3 ms·

Public employees typically receive a larger portion of their total compensation as retirement benefits, than do typical employees at private companies. Given t

Public employees typically receive a larger portion of their total compensation as retirement benefits, than do typical employees at private companies. Given this difference, it seems like it would be misleading not to quote total compensation.

woodruffw 3y ago
The misleading nature is the implication that SF's public servants are, on average, taking anywhere close to 200k in TC home. We can have a conversation about pensions and retirement funding if you'd like, but that isn't mentioned anywhere in the article. Instead, the article moves to imply that city employees are lining their pockets, when they aren't.
- abduhl 3y ago
  Why is the implication misleading? Because there’s a vest period on their total compensation? Isn’t it standard to quote total comp as salary plus equity even if the equity takes years to vest? Why have it be different for a city employee?
  - woodruffw 3y ago
    > Isn’t it standard to quote total comp as salary plus equity even if the equity takes years to vest? This isn't how pensions or civil retirement plans work. Contributions during an individual's career result in predictable and proportional fractional payouts after retirement or leaving the civil system. Again: the implication is that civil servants are somehow making out like bandits here, when 71k take-home is well below the average SF salary[1]. Edit: And to tie a knot around it: no tech job I'm aware of includes the "market" value of their insurance plan or matching schemes in their TC numbers. These would be closer analogues for what's happening here. [1]: https://www.ziprecruiter.com/Salaries/-in-San-Francisco,CA https://www.ziprecruiter.com/Salaries/-in-San-Francisco,CA
    - abduhl 3y ago
      So you’re saying that contributions, which are paid for by the employer, result in predictable and proportional payouts after some vesting period. I see. So why shouldn’t it be considered a part of total compensation? The rest of the benefits not being included in TC I agree with.
      - woodruffw 3y ago
        I realized I made a mistake in this thread: I'm conflating TC and take-home, when my point really only applies to take-home. Sorry for that! You're right that pension benefits can be reasonably included in a TC calculation; I'd still argue that the article's framing is meant to imply that TC here reflects a larger take-home than it actually does, as well as malfeasance on SF's part (rather than ordinary and boring funding obligations).
  - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
    Equity belongs to your estate after your death, and will be a permanent obligation of the company (unless it buys back the shares). At best a pension can be partially transferred to your spouse after your death, but after the death of both you, and if you elected the option of a reduced pension to have it apply to your spouse, your spouse, the pension disappears entirely from your estate. This makes comparing a pension to equity, or even a 401(k), problematic in respects. A pension is an annuity, and should be calculated as such.
- rahimnathwani 3y ago
  TC is TC whether people 'take it home' now or after they retire. Most people have to save for their retirement, and hope to have enough money to pay for healthcare and living expenses until their final days. City employees have no such need and don't suffer such uncertainty. They can retire at 65 and, no matter how long they live, never have to worry about healthcare or living costs.
  - woodruffw 3y ago
    I'm not aware of any ordinary scenario in which estimated insurance or pension funding obligations are included in compensation figures. The compensation figure you receive from your employer almost certainly doesn't include your insurance costs to them, or your employer's expected costs from matching or other advantaged schemes that you choose to participate in. For a public employer like the SF, both are at least partially just migrated spreadsheet cells. Neither is directly realizable by the employee, and quoting them in a take-home number only serves to imply otherwise. Edit: I've realized I've conflated TC and take-home with my second comment in this sub-thread (but not the original comment). You can consider things like pension funding part of TC in a meaningful sense; the larger point about the article's editorialization still stands (since pension funding doesn't change annual take-home numbers).
    - rahimnathwani 3y ago
      I'm not aware of any ordinary scenario in which estimated insurance or pension funding obligations are included in compensation figures. That's because private companies don't have _estimated_ pension funding obligations. I'm not aware of any private employer in the US which makes job offers that include a defined benefit retirement plan. They either do some specific % 401(k) match, or they don't. In either case, the % is known and you factor it in as part of your total compensation when you compare employers. For most private employers, the % they will contribute to your pension is zero or a single digit percentage. Neither is directly realizable by the employee It's realized after retirement, as I said earlier. I don't know whether you genuinely believe that money received after retirement doesn't count, but I think I'll stop repeating myself now :)

woodruffw 3y ago

The misleading nature is the implication that SF's public servants are, on average, taking anywhere close to 200k in TC home. We can have a conversation about pensions and retirement funding if you'd like, but that isn't mentioned anywhere in the article. Instead, the article moves to imply that city employees are lining their pockets, when they aren't.

abduhl 3y ago
Why is the implication misleading? Because there’s a vest period on their total compensation? Isn’t it standard to quote total comp as salary plus equity even if the equity takes years to vest? Why have it be different for a city employee?
- woodruffw 3y ago
  > Isn’t it standard to quote total comp as salary plus equity even if the equity takes years to vest? This isn't how pensions or civil retirement plans work. Contributions during an individual's career result in predictable and proportional fractional payouts after retirement or leaving the civil system. Again: the implication is that civil servants are somehow making out like bandits here, when 71k take-home is well below the average SF salary[1]. Edit: And to tie a knot around it: no tech job I'm aware of includes the "market" value of their insurance plan or matching schemes in their TC numbers. These would be closer analogues for what's happening here. [1]: https://www.ziprecruiter.com/Salaries/-in-San-Francisco,CA https://www.ziprecruiter.com/Salaries/-in-San-Francisco,CA
  - abduhl 3y ago
    So you’re saying that contributions, which are paid for by the employer, result in predictable and proportional payouts after some vesting period. I see. So why shouldn’t it be considered a part of total compensation? The rest of the benefits not being included in TC I agree with.
    - woodruffw 3y ago
      I realized I made a mistake in this thread: I'm conflating TC and take-home, when my point really only applies to take-home. Sorry for that! You're right that pension benefits can be reasonably included in a TC calculation; I'd still argue that the article's framing is meant to imply that TC here reflects a larger take-home than it actually does, as well as malfeasance on SF's part (rather than ordinary and boring funding obligations).
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago
  Equity belongs to your estate after your death, and will be a permanent obligation of the company (unless it buys back the shares). At best a pension can be partially transferred to your spouse after your death, but after the death of both you, and if you elected the option of a reduced pension to have it apply to your spouse, your spouse, the pension disappears entirely from your estate. This makes comparing a pension to equity, or even a 401(k), problematic in respects. A pension is an annuity, and should be calculated as such.
rahimnathwani 3y ago
TC is TC whether people 'take it home' now or after they retire. Most people have to save for their retirement, and hope to have enough money to pay for healthcare and living expenses until their final days. City employees have no such need and don't suffer such uncertainty. They can retire at 65 and, no matter how long they live, never have to worry about healthcare or living costs.
- woodruffw 3y ago
  I'm not aware of any ordinary scenario in which estimated insurance or pension funding obligations are included in compensation figures. The compensation figure you receive from your employer almost certainly doesn't include your insurance costs to them, or your employer's expected costs from matching or other advantaged schemes that you choose to participate in. For a public employer like the SF, both are at least partially just migrated spreadsheet cells. Neither is directly realizable by the employee, and quoting them in a take-home number only serves to imply otherwise. Edit: I've realized I've conflated TC and take-home with my second comment in this sub-thread (but not the original comment). You can consider things like pension funding part of TC in a meaningful sense; the larger point about the article's editorialization still stands (since pension funding doesn't change annual take-home numbers).
  - rahimnathwani 3y ago
    I'm not aware of any ordinary scenario in which estimated insurance or pension funding obligations are included in compensation figures. That's because private companies don't have _estimated_ pension funding obligations. I'm not aware of any private employer in the US which makes job offers that include a defined benefit retirement plan. They either do some specific % 401(k) match, or they don't. In either case, the % is known and you factor it in as part of your total compensation when you compare employers. For most private employers, the % they will contribute to your pension is zero or a single digit percentage. Neither is directly realizable by the employee It's realized after retirement, as I said earlier. I don't know whether you genuinely believe that money received after retirement doesn't count, but I think I'll stop repeating myself now :)