image from Vanguard The slippery slope of pension benefit "norms"...here we go again. Forty, thirty, twenty--even ten years ago in many industries, the standard for pension benefits was a "Defined Benefit" plan. Corporations would set up plans to fund retirement benefits that were usually based on a formula valuing time-on-the-job and salary. For example, a typical benefit might be 2% of final salary x the number of years employed. Someone who had worked at one company for 30 years, and who retired with a salary of $100,000 would get 100,000 x 2% x 30 or $60,000 per year as a defined benefit pension. Now the standard has moved to the "Defined Contribution" plan, exemplified by the 401(k). In a typical scenario with a 401(k), the employee contributes a a pre-determined "defined" amount out of each paycheck and the employer matches that amount, or a percentage of that amount. The contributions are invested until the employee retires, and the benefit received in retirement is dependent on the success of the investments over time. (No guarantee.) But with all pension plans, a key factor is "the time value of money." Most employers contribute their portion at the same time the employee contributes: at each payday: However, lately, big employers have been shifting their policy to a "lump-sum" contribution. AOL was making this this shift during its recent privacy kerfuffle. As you can see from the graph above, waiting till the end of the year to make the payments means that the company has the use of the money for longer...and employees lose out on investment earnings. In addition, if employees change jobs mid-year, they lose the employer side of the contribution entirely--again saving the employer money. Employee compensation is a combination of salary, paid time off, reimbursed expenses, health benefits, retirement benefits, and other factors. Although it may be easiest to focus only on salary, all factors must be evaluated over the long term to really know what an individual employee is being paid. Sources: " Beware the End-of-Year 401(k) Match ," by Ron Lieber, New York Times, February 14, 2014. " Making Retirements Less Secure ," by the NYT Editorial Board, New York Times, February 14, 2014 Follow up: Read the article. What is the lifetime differential mentioned in the Vanguard analysis presented therein, based on typical job-changing events that would be likely to occur over an individual's working life? If you were looking for a job, what type of pension benefit would you look for? Would this be a major or minor factor in your job decision, assuming you had multiple offers? How might your decision change if you were in your 40's or 50's?