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
A pension is easier for people who are bad at money. You get your allowance doled out and then spend retirement complaining about prices and the economy.

On paper a well-funded 401k is better. You don't have to worry about the fund collapsing. You're safer against inflation. And your money doesn't disappear when you die. Etc.

12% matching is an insanely good deal for people smart enough to use it well. But you are going to have people who make really bad choices end up in a lurch. So it's a higher-ceiling/lower-floor range of outcomes for each individual.

>>legits+sd
"A pension is easier for people who are bad at money"

I am pretty sure you did not mean it this way, but you're absolutely right.

The pensions that were granted in the 50s and 60s and not funded have left an enormous debt for many companies that the federal government will have to make good.

Even today, the pensions of many police and firemen are underwater and not likely to be solvent.

So pensions are great for company managers who really don't ever plan to fund them properly.

And don't get me started on social security.