4 ms·

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 yo

by 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.
    - zo1 12y ago
      So the politicians wanted to have their cake and eat it, no I get that perfectly. On the one hand they promise large future payouts to gullible public servants. And on the other hand they get to pander to the general public about how they've reduced the budget (or not increased it). Ridiculous. For that matter, why is the city in the business of trying to make a profit out of peoples' pensions? And even then there was no accountability or repercussions for politicians that decided to dip their fingers into the pension investment pools. And the last thing that I'd like to add in response. I think the reason why most people are shocked at this article, is because they've been conditioned and drilled with the thought that public servants are under-paid. But as you say, the public servants did this on "purpose" as a risk-mitigating process. If that's the case, then they need to stop yapping incessantly in the public sphere about how they're paid less in comparison to their private counterparts.
- iterationx 12y ago
  You're so boldly wrong. I admire the boldness.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

by bruceb 12y ago

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.
  - zo1 12y ago
    So the politicians wanted to have their cake and eat it, no I get that perfectly. On the one hand they promise large future payouts to gullible public servants. And on the other hand they get to pander to the general public about how they've reduced the budget (or not increased it). Ridiculous. For that matter, why is the city in the business of trying to make a profit out of peoples' pensions? And even then there was no accountability or repercussions for politicians that decided to dip their fingers into the pension investment pools. And the last thing that I'd like to add in response. I think the reason why most people are shocked at this article, is because they've been conditioned and drilled with the thought that public servants are under-paid. But as you say, the public servants did this on "purpose" as a risk-mitigating process. If that's the case, then they need to stop yapping incessantly in the public sphere about how they're paid less in comparison to their private counterparts.
iterationx 12y ago
You're so boldly wrong. I admire the boldness.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]