A better pension
Replacement of traditional defined-benefit pensions — which aren't as good for workers as often thought — by 401(k)-style defined-contribution plans makes sense because of how Americans work today.
Dallas Salisbury, president and CEO of Employee Benefits Research Institute, tells The Washington Post that defined-benefit plans always have been best for highly paid employees and those who stay with one employer for most of their careers.
But Americans now change jobs more frequently. Median job tenure for men older than 55 peaked in 1983 at 15.3 years and now is less than 11 years. For women, it's now 10 years.
In 1975, The Investment Company Institute, a mutual fund industry group, reported that 90 percent of private-sector workers had defined-benefit plans but only one in five ever received income from those plans. And the inflation-adjusted median annual payout was just $4,700.
Since 1975, federal regulations have boosted defined-benefit payouts — and caused employers to drop such plans. But growth in 401(k)-style plans has helped those getting income rise from 21 percent to 31 percent of private-sector retirees and increased their median benefit by nearly a third.
Defined-benefit plans simply aren't sustainable these days and defined-contribution plans, over time, offer better retirement prospects. It's a lesson the private sector is taking to heart — and one the public sector must learn, for taxpayers' sake.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Clues to Chief Justice John Roberts’ thinking on new ObamaCare case
- Graham rejects GOP Benghazi report as ‘garbage’
- Power out for 20 customers after West Deer crash
- NFL notebook: Vikings coach thinks Peterson will return to team once reinstated
- Pirates trade Davis to A’s for international signing bonus money
- Pirates enter Plan B with Martin off market
- 2 residents, kitten rescued from Highland Park fire
- Pitt notebook: Chryst keeps Panthers motivated amid adversity
- 100 terrorists killed in Kenya retaliation act
- Putin says he won’t be Russia’s president for life
- Flash!: Alliance Française de Pittsburgh; “Come Fly With Me” gala