>>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.
>>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.
>>toomuc+D7
Superannuation is very very similar to the 401k honestly. I remember when Australia brought in superannuation system and the biggest pushback was that it was blatantly a move to the us system (we had government pensions in the 90s). The tax treatment isn’t that different since 401k contributions aren’t taxed like income either. I work for an employer that pays 15% 401k contributions on top of salary. The main difference is that employers aren’t required to pay 401k contributions and I think that would be the better point to make.