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

211–220 of 277 posts

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

#211

Post by bannedaccount »

DesiLurker wrote: post #188
bannedaccount wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think a cap on private sector workers income would save more money, there are many more of them and many of them have unimportant jobs. If the government just capped their incomes at 100K a month we could pay off all national debt in months.

you are trolling. go away!

I really don't understand for this is trolling in China they do stuff like this all the time and it's very effective, I just think we need to discuses these things openly. I see it as inevitable that something like this happens, the sky high salaries paid to private sector who add no appreciable value to society is unsustainable.

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

#212

Post by someguydave »

ebbv wrote: post #192
ams6110 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was my fault as well. Pensions are almost a form of a Ponzi scheme. They all will eventually collapse. Corruption in pension administration is also rampant.

Pensions are not a pyramid scheme any more than any other form of retirement fund is. Give me a break.

There is one retirement fund that isn’t a pyramid scheme: the kind where the retiree saves in his own account and faces investment risks like everyone else. Forcing taxpayers to shelter you from risk is slimy, even if you have a “negotiated agreement” signed by some politician.

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

#213

Post by RhysU »

rootusrootus wrote: post #3

My mom is a PERS retiree. Not one of the rich ones, though she did retire at the perfect moment and she has a livable retirement income. One thing a lot of people (who do not work in gov't) don't recall is that while the economy was roaring back then, Oregonians working for the gov't went for years without so much as a cost of living adjustment. Some of the perks they got from PERS were in lieu of getting a raise. So…

> One thing a lot of people (who do not work in gov't) don't recall is that while the economy was roaring back then, Oregonians working for the gov't went for years without so much as a cost of living adjustment.

So don't work there.

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

#214

Post by Eridrus »

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.

I quite agree with the comments about not spending so much on the military, but as a fraction of GDP, federal taxes have been pretty stable over the last 60 years https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/u-s-tax-rates-the-big-p... with increases and decreases in a constrained range.

This whole it or the defecit thing seems like a common talking point for progressives now that Republicans have shown their true colors, but if your goal is to actually govern a country, it does matter.

At the very least you should be able to see how increasing our debt increases the payments we need to make to service that debt. 7.4% of our latest budget was just paying for the debt we've already racked up. That's tens of billions of dollars that could have been spent on something worthwhile, but instead we're just paying for the past.

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

#215

Post by rayiner »

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…

Pointing to teachers’ education levels is highly misleading. Teachers overwhelmingly have post-secondary have degrees that have little value in the market (often even negative value). That’s not a reason to pay them more.

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

#216

Post by distances »

refurb wrote: post #33
megaman22 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The way most pensions work, you collect a percentage of your 3-5 highest salaries ever, assuming you've been there long enough. A good reason department heads in education shuffle every three years

Plus those 3-5 highest years include overtime. Bust your ass with overtime for 3 years and you can reap the benefit for the rest of your life. I also recall the NYCFD had a problem with that and with people claiming disability right before retirement. The rate was something like 90%. As a result a fireman who made a base of $100K per year (just a guess), might end up with a full pension at 50 that pays him/her $150k…

> As a result a fireman who made a base of $100K per year (just a guess)

I know that was a guess, but sounds crazy high for a fireman. In my rather well-off Western European country a fireman makes about $45k per year before European taxes and deductions.

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

#217

Post by rootusrootus »

RhysU wrote: post #213
rootusrootus wrote: post #3

My mom is a PERS retiree. Not one of the rich ones, though she did retire at the perfect moment and she has a livable retirement income. One thing a lot of people (who do not work in gov't) don't recall is that while the economy was roaring back then, Oregonians working for the gov't went for years without so much as a cost of living adjustment. Some of the perks they got from PERS were in lieu of getting a raise. So…

> One thing a lot of people (who do not work in gov't) don't recall is that while the economy was roaring back then, Oregonians working for the gov't went for years without so much as a cost of living adjustment. So don't work there.

A luxury we have in the IT field today that seems so obvious, but did (and does) not seem as simple to everyone else.

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

#218

Post by toomuchtodo »

nugget wrote: post #149
MrMember wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Illinois is also a special case in that pensions are written into the state Constitution. Pension reform requires changing the Constitution.

Changing the Constituion...or Bankruptcy.

A state can’t go bankrupt. The pensions will end up being paid by the federal government.

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

#219

Post by humanrebar »

scarface74 wrote: post #206
humanrebar wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Those numbers might seem low to you, but that easily puts police officer in the top 25 most dangerous jobs according to this source:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/careers/2018/01/09/work...

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

#220

Post by scarface74 »

humanrebar wrote: post #219
scarface74 wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Those numbers might seem low to you, but that easily puts police officer in the top 25 most dangerous jobs according to this source: https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/careers/2018/01/09/work...

From the article:

The most common cause of death on the job were intentional shootings, which claimed the lives of 46 officers last year. Almost as many officers died in car accidents.

Only 46 actually died from intentional shootings.

Post reply on HN