Because they're a way to compensate highly skilled government workers for the fact that their salaries aren't competitive.

It’s true that highly skilled government workers are underpaid. But non-highly-skilled government workers are overpaid. Both groups get pensions, and there are a lot more of the second group.

Which is worse: a government with overcompensated secretaries, or undercompensated scientists?

I'm a government scientist. Maybe I'm biased. But it seems to me that if your government cannot compete for the best and brightest in your country, you are doomed.

Ideally, of course, we'd compensate both secretaries and scientists appropriately. But we don't seem to be able to manage that.

What about getting rid of pensions in order to be financially solvent is a race to the bottom?

> What about getting rid of pensions in order to be financially solvent is a race to the bottom?

The idea that the little guy needs to be made more financially insecure so those at the top can benefit from something more "financially solvent." This applies to business (less pensions, more dividends and share buybacks) and government (less pensions, lower taxes [for the rich]).

Also, IIRC, private sector pensions are quite common for CEOs and executives. They're only less common for the little guys.