At Morningstar.com, Christine Benz asked message board users to rate their 401(k) plans. Fees and sector coverage are foremost on people's minds, with employer matching and other perks (like good user interface) further down the list. Here's the full article.

Over in Time.com's financial section, Stephen Gandel talks about new research from the Center for Retirement Research. As you would expect, a company that offers more in contributions to a 401(k) will pay lower salaries. The surprising part of the article is that the tradeoff between wage and 401(k) contributions is much more favorable for those making low incomes than for higher income earners. Mr. Gandel focuses on the negative impact: employer 401(k) contributions drive wages down and poorer Americans who can't afford to save see no benefit.

That's a valid point, but here's a more positive (if somewhat speculative) take on the research: if you make less than the 60th percentile income (around $57,000 per year) and you're taking full advantage of employer contributions to your 401(k), then your total compensation is higher than what it would be if you were being paid a salary only. That is, employer contributions increase total compensation (for those who can afford to save).

Stay tuned for a more detailed write-up of these findings.