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 09-02-2017, 04:16 PM
 
254 posts, read 475,418 times
Reputation: 555

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by MG120 View Post
Seems to me that local and state governments set up their compensation packages, not the employees. I work in Public Health, the highest paid person in our agency of 3500 employees is just over 200k, a Medical Doctor at that. Only about 75 people in the entire organization makes over 100k. We have at least 1000 employees with MD, RN, PHd after their names. And they aren't making the salaries people are talking about on this thread. 2200 more have at least a bachelors which is a requirement to even get a job.

We contribute 9 percent to our pension, the agency contributes another 13 percent. Our health insurance is no pick nick either, with the average employee paying 250+ every paycheck to cover their family, and the deductibles and copays are equally as high. And retirees don't get free healthcare, they get to maintain the same coverage for the same monthly amount.

We also get to contribute to SS and Medicare like everyone else. What's the average pension for an average employee here after 30 years, about 22k.

So if you don't like public employees getting a pension because you don't, easy, elect politicians that will do away with them. Until you and your fellow citizens in whatever state or local area you live does that, quit whining.
If a non-government employee were to create "the average" $22,000 a year pension for themselves they would need to have over $500,000 invested with a 5% per year guaranteed return. That's a pretty generous pension I'd say.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-02-2017, 05:24 PM
 
Location: Mexico City (at the moment)
1,345 posts, read 468,102 times
Reputation: 1963
Quote:
Originally Posted by Delahanty View Post
Are YOU paying the full amount of my pension? Answer: No.

Newsflash: Public retirees are taxpayers, too-- a fact which many seem to forget.

Neither my husband, who's a federal retiree after 40 years with BATF (when they called it that) nor I, a local government administrator for almost 35 years will be apologizing for our pensions, so you can chuck the attempted guilt trip.

And, BTW, both of our positions, with great pay, benefits, pensions, and job security, were up for grabs. By anyone.
My wife and I are in a somewhat similiar position as you, myself at 33 years federal service (at this point), my wife at 21 years vested. But I completely concede that the taxpayer is covering our prospective pensions, and we only contributed to it to a much smaller degree. We work for the taxpayers.

You are correct in saying you and your spouses positions were up for grabs by anybody that applied. That is what my wife and I decided to do. Bravo on your observance.

But that doesnt change the arrogance you seem to have now about who pays the 73% average percentile above and beyond your personal contributions. You aren't winning hearts and minds with that entitled attitude.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-02-2017, 05:38 PM
 
Location: Mexico City (at the moment)
1,345 posts, read 468,102 times
Reputation: 1963
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultrarunner View Post
^^^ These are the stories that make the Bay Area news and shape opinion...

My friends Mom always worked as a housekeeper... a friend told her BART is hiring to clean BART cars and she was hired...

She is now retired and says the luckiest day of her life is when a friend told her to apply at the transit agency...

Her pension is much more than her friends cleaning hotel rooms get as pay and said the job is easier... 60k retirement...

To say government sector employment equals low pay has not been the case for a long time for many Bay Area jobs...

BART special assessments are on my property tax bill... Hilton Hotels can't tax my home.
California cities and counties are especially poor stewards of public monies, regarding pensions.

A 60K per year retirement for janitorial duties?

Sheesh, my full base salary at the 20 year mark when I was in the military was only 37K per year.

Is BART only city funded, or fall under Calpers?

This is an article on Calpers that stuck with me....


https://www.city-journal.org/html/pe...nia-13528.html
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-02-2017, 09:24 PM
 
Location: New York
831 posts, read 652,148 times
Reputation: 1536
Quote:
purposely didn't not quote my entire post and try to deflect.
Wrong yet again friend. I did not quote your "entire" post because I was responding to the shaded area that I copied and pasted. No deflection I can assure you.
Yes I do make over 6 figures. And again, I took a test that was an open competitive exam to anyone who qualified. And yes I live in an area where you are considered $100,000 poor. (Just for clarification you need to make at least $200000 here to be comfortable.)
And yes, again lol. Yes indeed I am looking for less expensive place to live as NYS taxes are insane. (See above post on being $100,000 poor. Property taxes average around $10,000 per year here.) wouldn't you??
So yes I would love to spend my 60 or so thousand pension in a less expensive area. Would t that benefit those who inhabit those areas?? Sort of giving it back to the people?
Sorry for being a public employee, I thought I was being a good socialist, err democrat.

Last edited by grouse789; 09-02-2017 at 09:25 PM.. Reason: Spelling
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-02-2017, 09:55 PM
 
Location: plano
6,564 posts, read 8,091,974 times
Reputation: 5797
Public employees can screw yo and not get fired nor sent home without pay which I do not consider unreasonable. When they allow employees to take unused sick time was a bonus payment when they return or when they work OT to make their pension bigger I object and consider these things unreasonable to allow. All companies re deign their processes and cut staff to stay competitive, I never see the government do this on any level. I know the performance of many gov employees. Im sure there are some good but failing to cut the bad, which are certainly their in big numbers is robbery.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-02-2017, 10:31 PM
 
2,292 posts, read 1,558,471 times
Reputation: 2737
Quote:
Originally Posted by snebarekim View Post
California cities and counties are especially poor stewards of public monies, regarding pensions.

A 60K per year retirement for janitorial duties?

Sheesh, my full base salary at the 20 year mark when I was in the military was only 37K per year.

Is BART only city funded, or fall under Calpers?

This is an article on Calpers that stuck with me....


https://www.city-journal.org/html/pe...nia-13528.html
BART retirement system is CALPERS. Perhaps the most inept mangers of a retirement system in the universe. OK, maybe tied with a few.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-03-2017, 12:44 AM
 
Location: NNV
1,509 posts, read 967,985 times
Reputation: 3071
Quote:
Originally Posted by bungalowdweller View Post
If a non-government employee were to create "the average" $22,000 a year pension for themselves they would need to have over $500,000 invested with a 5% per year guaranteed return. That's a pretty generous pension I'd say.
Your math is a little off. Based on your assumptions, your $500,000 is never spent down. That's not how pensions are calculated.

An average $22k per year pension assumes a certain average lifespan after retirement. Let's say a 62 year old retiree lives an average of 20 years after retirement. With a 2.5% cost of living adjustment per year (it has not been that high the last few years), the total amount to cover this cost is $562k. So a non-government employee would need to save $562k.

Let's take the math a little further. If I work 30 years at a government job, it means I would need to make $562k divided by 30 years or about $19k per year more at a non-government job to cover the pension cost. If I average $50k over 30 years would have to average $69k outside. If I average $75k in government would have to average $94k outside. Is that possible? Given the fact that non-government employees may be offered bonuses and even stock options, I'd say yes. I'm not even considering the investment potential of the $19k per year in a 401k. If one invests wisely, that lowers the $19k per year difference substantially.

I'm not saying one is better than the other. I'm just trying to offer a more complete picture.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-03-2017, 05:47 AM
 
2,394 posts, read 2,060,726 times
Reputation: 1648
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnhw2 View Post
Public employees can screw yo and not get fired nor sent home without pay which I do not consider unreasonable. When they allow employees to take unused sick time was a bonus payment when they return or when they work OT to make their pension bigger I object and consider these things unreasonable to allow. All companies re deign their processes and cut staff to stay competitive, I never see the government do this on any level. I know the performance of many gov employees. Im sure there are some good but failing to cut the bad, which are certainly their in big numbers is robbery.
That is only is their supervisors or managers do not do their job. Firing or disciplining employees in most large organizations involve managers doing their job. There is really no structural impediment to following the contract.

Here is some examples of reasons employees who should have been fired but were not that I have seen-

Supervisor- tells HR employee has been a terrible performer for years. HR pulls 4 years of evaluations and the employee was rated outstanding.

Employee is late every day. HR finds out 1/2 the staff comes in late but supervisor allows it because he feels they are good workers and only want sto discipline this employee. Actually that supervisor got a written warning.

I can go on and on.

I have seen at least 40 employees fired or resign just before being fired when the boss did their job right.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-03-2017, 05:49 AM
 
2,394 posts, read 2,060,726 times
Reputation: 1648
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic Romano View Post
Your math is a little off. Based on your assumptions, your $500,000 is never spent down. That's not how pensions are calculated.

An average $22k per year pension assumes a certain average lifespan after retirement. Let's say a 62 year old retiree lives an average of 20 years after retirement. With a 2.5% cost of living adjustment per year (it has not been that high the last few years), the total amount to cover this cost is $562k. So a non-government employee would need to save $562k.

Let's take the math a little further. If I work 30 years at a government job, it means I would need to make $562k divided by 30 years or about $19k per year more at a non-government job to cover the pension cost. If I average $50k over 30 years would have to average $69k outside. If I average $75k in government would have to average $94k outside. Is that possible? Given the fact that non-government employees may be offered bonuses and even stock options, I'd say yes. I'm not even considering the investment potential of the $19k per year in a 401k. If one invests wisely, that lowers the $19k per year difference substantially.

I'm not saying one is better than the other. I'm just trying to offer a more complete picture.
Bingo that is what most people do not realize they want to compare a pension to a 401k without spending the balance down.

Pensions spread the risk which is their greatest benefit. As an individual you need to be very careful on the age assumption at death but when there is a pool of people you can assume an average age for the pool.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-03-2017, 07:05 AM
 
2,744 posts, read 987,380 times
Reputation: 3203
Quote:
Originally Posted by tom1944 View Post
Bingo that is what most people do not realize they want to compare a pension to a 401k without spending the balance down.

Pensions spread the risk which is their greatest benefit. As an individual you need to be very careful on the age assumption at death but when there is a pool of people you can assume an average age for the pool.
Good point. Most teacher's pension are individual only so once the person dies so does the pension payments. So if the pensioner dies early the principal they and their employers put into the pension funds is now state money that stays invested in the fund.

Few add their spouses but if they do that the payments are cut and in some cases quite heavily so most don't choose that option.
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.

2005-2019, 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