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

201–210 of 277 posts

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

#201

Post by humanrebar »

ekianjo wrote: post #60
blitmap wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is absolutely true. I have several members of my family who work in the gov, and I have witnessed years of inadequate inflation raises - nothing else. The "trade" was a nicer retirement and better health benefits.

> "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.

> Not everyone works in tech.

Even in tech, it's pretty common to have to switch specialties, fire your boss, move, etc., to ensure you're getting market rates.

Honestly, if public sector employees think they're paid unfairly, they should talk to their union reps about decoupling seniority from particular districts, departments, etc.

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

#202

Post by scarface74 »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #109

Re the ongoing debate here about government pay (and whether it's high or low): I'm not super familiar with city and state government jobs, but I do know something about military and federal compensation. They frequently pay less in salary, but have better benefits. This makes it an apples to oranges comparison when trying to talk about what they pay in comparison to non government jobs. I was a military wife for a l…

My problem is that the pensions give the government a way of paying employees low and kicking the can down the road where later taxpayers bare the brunt of obligations that they had no say in.

Just pay government employees more so taxpayers, the government, and potential employees can all go in knowing the trade offs and let the employees manage their own retirement like everyone else.

Of course I don't have a problem with military families being provided cheap healthcare.

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

#203

Post by humanrebar »

ubernostrum wrote: post #73
travoc wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s impossible to reform pensions without reducing government union power in states like California and Illinois.

It's impossible to reform pensions without paying private-sector market rate to state and local employees. "Unsustainable" pensions are a politician's way of punting the issue -- rather than hit the budget today by paying market rate, they promise far above market rate later on when some other sucker is in office. And everybody -- including the people whose taxes will end up paying for it -- falls for this over and o…

> And everybody... falls for this over and over and over.

I don't know about everybody. Lots of people benefited from lower-than-possible taxes over the years, sold their houses for large piles of cash, then move to Arizona or Florida or something where taxes are lower, houses are cheap, and there's no snow.

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

#204

Post by scarface74 »

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.

I'm sure there are some jobs that are too physically demanding to do at 65. My dad retired from a manufacturing job at 55 because it was putting too much of a strain on his body. Luckily, my parents have always been frugal and my mom could retire at 55 with a teachers pension. But teachers pensions are a lot more reasonable 2% of final salary x years worked up to 30 years.

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

#205

Post by scarface74 »

jakelarkin wrote: post #122
skookumchuck wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Police work is not that dangerous....

https://fee.org/articles/by-the-numbers-how-dangerous-is-it-...

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

#206

Post by scarface74 »

humanrebar wrote: post #200
mgleason_3 wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In California many/most public employees earn over 6-figures in total compensation. This includes government employees, teachers, police, Fire, etc. Yea, it’s insane. Don’t believe me? Look it up - https://transparentcalifornia.com/salaries/2017

Police and fire fighters are doing very hazardous work. Teachers tend to have postgraduate degrees. All can be living in high cost-of-living areas where $100k doesn't go as far as people think. "Government employees" could be running departments or administering budgets that would be director-level positions in a private corporation. But, yeah, it seems like too much to pay $600k per year for checking that applicants…

I posted this earlier, but police work statistically isn't that dangerous.

There are about 421,000 police officers in the US.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/191694/number-of-law-enf...

If you look past Fox News sensationalist headlines, they said 146 were killed in the line of duty last year. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/06/11/americas-police-of...

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

#207

Post by scarface74 »

twblalock wrote: post #142
mgleason_3 wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In California many/most public employees earn over 6-figures in total compensation. This includes government employees, teachers, police, Fire, etc. Yea, it’s insane. Don’t believe me? Look it up - https://transparentcalifornia.com/salaries/2017

If you want good people, you need to compensate them, and you need to compensate them relative to the high cost of living in California. Otherwise, the good people will stay in the private sector and government jobs will be filled by people who couldn't succeed in the private sector. That's happening to some extent already, but there are a lot of people who would do very well in the private sector who choose public s…

So compensate them by paying them more now instead of taking the easy way out through pensions and bad math.

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

#208

Post by scarface74 »

jadedhacker wrote: post #120
Eridrus wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, this is an absolutely backwards way to pay people. When times are tough we end up tightening our belts on a whole host of services, but cannot adjust pensions because we have promised them. We should just pay people market rates and avoid saddling ourselves with a bunch of debt when times are good.

When is the government ever not tightening its belt? It's ridiculous that we can pay for bombs but not pensions. Just tax the rich some more. The debt never matters when it comes to killing but always matters when it comes to salving.

With the median household income being $65000, when the average voter talks about "taxing the rich", they won't have any problem going after tech workers making in the low six figures. You may come to find that you may be one of the "rich".

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

#209

Post by zo1 »

LoSboccacc wrote: post #147
fludlight wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

They just get thrown in the unemployed pool and their income average drops dramatically with severe ripercussion on the final pension calculations I know because in europe we have an unrealistic retirement age and my father like many other lost his job in the 2008-2012 crisis. Been unemployed ever since. What happens is that in the 50-65 braket you’re a huge liability with severe productivity drops and companies trie…

>"so we aren’t fully appreciating the maddnes it would be a free job market"

Of course not, as you probably wouldn't have this weird "retirement age" thing in the free-market absent government intervention. It's almost unheard of, and I'm not surprised. Reading through this thread of all the little "abuses" and "loopholes" that people are figuring out to game the Government-decreed system of retirement is very worrying and eye-opening.

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

#210

Post by bannedaccount »

cocoablazing wrote: post #129
bannedaccount wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This isn't even an argument.
Post reply on HN