Live data from Hacker News

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

nytimes.com

41–50 of 277 posts

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

#41
post #8

Pensions are going to become a hot political issue as they become more and more unsustainable. Even Illinois, one of the most liberal states in the US, elected a republican governor four years ago in large part because he promised to tackle the state's pension crisis.

Illinois is liberal because of Chicago. Downstate is mostly conservative, excluding a few university towns.

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

#42
post #6

What a pathetic ploy to divide the working class against each other. The reason states are short on cash is the race to the bottom we’ve all been participating in since the 1980s when government policy and general economic policy moved from focusing on keeping the middle class healthy to massive tax breaks and cuts for corporations and the wealthy. For the last nearly 40 years every state has been playing the game of…

I'm not sure why this is so heavily down-voted. Pensions are surely a problem, but they are clearly a drop in the bucket compared to the revenue that states miss out on when they let corporations pit them against each other in race to the bottom behavior.

Not sure why it was downvoted, but my bet is this that you insist in: Pensions are surely a problem, but they are clearly a drop in the bucket

Pensions are NOT a drop in the bucket by any measure. Maybe for the USA they're less important. But for the rest, safety net is most of a country expenses. Then you add that population in the first world tends to shrink and the model in most countries where current workers pay for retired ones... and you have a very serious problem.

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

#43
post #6

What a pathetic ploy to divide the working class against each other. The reason states are short on cash is the race to the bottom we’ve all been participating in since the 1980s when government policy and general economic policy moved from focusing on keeping the middle class healthy to massive tax breaks and cuts for corporations and the wealthy. For the last nearly 40 years every state has been playing the game of…

We ought not to focus on others whom were promised / earned a certain level of pension only to have it cut because other factions are jealous. Pensions are what many retirees need to survive. Reducing pensions in any way degrades the planned and promised standard of living of people often unable to go out again into the workforce.

We gotta strengthen organized labor and fight for living wages and pensions for all persons. The 1% have way too much and keep getting richer, while the rest fall behind and the middle-class languishes.

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

#44
post #6

What a pathetic ploy to divide the working class against each other. The reason states are short on cash is the race to the bottom we’ve all been participating in since the 1980s when government policy and general economic policy moved from focusing on keeping the middle class healthy to massive tax breaks and cuts for corporations and the wealthy. For the last nearly 40 years every state has been playing the game of…

I'm not sure why this is so heavily down-voted. Pensions are surely a problem, but they are clearly a drop in the bucket compared to the revenue that states miss out on when they let corporations pit them against each other in race to the bottom behavior.

Calstrs, which is only for teachers, has over 900,000 members, with a bit less than half currently working. The average pension payout is $50,000 and the average retired person under Calstrs worked for under 25 years. And this is only for teachers. https://siepr.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publications/...

The many tens of billions of dollars spent on pensions annually in California alone dwarf any tax breaks given to companies. And California is very stingy with those anyway. For comparison California's annual budget is just about $270bn according to Ballotpedia.

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

#45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You always borrow from the future.

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.

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

#47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You always borrow from the future.

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.

A fascinating digression. I conceptualize borrowing oppositely.

When you borrow, you borrow from someone else's past/present labor and obligate your future labor. (Where 'you' can be an individual, organization, or society.)

In my view, borrowing is always from the past. You cannot borrow that which has not yet been created.

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

#48

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…

Borrowing from the future is not a good strategy.

Borrowing from the future is an excellent strategy in a lot of cases, you just need to explicit that you're doing so and make sure it makes sense.

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

#50
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…

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

> The way most pensions work

Most pensions historically.

People entering the job market today (or even most of the millennial generation) were never offered these final salary pensions. Instead we get defined contribution plans, 401Ks, or nothing at all.

The key difference being that defined contribution plans (and 401Ks) are always only worth what was contributed (and investment performance profits). Things like your final salary, final position, or year of retirement (except for IRS rules that give significant tax advantages) don't mean very much except contributing more to these funds.

It is a better system from a larger society perspective (nothing is "loaned") but may result in few actually being able to afford retirement.

Post reply on HN