zlacker

[return to "Power Failure: The downfall of General Electric"]
1. irjust+dA[view] [source] 2025-05-27 06:01:21
>>gwintr+(OP)
The saddest thing to me about this - is the cut of pensions.

My parents view pensions as gold standard. That it cannot be messed with and clearly this article shows that it can. The promise for your years of service can't be paid out.

Now something you believed would allow you to not worry until your passing, perhaps leave a small something to your children, won't be. Instead, you're beginning to worry about how you'll make ends meet in a few years with all the rising prices.

◧◩
2. omcnoe+MG[view] [source] 2025-05-27 07:23:20
>>irjust+dA
This is a great example of the kinds of problems with "defined benefit" pensions compared to "defined contribution" plans.

Defined benefit plans rely on the firm to correctly manage their pension plan, allocate funds for it, invest them wisely etc. In public sector there is political pressure to reduce forecast costs of a defined benefit pension. In many places it's completely legal to operate an underfunded defined benefit plan. Defined benefit plans are also traditionally fixed to a single employer, they don't fit well for a more mobile labor force.

For defined contribution plans individuals actually have control of the pension funds - they are just locked from access til retirement. They are generally government run, you aren't locked to a single employer. Individuals can set their own risk appetite and make their own decisions regarding fees etc.

Defined benefit plans are really popular because the pension amount is "guaranteed" but this guarantee is just an illusion. You can't magically make risk go away, just move it somewhere else. Many examples of defined benefit plans that blew up/were restructured/cancelled etc. Defined benefit is just a plain bad concept.

◧◩◪
3. lmm+H11[view] [source] 2025-05-27 11:49:12
>>omcnoe+MG
Defined contribution is far worse, it's just a way to shift the risk onto the individual who is far less able to manage it, and then tell them it's their own fault they don't get a pension.

Defined benefit pensions work great outside of massive frauds. A better way to address that would be a government guarantee paired with prudential regulation and prosecution of frauds.

◧◩◪◨
4. ghaff+zd1[view] [source] 2025-05-27 13:20:11
>>lmm+H11
I’m not sure I agree but, yes, defined contribution does shift the onus of any savings onto the employee. The employer has basically washed their hands of it outside of possibly setting up a 401-k.

I’m not sure that’s inherently bad. Why should $CORP really be responsible for benefits 30 years hence? And, by the way, you probably need to work there for 10 years or so before the benefits even get interesting.

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. lmm+yk1[view] [source] 2025-05-27 14:05:03
>>ghaff+zd1
> Why should $CORP really be responsible for benefits 30 years hence?

Because they're in a better position to pool risk, hire expertise, and generally run a pension well than an individual is. I mean I do think governments should focus more on improving universal pension systems rather than offering tax breaks to get employers to do it for them, but pushing it right down to the individual is even worse.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. ghaff+To1[view] [source] 2025-05-27 14:39:18
>>lmm+yk1
They’re mostly just paying money into a pension fund someplace. (Though maybe not enough.)

An individual can farm out investments to a target date fund at Fidelity or wherever.

The argument/issue isn’t really that it’s hard for individuals to make investments relative to pensions but that many don’t. So we need to not make it an option and do it for them.

[go to top]