3 ms·

This is facially false. No one eligible for a public sector pension is well off. 130% of nothing is still nothing. Like honestly, think of all the people you

This is facially false. No one eligible for a public sector pension is well off. 130% of nothing is still nothing. Like honestly, think of all the people you know in unions. What are their houses and cars like? Do they live in the rich neighborhoods with the doctors, lawyers, and professional athletes? Do their kids go to expensive private schools? Just outrageously wrong. The issue here is that most (all?) state and local governments are very resource constrained by reactionary Republican low tax regimes, so the amount of money required for pensions (or health care or education) is a big pie slice. But if these governments adopted reasonable, progressive tax regimes with confiscatory upper limits, the pie would look very different. In other words, look at the ruthless income inequality in this country before blaming budget shortfalls on government employees, social programs, and unions.

PhantomGremlin 8y ago
This is facially false. No one eligible for a public sector pension is well off. 130% of nothing is still nothing. As I mentioned in a nearby post, the average public sector pension was $3,771 per month for 30 years of service. Maybe to you that's "nothing", but to many people that's a very decent supplement to IRAs, savings, and Social Security. I can't believe the straw man you're creating. No, the average Joe isn't entitled to live in "rich neighborhoods" alongside "professional athletes". And most "doctors" did 8+ years of additional education and training after college. You resent that they are getting paid for that?
- camgunz 8y ago
  > the average public sector pension was $3,771 per month for 30 years of service. It would be better to quote the rest of the context [1]: As organized labor groups were quick to point out on social media this weekend, normal benefits are much lower. Out of some 136,000 retirees receiving PERS benefits, only 2,000 or so collect more than $100,000 a year. The average monthly benefit for public employees who retired in 2015 was $2,692, or about $32,300 annually. That includes all retires that year, whether they worked five years or 35. For career employees, with 30 years of service, the average monthly benefit was $3,771, or $45,252 annually. The Oregonian/OregonLive maintains an online database of public employee pensions. In fairness, OP does have a point here, so I apologize: Along with the guaranteed rate of return for older members' pension accounts, and the decision by a PERS Board packed with public employees to credit most of the system's bull-market earnings to employee accounts for two decades ending in 1999, the money match formula inflated pensions for a large cohort of public employees. You could also take a look at the reason for some of PERS' issues, and you'd discover that it's the "money match" formula [2], which wasn't always beneficial for pensioners. You'd also discover that the pension was set up in the 40s, and has since undergone a lot of changes to accommodate different market conditions (as recently as 2003), and it's likely that it will continue to. But I wouldn't say that Oregon teachers are "enriching" themselves. We're talking about pensions that ended up paying 100% of salary. That's not bananas; most advice is save for 75% taking inflation into account. But I also think pensions are weirdly complicated for probably political reasons. It seems to me a benefits cap at 50% makes complete sense (considering Social Security and other retirement income vehicles)? (OP quotes 130%, and the source is a YouTube video via Wikipedia posted by the president of ECONorthwest. The video is clear and feels unbiased--in fact ECONorthwest is an economics consulting firm so it's in their interest to be analytical--but the 130% number is assuming Social Security accounts for 30% of salary [5]). I'm not at all saying everyone's entitled to be rich. OP made the claim Oregon teachers enriched themselves via public sector pensions, and as I interpret the word "enrich" to mean "become rich", I presumed their argument was Oregon teachers can live like rich people on public sector pensions. This is, as we've both pointed out, not true, even though it seems there have been some shenanigans in how the pension is managed. There are a lot of "social safety net" politics swirling around pension policy debates, and I guess my points are generally: - A lot of public sector employees don't even get pensions - Average pension payments are low - There are sometimes outrageous abuses - There should probably be a cap on benefits - Beneficiaries shouldn't be allowed to manage the fund - Pensions in general are a good idea - But it would be better if we just expanded Social Security and removed the taxable earnings cap [1]: https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2018/04/national_spotlight_cast_on_per.html https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2018/04/nation... [2]: https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/11/oregon_pers_money_match_pensio.html https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/11/oregon... [3]: https://www.heritage.org/social-security/report/the-real-cost-public-pensions https://www.heritage.org/social-security/report/the-real-cos... [4]: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brown-center-chalkboard/2016/09/29/pension-puzzles-part-i/ https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brown-center-chalkboard/2016/... [5]: https://youtu.be/8viDMetIUHA?t=153 https://youtu.be/8viDMetIUHA?t=153
areyousure 8y ago
> No one eligible for a public sector pension is well off. https://www.mcall.com/news/nationworld/pennsylvania/mc-nws-pensions-pa-top-earners-20171125-story.html https://www.mcall.com/news/nationworld/pennsylvania/mc-nws-p... states that "Rodney Erickson is netting $477,590 a year -- from a state pension". I believe that is "well off".
- camgunz 8y ago
  OK I was dabbling in ghoulish overkill. But if you read that article, it contains this: "More than 127,000 former Pennsylvania state employees or their beneficiaries collect public pension checks each month, and most are comparatively paltry. The average paid out last year was $27,722." I'm a little tired of people using rare abuses to justify shutting down programs that people depend on. "ODB got food stamps", "this Penn State president makes $500k a year from his pension". The programs are still worth it, and even that level of abuse is beneath the cost of what it would take to combat it. It's also important to note that this guy is an example of "privileged white guy bilking the public sector", as we remember that the vast majority of fraud in social safety net programs is actually by providers of services (medical, food, etc.), not receivers. Guess which demographic most of those are?

PhantomGremlin 8y ago

This is facially false. No one eligible for a public sector pension is well off. 130% of nothing is still nothing. As I mentioned in a nearby post, the average public sector pension was $3,771 per month for 30 years of service. Maybe to you that's "nothing", but to many people that's a very decent supplement to IRAs, savings, and Social Security. I can't believe the straw man you're creating. No, the average Joe isn't entitled to live in "rich neighborhoods" alongside "professional athletes". And most "doctors" did 8+ years of additional education and training after college. You resent that they are getting paid for that?

camgunz 8y ago
> the average public sector pension was $3,771 per month for 30 years of service. It would be better to quote the rest of the context [1]: As organized labor groups were quick to point out on social media this weekend, normal benefits are much lower. Out of some 136,000 retirees receiving PERS benefits, only 2,000 or so collect more than $100,000 a year. The average monthly benefit for public employees who retired in 2015 was $2,692, or about $32,300 annually. That includes all retires that year, whether they worked five years or 35. For career employees, with 30 years of service, the average monthly benefit was $3,771, or $45,252 annually. The Oregonian/OregonLive maintains an online database of public employee pensions. In fairness, OP does have a point here, so I apologize: Along with the guaranteed rate of return for older members' pension accounts, and the decision by a PERS Board packed with public employees to credit most of the system's bull-market earnings to employee accounts for two decades ending in 1999, the money match formula inflated pensions for a large cohort of public employees. You could also take a look at the reason for some of PERS' issues, and you'd discover that it's the "money match" formula [2], which wasn't always beneficial for pensioners. You'd also discover that the pension was set up in the 40s, and has since undergone a lot of changes to accommodate different market conditions (as recently as 2003), and it's likely that it will continue to. But I wouldn't say that Oregon teachers are "enriching" themselves. We're talking about pensions that ended up paying 100% of salary. That's not bananas; most advice is save for 75% taking inflation into account. But I also think pensions are weirdly complicated for probably political reasons. It seems to me a benefits cap at 50% makes complete sense (considering Social Security and other retirement income vehicles)? (OP quotes 130%, and the source is a YouTube video via Wikipedia posted by the president of ECONorthwest. The video is clear and feels unbiased--in fact ECONorthwest is an economics consulting firm so it's in their interest to be analytical--but the 130% number is assuming Social Security accounts for 30% of salary [5]). I'm not at all saying everyone's entitled to be rich. OP made the claim Oregon teachers enriched themselves via public sector pensions, and as I interpret the word "enrich" to mean "become rich", I presumed their argument was Oregon teachers can live like rich people on public sector pensions. This is, as we've both pointed out, not true, even though it seems there have been some shenanigans in how the pension is managed. There are a lot of "social safety net" politics swirling around pension policy debates, and I guess my points are generally: - A lot of public sector employees don't even get pensions - Average pension payments are low - There are sometimes outrageous abuses - There should probably be a cap on benefits - Beneficiaries shouldn't be allowed to manage the fund - Pensions in general are a good idea - But it would be better if we just expanded Social Security and removed the taxable earnings cap [1]: https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2018/04/national_spotlight_cast_on_per.html https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2018/04/nation... [2]: https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/11/oregon_pers_money_match_pensio.html https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/11/oregon... [3]: https://www.heritage.org/social-security/report/the-real-cost-public-pensions https://www.heritage.org/social-security/report/the-real-cos... [4]: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brown-center-chalkboard/2016/09/29/pension-puzzles-part-i/ https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brown-center-chalkboard/2016/... [5]: https://youtu.be/8viDMetIUHA?t=153 https://youtu.be/8viDMetIUHA?t=153

areyousure 8y ago

> No one eligible for a public sector pension is well off. https://www.mcall.com/news/nationworld/pennsylvania/mc-nws-pensions-pa-top-earners-20171125-story.html https://www.mcall.com/news/nationworld/pennsylvania/mc-nws-p... states that "Rodney Erickson is netting $477,590 a year -- from a state pension". I believe that is "well off".

camgunz 8y ago
OK I was dabbling in ghoulish overkill. But if you read that article, it contains this: "More than 127,000 former Pennsylvania state employees or their beneficiaries collect public pension checks each month, and most are comparatively paltry. The average paid out last year was $27,722." I'm a little tired of people using rare abuses to justify shutting down programs that people depend on. "ODB got food stamps", "this Penn State president makes $500k a year from his pension". The programs are still worth it, and even that level of abuse is beneath the cost of what it would take to combat it. It's also important to note that this guy is an example of "privileged white guy bilking the public sector", as we remember that the vast majority of fraud in social safety net programs is actually by providers of services (medical, food, etc.), not receivers. Guess which demographic most of those are?