We got two (three, if you count buying homes as a form of pensions scheme).
The state gives you 18,1 % of your yearly salary to your future pension. This will be the largest part of your pension payouts.
Then you have obligatory pension schemes your employers have to set up for you. If you work in the private sector, the percentages are minimum 2 % and max 7% of your salary. If you work in the public sector, you will get 5,6 % of your salary put away for pensions. You will also get around 4 % to what is called AFP. So technically working in the public sector gives you up to 9 % of your salary.
The third one is what you do on your own. Buying homes is a big part of our economy here. If you are lucky, you can sell your home for a huge profit when you retire and move somewhere else/scale down.
So I think ultimately the biggest difference here is the US defined contributions scheme that runs through the stock market and the minimum requirements.
I don’t know the answer. The US system is super flawed, but a lot of nations are having issues with their national pension systems due to demographic changes. Ultimately I’ll be more confident that I’ll be able to rely on my 401k brokerage than Social Security.
Likewise, the US housing system was built in a way that allowed lower income people to buy homes. However that system has now been abused to raise the price of housing to unsustainable levels. I still don’t think demphasis one home ownership and rent stabilization bandied around is really a good solution though.