The US likes to tie everything to employment - see also healthcare and retirement plans. Coming from Canada, anyone can open up an RRSP account (equivalent of 401k) and your employer isn't involved at all. You control the account. In the US you're stuck with the 401k account your employer signs up for. If they decide not to offer a 401k then you lose that benefit.

▲

wffurr 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

If you don't have access to a 401k at work you can contribute pre-tax to a traditional IRA instead. It is weird to have both, though.

	▲	peezd an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		But the contribution limit on the traditional IRA is much lower though.
	▲	idiotsecant an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		From the internet: In 2026, you can contribute up to $24,500 pre-tax or Roth to your 401(k). Some plans may allow after-tax contributions up to the combined employee and employer limit of $72,000. The annual contribution limit for IRAs, including Roth and traditional IRAs, is $7,500 for 2026. One of these things is not like the other...

▲

lurk2 43 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The idea that international socialists have that domestic labor conditions are made worse by a lack of protections for foreign workers (rather than the presence of the workers themselves) doesn’t pan out if you look at Canada; it’s quite rare for status in the country to be tied to a particular employment agreement, so immigrants are free to leave undesirable employers, but wages are substantially lower there due to the country having accepted about 3 million immigrants and temporary workers in the span of the last ten years.

	▲	mattm 14 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I don't really see how this relates to my comment about the connection between benefits and employment.
	▲	antonvs 22 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> wages are substantially lower there due to the country having accepted about 3 million immigrants and temporary workers in the span of the last ten years. Do you have any evidence of that causal connection, or is that just an assumption? The US also accepts large numbers of immigrants and temporary workers.

▲

brightball an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Didn't healthcare get tied to employment due to union demands in the 60s or 70s?

	▲	supertrope 24 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		During World War II the US Government controlled prices and pressured unions not to strike. The war ended and price controls were still in effect for a few years. Since employers could not increase wages, they offered increased non-wage compensation such as health insurance. The IRS agreed that employer sponsored health insurance is not taxable income. Thus tying affordable health benefits to your job. (And giving employer health plans a big tax advantage over buying it yourself).
	▲	mattm 24 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		No it's because there was wage control during WWII. Employers started offering it as a benefit to get around the caps.