3 ms·

The problem with that is these people planned for what was promised to them. As a younger person in a skilled occupation, like most HNers I expect, I have no e

The problem with that is these people planned for what was promised to them. As a younger person in a skilled occupation, like most HNers I expect, I have no expectation on the state to provide for me and consequently have my own provisions for retirement savings. I've been placing a percentage of my income aside for a while now to fund me later in life. My grandparent's generation (in the UK) however were promised state pensions. They paid higher taxes than I currently do for this, secure in the knowledge that when they retired the state would cover them. They don't have any retirement savings. You can't just pull out the cover for these people, because they have no backup. They were told they'd be covered and they planned for that.

thrownaway2424 12y ago
Right, like I said the promise goes both ways. The city or other authority offering the pension expects a certain amount of productivity out of the employee and in many cases the employees "pulled out the cover" on their city. In general I support the idea of defined-benefit retirement plans, and even to some extent the right of public employees to organize into unions, but when I think about the secretary at the local bureau who types one letter at a time on her computer, with a pencil eraser, because her fingernails are six inches long, or when I think about the bus drivers who can't be fired from the San Francisco MTA, even though they are convicted criminals who can't hold a commercial drivers' license, then my faith in public systems begins to erode. Goldbricking and loafing can only proliferate a certain amount before the ability of the city to pay for the promised pension is impaired. Your argument favors the idea of state or national pension systems, because they are large enough to average out the stupidity. With municipal systems you're virtually guaranteed to have a few cities unable to meet their promises.
fargolime 12y ago
Gotta use a throwaway because I'm going against the hive-mind. People were promised pensions on the backs of future generations; the money wasn't set aside for the pension. That's a form of Ponzi scheme. Considering how much harm they do to others, pensioners should be happy to get a payout and not cry if it doesn't. Just as unfair as reneging on a pension is expecting today's workers to forgo retirement to pay the pensioners. The people to blame are the previous generations who allowed this mess to form, not the current workers struggling under the weight of the pensioners. Today's younger workers didn't agree to the contract the pensioners had. They were born into the unfair system. The cover needn't be pulled out. Many of these people are effective millionaires getting $US70K or more a year for the rest of their life. They'll still survive when that's cut in half. Downvote away!

thrownaway2424 12y ago

Right, like I said the promise goes both ways. The city or other authority offering the pension expects a certain amount of productivity out of the employee and in many cases the employees "pulled out the cover" on their city. In general I support the idea of defined-benefit retirement plans, and even to some extent the right of public employees to organize into unions, but when I think about the secretary at the local bureau who types one letter at a time on her computer, with a pencil eraser, because her fingernails are six inches long, or when I think about the bus drivers who can't be fired from the San Francisco MTA, even though they are convicted criminals who can't hold a commercial drivers' license, then my faith in public systems begins to erode. Goldbricking and loafing can only proliferate a certain amount before the ability of the city to pay for the promised pension is impaired. Your argument favors the idea of state or national pension systems, because they are large enough to average out the stupidity. With municipal systems you're virtually guaranteed to have a few cities unable to meet their promises.

fargolime 12y ago

Gotta use a throwaway because I'm going against the hive-mind. People were promised pensions on the backs of future generations; the money wasn't set aside for the pension. That's a form of Ponzi scheme. Considering how much harm they do to others, pensioners should be happy to get a payout and not cry if it doesn't. Just as unfair as reneging on a pension is expecting today's workers to forgo retirement to pay the pensioners. The people to blame are the previous generations who allowed this mess to form, not the current workers struggling under the weight of the pensioners. Today's younger workers didn't agree to the contract the pensioners had. They were born into the unfair system. The cover needn't be pulled out. Many of these people are effective millionaires getting $US70K or more a year for the rest of their life. They'll still survive when that's cut in half. Downvote away!