Et Tu, Shlomo – A Response to Benartzi’s Response
Editor’s Note: To his credit, Shlomo Benartzi took the time to respond to my recent column on his Wall Street Journal op-ed on LinkedIn (you can read it here ) — though to my read, the concerns expressed on where such a proposal could lead remain. Consider this a brief follow-up. Shlomo, Whew! I can’t tell you how relieved I am/was to have you clarify that you are NOT advocating a government-run retirement plan system. I guess you referring to three specific government-run systems as models to be considered persuaded me that you thought those were good examples for us. You’ve now pointed more specifically to the Australian model where “workers remain by default with their first plan provider, even if they change jobs.” But as I am sure you know, there are some significant differences between that system and ours — differences that, to my eye, wind up being significant. First and foremost , that system is funded primarily by ...