reply to post by crazyewok
Estonia should also be considered Northern Europe, despite it being in Baltics. The culture and language are Nordic, very similar to Finland. So is
the economic direction chosen, leaving out the immigration policies. Latvia and Lithuania are more slavic by culture.
The country is younger though due to being occupied by USSR. Currently the people on pension are losing the most. They worked during the Soviet era
and all the funds were lost. Currently they are being given under the minimum salary and under the minimum living wage monthly of national pension.
For highest employees back then with significant background of course it is higher. Although the government is not able to pay everybody fair pension,
so the size is small. The costs here are somewhat similar (slightly cheaper) compared to cheaper US states, yet the pension is around 4500 dollars a
year. The current system will possibly work better for the future. Everybody pays in certain 2% on to which government adds 4%. It is obligatory to
pay it when working. Also one has to choose a pension fund, where they want to grow their money- whether risk more to be able to get more or risk less
and be in conservative fund. There are government one´s and private ones, which are run by different Nordic Banks usually. If you don´t choose any,
you are automatically put to government conservative one.
In Finland the pensions are very high, average is around 27,000 dollars a year. The pension is dependent on both - the average salary of the person
during lifetime (out of which they paid certain % for pension (obligatory)) and national pension added to it. There is a requirement for every pension
fund ) that everybody is required to produce at least certain increase (social ministry decides every year) in every year, otherwise there will be
certain consequences. Employers choose the pension funds who they work with and pay for their employees. The amount paid depends on the productivity
of the fund. If the fund did not meet previous standard, next year, the employee must pay more on top of every employee´s salary (without lowering
their salaries). I did not find numbers about recent years, in 2003. average employer paid 21.4% of every salary to pension funds out of which 4.6%
came directly from employees salary and the 16.8% was paid on top of the salary by the employer. The goal was 4.5% that year, so if the fund the
employer had chosen did not produce that much, next year the employer has to pay more per employee´s salaries. This is the basic how it works, I have
never researched much on it, to be honest.
It is hard to predict how this will work in the future. It is true that the nations are becoming older and the birth rates are going down. Although it
is very likely the productivity rises a lot in the coming years. There will be less jobs due to automation, but the productivity will be also higher.
Considering the directions these countries have chosen, especially education-wise, I believe they have advantage compared to many other countries.
Knowledge-based economy is a wise bet for the future. Technology and advances can change the future a lot and I doubt significant trouble will happen,
some solution will be found to the issues.
Although that is the future. The countries/cities/states who have to go through such thing now can cause significant trouble to the people, who worked
all their lives to get the pension. At the end, public employee are not usually paid extremely well and one of the motivations in getting that jobs
lies in the pension. That also brings more talent to the field, otherwise it would be impossible to compete with private corporations, who can
severaly outpay the public institutions. Currently the system will not change, at least in the coming years and the only one´s losing from the bad
decisions are the people who have worked all their lives and can not retire at old age.
edit on 11-12-2013 by Cabin because: (no reason given)