Lavish Public Sector Retirement in Calif. - New England Patriots Forums

State · 07-28-2011, 09:09 AM

Lavish pension and retirement packages in California that are grossly underfunded.

Quote:

But here may be an even easier way to gauge the public’s growing liability for public-employee pensions: California has 1.85 million state and local government employees. Using an average career of 30 years and an average retirement of 20 years, the Golden State is on track to see 1.25 million retired state and local workers collecting, on average, $60,000 per year in retirement pension payments. That’s $75 billion per year and growing. Should taxpayers, the vast majority of whom can expect Social Security benefits of no more than $15,000 a year on average, really be expected to fund those retirements? Will they do so willingly? Not likely.

You think?

SOURCE: Popping the Public-Pension Bubble by Ed Ring - City Journal

PatriotsReign · 07-28-2011, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by State

Lavish pension and retirement packages in California that are grossly underfunded.You think?

SOURCE: Popping the Public-Pension Bubble by Ed Ring - City Journal

Why the average American citizen never bothered to consider their support of public workers retirement years ago is baffling. When we all stop to think about it, why would anyone want to fund $60k/yr for a single retiree?

Across America, most localies have switched to contracting the private sector for trash removal. I grew up in Weymouth, MA and we had town workers doing the garbage collecting for years. Now Weymouth has a private company doing it.

I would LOVE to see the cost savings comparison on that move. Think about it...Weymouth residents will no longer have to pay for the retirement benefits of their garbage collectors. That in itself must have saved Weymouth residents millions.

Triple-T · 07-28-2011, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by State

Lavish pension and retirement packages in California that are grossly underfunded.You think?

SOURCE: Popping the Public-Pension Bubble by Ed Ring - City Journal

No one in their right mind would ever support this. However, we have no politicians* who will actually fight it. Got to have that public union support to get elected.

*ok, there might be one or two who will, but no one will listen.

***DarrylS*** · 07-28-2011, 11:26 AM

The answer is simple move to a hybrid 401K system, the transition is the difficult part.

chicowalker · 07-28-2011, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PatriotsReign

Why the average American citizen never bothered to consider their support of public workers retirement years ago is baffling. When we all stop to think about it, why would anyone want to fund $60k/yr for a single retiree?

Across America, most localies have switched to contracting the private sector for trash removal. I grew up in Weymouth, MA and we had town workers doing the garbage collecting for years. Now Weymouth has a private company doing it.

I would LOVE to see the cost savings comparison on that move. Think about it...Weymouth residents will no longer have to pay for the retirement benefits of their garbage collectors. That in itself must have saved Weymouth residents millions.

well, they won't have to pay those benefits directly -- of course, that just gets back to the question of why any significantly above-market benefits are being paid in the first place

chicowalker · 07-28-2011, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by State

Lavish pension and retirement packages in California that are grossly underfunded.You think?...

This is, and has been for years, a huge problem here.

But keep in mindd, public sector isn't just the bureaucrats, social workers, etc. that the right tends to hold in disdain. It's also police and firemen.

CA's rules on benefits, rates at which people "retire," how so-called retirement is handled (many employees would leave their jobs having qualified for generous benefits and simply gone to new jobs -- sometimes at other government agencies), etc. have been absurd.

***Wolfpack*** · 07-28-2011, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Triple-T

No one in their right mind would ever support this. However, we have no politicians* who will actually fight it. Got to have that public union support to get elected.

*ok, there might be one or two who will, but no one will listen.

Every time a politician has the courage to stand up to the public sector pigs, uh I mean employees, and truly represent the needs of the citizens, it results in complete chaos and hate filled rhetoric directed at that pol.

Just look at the recent events in Wisconsin.

State · 08-04-2011, 03:14 PM

Civic Report 65 | CADILLAC COVERAGE: The High Cost of Public Employee Health Benefits

Holy sheet! The public sector is going nuts with its lucrative benefits and pay.

Quote:

This report explores the reasons that government-employee benefits cost more, and it makes concrete recommendations for how costs can be brought into line with those of the private sector.

Among the reasons identified for the cost differences are:

*Public employees contribute less to their premiums—an average of about 15 percent of the overall premium, compared with about 25 percent in the private sector.
*Public-employee plans offer more generous benefits, including lower deductibles and lower co-payments.
*Governments require shorter enrollment waiting periods for new employees than in the private sector.
*Public employees have higher opt-in rates for employer-provided coverage: 26 percent of private-sector workers choose not to participate in available employer health plans, while just 16 percent of government workers chose not to.

Realigning government-employee contributions to match those of the private sector could save taxpayers millions of dollars a year. However, this simple approach does not bend the cost curve over time—benefits will still continue to grow astronomically—and further, it will understandably upset workers by reducing their take-home pay.