3 ms·

There are a few problems with pensions -- all basically forms of underfunding: 1) Underfunding due to shrinking business or region -- it's a lot easier to make

by rdl 9y ago

There are a few problems with pensions -- all basically forms of underfunding: 1) Underfunding due to shrinking business or region -- it's a lot easier to make your pension numbers work if people who retired 20 years ago are a tiny fraction of your current workforce. 2) Underfunding due to overly-generous plans (the retirement pay a lot of public sector employees get is disproportionately generous vs. their pay while working. Especially when contracts do "highest 3 years" or "last 3 years" and employees collude to give lots of overtime or other special pay to let people about to retire juice the pension 3) Underfunding due to bad math -- really easy to just make the "expected investment return" the dependent variable

sokoloff 9y ago
> the retirement pay a lot of public sector employees get is disproportionately generous vs. their pay while working Perhaps the other way to look at it is "these government workers sacrificed current income throughout their career in exchange for a secure retirement via their pension agreement".
- aerotwelve 9y ago
  This is, of course, the point. The beauty is when you pull their pensions out from under them after they've worked for 30 years. Then they took the pay cut and have nothing to retire on. That'll teach the next generation of kids to work for the government (and compete with the benefits I provide my employees at my oil company).
- mythrwy 9y ago
  Yet another way to look at it is lower expectations for work performance along with more security of employment along with lower pay and guaranteed pensions. Seriously, many public pension schemes are absolutely ridiculous. People shouldn't retire after 20-25 years of work and be defacto millionaires with lifetime pensions on the backs of tax payers. The system really can't support that scheme as is becoming painfully clear.
- srtjstjsj 9y ago
  https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/times-watchdog/ed-murrays-time-as-seattle-mayor-boosted-his-pension-past-100000-a-year-for-life/ https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/times-watchdog/ed-... "Ed Murray’s time as Seattle mayor boosted his pension past $100,000 a year for life"

by rdl 9y ago

sokoloff 9y ago

> the retirement pay a lot of public sector employees get is disproportionately generous vs. their pay while working Perhaps the other way to look at it is "these government workers sacrificed current income throughout their career in exchange for a secure retirement via their pension agreement".

aerotwelve 9y ago
This is, of course, the point. The beauty is when you pull their pensions out from under them after they've worked for 30 years. Then they took the pay cut and have nothing to retire on. That'll teach the next generation of kids to work for the government (and compete with the benefits I provide my employees at my oil company).
mythrwy 9y ago
Yet another way to look at it is lower expectations for work performance along with more security of employment along with lower pay and guaranteed pensions. Seriously, many public pension schemes are absolutely ridiculous. People shouldn't retire after 20-25 years of work and be defacto millionaires with lifetime pensions on the backs of tax payers. The system really can't support that scheme as is becoming painfully clear.
srtjstjsj 9y ago
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/times-watchdog/ed-murrays-time-as-seattle-mayor-boosted-his-pension-past-100000-a-year-for-life/ https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/times-watchdog/ed-... "Ed Murray’s time as Seattle mayor boosted his pension past $100,000 a year for life"