You do tell the truth about the traditional. But in today's workforce, a traditional pension is a thing in the past. It barely exists. The portable has a few advantages that the traditional didn't. If a person was single, the traditional had no provision to leave your pension to anyone other than a spouse. You die, it went away. The portable can be left to anyone. If a person is counting on a pension alone to retire on, he will be eating beenie weenies in retirement. You retire on your 401k and your pension will supplement that. Your traditional was about 50% of your best 5 years salary. If you want to live comfortably in retirement, you better have more than 50% coming in.
I have a pension and a 401k. Imo, the pension is far superior. The pension is guaranteed money every month for the rest of your life. Money coming in every month for the rest of your life can not be beaten.
Even if it is less money than you thought you were gonna get because the company lied and stole your pension or didn't fund it in the first place as they agreed to do.
If your pension is backed up by the PBGC, even if your employer goes bankrupt, you'll probably get something. Whereas the 401k if it runs out of money that is it.
If one looks at the actual performance of 401k's for most workers and compares that performance to a pension, there is no contest for which has provided better retirement income for workers who have them.
The issue with pensions is how they are or aren't financed that can and should be changed by law.
To me 401k's for most workers is a bad deal in terms of retirement savings. It performs terribly for most workers as a retirement vehicle.