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

251–260 of 277 posts

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

#251

Post by twblalock »

scarface74 wrote: post #207
twblalock wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm all in favor of that, but good luck raising taxes enough to make that possible.

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

#252

Post by scarface74 »

twblalock wrote: post #251
scarface74 wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I'm all in favor of that, but good luck raising taxes enough to make that possible.

So it's either raise taxes now or raise taxes later.

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

#254

Post by scarface74 »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #245
scarface74 wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not arguing with you about any of the benefits that the military gives families in the present. Just that instead of pensions - pay more.

One of the reasons for the pensions is that service can chew you up and spit you out. My father had shrapnel in his head. Because of it, he couldn't get new life insurance. It caused blind spells which caused him to quit at least one job that I know of. He was sometimes unemployed for months at a time after leaving the army. There are lots of veterans who are disabled and never get their act together again. You see h…

There is already a model for that - disability. If you are in the private sector and no longer able to work after you have put into social security, you are eligible for disability.

I'm also not arguing against former soldiers being eligible for additional compensation in the form of separate disability insurance if they were injured in the line of duty.

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

#255

Post by skookumchuck »

scarface74 wrote: post #204
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.

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.

What's physically demanding about a teaching job?

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

#256

Post by acdha »

rayiner wrote: post #31
acdha wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This seems like a pretty big budget item, especially since most CA government pension funds haven't achieved their expected 7.5% return consistently for years if not decades. That seems like the big story: making plans assuming such a high average is simply malpractice. There are employee behaviors worth changing (e.g. the common problem of juicing final salary using overtime) but most of the blame should go to the…

They’re the same people. These policies were heavily lobbied for by public unions.

That leaves out the other side: who agreed to the deal and dishonestly pretended magic free money would pay for it? The unions didn’t force the state to make tax cuts below fiscally prudent levels.

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

#257

Post by scarface74 »

skookumchuck wrote: post #255
scarface74 wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What's physically demanding about a teaching job?

From the post....

My dad retired from a manufacturing job at 55 because it was putting too much of a strain on his body

My mom retired because she could and they wanted to enjoy their life together while they were still relatively young.

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

#258

Post by jadedhacker »

CryptoPunk wrote: post #241
jadedhacker wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>>Just tax the rich some more. The rich can leave. You can't, especially at the state level.

Think about the implications of that statement. We're headed towards (actually already in) a world in which the very few are fabulously wealthy and the rest suffer needlessly.

You can't raise taxes, the rich leave. You lower taxes, the rich suck money out of the local population until they get a better deal. All states are in competition to lower taxes. A much more comprehensive solution is necessary.

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

#259

Post by humanrebar »

scarface74 wrote: post #220
humanrebar wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So some officers are murdered and others die from traffic accidents. I'm not sure why that makes the job less dangerous.

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

#260

Post by paleotrope »

acdha wrote: post #256
rayiner wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They’re the same people. These policies were heavily lobbied for by public unions.

That leaves out the other side: who agreed to the deal and dishonestly pretended magic free money would pay for it? The unions didn’t force the state to make tax cuts below fiscally prudent levels.

When one party is funded by the public service unions, and they are in power, what do you think is going to happen.
Post reply on HN