I disagree with a lot of that. Defined benefit plans make all the sense in the world sort of empirically or like maybe narratively(?), but the problem is that r

I disagree with a lot of that. Defined benefit plans make all the sense in the world sort of empirically or like maybe narratively(?), but the problem is that risk isn't handled equitably. 'Unfair' feels like it has more connotations than my liking, but the main source of that feeling imo is that pensions have frequently made implied rates of return that had little to no chance of realization. It's easy to thumb your nose and say "well that's the company's problem", but what it does illustrate in a more general sense is that counterparty risk is very real, especially in underfunded pensions. While pension plans have a large amount of money saved, the reality of the situation is that part of a pensions mechanics look like a claim on a company's future earnings. That's what grinds my gears about pensions, there's a lot more risk than people think, and it's foolhardy to assume the employer assumes all the risk in theory or practice. The best thing about the transition to 401ks imo was that it made it abundantly clear that there is a large amount of risk in funding retirement. The downside is yes, companies made it clear they were no longer willing to assume any of that risk themselves.