[quote=harvey][quote=SK in CV]No, nothing obvious about it. There are still many private defined benefit plans. Not as many as there were 25 years ago, but they still exist. 25 years ago they were not just big company plans. There are fewer now. There will probably be fewer in the future. I don’t think they’re dead. There is no evidence that they’re dead. They remain a valuable tool in attracting and keeping good employees. [/quote]
Did you just take a position? There’s hope for you yet!
Hey everybody, SK stepped onto the field. Maybe he can play after all!
So DB pans are fewer and fewer but they’re not “dead?” Kinda like those three-legged and hairless dogs, eh? There’s may be a few exceptions, but do they matter?
Pull up my article showing the historical trend (or use your data if you prefer.) The line is steadily downward, and is pointing straight at zero.
My point is that the trend is not going to reverse. The fact that a few DB plans may linger on is really not important. The number is closing on zero quickly, and there is nothing that is going to reverse that trend.
Which means the fundamental difference between the private-sector and public-sector retirement systems are even more pronounced today than ever.
Why does there need to be a difference?
Notice that I keep asking a question.
Notice how I keep coming back to the crux of the issue.
(crux is an important word in debate, just like material.)
I’m not looking for “silence or acknowledgement that [my] argument is perfect.” I’m looking for a response to a very straightforward question.[/quote]
Not only is there hope for me, I both understand the pressures away from DB plans, and the pressures that remain that will promote DB plans in the private sector.
We disagree on where they’re headed in the private sector. I suspect they will plateau at somewhere between 15 and 30% of employers. As interest rates return to more normal historical rates, and the economy improves, I expect more companies to return to DB plans. (DB plans were much LESS expensive for big companies when the economy was strong and actual returns exceeded trustee assumptions. As it was for many public plans. I think it was the UC plan required NO contributions for more than a decade because investment return covered all required current contributions.)
As to why there should be a difference between private and public compensation plans…..eh. If other elements of compensation were identical, I’d agree. I’m not sure they are.
