I think that's probably the best way to understand the salary/pension trade-off. The public sector is geared to be quite risk averse in investments, so it offers back-weighted comp to try to be frugal on training and provide continuity.
There's also basically no other employer that can credibly offer this kind of comp, so the public sector, by offering it, can compete quite well for talent in the space of those interested in that configuration. It's not the only way to run things, but it makes some sense.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/post/federa...
(pension funds should be owned by the person using it, so that you will have access to it at retirement age even when you're fired. An employer should also not be able to take anything from it, and be held liable if they don't pay it.)
> Ames later said that this financial pressure was what had first led him to consider spying for the Soviet Union
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Hanssen
> He never indicated any political or ideological motive for his actions, telling the FBI after he was caught that his only motivation was profit
> The FBI paid $7 million to a KGB agent to obtain a file on an anonymous mole, who the FBI later identified as Hanssen through fingerprint and voice analysis.
Most of the security clearance denial appeals are published by the US government, and just from a cursory glance, you can see that mundane credit problems, foreclosures, etc. are the top reason given.