Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

A super way to turn a vicious circle into a virtuous one

By Nicholas Gruen - posted Friday, 15 July 2005


First, we could require those accessing greater flexibility in the use of their super savings to commit to higher contributions. Second the new field of “behavioural economics” tells us that in situations of great uncertainty - like figuring out how much we should save now to fund a retirement that is several decades away - we look around to see what others do. (Terror of deviating from “normality” is one reason investment managers so rarely outperform the market.)

So, as US Bureau of Economic Research economists argued in their aptly titled paper Passive Decisions and Potent Defaults (which was picked up recently in an excellent book by four young Australians, Imagining Australia), we can influence savings by influencing people’s conception of what is “normal”. That’s easier from government, but it can even be done by an opposition - by simply making increasing your super contributions a talking point.

Our leaders could try making it normal for people to salary sacrifice an additional 1 per cent this year, 2 per cent next year and so on until total contributions are - say - 15 per cent of earnings.

Advertisement

And there’s something much more powerful than talk - inertia. We can establish a system whereby a progressively increasing portion of our own wages are automatically deducted from our pay packet and paid into super. You could still elect to contribute less - completing a form declaring you understand what you are doing and electing to reduce your non-compulsory contributions as much as you wanted.

But by tilting the burden of inertia and the frame of “normality”, we’d trigger a healthy amount of doubt in people’s minds before they unshackled themselves from the mast. If they did end up saving too little, they’d have done so by design rather than default.

To the extent these reforms succeed they’d yield a double dividend: solving the problems we face now, while minimising the degree of compulsion required in the future.

It’s an idea worthy of the wily Odysseus.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All

First published in The Courier-Mail in July 6, 2005.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Dr Nicholas Gruen is CEO of Lateral Economics and Chairman of Peach Refund Mortgage Broker. He is working on a book entitled Reimagining Economic Reform.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Nicholas Gruen

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Nicholas Gruen
Article Tools
Comment Comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy