6 ms·

It's fantastic how articles like these trot out figures like '$80k a year!' as if we're all supposed to be shocked and appalled that someone is making around wh

It's fantastic how articles like these trot out figures like '$80k a year!' as if we're all supposed to be shocked and appalled that someone is making around what it costs to have a decent home and raise a family. I guess we really do need to pay our greedy firemen and teachers less, they have had it too good for too long making a decent wage and deserve to go right on the scrapheap with the rest of the trash in this country that we've already convinced to work for peanuts. Not that they had a choice.

bruceb 12y ago
Should you get paid near $80k a year for the next 26 years when you are not working? I also think it should be adjustable depending where you are living. Do you live in the area and so plowing some of that money back in to the local economy? If not there should be a reduction. England is reducing some benefits for those who live abroad and thus not spending money in the country.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- DeadHitchhiker 12y ago
  > Should you get paid near $80k a year for the next 26 years when you are not working? Yes. Why not? Because that offends your sensibilities about work? Because you feel that people should work until they're 65~70 to retire, if they ever manage to? Right now a number of school teachers are working until their late 60s to make a pittance upon retirement, trading down from houses to mobile homes to even make their retirement manageable. Do you feel these people aren't as worthy as others making obscene amounts of money as they essentially raise the nation's children for them? Your entire supposition either buys into the myth that there isn't enough to go around or worse, that you simply believe because we treat the majority of our labor pool like shit that anyone daring not to is in the wrong.
  - adventured 12y ago
    Why not? Because the math doesn't work out in the end. Never has, never will. You can't raise taxes high enough to make it all work, and you can't force people to stay in those munis and pay the taxes. It's a utopian government fantasy that is collapsing and taking municipal well-being down with it.
  - bruceb 12y ago
    Clearly I suggested they be banished to the poor houses so that the ghosts of rich monocle wearing robbery barons could fling quarters at them and watch the teachers scramble.
  - zo1 12y ago
    "> Should you get paid near $80k a year for the next 26 years when you are not working? Yes. Why not?" They got paid a salary their entire working career, which they should have been taking out of to save up for retirement. You know, like the rest of society does.
    - joshAg 12y ago
      you do realize that the workers negotiated a pension with the city in exchange for lower salaries during the years in which they work, right? This pension is their retirement savings. The city's benefit is that they don't have to pay as high salary as they otherwise would (without a pension); that means the city can take the money they save on salary each year, invest it, and hopefully get a high enough return that they save money compared to paying a full salary without the pension. Essentially, the city wants to borrow money from the workers at A% interest and then go invest it (maybe in itself, maybe in more traditional investments) and hopefully get an ROI of B%, where B > A. The workers' benefit is that they get a "guaranteed" retirement fund (ie less risk) that they don't have to manage or worry about and depending on the circumstances, a higher total compensation than they would without the pension (ie the city pays them interest for essentially loaning the city money) (ie better returns). If the city's investments of the saved salary money returns more than what is needed to fund the pensions, the city gets to keep that extra money.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
melling 12y ago
The real question is can we afford it. Public pensions are not fully funded while the employee is working. In many cases there won't be enough people paying their benefits in the future so taxes will need to be increased or benefits cut.
- bsder 12y ago
  We can afford it if the people in charge of the pensions would put the money away when they're supposed to aka NOW. Instead, everybody treated pension funds like piggy banks, looted them, and now want to run away with the money with the "Oh they're so greedy."
  - ars 12y ago
    That doesn't make it affordable. That just makes it unaffordable much earlier - which is useful granted, but doesn't actually solve the problem.
  - zo1 12y ago
    You can afford it, of course! Assuming you take debt out against your unborn children, and grandchildrens' future labor. If you're fine with that then keep repeating: "Yes we can!" Some of the stats I've seen claim that the US has trillions in unfunded liabilities such as these pension funds. Anyone have any concrete stats we can reference?
declan 12y ago
I don't think the article was trotting out $80K/year as the shock figure. That was supposed to be the $2 million number. (It's also in the headline.)

bruceb 12y ago

Should you get paid near $80k a year for the next 26 years when you are not working? I also think it should be adjustable depending where you are living. Do you live in the area and so plowing some of that money back in to the local economy? If not there should be a reduction. England is reducing some benefits for those who live abroad and thus not spending money in the country.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
DeadHitchhiker 12y ago
> Should you get paid near $80k a year for the next 26 years when you are not working? Yes. Why not? Because that offends your sensibilities about work? Because you feel that people should work until they're 65~70 to retire, if they ever manage to? Right now a number of school teachers are working until their late 60s to make a pittance upon retirement, trading down from houses to mobile homes to even make their retirement manageable. Do you feel these people aren't as worthy as others making obscene amounts of money as they essentially raise the nation's children for them? Your entire supposition either buys into the myth that there isn't enough to go around or worse, that you simply believe because we treat the majority of our labor pool like shit that anyone daring not to is in the wrong.
- adventured 12y ago
  Why not? Because the math doesn't work out in the end. Never has, never will. You can't raise taxes high enough to make it all work, and you can't force people to stay in those munis and pay the taxes. It's a utopian government fantasy that is collapsing and taking municipal well-being down with it.
- bruceb 12y ago
  Clearly I suggested they be banished to the poor houses so that the ghosts of rich monocle wearing robbery barons could fling quarters at them and watch the teachers scramble.
- zo1 12y ago
  "> Should you get paid near $80k a year for the next 26 years when you are not working? Yes. Why not?" They got paid a salary their entire working career, which they should have been taking out of to save up for retirement. You know, like the rest of society does.
  - joshAg 12y ago
    you do realize that the workers negotiated a pension with the city in exchange for lower salaries during the years in which they work, right? This pension is their retirement savings. The city's benefit is that they don't have to pay as high salary as they otherwise would (without a pension); that means the city can take the money they save on salary each year, invest it, and hopefully get a high enough return that they save money compared to paying a full salary without the pension. Essentially, the city wants to borrow money from the workers at A% interest and then go invest it (maybe in itself, maybe in more traditional investments) and hopefully get an ROI of B%, where B > A. The workers' benefit is that they get a "guaranteed" retirement fund (ie less risk) that they don't have to manage or worry about and depending on the circumstances, a higher total compensation than they would without the pension (ie the city pays them interest for essentially loaning the city money) (ie better returns). If the city's investments of the saved salary money returns more than what is needed to fund the pensions, the city gets to keep that extra money.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

melling 12y ago

The real question is can we afford it. Public pensions are not fully funded while the employee is working. In many cases there won't be enough people paying their benefits in the future so taxes will need to be increased or benefits cut.

bsder 12y ago
We can afford it if the people in charge of the pensions would put the money away when they're supposed to aka NOW. Instead, everybody treated pension funds like piggy banks, looted them, and now want to run away with the money with the "Oh they're so greedy."
- ars 12y ago
  That doesn't make it affordable. That just makes it unaffordable much earlier - which is useful granted, but doesn't actually solve the problem.
- zo1 12y ago
  You can afford it, of course! Assuming you take debt out against your unborn children, and grandchildrens' future labor. If you're fine with that then keep repeating: "Yes we can!" Some of the stats I've seen claim that the US has trillions in unfunded liabilities such as these pension funds. Anyone have any concrete stats we can reference?

declan 12y ago

I don't think the article was trotting out $80K/year as the shock figure. That was supposed to be the $2 million number. (It's also in the headline.)