Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Huh? Ask what other poster about what? I asked you a simple question and that's your answer?
The poster I was responding to made the claim that civil service workers get paid less than their private sector counterparts. You didn't ask HIM for a link? Double standard much?
Often? I thought they always did. Our retirement plan deductions are pretty high. My spouse will retire with 60% of his salary...which isn't very high anyway, and he can't get SS either. So he will have to continue to work after he "retires".
No, not always. Although I think no contributions on the part of the employee will soon be extinct. But as recently as a few years ago, the teachers in Wisconsin freaked out about the Republican governor making them contribute to their pensions.
Thank you....I can't tell you the number of times I've heard people griping about taxpayers "paying for teachers' retirements". Makes me want to slap them.
This one needs to be reposted about every 3rd post.
But they do pay for public sector retirements. If you're a public sector worker, your whole salary is paid for by the taxpayer as well as your retirement. That's just the fact of the matter.
The retirement benefit, in the vast majority of cases, is much better than what your average private sector worker gets. Social Security and a 3% 401k match typically don't come close to matching the benefit level of public sector pensions.
Yes, you area absolutely correct. It's primarily the result of the unions having the legislators, etc. in their back pocket...particular in places like CA where i received a huge pension (and promptly got the hell out of there to enjoy it in a state much more sane and without a state income tax, thank you)...
Yes, I live in CA, too, so same thing. But according to some posters on here, I'm supposed to be too stupid to see that I would get much less pay (not to mention benefits) in an equivalent job in the private sector. Or I guess I'm supposed to think my job is the rare exception...but it isn't. In my observation, most public sector jobs pay about market rate (better on the low end, lower only on the high end), but the pension and other benefits are well above the private sector market rate.
I can tell you my source. My own personal experience. I took at 30% pay cut to work at my county job. I have many friends that work in the public sector and they make about 10-25% more than I do. I have looked at salary ranges for other jobs in other counties as well as the state and I am fortunate enough to have a job at the upper range of those equivalent jobs.
In my experience, it's the opposite. I could never get an equivalent paying job doing the same work (and that's not looking at the pension). And at least where I live, I don't think my job is an exception.
It certainly depends on the state. In Virginia, teachers do not contribute towards their pensions, and pay in to SS, and have a no match 401k (with terrible fund choices). I look regularly at the salaries offered for equivalent state jobs. They are significantly (20% or more) less than the private sector offerings. Utilities in the area have decent starting salaries but still less than true private sector jobs. My next door neighbor is a college grad recruiter for a major bank. We've talked and he verifies roughly the same.
The part you didn't share is that the agency also contributes. And the actuarial assumptions coupled with generous formulaes have resulted in funding level projected shortfalls that are significant and in some cases they will hit the point of no return.
Burkmere it can easily be checked if the actuarial assumptions were met over a time horizon (NJ's were) so the issue is are the pension shortfalls due to poor actuarial assumptions or the failure (like NJ) to not make the employer contribution for 20+ years.
Thank you....I can't tell you the number of times I've heard people griping about taxpayers "paying for teachers' retirements". Makes me want to slap them.
This one needs to be reposted about every 3rd post.
And I worked for 35+ years for an auto company, so everyone who bought a new car built by my employer paid for what would have been my pension. Don't slap them with your hand, just remind them that every purchaser of their employer's products (or their own goods and services if self employed) pays for their retirement.
Perryinva makes a good point. There are so many different public pension systems that making blanket statements about any of them as if they are all the same is useless.
I also would be interested in knowing what those comparing the pension to actually have in a 401k plan after 30-40 years of contributions and matching dollars.
The pension has provided a real benefit of professional management with low expenses and a 40 year ROI of 8.9%. It also has a benefit of spreading the various risks.
My brother and sister have significant 401K plans that they self manage and also have good returns and that will be a significant part of the inheritance they leave.
Each has it's pro and con.
My issue is that do not require me to do something for 30-40 years and then tell me we are reneging on a portion retroactively. To me that is no different than your employer going back and recouping the match they put into your account.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
