> You mean companies don’t want to pay for them Not just that, but most employees would choose higher paychecks and a 401K option over a company that offered l

> You mean companies don’t want to pay for them Not just that, but most employees would choose higher paychecks and a 401K option over a company that offered lower paychecks but a substantial pension, even if the net compensation was equivalent. Pensions become increasingly less attractive as young people recognize that changing jobs every several years is a quicker route to financial career growth than parking long-term at one company with a pension. I was once acquired into a company that offered the worst benefits I had ever seen (zero insurance contribution, zero 401K match, basically just paychecks and nothing more). I thought it would be a death sentence for recruiting, but it turned out most younger candidates just don’t care at all about anything other than their salary number. We lost a lot of people as they grew older and had families, but younger people didn’t bat an eye at the near complete lack of benefits. We could win a lot of hiring battles by simply offering the higher bottom-line salary number since we had such little overhead. (I left quickly for a better company)