OT: Public pay & benefits

[jpinpb]

[quote=jstoesz]They are essentially millionaires, because to be drawing 50k in pension benefits a year for 30 years, you have to have the equivalent of 1 mil in the bank accruing interest at 5%. [/quote]

Please tell me which banks I can deposit money and accrue 5% interest. I am in dire need of that. I won’t even address the 30 years part.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=jpinpb][quote=jstoesz]They are essentially millionaires, because to be drawing 50k in pension benefits a year for 30 years, you have to have the equivalent of 1 mil in the bank accruing interest at 5%. [/quote]

Please tell me which banks I can deposit money and accrue 5% interest. I am in dire need of that. I won’t even address the 30 years part.[/quote]

That long pension “tail” is what killed GM and Chrysler. You could graduate from high school at 18 years of age and walk into a GM plant in Michigan, work for thirty years (the “Thirty and Out” program) and retire at 48 with full pension and bennies. This is what gave rise to the joke that GM was really a healthcare company that happened to build cars. The so-called “legacy” costs (burden of carrying former GM workers’ costs) were one of the factors that crippled Detroit’s ability to compete.

So the assertion that these workers will continue collecting pensions/benefits for an additional thirty years isn’t as far-fetched as you might imagine. And, just like GM, these costs are strangling California.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=jpinpb][quote=jstoesz]They are essentially millionaires, because to be drawing 50k in pension benefits a year for 30 years, you have to have the equivalent of 1 mil in the bank accruing interest at 5%. [/quote]

Please tell me which banks I can deposit money and accrue 5% interest. I am in dire need of that. I won’t even address the 30 years part.[/quote]

That long pension “tail” is what killed GM and Chrysler. You could graduate from high school at 18 years of age and walk into a GM plant in Michigan, work for thirty years (the “Thirty and Out” program) and retire at 48 with full pension and bennies. This is what gave rise to the joke that GM was really a healthcare company that happened to build cars. The so-called “legacy” costs (burden of carrying former GM workers’ costs) were one of the factors that crippled Detroit’s ability to compete.

So the assertion that these workers will continue collecting pensions/benefits for an additional thirty years isn’t as far-fetched as you might imagine. And, just like GM, these costs are strangling California.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=jpinpb][quote=jstoesz]They are essentially millionaires, because to be drawing 50k in pension benefits a year for 30 years, you have to have the equivalent of 1 mil in the bank accruing interest at 5%. [/quote]

Please tell me which banks I can deposit money and accrue 5% interest. I am in dire need of that. I won’t even address the 30 years part.[/quote]

That long pension “tail” is what killed GM and Chrysler. You could graduate from high school at 18 years of age and walk into a GM plant in Michigan, work for thirty years (the “Thirty and Out” program) and retire at 48 with full pension and bennies. This is what gave rise to the joke that GM was really a healthcare company that happened to build cars. The so-called “legacy” costs (burden of carrying former GM workers’ costs) were one of the factors that crippled Detroit’s ability to compete.

So the assertion that these workers will continue collecting pensions/benefits for an additional thirty years isn’t as far-fetched as you might imagine. And, just like GM, these costs are strangling California.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=jpinpb][quote=jstoesz]They are essentially millionaires, because to be drawing 50k in pension benefits a year for 30 years, you have to have the equivalent of 1 mil in the bank accruing interest at 5%. [/quote]

Please tell me which banks I can deposit money and accrue 5% interest. I am in dire need of that. I won’t even address the 30 years part.[/quote]

That long pension “tail” is what killed GM and Chrysler. You could graduate from high school at 18 years of age and walk into a GM plant in Michigan, work for thirty years (the “Thirty and Out” program) and retire at 48 with full pension and bennies. This is what gave rise to the joke that GM was really a healthcare company that happened to build cars. The so-called “legacy” costs (burden of carrying former GM workers’ costs) were one of the factors that crippled Detroit’s ability to compete.

So the assertion that these workers will continue collecting pensions/benefits for an additional thirty years isn’t as far-fetched as you might imagine. And, just like GM, these costs are strangling California.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=jpinpb][quote=jstoesz]They are essentially millionaires, because to be drawing 50k in pension benefits a year for 30 years, you have to have the equivalent of 1 mil in the bank accruing interest at 5%. [/quote]

Please tell me which banks I can deposit money and accrue 5% interest. I am in dire need of that. I won’t even address the 30 years part.[/quote]

That long pension “tail” is what killed GM and Chrysler. You could graduate from high school at 18 years of age and walk into a GM plant in Michigan, work for thirty years (the “Thirty and Out” program) and retire at 48 with full pension and bennies. This is what gave rise to the joke that GM was really a healthcare company that happened to build cars. The so-called “legacy” costs (burden of carrying former GM workers’ costs) were one of the factors that crippled Detroit’s ability to compete.

So the assertion that these workers will continue collecting pensions/benefits for an additional thirty years isn’t as far-fetched as you might imagine. And, just like GM, these costs are strangling California.

[jpinpb]

During the bubble years the City was making approximately 18+% on their investments. That was during the stock bubble and during the real estate bubble. Unfortunately, the City maybe didn’t diversify or didn’t just save the money in an account somewhere. The problem is that the City took their “winnings” and spent it on important things like a ballpark.

Edit: I might add — the people wanted a ballpark. No saving for a rainy day.

[jpinpb]

During the bubble years the City was making approximately 18+% on their investments. That was during the stock bubble and during the real estate bubble. Unfortunately, the City maybe didn’t diversify or didn’t just save the money in an account somewhere. The problem is that the City took their “winnings” and spent it on important things like a ballpark.

Edit: I might add — the people wanted a ballpark. No saving for a rainy day.

[jpinpb]

During the bubble years the City was making approximately 18+% on their investments. That was during the stock bubble and during the real estate bubble. Unfortunately, the City maybe didn’t diversify or didn’t just save the money in an account somewhere. The problem is that the City took their “winnings” and spent it on important things like a ballpark.

Edit: I might add — the people wanted a ballpark. No saving for a rainy day.

[jpinpb]

During the bubble years the City was making approximately 18+% on their investments. That was during the stock bubble and during the real estate bubble. Unfortunately, the City maybe didn’t diversify or didn’t just save the money in an account somewhere. The problem is that the City took their “winnings” and spent it on important things like a ballpark.

Edit: I might add — the people wanted a ballpark. No saving for a rainy day.

[jpinpb]

During the bubble years the City was making approximately 18+% on their investments. That was during the stock bubble and during the real estate bubble. Unfortunately, the City maybe didn’t diversify or didn’t just save the money in an account somewhere. The problem is that the City took their “winnings” and spent it on important things like a ballpark.

Edit: I might add — the people wanted a ballpark. No saving for a rainy day.

[Anonymous]

Most firefighters retiring today with 20 years service are getting pensions of much more than $50K annually. No matter how you calculate it, these guys are getting packages that are worth way north of $1 million.

(BTW, the fact that interest rates are low means that the government/taxpayers will have to foot even *more* money than they would if rates of return were higher.)

Of course they are doing it for the pensions. How many people would not take a job that comes with a “bonus” of more than a million dollars after just 20 years of service?

Sure, lots of people make big money, but here’s why it’s different for government employees:

It is not uncommon to live to be 90 years old – many state employees will start collecting pensions at 50 and receive payments for 40 years. (The average is probably close to 30 years.)

With the current shortfalls in pension funding, it will take decades of taxes to pay the bill for the services we are receiving right now.

Our children, or grandchildren, will get their first job decades from now, and part of their state income taxes will be used to pay the bill for the fire/rescue/whatever that we read about in yesterday’s headlines.

Should children who aren’t even born yet be be burdened with paying for services that were provided last year?

[Anonymous]

Most firefighters retiring today with 20 years service are getting pensions of much more than $50K annually. No matter how you calculate it, these guys are getting packages that are worth way north of $1 million.

(BTW, the fact that interest rates are low means that the government/taxpayers will have to foot even *more* money than they would if rates of return were higher.)

Of course they are doing it for the pensions. How many people would not take a job that comes with a “bonus” of more than a million dollars after just 20 years of service?

Sure, lots of people make big money, but here’s why it’s different for government employees:

It is not uncommon to live to be 90 years old – many state employees will start collecting pensions at 50 and receive payments for 40 years. (The average is probably close to 30 years.)

With the current shortfalls in pension funding, it will take decades of taxes to pay the bill for the services we are receiving right now.

Our children, or grandchildren, will get their first job decades from now, and part of their state income taxes will be used to pay the bill for the fire/rescue/whatever that we read about in yesterday’s headlines.

Should children who aren’t even born yet be be burdened with paying for services that were provided last year?

[Anonymous]

Most firefighters retiring today with 20 years service are getting pensions of much more than $50K annually. No matter how you calculate it, these guys are getting packages that are worth way north of $1 million.

(BTW, the fact that interest rates are low means that the government/taxpayers will have to foot even *more* money than they would if rates of return were higher.)

Of course they are doing it for the pensions. How many people would not take a job that comes with a “bonus” of more than a million dollars after just 20 years of service?

Sure, lots of people make big money, but here’s why it’s different for government employees:

It is not uncommon to live to be 90 years old – many state employees will start collecting pensions at 50 and receive payments for 40 years. (The average is probably close to 30 years.)

With the current shortfalls in pension funding, it will take decades of taxes to pay the bill for the services we are receiving right now.

Our children, or grandchildren, will get their first job decades from now, and part of their state income taxes will be used to pay the bill for the fire/rescue/whatever that we read about in yesterday’s headlines.

Should children who aren’t even born yet be be burdened with paying for services that were provided last year?

[Anonymous]

Most firefighters retiring today with 20 years service are getting pensions of much more than $50K annually. No matter how you calculate it, these guys are getting packages that are worth way north of $1 million.

(BTW, the fact that interest rates are low means that the government/taxpayers will have to foot even *more* money than they would if rates of return were higher.)

Of course they are doing it for the pensions. How many people would not take a job that comes with a “bonus” of more than a million dollars after just 20 years of service?

Sure, lots of people make big money, but here’s why it’s different for government employees:

It is not uncommon to live to be 90 years old – many state employees will start collecting pensions at 50 and receive payments for 40 years. (The average is probably close to 30 years.)

With the current shortfalls in pension funding, it will take decades of taxes to pay the bill for the services we are receiving right now.

Our children, or grandchildren, will get their first job decades from now, and part of their state income taxes will be used to pay the bill for the fire/rescue/whatever that we read about in yesterday’s headlines.

Should children who aren’t even born yet be be burdened with paying for services that were provided last year?

[Author]

Posts