human
Mr. Vettesse, find a few older colleagues and ask them what trust companies would have needed to fund a DB plan like the PSSA in 1990. The answer is about 7%, which is and has always been the employee contribution alone. When currently retiring public servants were beginning their careers, they funded their entire pension. The employer got a free ride. This is easily verifiable because Paul Marting and the Liberals sucked $30 billion out of the fund in the early 1990's, over union objections, because there was a huge actuarial surplus. The unions thought some of that surplus should go to the members who had contributed, but the government took it all. So now the government owns the shortfall.
And it's specious to say that a DC plan would "save" $X over a DB one. Either plan would require the same funding to pay the same benefit. The "savings" are just funding shortfalls, not even a risk transfer, which is the aspect you tout. The risk transfer assumes equal funding.
gpt
{"moderation": ["safe"]}