3 ms·
That’s not remotely true. Even a full social security payout wouldn’t come close to the public employee union pension plans - in California it probably wouldn’
by djrogers 8y ago
That’s not remotely true. Even a full social security payout wouldn’t come close to the public employee union pension plans - in California it probably wouldn’t be 1/4 of it.
In CA, teacher can retire making ~100k/yr, and get 105% of that as a pension for life. Do you really think one of the most polioactive lobbying groups in the state would let that disappear?
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewbiggs/2015/08/28/california-teacher-retirement-benefits-are-hardly-modest-but-calstrs-doesnt-want-you-to-know-that/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewbiggs/2015/08/28/californ...
- makerofspoons 8y agoMy idea would be that they would not rely entirely on Social Security, they would be funding a 401K alongside some sort of reasonable match from the state instead, much like the deal people in the private sector get.
- dragonwriter 8y ago> they would be funding a 401K alongside some sort of reasonable match from the state instead, much like the deal people in the private sector get. While it may be a surprise for people who have worked in high demand fields, lots of workers in the private sector have no 401k offered, and of those that do, lots don't have any employer matching offered.
- djrogers 8y agoI’m not saying it isn’t workable - heck, it’s what everyone else does - I’m saying the union, CalSTRS, and their paid off politicians would never allow it to happen.
- metabagel 8y agoIt looks like that 100k/yr number applies to teachers who have paid extra into their pension fund, such as the one mentioned in this article: http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-20150925-column.html# http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-201509... Additionally, they don't receive social security benefits.