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
Most employees are bright enough to at least contribute as much to max out the company match. It's free money.

>>Manuel+U9
I'm skeptical. A quick search suggests that 41% of eligible employees don't contribute anything to a 401-K.

The main argument for defined benefit pensions is that while they never covered most employees, they did represent money that people got in retirement without doing anything and which "society" would otherwise have been on the hook for to some degree.