.
Even if we decided to compensate all retirees for lack of savings or income, to say it's obvious or easy to do so is obtuse.
The current model for retirement savings, which forces individuals to figure out a plan for their retirement years, whether through a “guy” or by individual decision making, will always fall short.
Surely "a plan" is the very least we should be expected to have regarding our finances, not some unjust burden thrust on us by outside forces?
I think it's fair to say a solid financial plan could be the difference between comfort and affluence. For it to be the difference between comfort and poverty is inhumane.
That's where I'm coming from: No one who spends their life contributing value to our society should have to live out their final years and die in poverty. It's just not right, and there's no good reason to extend that right only to those individuals who have the ability to manage their own retirement.
Talking about risk and education and so on is misdirection. This is just something a civilized culture should do.
Even if we decided to compensate all retirees for lack of savings or income, to say it's obvious or easy to do so is obtuse.
The current model for retirement savings, which forces individuals to figure out a plan for their retirement years, whether through a “guy” or by individual decision making, will always fall short.
Surely "a plan" is the very least we should be expected to have regarding our finances, not some unjust burden thrust on us by outside forces?