Maybe, the point being that they can claim a similar level of benefits by simply assuming a much higher rate of return (or whatever) and rather than under-fundi

Maybe, the point being that they can claim a similar level of benefits by simply assuming a much higher rate of return (or whatever) and rather than under-funding a pension, for which there are legal requirements they can give the worker less cash in a 401k and claim the same rosy rates of return and benefits. Then when those projections fail and the worker ends up working until they die, or collecting government assistance, the company doesn't have to take any responsibility. But from a company overhead view, the company could just contribute whatever amount they want in a pension too. The problem though is that then they would have to use the conservative numbers and point out that the pension might only be 10% of their salary or some other similarly low value. I think if they put error brackets around the 401k they would look a lot less rosy. Here choose a pension with $ a year, or put the money in a 401k and it may yield $$$$ or it might yield $. In one case you will be able to retire on the beach, in the other you won't be able to retire at all. Or you just go with the safe pension option that lets you retire with the same lifestyle.