I'd disagree. Fully funded would probably look more like 300% of what is expected. People are living longer. If healthcare is included in the pension, it is a variable cost we can't even measure in terms of future cost.

Additionally, pension have to be managed and administrated. This is pure wasted money. Every pensioner would be better off taking the money that is set aside for their part of the pool and putting it in a Vanguard index fund. When you start to withdraw, you know how much you have left and you haven't paid tons of kickbacks along the way. When there is a recession, you can scale back your withdraws until there is a recovery, etc.

Fixed benefit pensions can never be anything but a pyramid scheme. Otherwise, your pension would be more by doing what I state above because the administration is near zero. The pension funds have never done better than the S&P over any reasonable time window. Pensions will always have unnecessary overhead.

Pensions actually provide a massive benifit in that they don't provide dead people money. You can say I will be fine if I run out of money at age X, but when you start talking about 100 million people you get a large number that make it past that.

Also, fully funded is only fully funded when it can survive the company going bankrupt tomorrow. People like to redefine it as liability less than X, but that just means underfunded.

Granted, if you have kids you might want the leftovers from your retirement to go to them, but that's not a social problem. Further becase pensions take less money so a subset can always just buy life insurance.

PS: The biggest issue is benifits not including inflation, but again that's a policy issue.