3 ms·
> I assure you they don't earn more in retirement than when they were working. If you have heard differently, I assure you that's propaganda. They earn more th
by landryraccoon 8y ago
> I assure you they don't earn more in retirement than when they were working. If you have heard differently, I assure you that's propaganda.
They earn more than the average worker overall. In California the average government pensioner earns 26% more than the average non retired, currently working worker.
Source:
https://californiapolicycenter.org/what-is-the-average-pension-for-a-retired-government-worker-in-california/ https://californiapolicycenter.org/what-is-the-average-pensi...
That's too much. As a socialist, I would find it clearly exploitative that a non worker is making more than an active worker. That's completely unjustifiable under socialism.
The point of a pension is to provide an income so a retiree doesn't live in poverty. Paying a pension that exceeds that of a younger worker who is actively working full time completely goes against that.
- candiodari 8y ago> That's too much. As a socialist, I would find it clearly exploitative that a non worker is making more than an active worker. That's completely unjustifiable under socialism. I don't understand where this is coming from. Personally, I am a socialist and I think it's too little. If I look at it from a capitalist's perspective, I ... also think it's too little.
- landryraccoon 8y ago> Personally, I am a socialist and I think it's too little. I'm sorry, just to be clear, are you saying that as a socialist, you think a young worker who is actively working and only making $40K a year should pay more to support someone who is making $50K a year but isn't working at all, because $50K is too little?
- candiodari 8y agoI think they should both be paid more. In case you don't remember, socialism is about the state just taking control of the means of production, so where the money comes from is quite obvious.