The pension debate is not about total compensation. It’s about the folly of defined benefit plans.
The compensation question is a separate debate. That debate is necessary also, but today’s compensation is so obfuscated by deferred benefits that nobody even knows what the final numbers will be.
Pensions are such a huge and unknown component of state and municipal budgets that we don’t even know what our public services really cost.
Today’s pubic sector defined benefit plans are a gamble as big and as dangerous as anything “Wall Street” has ever dreamed up. All for no good reason.
Defined benefit plans are not necessary for retention. They are not necessary, period.
There are other ways to compensate and retain that do not involve decades of extreme risks to our communities.[/quote]
Pri, not long ago, you didn’t even know how these pensions worked — not a clue about how the formulas worked or how the plans were funded. You have no experience with public employment. You’ve never been involved with contract negotiations between politicians and public unions. You’re clueless about the costs and about the transparency of public employee compensation (it is all public record, BTW). And yet, you claim to be an expert about these things, and will argue incessantly with people who do have knowledge about and experience with these issues.
