3 ms·

i think this all comes down to pensions government jobs are low pay but people will take them for the lifetime pension after they retire. this incentivizes slo

i think this all comes down to pensions government jobs are low pay but people will take them for the lifetime pension after they retire. this incentivizes slow moving, long tenured, employees who have little motivation to do things differently. it attracts these people i think we would be in a better place without pensions and instead paying people better rates

bmitc 4y ago
That’s true to a degree, but I lament the loss of pensions. People should be able to have that kind of security plus incentives to do a good job. I think an even worse problem is unions in the government. There, you have people that literally do nothing and yet are untouchable because of their union.
- corrral 4y ago
  The nice thing about pensions is you can't redirect the money to increasing your competitiveness for scarce goods or advantages now, instead of saving it. "But isn't that a reduction of choice, so, a bad thing?" it would be, except that if enough of your peers also don't have that option, it means they can't outcompete you by harming their own retirement, so you don't need to do that in order to simply not fall behind. No more getting outcompeted for housing in good school districts because your peers are willing to live paycheck-to-paycheck and live on cat food in retirement, and you're not. And so on.
- rootusrootus 4y ago
  > I think an even worse problem is unions in the government. This sounds good, but my mother worked for the local government and it changed my mind. Public employees have the most capricious employer in existence -- voters. The union helps mitigate that. My mother would have had her pension cut to nothing after years with no cost-of-living wage adjustments if it were simply up to the voters.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- nradov 4y ago
  Defined benefit pensions are outdated. They put too much financial risk on taxpayers, and require the employee to stay a minimum number of years in order to receive any benefit at all. Defined contribution retirement plans are superior in every way, and most federal government employees are now on plans like 403(b).

bmitc 4y ago

That’s true to a degree, but I lament the loss of pensions. People should be able to have that kind of security plus incentives to do a good job. I think an even worse problem is unions in the government. There, you have people that literally do nothing and yet are untouchable because of their union.

corrral 4y ago
The nice thing about pensions is you can't redirect the money to increasing your competitiveness for scarce goods or advantages now, instead of saving it. "But isn't that a reduction of choice, so, a bad thing?" it would be, except that if enough of your peers also don't have that option, it means they can't outcompete you by harming their own retirement, so you don't need to do that in order to simply not fall behind. No more getting outcompeted for housing in good school districts because your peers are willing to live paycheck-to-paycheck and live on cat food in retirement, and you're not. And so on.
rootusrootus 4y ago
> I think an even worse problem is unions in the government. This sounds good, but my mother worked for the local government and it changed my mind. Public employees have the most capricious employer in existence -- voters. The union helps mitigate that. My mother would have had her pension cut to nothing after years with no cost-of-living wage adjustments if it were simply up to the voters.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
nradov 4y ago
Defined benefit pensions are outdated. They put too much financial risk on taxpayers, and require the employee to stay a minimum number of years in order to receive any benefit at all. Defined contribution retirement plans are superior in every way, and most federal government employees are now on plans like 403(b).