Oh, and back then a single income could support a working-class family to buy a decent house, two cars and maybe send a kid or two to college.
I agree it's more expensive than ever to afford to raise a family, though. There's also a malaise in the air that I don't think broader society has felt since the late 1970s, too.
Some people might not want to take responsibility for retirement savings in the same way they might not want to take responsibility for providing themselves housing but the alternative is strictly worse.
The only pensions that kind of work is government pensions because they can paper over the structural deficiencies with taxation. But even that has significant limitations as we've seen.
A 401k isn't required to be invested in the stock market. It is advisable but not required.
That said, they can work great in tandem with the stock market.
The Kensington & Chelsea local government pension scheme in London, here in the UK, is an example.
The local authority (not central government) ultimately has the responsibility on paying out these liabilities, but it's one of the few councils that just dumped their pot in to global equities, and as a result they are 200% funded relative to their commitments and have stopped making further contributions.
The money that was flowing into the pension scheme can now flow in to local services.
Asset allocations:
https://www.ft.com/content/87c321ab-e5ac-4a1d-a637-c1f7befcc...
Cutting contributions:
https://www.ft.com/content/67254bff-0e6c-407a-a24a-c34ee217d...
I prefer having the money under my control, personally.
Losing your job is bad; losing your job and your retirement is a nightmare.