U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-05-2017, 01:07 PM
 
Location: Tennessee
25,895 posts, read 19,206,165 times
Reputation: 30830

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by grouse789 View Post
And that wise man, was the point of my first post in this thread I believe. Choices.... Choosing to live where there isnt much of a job outlook may not be a good financial choice. However there are other things in life than money, like family or friends. Being a skilled worker and Choosing to live near loved ones in an economically challenged area is fine, but it comes with a price.
I'm doing fine for now, but I understand the limitations of this area. The odds of me being around here when I turn 35 in four years are pretty slim. I may very well be out of here in another year or two.

State and local government positions, at least in this area, often serve as a way to "warehouse" workers who otherwise wouldn't find a fit in the local labor market. One of my buddies has an MS in physics from Tennessee Technological University down in Cookeville. He wants to remain in this area, but struggled to find decent employment for several years after college. Eventually he got tired of it and went back and got an MEd, and is now a science teacher in a rural high school. He never set out of be a teacher, but there were few options for him to remain local and get a living wage.

Of course all those "warehoused" government workers end up being eligible for pensions and the other full suite of benefits those of us in the private sector (who ultimately keep up the government workers) cannot get anything comparable to.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-05-2017, 01:30 PM
 
Location: The High Desert
7,832 posts, read 4,250,115 times
Reputation: 14769
Quote:
Originally Posted by Serious Conversation View Post
Everyone wants a piece of the pie but no one wants to pay for it.
This should be our new national motto.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-05-2017, 07:30 PM
 
Location: St. Louis
489 posts, read 381,603 times
Reputation: 438
Some folks here must be cherry-picking examples. I spent a few minutes pulling data for my home state (Missouri). MOSERS administers pensions for state employees...

Average state employee wage: 40k
Average retirement age: 60
Average pension: 15k/year

Using a 401k calculator, with 5% post-inflation return, a 6% retirement withdrawal rate, over a 35 year career: A worker would have to save $220/mo in a 401k to achieve the same benefit (15k/year).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-05-2017, 07:49 PM
 
Location: North Beach, MD on the Chesapeake
34,622 posts, read 43,785,610 times
Reputation: 44597
Quote:
Originally Posted by RisingAurvandil View Post
Some folks here must be cherry-picking examples. I spent a few minutes pulling data for my home state (Missouri). MOSERS administers pensions for state employees...

Average state employee wage: 40k
Average retirement age: 60
Average pension: 15k/year

Using a 401k calculator, with 5% post-inflation return, a 6% retirement withdrawal rate, over a 35 year career: A worker would have to save $220/mo in a 401k to achieve the same benefit (15k/year).
They are. The usual suspects are using the outlier of California, New York and Illinois to extrapolate to all government employee pension plans.

Mine in Maryland is similar to your example: 35% of final five years at 62 with 30 years. Past that age and years of service the added benefit is less than $1000/year increase.

I was hurt because my school system tops teachers out at 20 years and the last ten years I taught our salaries were frozen for seven. We got three COLAs in that time which totalled a bit over 2%.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-05-2017, 08:11 PM
 
Location: Near San Francisco, CA
187 posts, read 124,966 times
Reputation: 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidt1 View Post
You know you can get one of those fat government jobs too, right? Maybe you are over the age limit. Maybe you are not a slacker and could never see yourself working for them. Maybe you have a conscience and don't want to be a part of the system that you despise. Or maybe you are just an overburdened taxpayer who is fed up with paying for public employees' lavish lifestyles. But it doesn't matter what your circumstances are. Just get a government job or shut up. You have no right to complain as a taxpayer.

One of these jobs would do nicely. Hell, any on these lists would do nicely. Pay attention to the last column: Total pay and benefits.

'police officer' search results | Transparent California

'firefighter' search results | Transparent California

2011

'nurse]' search results | Transparent California
I was surprised at how many of the police officers had more in overtime pay than regular pay.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-05-2017, 09:00 PM
 
Location: Paranoid State
13,047 posts, read 10,917,150 times
Reputation: 15725
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic Romano View Post
Like I told David1, go to ANY city, county, state or federal website and look at the pay and requirements for government jobs (police, fire, lawyer, doctor, psychiatrist, whatever). Tell me how many people meet those requirements.
You might be interested in this from a few years ago. Apparently, being too intelligent gets you disqualified (not a typo):

Court OKs Barring High IQs for Cops - ABC News

Quote:
A man whose bid to become a police officer was rejected after he scored too high on an intelligence test has lost an appeal in his federal lawsuit against the city.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York upheld a lower court’s decision that the city did not discriminate against Robert Jordan because the same standards were applied to everyone who took the test.

“This kind of puts an official face on discrimination in America against people of a certain class,” Jordan said today from his Waterford home. “I maintain you have no more control over your basic intelligence than your eye color or your gender or anything else.”

He said he does not plan to take any further legal action.

Jordan, a 49-year-old college graduate, took the exam in 1996 and scored 33 points, the equivalent of an IQ of 125. But New London police interviewed only candidates who scored 20 to 27, on the theory that those who scored too high could get bored with police work and leave soon after undergoing costly training.

Most Cops Just Above Normal The average score nationally for police officers is 21 to 22, the equivalent of an IQ of 104, or just a little above average.

Jordan alleged his rejection from the police force was discrimination. He sued the city, saying his civil rights were violated because he was denied equal protection under the law.

But the U.S. District Court found that New London had “shown a rational basis for the policy.” In a ruling dated Aug. 23, the 2nd Circuit agreed. The court said the policy might be unwise but was a rational way to reduce job turnover.

Jordan has worked as a prison guard since he took the test.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-05-2017, 09:51 PM
 
26,943 posts, read 53,802,762 times
Reputation: 21076
Quote:
Originally Posted by RisingAurvandil View Post
Some folks here must be cherry-picking examples. I spent a few minutes pulling data for my home state (Missouri). MOSERS administers pensions for state employees...

Average state employee wage: 40k
Average retirement age: 60
Average pension: 15k/year

Using a 401k calculator, with 5% post-inflation return, a 6% retirement withdrawal rate, over a 35 year career: A worker would have to save $220/mo in a 401k to achieve the same benefit (15k/year).
Any idea of what a worker with a 30 year career retired at age 52 would need in a 401k to produce 15k per month and premium for lifetime medical with no deductible?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-05-2017, 10:00 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles area
14,017 posts, read 18,199,765 times
Reputation: 32377
Quote:
Originally Posted by RisingAurvandil View Post
Some folks here must be cherry-picking examples. I spent a few minutes pulling data for my home state (Missouri). MOSERS administers pensions for state employees...

Average state employee wage: 40k
Average retirement age: 60
Average pension: 15k/year

Using a 401k calculator, with 5% post-inflation return, a 6% retirement withdrawal rate, over a 35 year career: A worker would have to save $220/mo in a 401k to achieve the same benefit (15k/year).
Quote:
Originally Posted by North Beach Person View Post
They are. The usual suspects are using the outlier of California, New York and Illinois to extrapolate to all government employee pension plans.

Mine in Maryland is similar to your example: 35% of final five years at 62 with 30 years. Past that age and years of service the added benefit is less than $1000/year increase.

I was hurt because my school system tops teachers out at 20 years and the last ten years I taught our salaries were frozen for seven. We got three COLAs in that time which totalled a bit over 2%.

Yep, it's tiresome to read the posters who cite high outlier pensions to "prove" how good public employees have it. Even the "California" pensions mentioned by North Beach Person are not all created equal.


Let me explain: The largest and second largest public pension systems in the U.S. are both in California, CalPERS and CalSTRS. The first is for state employees but many city and county employees are also part of CalPERS. CalSTRS is for public school teachers state-wide, from kindergarten through junior college. There is no connection between the two systems, which have different rules for retirement, different boards of directors, etc.


As a retired teacher, I know rather little about CalPERS, but I do know that medical benefits are often (always?) included in their retirements. We teachers do not get that unless the local district supplies it, which most do not.


After 34 years in the system (CalSTRS) I retired at age 61.5 with a pension of about $59,000 a year (no medical). That is not a bad pension, and I am totally satisfied with it, but it is hardly the outrageous boondoggle that some posters have been referring to. And had I been either younger or had fewer years of service, it would have been less. After 12 years of COLA's it has risen to over $60,000. During my 34 working years, I had 8% of salary deducted to support the pension, and the employer (school district) paid a like amount. Since I retired those percentages have been increased. I believe teachers currently are paying a little over 10%, with no increase in benefits.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-05-2017, 10:14 PM
 
26,943 posts, read 53,802,762 times
Reputation: 21076
Can't speak for others but it does get old when the city pension fund is ALWAYS short and many special property assessments have been passed by voters to once and for all make the system solvent...

Again... these are not individual cases but decades of public safety with most in CalPERS.

It is only natural to question and expect accountability for taxpayer dollars... especially when the often subtle message is taxes paid are not enough...

My property taxes are nearly 11k per year for a original 1957 ranch style home of 1725 square feet in East Oakland... this is my reality....

Make no claim to know any of the specifics outside the SF Bay Area and this is why I follow these type of threads...

One of our nurses moved to Utah and as an RN she took a 60% pay cut working the same job as she had in California...

It only seems natural that retirement to be 60% less... at least it makes sense as a percentage.

No one in my family has ever had a pension... Mom's 401k generates 3k per year... and Dads about 6k per year... Social Security is their income... both came late to 401k offerings...

I have not had a 401k match for 11 years... so it is ALL self funded whereas my Public Safety friends had both parts paid by my city for decades...

It does seem few public pensions are fully funded... so the problem is far from an outlier...

Last edited by Ultrarunner; 09-05-2017 at 10:44 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-05-2017, 10:31 PM
 
18,726 posts, read 20,415,202 times
Reputation: 8075
Pensions are pipe dreams... you cannot promise the future if you don't know what the future holds... they need to switch over to 401k plans...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top