I started my Sunday morning with breakfast and including GP (www.gp.se) in the breakfast is definitely more comfortable with the paper edition than the online one. Anyway, among the things that interested me was an article on occupational pensions.
The title "Difficult to choose the wrong pension" (the online version of "Easy occupational choice") was amusing, given that already in the first paragraph refers to a study done AMF pension that gave the answer that only 15% of privately employed workers feel that they have the sufficient knowledge to make their choice. But with a style of a parent Anna Björe clams us down in the next breath, and says that it is not so difficult you might think. No, it must of course be that the workers feelings are wrong and it is only because due to the fact they are uninformed. That means just give them the right information about the economic context and development on a 40-year term basis (when pensions are to be transferred back) and all will be transparent and easy. Tiring, I think it's so easy to just write that and not instead consider whether the intended choice might not be desirable for those who are forced into taking it.
Why shouldn't we be offered the choice to avoid these decisions more actively? What do we have our collective society for, if not including the simplification of our lives? Perhaps it is more people than I who think that electricity, telephone, pension, etc. may well be arranged in a collective manner? What if instead I could go in for decisions that matter to me as those including human relationships - family, friends and the rest of humanity for that matter. Less time on the financial management and buying/selling and more of what gives value to remember on the evening before falling asleep and in the morning when you wake up. Am I unique in the idea that human encounters is more important than economic choices? A frightening thought!
The article explains to the less knowledge you'll find here!
Press release on the AMF investigation you can find here.
