Chuckanut
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
I heard about this book on NPR earlier this week. They were interviewing the author. The book title is "Retirement Heist". It is about pensions.
As companies have been moving away from traditional pension plans, they have been shifting employees to new retirement plans, such as 401(k)s, that transfer the cost — and the risk — to workers.
'Retirement Heist': How Firms Trimmed Pensions : NPR
Schultz cites this example of one well-known company whose pension fund has dropped significantly since the early 1990s. General Electric announced it was closing its pension plan to be more competitive. She says the company's financial filings show that GE has not put a cent into its pension plans since the mid-1980s. Over the years, GE, like most large companies, used assets in the plans to pay for other things.
Worker themselves indicated that they prefer a higher salary with a defined contribution plan to a lower salary with a defined benefit plan. Companies responded to market forces by cutting pension but raising or maintaining salary. If they didn't cut pension, salary would be a lot lower.
Given the widespread history of defined benefit schemes being underfunded and "restructured" to the detriment of participants, I really have to wonder why people still persist in claiming that they are less risky than defined contribution type schemes held through personal accounts? I'd much rather take market risk through a diversified portfolio (possibly including annuities) than place my post retirement financial well being in the hands of a single company.
And this is before getting started on the other fundamental problems with defined benefit schemes.