3 ms·

In America many civil servants are overpaid when you look at total compensation. The amount of retirement that needs to be paid is ridiculous and most govs did

In America many civil servants are overpaid when you look at total compensation. The amount of retirement that needs to be paid is ridiculous and most govs didn't actually set aside money to pay it.

_delirium 17y ago
That I agree with, but it's a more general issue about the temptation to make future promises you can't pay for, and is also true in the private sector. Employers in general, public and private, make promises of future payments they can't pay for, don't set aside the money, and just kick the can down the road to the next generation of management. It's one reason so many American companies go bankrupt about 30-40 years after their peak, which coincidentally is when their pension obligations start coming due.
- dantheman 17y ago
  I don't know of any modern corporations that have pensions -- it seems today that all companies use 401ks, they learned the lesson about pensions
- anamax 17y ago
  > That I agree with, but it's a more general issue about the temptation to make future promises you can't pay for, and is also true in the private sector. There's an important difference. If IBM can't pay the pensions that it promised, IBM pensioners take the hit. If San Jose can't pay the pensions that it promised, I take the hit via taxes.
  - BearOfNH 17y ago
    If IBM can't pay the pensions that it promised, IBM pensioners take the hit. Have you heard of the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation?
    - anamax 17y ago
      > Have you heard of the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation? Yes, I have. It's largely funded by companies that offer pensions - it's a huge problem that it isn't completely funded that way. That's not an argument for increasing its taxpayer funding. Also, the first thing that it does is cut pension benefits. I'm the only one who is going to pay for my retirement, so I've little sympathy for folks who think that I should pay for theirs. If you're in a giving mood, feel free to kick in some money for me. If you're not willing to do that, what's the argument that I should pay for someone else's?
  - _delirium 17y ago
    Isn't that actually worse? Not only can IBM screw its pensioners, but the pensioners have no recourse: IBM's shareholders get to keep decades of profits gotten on the basis of promises that were later breached, and limited liability means those dividends can't be clawed back to pay the company's obligations.
    - anamax 17y ago
      > Isn't that actually worse? For whom? Not for me. > Not only can IBM screw its pensioners, but the pensioners have no recourse They made a bet. Since they were willing to take the winnings, they should take the loss.

In America many civil servants are overpaid when you look at total compensation. The amount of retirement that needs to be paid is ridiculous and most govs didn't actually set aside money to pay it.

_delirium 17y ago

That I agree with, but it's a more general issue about the temptation to make future promises you can't pay for, and is also true in the private sector. Employers in general, public and private, make promises of future payments they can't pay for, don't set aside the money, and just kick the can down the road to the next generation of management. It's one reason so many American companies go bankrupt about 30-40 years after their peak, which coincidentally is when their pension obligations start coming due.

dantheman 17y ago
I don't know of any modern corporations that have pensions -- it seems today that all companies use 401ks, they learned the lesson about pensions
anamax 17y ago
> That I agree with, but it's a more general issue about the temptation to make future promises you can't pay for, and is also true in the private sector. There's an important difference. If IBM can't pay the pensions that it promised, IBM pensioners take the hit. If San Jose can't pay the pensions that it promised, I take the hit via taxes.
- BearOfNH 17y ago
  If IBM can't pay the pensions that it promised, IBM pensioners take the hit. Have you heard of the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation?
  - anamax 17y ago
    > Have you heard of the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation? Yes, I have. It's largely funded by companies that offer pensions - it's a huge problem that it isn't completely funded that way. That's not an argument for increasing its taxpayer funding. Also, the first thing that it does is cut pension benefits. I'm the only one who is going to pay for my retirement, so I've little sympathy for folks who think that I should pay for theirs. If you're in a giving mood, feel free to kick in some money for me. If you're not willing to do that, what's the argument that I should pay for someone else's?
- _delirium 17y ago
  Isn't that actually worse? Not only can IBM screw its pensioners, but the pensioners have no recourse: IBM's shareholders get to keep decades of profits gotten on the basis of promises that were later breached, and limited liability means those dividends can't be clawed back to pay the company's obligations.
  - anamax 17y ago
    > Isn't that actually worse? For whom? Not for me. > Not only can IBM screw its pensioners, but the pensioners have no recourse They made a bet. Since they were willing to take the winnings, they should take the loss.