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.
If professional sociologists can pick out and define clear characteristics that each 'generation' exhibits, then I am curious, having been born in 1959, how would I be any different if I were born in 1965?
You’d have seen different things at a different age, but I maintain that individuals are individuals, and we hang on to these labels anyway.
I did not say recent. I said over time. There are still people working under the old system. There were also changes to the Feds in the relatively recent past (post 2010). The point is that the government pensions keep getting worse. At the State level where I live there are several 'tiers' all working currently (some with drastically better pension benefits).
15% of Private sector employees have defined benefit pensions as well.
I said there are still people working under the old system - but as few as 1% since it was put in place over 36 years ago (that is in the post you copied). No real change other than added government contribution to TSP (401K) in 2010 under both systems which makes it better for most of those under the Fed system recently. Also TSP has better options for investment, originally the only option was G fund (govt fund) - I had only that option for awhile. There are too many state systems to identify a trend - each state often has several plans.
And why do you keep repeating the 15% number (which is what I said already - previous post 72) - the actual data is 12% have access to defined benefit (pension)and defined contribution (401K type) and 3% only have defined benefit (other than IRA) so most have access to much more than was available when pensions were more normal. Even then pensions were only available to about 1/3 private company workers.
The main point is that pensions are still available - mostly from the same sources and now most with pensions have access to tax advantaged accounts in addition. For the great majority that don't have pensions, most now have access to tax advantaged accounts instead of just being on their own. It is incorrect to say it's been getting worse - at least for most
I said there are still people working under the old system - but as few as 1% since it was put in place over 36 years ago (that is in the post you copied). No real change other than added government contribution to TSP (401K) in 2010 under both systems which makes it better for most of those under the Fed system recently. Also TSP has better options for investment, originally the only option was G fund (govt fund) - I had only that option for awhile. There are too many state systems to identify a trend - each state often has several plans.
And why do you keep repeating the 15% number (which is what I said already - previous post 72) - the actual data is 12% have access to defined benefit (pension)and defined contribution (401K type) and 3% only have defined benefit (other than IRA) so most have access to much more than was available when pensions were more normal. Even then pensions were only available to about 1/3 private company workers.
The main point is that pensions are still available - mostly from the same sources and now most with pensions have access to tax advantaged accounts in addition. For the great majority that don't have pensions, most now have access to tax advantaged accounts instead of just being on their own. It is incorrect to say it's been getting worse - at least for most
I'm sure some private sector employers still offer pension plans, but it is very rare to run into one for new hires.
Assuming that 15% is true, that is probably including long-term employees at companies that used to offer them, and those employees are probably Boomers or older Gen-Xers grandfathered under legacy plans. If you include government employee and military, I'd buy that 15%.
I'm sure some private sector employers still offer pension plans, but it is very rare to run into one for new hires.
Assuming that 15% is true, that is probably including long-term employees at companies that used to offer them, and those employees are probably Boomers or older Gen-Xers grandfathered under legacy plans. If you include government employee and military, I'd buy that 15%.
Actually the 15% doesn't include any government worker pensions, for what I linked I specifically specified private employers, which is what the body of the Forbes article states.
Work 30 years to get 30% pay does not sound very generous.
I served for 20 years and my military pension is 50% of my 'Base-pay' [My 'base-pay' typically ran between 1/4 to 1/3 of my take-home monthly pay].
It is easy to understand why most military retirees can not support their families on a military pension.
That's actually a somewhat standard number-30%-40%. My State Retirement System pension is 35%, which is intentionally set up that way. It's structured to pretty much top out at 30 years with very small increments after that.
Work 30 years to get 30% pay does not sound very generous.
I served for 20 years and my military pension is 50% of my 'Base-pay' [My 'base-pay' typically ran between 1/4 to 1/3 of my take-home monthly pay].
It is easy to understand why most military retirees can not support their families on a military pension.
Well, technically it's 1.1% per year of your service if you retire after age of 62, so that would be 33% instead of 30%
I was talking to a friend discussing the same topic the other day. He was a retired Lt.Col with 20 years of service. His monthly retired pay is actually less than another mutual friend who's a Major but will be retiring with 24 years of service. So length of service matters.
The military guys in SoCal gets Base Allowance for Housing (BAH) that's equivalent to $5K to $6K per month. So you're right, the base pay is significantly less than regular pay.
Assuming that 15% is true, that is probably including long-term employees at companies that used to offer them, and those employees are probably Boomers or older Gen-Xers grandfathered under legacy plans. If you include government employee and military, I'd buy that 15%.
When I was starting out, all of the defense prime-contractors had defined benefit pensions. Most closed these pensions around 2005-2010, and froze accrual of benefits to existing employees around 2015. There's a silver lining: marquee engineers from Lockheed and the like, then in mid-career or somewhat later (people then in their 40s or early 50s), took a serious look at leaving, to start their own tech businesses. 20 years ago, this would have been intractable, as the giving up of a cushy pension would be too speculative. Now it suddenly makes sense.
Another trend is the merry-go-round of hopping from Boeing to Lockheed to Northrop. Seemingly every time that I'd arrive for a technical meeting, there would be a new cadre of geniuses around the conference table. "Wait, is this the Boeing meeting"? No, it was actually Lockheed, but 3 of the Boeing employees all left and took better offers at Lockheed. So no, I didn't blunder into the wrong campus that time. This would never have happened a generation ago, when everyone clung tenaciously to their pensions and pension-eligibiity.
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.
