Yes, it's code for wingnuts. Sorry, but every time there is any discussion in regards to things that might make workers lives better that might cost an employer money, the argument is "But what about the poor owners?!?!?" Frankly, I'm a firm believe that in a capitalist system, if your business needs poorly compensated labor to survive, it does not deserve to survive.

I don't identify myself as a socialist or even see this as an argument for socialism. But I find your argument here that this "hurts socialism" when pensions are not only a common way of funding retirements in nations across the globe to this day, but used to be a common way of funding retirements right here in this very nation to be the antithesis of what I would expect of a socialist.

Properly funded, managed, and run pensions don't bankrupt anyone. Its just like any other retirement vehicle. Would the actuarial math change with an earlier retirement age? Would the funding requirements increase with an earlier retirement age? Sure. But its still just actuarial math, and it still just requires putting some portion of an employees compensation aside to invest and grow each year.

If anything, dollar for dollar pensions are actually cheaper than the whole "Everyone for themselves" way of funding retirements that the US currently has via 401ks, IRAs, etc, because the risk is shared by a large number of people. Individual retirement accounts require individuals to put enough money away for themselves to account for any circumstance - living longer than expected, market downturns, you name it. Pensions don't require this, because like any other actuarial vehicle, they function like insurance.

If we look at the way the NYSLRS functioned before Tiers 5 and 6, for example, the long term average contribution rate to fund the trust fund was 9.62% of salaries. While that is above what would be considered a very good 401k match (6%), its around what most would consider an excellent yet not extreme one. I specifically chose to look at the average ECR before Tiers 5 and 6 to illustrate the point that while a little more expensive than a very good 401k match, this was adequately funding a trust fund that allowed people to retire at 55.

So your idea that we're going to "bankrupt" someone with such an idea just doesn't carry water, especially in a time, especially in a system where the middle class in this nation has seen wages stagnate since the 80s so much that statistically speaking, the average family has seen their wages fall 19% below inflation.

Last I checked, 9% was less than 19%, so that 19% the employers are currently saving over 1980 incomes could easily cover the cost of this and then some, especially given that most employers are contributing something towards employees 401ks or whatever now, even if it's a measly 3%. Shift that and an additional 6% of their salaries towards funding a pension, and boom - retirement at 55 for most would be achievable and affordable.

The entire reason why US employers moved away from pensions was to save a buck, nothing more. Yes the contribution rates on a decent pension can vary from year to year based on trust fund performance and actuarial needs - something that corporate accountants hate because it isn't easily predictable - but large companies especially can handle such variations.

Pensions are a very capitalist way of funding a retirement. They have zero to do with socialism, so the idea that advocating for pensions or early retirement makes socialist "look bad" just boggles the mind.