What does pension payment mean?

The economic system exerts such a deceptive influence on our thoughts and perceptions that all retirees demand the cash value of the deductions made from their labor value in the past, and when they receive it, they feel happy, thinking they have received their due. This situation is quite heartbreaking.  

The government and employers, let alone leaving retirement savings aside, are even trying to cut and slash severance pay. This situation is a tragedy of insatiable greed seen on the capital-state front.

In a tragic environment where one side cannot understand and the other side exploits this lack of awareness to the fullest, retirees, even if they have received their pension deductions as they imagined due to political pressure, are staging rights-seeking demonstrations without being aware that they have been exploited by employers to an incredible extent. I think that if capital and the government were to agree and pay the amount calculated by our labor friends and unions down to the last penny, both this strange conflict would end and capital would still be far and away at an advantage. What kind of hunger or greed for exploitation is this, that the capital sector resorts to a thousand tricks to sit on the amount of exploitation that our labor friends have agreed to, without even giving it to the laborers, and tries to prevent the seized resources from slipping out of their hands by clinging even tighter to the state that is already on their side?

To unpack this issue, let's think about it this way. Why is the entire wage not given to a laborer while they are working, but instead legitimized as a deduction? Is this process resorted to because the laborer is not trusted, or because they think they can manage this money better than the laborer? Our labor friends need to ask this question and demand that their entire wages be paid to them without any deductions in such an exploitative grab-and-run system.

Such deductions are called 'public savings' in the public system. These savings are collected in a fund established under this name and transferred to the government at low interest rates for public budget needs. In short, a type of fund is created from the deductions made from laborers, which the public and, when necessary, the private sector can also benefit from. The logic of this fund is that the fund will grow and be transferred to our labor friends without any problems during the payment period. If this happens, it is perceived as if there is no excessive exploitation. Moreover, the monster's insatiable appetite does not even allow for this situation. That is why the state of both the budget and the fund is obvious!  

Exploitation is involved in the entire process, and it is a very severe form of exploitation. First of all, the difference between the inflation during the period when the deductions are made from the laborers and the inflation during the period when the payment is made works to the disadvantage of the laborer. In other words, depending on the severity of inflation, the purchasing power of the deduction made from the laborer and the purchasing power of the payment made to the laborer are eroded to the disadvantage of the laborer. 

The matter does not end there. In the time elapsed between the deduction made from the laborer and the payment made to the laborer, there is a loss equal to the market interest rate on the money. Let's think about it this way: if the amount to be deducted had been paid to the individual without any deduction, and the laborer had deposited this money in a bank or financial institution at the market interest rate, they would have earned much more income than the amount paid in full for the accumulated deductions. 

So, what happened to this difference, where did it go, and to which area did it provide benefits to the disadvantage of the laborer's interests? This is the important part of the matter. This difference is related to who benefited and how, as a result of the government using it to close the budget deficit from the institutional savings fund. If such a fund did not exist, whichever sector the government was going to impose taxes on would have benefited. In a situation where there is no more room for exploitation left on the laborer, if taxes are to be imposed on capital, then capital would gain an advantage. Or, whichever sector was going to be borrowed from for the budget deficit, borrowing would not have been done from that area. In the case where borrowing for the budget deficit is done from the fund instead of the private sector, without going into too deep subtleties, the laborer's loss is the difference between the interest payment made for borrowing from the fund and the market interest rate.

The summary of this narrative, given in broad strokes, is that even if laborers receive all their deductions in cash when they retire, they are faced with additional exploitation on top of the exploitation outside of their wages. When the private sector uses these funds, in addition to the losses mentioned, they are also subjected to additional exploitation equal to the profit the capital makes from the funds it uses. In this case, although laborers have become partners in capital with their deductions, they do not receive their share of the profits.   

We can summarize the whole narrative by saying that the exploitative relationship between capital and labor does not end with production and wage payment, but continues with additional exploitation during the processes of payment or delay of deductions. However, in all these processes, capital is at an advantage in every case and condition, while the laborer is the victim. 

Well, given this situation, what I cannot understand is why, instead of deductions, a document that shows the share of the stock, such as a bond or another name, which can be converted into cash, is not given to the laborer, whether with or without a maturity date! Of course, this is a terrible proposal. Namely, the laborer, who is already in a tight spot, could immediately convert these papers into cash. Well, if laborers agree to a deduction-free wage after reaching an agreement in wage negotiations, that is, if they agree that they will not claim any rights when they retire, why would such a practice bother capital or the state? Even a certain period could be set for the conversion of the papers given to the laborers into cash. Would the government and capital agree to this in that case? In my opinion, they would not, because capital profits directly or indirectly from all these deductions. The proposal I make would block these unfair profits. This means that our labor friends are being severely exploited both through their wages and through the deductions.