BG and Para: You two both crack me up. Neither system is fair–for that matter, life isn’t fair. The best qualified candidate rarely gets the job, whether due to affirmative action, white boy cronyism or candidate fraud. But the world keeps turning.
I go back to my original point–I won’t let someone get away with railing against public employee benefits being “out of control” (or any other issue) when they are a benefitting participant. That to me is hypocritical.
And as for this 401(k) equivalency argument, just no. I have several 401(k)s. They are the only real investment vehicle for the middle class (other than owning a primary residence). I have worked at several different private sector jobs (so no, not a federal government worker, BG, though I have gone through the hiring process at several government agencies and never been hired). None of my employers, individually, have been members of the 1%. A few were probably in the 10%.
I have opened a 401(k) through each employer. The fund in those accounts were take from my salary. There is no guarantee those fund will be there next year or 20 years from now (holy shit does that scare me). I watch the numbers go up and down each statement. Only one employer had a matching fund program, based on reaching a certain number of years of service. Yes, some of the way these accounts are distributed involves investing in 1% corporations–like banks. I also received–and paid for–health insurance. It was terminated when I left each job.
Someone enlighten me: some public retirement plans are 1) paid in? Others 2) only kick in with government-paid funds once you retire and apply for them (no employee contributions)? Some are 3) a combination of the two? I believe #2 and perhaps #3 is where I take issue. If you didn’t sacrifice anything (a portion of your salary) and then are being paid to be useless…does anyone have a WTF moment there?
And don’t whine “but I was underpaid”. You probably made more than minimum wage…and you had choices. Quit and join the bloated salaries of the private sector. Oh, and by the way, those jobs aren’t so cush either.
So, the main difference in my mind with the latter benefit programs in the public sector is that they are the benefit that keeps on giving, even after you no longer provide anything of value to the employer or anywhere else! Who wouldn’t love to work for 10 years and then receive part of that salary indefinitely into the future, with no risk, and no adjustment for external factors–like Wall Street fraud or economic catastrophe? What’s the difference between a working age retiree and a welfare recipient? But don’t sit on your high horse and bitch about it when you are taking it in with the other hand.
But then the plan administrators (or the management advised by the plan administrators) got greedy and started investing in those “too good to be true” “sure thing” 1000% return investments, and were either too stupid, blind with greed or completely bamboozled by Wall Street. It’s unfortunate that the 1000% return on those pensions plans is now in a severe negative position. Do those people collecting expect the loss to be absorved by the rest of the tax base? I guess so. One bad decision after another…and the rest of us empty our pockets to pay them out. For being retired at 50–a prime working age–while they turn around and become real estate flippers or go into the defense industry. And bring home more tax payer dollars. [end rant]
