Assuming you had started your career with all the financial knowledge you have today, do you think you could have secured a better retirement if you had been allowed to opt out of the pension and contribute the same amount of money in a tax-advantaged account instead?
Where do you think the tenure breakeven point lies, one way or the other?
Without knowing how many years I'll live, it's impossible to say, "Here. This is the break-even point for my pension."
However, to take a stab at answering your question, I think I personally am better off having the pension. Why? Because the women in my family tend to live between 95-100 years. I have been blessed with very good health, and I take good care of myself. My expectation is that I'll live past 100. I anticipate living long enough that I will collect everything I put into the pension system ... and more. If I were suddenly back in my 20s with the same salary /no pension program, I would have needed to invest
more money each month to feel comfortable about my retirement ... and I have been investing in addition to my pension ... my intention has always been to retire with a full pension, additional savings, Social Security and a paid-for house; with those four items, I feel secure.
On the other hand, I've known a couple teachers who've retired and lived only a couple years. Clearly they lost the lottery (and it's possible I will do the same).
To take the conversation in a different direction though, I think my pension has been a negative for my husband's career. He twice opted to pass up good job opportunities because they were out of state, and we judged that it was
better for the family to keep me here /working towards the full pension in our home state. In all fairness, it's tougher for a two-career family because you have twice as many career decisions to make.