Surely actual pension contributions would be better than having your employer partially fund what is essentially a big financial gamble?
FWIW: pensions do carry similar risk factors. Most pensions are only financially sustainable because they’re invested into the public market and it’s entirely possible for a pension fund to go belly-up due to mismanagement as a result.
You are essentially correct in identifying that 401ks are much riskier, however. Most working adults would probably rather have the security of a pension instead of being given a rope to potentially hang themselves by.
Or… Is that the idea? Another way for US employers to screw their fellow citizens over and give them as little as possible in return for their lives of labour?
In a sense? I doubt most employers actively scheme to do evil to their employees, but the outcome is fairly sinister nonetheless. Pensions used to be much more common in the U.S. until getting largely replaced by the 401k during the 70s. These days, the only jobs that tend to offer pensions are government/unioned… which I think says all that needs to be said about which option is more pro-worker.
The one place where 401ks really shine is (legal) tax evasion and high-spend retirement. If you make six figures, you can max out your 401k contributions and thereby avoid paying $1000s in income taxes each year. People who are able to contribute that much also tend to get way more money back in retirement compared to a pension because – when properly funded – a 401k is technically more efficient in the long-term for those who already have the requisite resources to weather a medium-term financial hardship.
The world just makes me sadder and sadder. There’s just no real good news any more, only bad :-(
Well, if it’s any consolation… this particular bad idea has been around long enough that it’s no longer newsworthy
The one place where 401ks really shine is (legal) tax evasion and high-spend retirement.
One big place where 401ks are better for the modern workforce is portability, because the investments in the 401k are vested property of the worker, so the worker gets to bring that retirement with them even when changing jobs. Under the traditional pension programs, people who left the employer for another job would often be leaving behind a lot of pension benefits, and be behind at the new employer’s pension plan.
That’s a fine point, but I also think there’s a case to be made for attributing this difference in policy to the practical reality that traditional American pensions were popular decades in the past while 401k policies are popular today. Viewed through that lens, it seems fairly obvious that a modern 401k policy would be more accomodating of modern work sensibilities than a traditional pension plan originally penned 60 years ago!
With that being said, I think it’s a little self-defeating to limit our discussion to such things. Our non-American friend who originally asked the question would almost certainly be more familiar with the more modern and less all-or-nothing pension varieties. Indeed, depending on where they live, it may even be possible to transfer accumulated pension benefits between plans when changing jobs.
FWIW: pensions do carry similar risk factors. Most pensions are only financially sustainable because they’re invested into the public market and it’s entirely possible for a pension fund to go belly-up due to mismanagement as a result.
You are essentially correct in identifying that 401ks are much riskier, however. Most working adults would probably rather have the security of a pension instead of being given a rope to potentially hang themselves by.
In a sense? I doubt most employers actively scheme to do evil to their employees, but the outcome is fairly sinister nonetheless. Pensions used to be much more common in the U.S. until getting largely replaced by the 401k during the 70s. These days, the only jobs that tend to offer pensions are government/unioned… which I think says all that needs to be said about which option is more pro-worker.
The one place where 401ks really shine is (legal) tax evasion and high-spend retirement. If you make six figures, you can max out your 401k contributions and thereby avoid paying $1000s in income taxes each year. People who are able to contribute that much also tend to get way more money back in retirement compared to a pension because – when properly funded – a 401k is technically more efficient in the long-term for those who already have the requisite resources to weather a medium-term financial hardship.
Well, if it’s any consolation… this particular bad idea has been around long enough that it’s no longer newsworthy
One big place where 401ks are better for the modern workforce is portability, because the investments in the 401k are vested property of the worker, so the worker gets to bring that retirement with them even when changing jobs. Under the traditional pension programs, people who left the employer for another job would often be leaving behind a lot of pension benefits, and be behind at the new employer’s pension plan.
That’s a fine point, but I also think there’s a case to be made for attributing this difference in policy to the practical reality that traditional American pensions were popular decades in the past while 401k policies are popular today. Viewed through that lens, it seems fairly obvious that a modern 401k policy would be more accomodating of modern work sensibilities than a traditional pension plan originally penned 60 years ago!
With that being said, I think it’s a little self-defeating to limit our discussion to such things. Our non-American friend who originally asked the question would almost certainly be more familiar with the more modern and less all-or-nothing pension varieties. Indeed, depending on where they live, it may even be possible to transfer accumulated pension benefits between plans when changing jobs.