[toomuchtodo]

Based on a preponderance of the evidence, how successful has that token match been in achieving successful outcomes? It is a match, if you don't contribute, there is no match. That is not how pension contributions and benefits work.

[MajimasEyepatch]

I guess it depends on what you define as a successful outcome. Recent changes to the law mean that employees are automatically enrolled at the matching rate and then their contribution automatically escalates by 1 percentage point per year up to a max of 15%. I suspect that that's pretty effective at getting people to contribute and get the match.

[Manuel_D]

Most employees are bright enough to at least contribute as much to max out the company match. It's free money.

[ghaff]

I'm skeptical. A quick search suggests that 41% of eligible employees don't contribute anything to a 401-K.

The main argument for defined benefit pensions is that while they never covered most employees, they did represent money that people got in retirement without doing anything and which "society" would otherwise have been on the hook for to some degree.

[clown_strike]

A younger me was not so bright. At the time I needed the few extra bucks and retirement seemed a lifetime away; I had all the time in the world to make up for it.

Years later I got a mortgage and learned what compound interest is.

I'd been underfunding for most of my career. You overestimate collective intelligence.

[stale2002]

Well if it is an equal amount of money contributes, yes a 401k match would be strictly better than a pension because it gives control over to the employee of the money.

> It is a match, if you don't contribute, there is no match.

That choice should be left to the employee.

Why are you upset with how the employee is choosing to do with their retirement?