It's not based on a generational contract within the same family (i.e. my kids pay my retirement) but society wide. Instead of saving up capital I pay the retirement benefits of the current generation and when I retire the then current workforce will pay mine. For the calculation of median wealth this shows up as a big fat 0 (no capital) but it gives me significant financial safety of having a set income from the age of 67 to the end of my life, no matter how old I get. Shit system if you die at 68 (or even earlier), amazing system if you live to be 95.
The existence of this system is largely based on WW2. There was no capital to pay for people at retirement age in the 50s so the current system was developed.
> It's easily possibly working in tech in the US, a 10 year career basically guarantees you financial independence here barring any major set back (like divorce).
The US has always been a very individualistic society and it' s probably the best country in the world to be rich in. For tech workers in FAANG it's a great place to be. If I look at the long tail of workers I shudder. The living condition of the working class is far, far worse than what I see in north/west Europe. Of course there's poverty here too but at a very different level. Personally, I'm happy to pay my taxes and social insurance obligations so I don't have drive past tent cities on my way to work.
> Isn't that roughly same as saying people aren't wealthy enough to afford one?
Well I'd control for it by excluding the value of your residency from the household wealth. Your original post was commenting on median wealth compared to other Western European countries. I'm merely pointing out that this is too simplistic a number to compare without context.