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
Employers match employee contributions to a 401(k), so it's not purely out of one's own wages. In this case, Boeing is matching up to 12% of the employee's income, which is very high.

>>Majima+r8
Based on a preponderance of the evidence, how successful has that token match been in achieving successful outcomes? It is a match, if you don't contribute, there is no match. That is not how pension contributions and benefits work.

>>toomuc+A8
Well if it is an equal amount of money contributes, yes a 401k match would be strictly better than a pension because it gives control over to the employee of the money.

> It is a match, if you don't contribute, there is no match.

That choice should be left to the employee.

Why are you upset with how the employee is choosing to do with their retirement?