Many people are curious: How does the US pension system work? Why don't they experience the same sense of division as young people refusing to pay social security? The answer lies in their "three-pillar" system, the core logic of which is completely different from ours: First, China's pension system is guaranteed by the state, prioritizing stability. We mainly rely on a "pay-as-you-go" system. The money you contribute is directly paid to current retirees. Surplus funds are mainly invested in government bonds and deposited in banks. The advantage is absolute safety, the disadvantage is low returns. As the population ages, the pressure on young people is increasing. Second, US pensions are channeled into the stock market, with individuals bearing their own profits and losses. The second pillar in the US is called a 401(k). Your company contributes along with you, depositing into your personal account. This money is not guaranteed and must be invested in US stock funds. When the US stock market is bullish, your pension snowballs; when the US stock market crashes, your retirement dream is halved. The US solves efficiency by forcing ordinary people into the capital market. But is the US model perfect? Absolutely not. In pursuit of high returns, California's public sector pension fund has poured vast sums into highly illiquid private equity. During bear markets, many Americans in their 70s are forced to work at McDonald's because their 401(k) accounts have been wiped out. Do you understand? China faces the challenges of "distributive fairness" and "reducing the burden on young people," while the US faces the stranglehold of "market risk" and "individual vulnerability." No system is perfect. China has safeguarded the basics but needs to address fairness; the US pursued efficiency but borne the brunt of the harsh realities. If you had to choose, which pension model would you prefer? I choose to rely on my own hard work to secure my retirement.