2 ms·

> economists and actuaries debate its extent and even its existence I mean... I'd ask for a citation right here. Maybe it's due to my "bubble" but I've never

by phil21 9y ago

> economists and actuaries debate its extent and even its existence I mean... I'd ask for a citation right here. Maybe it's due to my "bubble" but I've never once heard an actuary state that most public pensions are perfectly fine. The opposite is almost universally true with a few notable exceptions. Heck, a high schooler with a napkin and basic math skills can figure out how utterly unsustainable so many of these plans are - and how they've only sustained so far by being what amounts to a pyramid scheme. Illinois in no way is even a sustainable state long-term at this point, almost solely due to insane unfunded pension debt coming due. You can be pro-pension or anti-pension, but either way the math is pretty clear.

DanielBMarkham 9y ago
Agreed. I think a much more productive discussion is over the models and standards used to judge the worthiness of pensions, a discussion that has roots going back a long time before the current stuff. None of this has to be political. This is common stuff people have been doing for decades. I am quite curious who these people are and how they defend the statements they make. When friends of your cause tell you that you have a problem and your response is creating villains and presupposing the dangers of various unacceptable solutions that may or may never actually come to pass, you've got two really bad problems instead of just one: the original problem and denial. This type of essay is identifying bad guys and pre-planting rhetorical defenses to be used if anybody gets close to the problem. Attack the messenger! It's much easier to just discredit people than engage with them on the merits. And it's simple enough that anybody can do it. Hell, I'd be interested in a discussion of the various pension models and just the history of how each has fared over the years. You could take all the political fearmongering stuff out and just go with that. I think it'd be fascinating. There are several fact-based, dispassionate essays that could be written on this topic that would be both interesting and informative.

by phil21 9y ago

DanielBMarkham 9y ago

Agreed. I think a much more productive discussion is over the models and standards used to judge the worthiness of pensions, a discussion that has roots going back a long time before the current stuff. None of this has to be political. This is common stuff people have been doing for decades. I am quite curious who these people are and how they defend the statements they make. When friends of your cause tell you that you have a problem and your response is creating villains and presupposing the dangers of various unacceptable solutions that may or may never actually come to pass, you've got two really bad problems instead of just one: the original problem and denial. This type of essay is identifying bad guys and pre-planting rhetorical defenses to be used if anybody gets close to the problem. Attack the messenger! It's much easier to just discredit people than engage with them on the merits. And it's simple enough that anybody can do it. Hell, I'd be interested in a discussion of the various pension models and just the history of how each has fared over the years. You could take all the political fearmongering stuff out and just go with that. I think it'd be fascinating. There are several fact-based, dispassionate essays that could be written on this topic that would be both interesting and informative.