Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Public employees take reduced salaries in exchange for benefits packages.
That you spout nonsense is the problem
The 1950s called. They want your economics back
Federal employee pay, benefits ahead of private sector on average, CBO concludes
No, the taxes that fund these things weren't "cut".
Public employees do not work for a living they get a free ride
My Mom worked 40 years for the state of Illinois, 10 years into retirement they wanted to cut everything by 1/2 so they could afford to give current employees a raise and more benefits.
since she's older, and there's fewer people like her, the union fucked her over and told her to be thankful.
Federal employees account for less than 10% of all government employees.
I've worked in the public sector. In my profession, the private sector pays 2x, 3x, 10x, what is paid in the public sector.
Most professionals - lawyers, accountants, engineers - take a significantly reduced salary working for government compared to the private sector.
Pensions across the country make impossible promises in order to attract and retain people and satisfy unions. I saw a LARGE pension that required an 8.75% long-term investment return to stay solvent, which is a JFS (Just Fucking Stupid) projection for ANY pension, which has to mitigate risk carefully.
These things are trillion-dollar self-inflicted wounds.
.
Federal employees account for less than 10% of all government employees.
I've worked in the public sector. In my profession, the private sector pays 2x, 3x, 10x, what is paid in the public sector.
Most professionals - lawyers, accountants, engineers - take a significantly reduced salary working for government compared to the private sector.
Maybe you can speak to it to see if I remember correctly.
IIRC the structure of the federal workforce has changed significantly since the '80's and '90's. This was due largely to a restructuring push that eliminated a lot, A LOT - but not all - blue collar type jobs. The move was to reduce government employee roles by outsourcing the work either through contracted services (i.e. janitorial, clerical, food service,) and contact maintenance (electrical, HVAC, etc.) While there may still be some in those fields, most of the work is now done on an outsourced basis.
So the structure of the Federal employee workforce is MUCH more white collar then it was 30-40 years ago.
I work for a school system and we have had a least two major groups of employees moved from regular employment to outsourced through private for profit companies. Those being janitorial (which were full-time & part-time and substitute teacher/clerical (sporadic work based on need). It was a huge cost saving measure because while we paid pretty much the same on a per-hour basis in terms of wage, they were no longer our employees so their was about a 30% cost savings because we no longer have to pay FICA and contributions into the State Retirement System. While the employees transferred to the private contractors were guaranteed not to have a reduction in hourly rate - that protection did not apply to those hired by the private contractor after conversion. While, for that selected group, hourly rate didn't change they were in the retirement system. Janitorial and sub work tends to have very high turnover which means over time their rates decreased (as a population) and they do not have pension plans anymore.
.>>>>
Most people that work 60 - 70 hours in the public sector get OVERTIME, them pad their retirement in their last year with huge overtime as often that's what their pension is based upon.
I was once asked to review the investments of the pension that was set at 8.75%. I said NO THANKS. I didn't want my name within 500 miles of that thing.Pensions across the country make impossible promises in order to attract and retain people and satisfy unions. I saw a LARGE pension that required an 8.75% long-term investment return to stay solvent, which is a JFS (Just Fucking Stupid) projection for ANY pension, which has to mitigate risk carefully.
These things are trillion-dollar self-inflicted wounds.
.
"Solvent" isn't really the correct terminology since a public pension plan will never be liquidated.
However, almost all pension plans will not be able to pay for the benefits promised unless taxes are raised, and dramatically in some states, or services cut.
The average state pension is something like 75% funded and assumes a rate of return of 7.25%. The long-term returns are likely to be closer to 6%. Thus, without big tax increases or spending cuts, benefits will eventually be cut. The Big State Pension Crisis will be a 2020s or early-2030s thing.
Most people that work 60 - 70 hours in the public sector get OVERTIME, them pad their retirement in their last year with huge overtime as often that's what their pension is based upon.
Underfunded pensions are NOT DUE TO TAX CUTS. They are due to Democrat politicians giving compensation packages that revenues can not keep up with, and stolen money from General Funds to go to more vote buying projects.
Show me where state, city, or Fed tax revenue has gone down from year to year!
Most people that work 60 - 70 hours in the public sector get OVERTIME, them pad their retirement in their last year with huge overtime as often that's what their pension is based upon.
As a public sector employee, I'll state that retirement computations based on overtime (typically it's last 3-years, not last year) being included in retirement just to bump the pension check should not be allowed. Pension benefits should be based on the standard work schedule.
This of course doesn't apply to salaried employees paid an annual rate v. a wage employee paid an hourly rate. In our system additional jobs (i.e. paid tutoring, supplements, etc.) are not included in pension contributions are pension payout. (This is a State law, not just something for my school system.)
.>>>>
Toro since you and MAC1958 don't bs about money but SALT lawsuits and migration stats say you are dead wrong on how long this can persist, how could the books be cooked to mislead you so bad? Any ideas?Most people that work 60 - 70 hours in the public sector get OVERTIME, them pad their retirement in their last year with huge overtime as often that's what their pension is based upon.
As a public sector employee, I'll state that retirement computations based on overtime (typically it's last 3-years, not last year) being included in retirement just to bump the pension check should not be allowed. Pension benefits should be based on the standard work schedule.
This of course doesn't apply to salaried employees paid an annual rate v. a wage employee paid an hourly rate. In our system additional jobs (i.e. paid tutoring, supplements, etc.) are not included in pension contributions are pension payout. (This is a State law, not just something for my school system.)
.>>>>
Yes, I totally agree. In some states, it’s just the last year. That’s one of the abuses that will ultimately damage future beneficiaries.
It's not quite that simple.
It is true that some politicians have conspired with unions to grant benefits that are unrealistic. There is no doubt about that. It is also true that some pensioners have gamed the system that allowed them to earn over-inflated pension benefits.
However, it is also true that rather than fund pension obligations as promised, politicians also cut taxes during good times and reduced contributions to pension plans when the stock market was generating high returns. Politicians could grandstand that they were cutting taxes and saying that the stock market's high gains would go on forever. But when the stock market tanked, the pension plans became underfunded, which wouldn't have happened, or happened to the same extent, had the politicians kept funding pensions and not cut taxes.
True but the major problem with that is ever faster loss of tax base.It's not quite that simple.
It is true that some politicians have conspired with unions to grant benefits that are unrealistic. There is no doubt about that. It is also true that some pensioners have gamed the system that allowed them to earn over-inflated pension benefits.
However, it is also true that rather than fund pension obligations as promised, politicians also cut taxes during good times and reduced contributions to pension plans when the stock market was generating high returns. Politicians could grandstand that they were cutting taxes and saying that the stock market's high gains would go on forever. But when the stock market tanked, the pension plans became underfunded, which wouldn't have happened, or happened to the same extent, had the politicians kept funding pensions and not cut taxes.
The particular states mentioned in this article don't cut taxes. They consistently raise them over the years.
The particular states mentioned in this article don't cut taxes. They consistently raise them over the years.
Public employees take reduced salaries in exchange for benefits packages.
That you spout nonsense is the problem
The 1950s called. They want your economics back
Federal employee pay, benefits ahead of private sector on average, CBO concludes
Federal employees account for less than 10% of all government employees.
I've worked in the public sector. In my profession, the private sector pays 2x, 3x, 10x, what is paid in the public sector.
Most professionals - lawyers, accountants, engineers - take a significantly reduced salary working for government compared to the private sector.
Public sector workers are not Democrats in red states, ijitThe particular states mentioned in this article don't cut taxes. They consistently raise them over the years.
Many public sector workers, and Democrats (same thing) want to blame Republican "tax cuts" for the issues, but if you look at city, state, and fed revenues, they NEVER go backwards, always more, more, more from the taxpayer.
The next step will be a Fed bailout of state, and city pensions. Watch. Total government SCAM of taxpayers. In addition to higher taxes look at now governments are now charging FEES, and SURCHARGES for services that are already supposed to be covered by taxes. It is out of control.
