America vs. Singapore: You can't save your way out of economic shocks
Cultural and Behavioral Roots of Saving
- Several commenters argue savings behavior is culturally rooted and varies even within countries (e.g., immigrant-origin effects), so “US vs Singapore” averages can be misleading.
- A linguistic hypothesis (future tense → less saving) is raised, then debunked via follow‑up research showing grammar correlations disappear once shared cultural history is controlled.
- Others say culture is downstream of institutions: rules, incentives, and risk shape norms more than the reverse.
Institutions, Risk, and Economic Shocks
- Many read the article as: in the US, uninsured catastrophic risks (especially healthcare, but also unemployment) massively amplify shocks and drive regret about not saving; in Singapore, universal systems mute this effect.
- A key point from the paper: numeracy and risk understanding matter more than “motivation,” and in the US, external shocks predict regret; in Singapore, they mostly don’t.
Singapore’s CPF and “Forced Savings”
- Big debate over CPF:
- Critical view: it’s a massive, low‑yield, forced bond‑purchase scheme that finances sovereign wealth, keeps people working longer, and functions as financial repression under the label of “savings.”
- Supportive view: it reliably funds housing, healthcare, and retirement; returns are decent for the risk, many individuals would do worse on their own, and above a cap higher earners face low taxes and no capital‑gains tax.
- Disputes over whether CPF is more like a clever earmarked tax, a hidden tax via yield delta, or analogous to US Social Security.
Immigrants, Underclass, and Regressive Shock Absorbers
- Several comments describe Singapore as relying heavily on a large, rotating immigrant workforce (often ineligible for public housing or benefits), likened to a “shock absorber” and sometimes to serfdom.
- Others counter that many migrants (e.g., from Malaysia) are still better off than at home and participate voluntarily; accusations of “slavery” are seen as exaggerated.
- Comparisons to US: temporary visas and undocumented labor also buffer shocks, but at smaller scale and with different benefit structures.
US Welfare, Healthcare, and Retirement Politics
- US spends heavily on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and income support, yet commenters highlight rising inequality, insecure retirements, and extremely costly healthcare.
- Long sub‑thread on FIRE, ACA, and medical risk: some claim early retirement is feasible with frugality; others argue US health‑insurance fragility (especially if ACA erodes) makes that dangerously optimistic.
- Social Security is framed as another form of forced intergenerational transfer, with concerns about future benefit cuts rather than disappearance.
Regretting Saving Too Little vs Too Much
- Several note the study effectively measures regret about under‑saving; “regret about over‑saving” (dying early, inflation/taxes eroding wealth, foregone life experiences) is under‑represented.
- Some savers say the psychological comfort of a large buffer is itself a lifetime benefit; others emphasize balancing savings with enjoying finite healthy years and considering intergenerational transfers.
Governance, Democracy, and Singapore’s Uniqueness
- Some praise Singapore’s competence, safety, and predictability, contrasting it with polarized, low‑quality US political discourse.
- Others stress Singapore’s curtailed dissent, dominant‑party system, managed demographics, and migrant underclass, arguing its model doesn’t generalize to large, pluralistic democracies like the US.