Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A $76,000 Monthly Pension: Why States and Cities Are Short on Cash

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 277 posts

Re: A $76,000 Monthly Pension: Why States and Cities Are Short on Cash

#121

Post by fludlight »

skookumchuck wrote: post #114
bartart wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In California "More than 200,000 civil servants became eligible to retire at 55 — and in many cases collect more than half their highest salary for life. California Highway Patrol officers could retire at 50 and receive as much as 90% of their peak pay for as long as they lived." http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-me-pension-crisis-davis-d... This seems like a pretty big budget item, especially since most CA governme…

I don't get this entitlement to retire at 55 or even 50. The retirement age should be 65.

You can't do most blue collar jobs at 50, much less 65. Shoveling asphalt, laying track, climbing on top or under heavy machinery, or chasing criminals is backbreaking work. The bodies of these people are permanently worn out by the time they hit 55.

Some are promoted into management, but most org charts are naturally pyramids, so there aren't enough of those jobs for everyone. So what to do with someone who is now too disabled for another blue collar job and is not a "competitive candidate" for a white collar job?

Re: A $76,000 Monthly Pension: Why States and Cities Are Short on Cash

#122

Post by jakelarkin »

skookumchuck wrote: post #114
bartart wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In California "More than 200,000 civil servants became eligible to retire at 55 — and in many cases collect more than half their highest salary for life. California Highway Patrol officers could retire at 50 and receive as much as 90% of their peak pay for as long as they lived." http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-me-pension-crisis-davis-d... This seems like a pretty big budget item, especially since most CA governme…

I don't get this entitlement to retire at 55 or even 50. The retirement age should be 65.

the argument is that police work is more physically demanding and stressful, there's not too many desk jobs.

that said the benefits in some states are ludicrous, cops spike their payout the last few years and retire with $200k pensions and healthcare for life at 50, then move on to your 2nd careers. In the private sector even if you max out your 401k you'd never come close to that sort of retirement.

Re: A $76,000 Monthly Pension: Why States and Cities Are Short on Cash

#123

Post by defen »

slfnflctd wrote: post #15
qmalzp wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does seem reasonable that there would be a cap, but I wonder how much cutting the pensions of a few thousand highly paid retirees will impact the budget.

At the very least, someone should crunch the numbers and find out. It's anyone's guess how the ratios will skew until you measure them. How to approach this fairly is a whole other can of worms; there will almost inevitably be some unjust outcomes.

The data is here: https://gov.oregonlive.com/pers/ (you can download a CSV).

There are 2,032 people making over $100,000 per year. The sum of their pensions is $252,144,041.04 per year. If each were capped at $100,000 per year that would be $203,200,000 per year, so a potential savings of $48,944,041.04

Re: A $76,000 Monthly Pension: Why States and Cities Are Short on Cash

#124

Post by throwaway95914 »

ubernostrum wrote: post #71
rayiner wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the most part, government work does not pay poorly.[1] For example federal employees without advanced degrees earn a lot more in government than in the private sector: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/... [1] I’m willing to entertain the idea our economic system as a whole undercompensates secretaries and overcompensates executives. That’s a different issue.

Mentioning federal employees in a discussion of state/local employees is an apples-to-oranges comparison. Please provide sources to counter the assertion that state/local employees often get large pensions in lieu of salary.

My wife picked her state job in large because of the retirement options and it being a 9-5 job.

Her degree is at a higher level, she's a civil engineer and with a professional license on top; as a tech person,I make about 50% more.

If she went to a private company, that actually paid women the same as men, we would make almost the same. Her choice was to bet on the state after having been exploited in the private sector and with no recourse.

Re: A $76,000 Monthly Pension: Why States and Cities Are Short on Cash

#125

Post by Bud »

dindumuffin wrote: post #45
toomuchtodo wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a profound comment, even if off the cuff. Consider tens of trillions of fiat in worldwide liabilities, and how the entire world is relying on people yet to be born to carry the torch through taxes to pay for the debts we’ve amassed.

Thankfully, those who are yet to be born will be many more numerous and possess better technology with which to pay the debt we charge up.

It had better be a lot better technology, since we have permanently reduced Earth's carrying capacity and ruined the climate.

Re: A $76,000 Monthly Pension: Why States and Cities Are Short on Cash

#126

Post by IIAOPSW »

dasil003 wrote: post #4

Without actually showing some statistics on the pension payments and how the overall budget breaks down, I can't help but feel manipulated. Yes it's easy to paint an ugly picture of the privileged outliers, but I suspect the correlation between school and infrastructure cuts and money going straight into rich pensioners pockets is not quite as cut and dried as NYT would have us believe.

To generalize, all news is anecdotes and never data and its all manipulating scare mongering (except fivethrityeight and perhaps the economist).

Problem is with the human wetware. People want to read a story.

Re: A $76,000 Monthly Pension: Why States and Cities Are Short on Cash

#127

Post by tedunangst »

mhneu wrote: post #107
ekianjo wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "nicer" That does not even start to describe it fairly. "Extremely sweet" would be more accurate since civil servants and the like get to retire with almost their best pay ever, while the rest of us get something averaged over dozens of years. > and I have witnessed years of inadequate inflation raises So you think the private sector gets "adequate" inflation raises? Not everyone works in tech.

civil servants and the like get to retire with almost their best pay ever That system changed in 1984 . Now the FERS annuity is (for most people) about half of their highest pay. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Employees_Retirement_S... (It's still a decent deal, but it's not a defined benefit plan based on your highest pay)

> the average annual rate of basic pay of the employee's highest-paid consecutive three years of service (commonly referred to as the "high-3" period).[3] The "high-3" period normally is, but does not have to be, the final three years of service

??

Re: A $76,000 Monthly Pension: Why States and Cities Are Short on Cash

#128

Post by ddjfaegjhc »

bob_theslob646 wrote: post #21
bartart wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In California "More than 200,000 civil servants became eligible to retire at 55 — and in many cases collect more than half their highest salary for life. California Highway Patrol officers could retire at 50 and receive as much as 90% of their peak pay for as long as they lived." http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-me-pension-crisis-davis-d... This seems like a pretty big budget item, especially since most CA governme…

How is it possible that they can retire on 90% of their peak pay? It seems that it's based off of years of service instead of quality of service... Since the longer you work I assume the higher you get paid.

Even worse, it includes overtime comp, so they can do a year of crazy OT, earn a lot extra that year, then retire with that year as a basis.

Re: A $76,000 Monthly Pension: Why States and Cities Are Short on Cash

#129

Post by cocoablazing »

bannedaccount wrote: post #108
randyrand wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

private sector is not paid from public tax dollars.

Actually you are 100% wrong, Defense is funded with taxpayer dollars. The internet was invented and maintained with taxpayer dollars, the whole private sector is feeding off free goods created by the government. Why shouldn't the government negotiate? That only seems fair.

The whole private sector is feeding off taxpayer dollars —that came from the private sector. Your comments regarding this are nonsensical.

Re: A $76,000 Monthly Pension: Why States and Cities Are Short on Cash

#130

Post by DoreenMichele »

tedunangst wrote: post #127
mhneu wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

civil servants and the like get to retire with almost their best pay ever That system changed in 1984 . Now the FERS annuity is (for most people) about half of their highest pay. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Employees_Retirement_S... (It's still a decent deal, but it's not a defined benefit plan based on your highest pay)

> the average annual rate of basic pay of the employee's highest-paid consecutive three years of service (commonly referred to as the "high-3" period).[3] The "high-3" period normally is, but does not have to be, the final three years of service ??

They may have changed jobs to a lower paying position for some reason, but one that still qualifies them for the government pension plan.
Post reply on HN