Yes, there is an epidemic of this problem in state/local public pensions. I was speaking of for-profit corporations, for which we collectively have gotten our act together and required it. I totally agree it needs to be fixed for state/local pensions similarly to how it's being fixed for the USPS.
>I can also look at the record of corporate bankruptcy proceedings, and note how the obligations towards pensions are handled in comparison with those towards other types of debtors. TLDR: not well.
Well, yes, that's a reason to require the pensions to be funded (at present discounted value), as the benefits are accrued -- why are you bringing this up to oppose that requirement on the USPS, except to condemn those workers to that possible fate?
>Finally, there is no specific committment by corporations to pay into a pension fund, only to pay out. They are at liberty to play whatever games they want regarding paying in.
This is false; among other places, see the Forbes overview. Many reforms have been enacted and the PBGC has requirements. This isn't the 50s anymore.
Sure, ERISA has led to a series of rules about minimum contributions.
But there are bunch of games corporations can play to reduce or avoid minimum contributions. Principle among them is to fund too much of the plan via contributions of the company's own stock (limited in scope but large enough to underfund the plan). If the underfunding is limited to 90% of the fund's liabilities, it can take 3 years before an increase in funding is required.
But rather than focus on the rules, I prefer to look at the actual on-the-ground situation. Many corporate DB plans are underfunded. It's not enough to say "the rules say they must fund liabilities as they are accrued" when many corporations demonstrably fail to do this.
Anyway, most people recognize that corporate DB plans are more or less over, so the comparison between corporate pension provisioning and public versions is going to get less and less relevant (probably).
>I can also look at the record of corporate bankruptcy proceedings, and note how the obligations towards pensions are handled in comparison with those towards other types of debtors. TLDR: not well.
Well, yes, that's a reason to require the pensions to be funded (at present discounted value), as the benefits are accrued -- why are you bringing this up to oppose that requirement on the USPS, except to condemn those workers to that possible fate?
>Finally, there is no specific committment by corporations to pay into a pension fund, only to pay out. They are at liberty to play whatever games they want regarding paying in.
This is false; among other places, see the Forbes overview. Many reforms have been enacted and the PBGC has requirements. This isn't the 50s anymore.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ebauer/2020/04/14/post-office-p...