Aggregates

Evidence: High: 4 Medium: 11 Low: 6 No Data: 10

Theme Radar

rayiner 2026-02-19 15:06 UTC link

A confounding factor here is that savings behavior is cultural rooted: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6135367/. Studies show that people within a country can have substantially different savings behaviors, robustly correlated with their origin countries, even among people who are third generation immigrants. It’s a mistake to treat either the U.S. or Singapore as homogenous populations for purposes of this analysis.

mothballed 2026-02-19 15:30 UTC link

Singapore has a regressive shock absorber model where something like half the country are immigrants that are ineligible for, say, public housing which even the better off citizens take advantage of in Singapore (maybe even disproportionately so since there can be a long wait to get in, you are older and more settled at that point). Immigrants that get milked dry and go broke and jobless during a shock are booted from the country before they can be polled.

------ re: below due to throttling -------------

Vs say US, where immigrants and those funding public housing are generally better off than the people getting subsidized housing. Public housing is more a progressive than regressive tax in the US, so quite dissimilar. Immigrants in US are on average far better off than those on public housing. Asking "but how is this any different" (after I already answered it, lol) over and over doesn't negate this, nor the fact that immigrants are like half of workers in Singapore vs only 10% in the US so the funding dynamic and dependency is far different.

Aperocky 2026-02-19 15:32 UTC link

This article seem to be confounding external impact with internal motivation.

Yes the jobloss impact caused the people to be unable to save and in turn they wished they have saved more.. but ignored is whether they could to begin with.

Of course external impact had little to do with internal procrastination.

hnthrow0287345 2026-02-19 15:36 UTC link

>They’re failing to save because the world is rough, and their institutions don’t do enough to help them weather it.

Well, America is rough. It turned on hardcore capitalism mode for itself because a significant portion of its population wants to try and solo socioeconomic hardships and hates any one who doesn't want the same challenge.

But not to just blame the voter, lots of money is spent for setting up systems to be amenable to acquiring more money. The very richest have correctly made a bet that uprisings to displace the wealthy and politicians just don't occur here these days, and therefore there is no real threat or need to change the way things have been going for the last 25 years or so.

InkCanon 2026-02-19 15:46 UTC link

Singapore's economic policies are complicated and often misdirecting. I'll break down the misconceptions.

The primary purpose of CPF is not a pension scheme. It is structured as a massive forced bond purchase scheme by citizens. Financially what happens is the 37% of citizen income buys a long term bond (till retirement age, on average decades) at rock bottom interest rates (it's pegged to the overnight rate or a minimum of 2.6%). The returns are specifically decoupled from the real long term returns. This has historical roots in the government needing vast capital financing. They make enormous amounts of the delta between the short term interest rate and long term capital gains. Singapore has no oil or natural resources, but it's sovereign wealth fund has AUM in the regions of countries like Norway which do for this reason. It is not a shock absorber like the article suggests. The withdrawal terms are strict - housing, a significant medical expense and retirement are the only real ways to get money out of it.

"Trying to keep people employed" is a goal, not a policy. In fact the Singapore government maintains a large worker supply through immigration. The foreign worker population, ~30%. The main goal of the government is to maximize the absolute number of people working.

The reason it raising the retirement age is effective in workforce participation is because most people have no choice. Retirement only pays out after the age. The working life of an average Singaporean has seen 37% gone to CPF, maybe another 10% to income taxes, another 5% to GST, road tax, property tax, etc. After all this there's the astronomical cost of living. This is also intentional, to raise the number of employees.

mark_l_watson 2026-02-19 16:07 UTC link

I had the privilege of getting a working gig in Singapore for a small AI startup: such a well run country! There is a sense of community for helping by employing people who need jobs, the police were friendly and I felt very safe there (I like to take long walks either early in the morning or late at night and I felt very secure.)

Amazing what the people and government have achieved since the end of WW2. 100% respect for them.

A side comment: I enjoy listening to English language news from many countries around the world to get different viewpoints. News media from Singapore is very interesting, indeed!

bluGill 2026-02-19 16:07 UTC link

You know who they didn't interview: those who regret saving so much. Many of those people are dead and so the regret is something we can only apply on assumption that they would. I've known a few people who unexpectedly died before they hit retirement age. I've know a few people who retired and died suddenly. The vast majority of people in a "first world" country have an expected lifespan of about 80 - but there is a statistical curve and people start dieing in significant numbers at 65, while you are not an outlier until you make it to near 100 (though some exist).

You need to have some emergency savings. You should save for retirement somehow. If you can structure the above as insurance - and you can trust the insurance - (I know a few cases where the insurance type system went bankrupt and those with a "policy got nothing") that is best.

Once the above is taken care of though, you can't take it with you (at least in most religions) so spend it. Save enough, but not too much.

readthenotes1 2026-02-19 16:14 UTC link

"In Singapore, people who report never putting off difficult things are more likely to express saving regret than those who sometimes do."

That seems like what they should have been looking at re procrastination--conscientiousness.

I am not at all surprised that people who Take Care of Business lament not doing a better job (saving) and people who YOLO don't as much.

Noumenon72 2026-02-19 16:15 UTC link

"Saving regret" ought to also refer to when you have saved too much. The shocks in that case would be things like "inflation ate away all my savings before I got to use them" or "the government confiscated my savings via wealth taxes" or just generally "the government made me spend 37% of my income on saving when I wanted to use it to raise kids."

Sytten 2026-02-19 16:52 UTC link

Forced savings like done in Quebec, Canada is likely the best model for most people even though I dont like it as an individual that knows how to manage its portfolio. It also has the benefit of creating a sovereign wealth fund that can invest locally and be an economic driver but independent from the government.

janalsncm 2026-02-19 17:38 UTC link

Numeracy questions are on page 20 here https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/working_papers/WR...

People who score well on probability numeracy are likely better educated and better paid and have more in automatic savings plans. So if someone is maxing out their 401k they don’t feel they need to save more.

The article shows that in the US there is a 25 point gap between high and low income on savings regret, and a 14 point gap between high and low numeracy scores.

In Singapore where savings are more automatic numeracy is a more powerful predictor.

solarisos 2026-02-19 23:08 UTC link

The 'saving' vs. 'investing' debate here has a direct parallel in technical debt. Singapore’s model of high-efficiency reinvestment is like a well-refactored codebase—it allows for rapid pivots when a shock hits. America’s model feels more like a legacy system with massive technical debt; the 'savings' are there, but the friction of the existing infrastructure makes it nearly impossible to deploy them effectively during a crisis.

wraptile 2026-02-20 02:53 UTC link

Comparing any country to Singapore is frankly ridiculous. Singapore is a unique tiny tax haven where billionaires send their kids to study. To compare it to the biggest economy in the world just seems silly.

deepsun 2026-02-20 03:27 UTC link

Did US have economic shocks? Compared to, say, Eastern Europe or Sub-Saharan Africa, all people who lived through real economic shocks and hyper-inflation tend to save less, not more. Because they know the savings can evaporate one day.

choonway 2026-02-20 05:16 UTC link

if something doesn’t exist in this world, no amount of money will guarantee that you will get it.

if it exists in abundance like the air that we breathe no amount of conspiracy will be able to monopolize it.

finance only works in a very narrow band of environmental conditions. we are very well past that.

shevy-java 2026-02-20 07:41 UTC link

Singapore, despite some of its laws being rather harsh, also had very intelligent leaders. Lee Kuan Yew was one of them; he correctly analysed the US behaviour. That can be seen on youtube too. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNQXLhIcPrc

What I find interesting about Singapore is that it is a fairly small country: a bit over 6 million people. That's small compared to the USA (341 million). When you are such a small country or city-country, being prosperous requires intelligence and efficiency. And diplomatic skills too. Taiwan also showed this, though it is a bit larger than Singapore (23.4 million). It seems that this is a good success story - to have competent and intelligent workers and people. Education is one key factor of success here.

bdbdbdb 2026-02-20 11:59 UTC link

Maybe I missed something in the article but why Singapore and not a country closer in culture to the US? Like why not compare to Canada or the UK, or anywhere in Europe?

Did the study have to go as far as Singapore to find somewhere where the situation was reversed or was there another factor?