zlacker

>>toomuc+(OP)
Read somewhere that they get 12% match on 401k. No pensions, but there’s almost none of that in today’s world.

>>pixela+y3
Pensions seem nice to have, but IMHO, it's generally better for employer and employee when compensation is paid immediately. The accounting is simpler, accountability is easier, and there's no long term entanglements.

>>toast0+F5
So it's better to assume my current employer is insolvent and to just follow that old conservative truism, "Fuck you, got mine."?

>>plusse+L6
It's better to not gamble your retirement on the assumption that your company will be solvent in 40 years. That's not really antagonistic in any way.

>>spywar+o7
You require the company to fund a pension held at a custodian. If the company goes bust, your pension benefits are not impacted. Importantly, the retirement contributions are on top of your wages, versus being expected to find the cash for retirement exposure out of your own wages such that a 401k requires.

Australia's system is a model: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superannuation_in_Australia

>>toomuc+D7
The pension funds are protected, but that does not mean anything close to your promised benefit is available for you to receive. It also creates a recurring liability that the company is on the hook for. This has historically worked out to cases where employees must either get a partial payout from available funds and tank the loss, or have the company fold and everyone gets laid off.

Pensions are a better deal until they catastrophically fail.