Pension haters

[ziggy29]

I'd also add that many pension plans have been responsibly run and have not encountered a massive financial crisis, even in the crash of 2008-09. Why don't we hear about these? Because they don't create controversy and division, and today's media are ALL about creating controversy and division.

 

[ziggy29]

As a pension holder I have never perceived any hostility on this forum.

In fairness, if you were here five years ago, with the Dow down to around 7,000 and there was a lot of talk about state and local governments propping up pensions while 401Ks were in a free fall, you would have.

 

[Louis2]

I've only been on this forum a few months, but just wanted to say the discourse here is WAY more civil than most others.

Good points above. I certainly don't hate on public pensioners. I have two daughters entering the work force. They know decisions have to be made between salary, health benefits, education reimbursement, pensions, 401k, any many other definitions of compensation.

Agree that many public workers worked for lower salary for decades because government jobs had good pensions, or good time off, or whatever. The ultimate case may be military. Annoys me when people question retired military benefits. They were promised an early pension in exchange for defending us!

 

[Midpack]

My non-scientific impression is that a majority of people here have pensions.

Probably poorly constructed and over 4 years old now, but an attempt to quantify http://www.early-retirement.org/forums/f28/which-are-you-will-you-be-sire-or-fire-46680.html.

 

[Fishingmn]

I haven't noticed it too much here either but the real issue for most isn't that public employees have pensions.

The main issue is the threat that taxes may have to increase to pay for the guarantee that is provided. In essence, some people will have a lowered standard of living through higher taxes in order to pay for the promises made by politicians to public unions. That seems like a pretty natural and fair response based on human nature.

 

[nash031]

This forum is usually respectful to everyone, however, when the topic of public pensions come up, there are nasty folks that have to weigh in.

You do not pay for my pension. I paid for my pension, the City I worked for contributed to my pension and 75% percent of the rest is investments that the pension services makes. Did you want to make the pitiful income I made for 25 years, unable to buy a house or have extra money for investments?

I don't begrudge you your million here and your property there. I applaud you.

This why people with pensions keep their mouths shut on this forum or leave it.

I've mentioned a pension in most every financial thread and never perceived any push back. Some say "I wouldn't count on it being there", but that's prudent given what's happened in Detroit and other locales.

 

[Meadbh]

OP - I suspect you are over sensitive on the topic. I have a Federal pension and have posted in numerous threads on pensions. I have not sensed significant hostility to pensioners. The main differences focus on appropriate steps to resolve underfunding of public pensions. From a public pensioner's perspective some of those posts seem insensitive to the financial sacrifices we made based on the promise of future rewards. On the other hand, many of us pensioners at times seem insensitive to the implicit promises of financial responsibility made to the taxpayers who we expect to pay for our pensions. I am more comfortable discussing pension issues here than I would be at most online forums.

+1000

 

[soupcxan]

I don't have a problem with public pensions.

I have a problem with public employees that spike their last year of service with huge amounts of overtime, vacation time, accrued sick time, and then that one year becomes the basis for a lifetime of payouts.

I have a problem with public employees who "retire" but then continue working the exact same job, now collecting a pension plus their paychecks. Double dipping.

Spiking | Calpensions

Looking Twice at Pension Double-Dipping

 

[eytonxav]

I suspect if there is any hostility on this forum toward public pensions, it would be aimed at the governments that designed and administered unsustainable plans that created huge unfunded obligations. To this end, as a tax payer, I wouldn't want to be on the hook to be the sole remedy for such situations. That said, I do not begrudge anyone who has a pension, public or private. DW will have a non-cola when she turns 65 and when I left my mega-corp, I had the option of pension (annuity) or lump sum. I took the lump sum because I did not trust mega-corp to make good on the pension option as that option would not have been covered 100% by the PBGC in the event of mega-corp defaulting.

 

[ziggy29]

I don't have a problem with public pensions.

I have a problem with public employees that spike their last year of service with huge amounts of overtime, vacation time, accrued sick time, and then that one year becomes the basis for a lifetime of payouts.

I believe even most "advocates" or "defenders" of DB pensions would agree this is an abuse and should be greatly curtailed, if not banned completely. It is utterly absurd that some people can bring home an annual pension that exceeds even the highest salary they ever earned in their lifetime. However, it's also the case that the outraged media types and bloggers are going to make this practice look a lot more common and egregious than it usually is in real life.

I have a problem with public employees who "retire" but then continue working the exact same job, now collecting a pension plus their paychecks. Double dipping.

It feels like cheating in a sense, but to the taxpayer it's really not much different than if this person didn't retire. They are no longer accruing pension benefits, and had they left, they'd be paying someone else's salary AND pension benefits. So I'm really not sure in terms of hit to the taxpayer, this is really a problem -- at least not if the actuarial payouts are sound. This leaves them, an extra worker who is not receiving pension benefits as part of their current compensation.

 

[growing_older]

I love pensions. I wish I had one. When I was involved in a system where a pension was promised, those promises were later revised so I got nothing, although some people in power managed to end up with a lot.

I do see lots of news (and hear lots of stories) of pension systems that are underfunded or abused by spiking and cronyism as insiders adjust their earnings to take maximum advantage of rules that were poorly written (perhaps deliberately). That I hate. Just as I hate the fact that Social Security is headed for insolvency, has been for years, and we haven't fixed that yet. I don't have people who have pensions, nor people who have social security benefits. I do hate systems that are broken or corrupt.

As for getting a vibe of hate, or being unwelcoming, that is a different issue entirely. I think the moderators do a pretty good job here and I've very grateful and appreciative of the civil discourse they are usually able to maintain. I like to think I (and the vast majority of posters) keep our discussions civil, occasionally irreverent, even on topics we care strongly about.

I'm not sure what prompted the original post in this thread that people with pensions feel unwelcome. I didn't get that impression, but maybe not having a pension perhaps I am de-sensitized to the issue. I hope we can be a more welcoming and inclusive community where that isn't an issue.

And lastly, I will admit to a fair bit of jealousy when people post questions like "I have a nest egg almost as big as yours, can I retire? Oh, and I should mention I also have a pension that covers 120% of my expenses" YES, YES, YES, you should retire. I wish I was in your situation. You'd see a great blur as I left my work so fast.

 

[ERD50]

I also feel that donheff summarized it very well, from both views in post #20.

What I 'dislike' (hate is too strong), is when a poster comes in with some preconceived idea that their views will be automatically shot down. I think we occasionally see a poster say something like "This board is all about DIY, (or passive index funds, or Buy & Hold), so of course no one will listen to anything contrary (using an FA, active funds, market timing)". Well, I don't think that is the case - mostly people ask for data to back up the claim so it can be openly and intelligently discussed. But sometimes the poster comes out preemptively painting themselves as a victim, before a single response is made! Maybe the OP did not intend that, but it may come across that way to some of us.

OK, in a way that I think the OP did not intend, I will admit that I "hate" pensions (public and private). I hate them, because they are promises made today, by people not on the hook to fulfill those promises when they come due. As we have evidenced, that can be a recipe for disaster. At a minimum, it simply isn't prudent. I would much rather have some form of pay-as-you-go system for retirement benefits. Keep it transparent, keep it 'real time'.

I can think of one area that brings up some hostility though. Sometimes a public pensioner will really wave the flag that they earned these benefits and that they are 'sacred', and no one should be discussing cuts to them. OK, I understand the feeling, but I can't recall seeing any acknowledgment from them that those in the private are subject to limits on their pension benefits if their company goes bust (covered by the PBGC, which we paid into). So yes, it might get a little hostile when they claim their benefits are sacred, but mine aren't, and they need to raise my taxes to pay their benefits. None of that would be a problem if taxes were collected this year to pay benefits this year, with no future promises.

-ERD50

 

[marinauser]

I think that part of the problem may be the many abuses of the public pensions that you see in a place like Illinois. First, public workers may have been underpaid in the past but that often is not the case today, especially in large metropolitan areas. Teachers making $100,000 and up and grade school principals make $150,000 and up. Other city and state workers often make more than $100,000 and much more than would paid by a private corporation for the same work. That results in very generous pensions, as long as taxpayers continue to foot the bill. The result in Illinois, Detroit and many other areas are essentially bankrupt pension funds. That coupled with the common tactic in Illinois to award a politically connected public employee in the last few weeks or months with a huge pay/position upgrade just so there is a great enhancement to the pension received results in the tax paying public being really hacked off. Couple that with the huge impact public unions have on elections and the amount of union dues that are spent supporting candidates who then, when elected, negotiated unaffordable contracts with the unions and many have had enough. I know that isn't the situation in every state and in every location within a state. But it is the big states and big cities that get the publicity that drives public opinion. That on top of seeing the complaints public unions have raised the past few years in the face of huge layoffs and cutbacks by corporations results in some lashing out at any public worker. Its unfair but life is unfair. In the end, you cannot let other people and their comments dictate your happiness - enjoy your pension and your life and don't worry about what someone else thinks. I have no doubt that you have earned that.

 

[2B]

OP - I suspect you are over sensitive on the topic. I have a Federal pension and have posted in numerous threads on pensions. I have not sensed significant hostility to pensioners. The main differences focus on appropriate steps to resolve underfunding of public pensions. From a public pensioner's perspective some of those posts seem insensitive to the financial sacrifices we made based on the promise of future rewards. On the other hand, many of us pensioners at times seem insensitive to the implicit promises of financial responsibility made to the taxpayers who we expect to pay for our pensions. I am more comfortable discussing pension issues here than I would be at most online forums.

When I was at NASA, I would periodically hear some civil servants whinning (SP?) about how much more they could make in private industry and how looooong they had to work to get their COLA'd pension (age 55). I realize newer hires have less generous terms.

I was a contractor with marginal benefits and was making about half of my prior job but not much different than what I'd have paid someone to do what I was doing at NASA. IMHO, most of the CS people I interacted with were glorified paper pushers that would probably not be anywhere near the pay their GS levels were paying. There were also way more of them than any private company would have had for the tasks before them. Some worked separate jobs out of the NASA office.

I can't specifically comment on your actual position and compensation but the data says that government employees are not systemically underpaid when compared to equivalent private sector positions. I agree that most government technical personnel (with credentials) could make more money in the private sector but choose the more stable working environment in government. I didn't but also never seriously tried to get a CS position. From what I saw of the personnel in non-tech positions or without tech credentials, I felt most were seriously overpaid based on their GS level. About half of them would have been on my "performance improvement needed" list, if they worked for me at my prior company.

I'm not "hating" you for your pension. I just think our government is not run as well as it should/could be run. The CS system is certainly an improvement over the patronage system but it creates its own issues of an entrenched, almost untouchable organization rewarded by its ability to increase its size.

 

[Mulligan]

In fairness, if you were here five years ago, with the Dow down to around 7,000 and there was a lot of talk about state and local governments propping up pensions while 401Ks were in a free fall, you would have.

This is the big advantage pensioners have over 401kers in terms of monthly income and fear of outliving money. A well funded system can just shrug off the big dips short term because it always has the long term perspective in mind. I live off my pension fully and I don't feel any negativism toward them here. Society wise though, the negativism will increase as the years roll by in my opinion. Although most corps have shedded them, the reality is there are still a lot of non public pensioners still alive and drawing. Once these people expire, then you are faced with an uncomfortable system in my opinion of government pensioners vs private no pensions. Unlike many sophisticated people here, average Joe Blow would much rather have a monthly check sent to him than try to figure out issues such as budget, withdrawal rate, investment asset mix etc.

 

[ERD50]

This forum is usually respectful to everyone, however, when the topic of public pensions come up, there are nasty folks that have to weigh in. ...

I'm still struggling to understand this. I went back and looked up some of the OPs earlier posts, thinking maybe there was a trigger, and in a recent pension thread there was this post and reply (the only reply):

Quote:
Originally Posted by linny727 View Post
My pension is 2.5 at 55, plus 2% cola. I bought 4 years and retired with 28. Took a management position to get higher pay for the formula. Hated being a manager, though i was good at it. Funny thing, I was employed 5 years before I even knew we had a pension and what that would mean. And thank god for it, I'm not a saver.

70% pay at 55 w/ 2% COLA is pretty sweet. Congrats!

"Congrats!" is 'hostile'?

I think it's fair to say a 70% at age 55 with 2% COLA is 'sweet'. For my 28 years, I'd get ~ 20% at 55, no COLA. Survivor benefits would cut it further.

Of course there are other factors to compare - (401K, company contributions, salary, bonuses, work environment, job security, and on and on), so it's probably senseless to try to compare overall. And I did have to save and invest like crazy. But a straight comparison of the pension itself - I think 'sweet' is appropriate.

-ERD50

 

[HFWR]

George Strait - I Hate Everything - YouTube

 

[travelover]

I think that pension envy is just an extension of other financial envy. I see occasional sniping here about it, but the resentment is probably greater between forum contributors and their acquaintances and relatives, than between forum members.

 

[freetodream]

In regard to post #33: My pension is based on my high five years salary which DOES NOT include sick leave and vacation pay. It does include overtime of which I get none.

I am extremely thankful that I will have one (pension) after 37 years at the same place. Some sacrifices perhaps, due to lower public service pay.

Our pension plan is nearly fully funded by primarily by investment returns as well as employer/employee contributions.

 

[F4mandolin]

I sure like having a pension, couldn't have retired early without it. But not all pensions are the same of course. I am retired Govt and am getting about 20% of my salary (about $960mth take-home). I look at a lot of state employees etc and see way over 50% coverage.....sure wish I had that. But.....I had some other benefits along the way. They paid my housing, which allowed me to save more money. I did see a lot more pension hating (internet in general) a few years ago....but I think that is normal. When times are bad people are looking for someone.....anyone....to lynch. They want somebody to pay for the situation they are in. Heck.....I still want most politicians and any of those financial people who screwed the system and then get away with it to pay

 

[ziggy29]

I did see a lot more pension hating (internet in general) a few years ago....but I think that is normal. When times are bad people are looking for someone.....anyone....to lynch.

Especially when the media encourage people to blame each other and encourage intolerance and demonization for people on the other side of an issue.

 

[F4mandolin]

Especially when the media encourage people to blame each other and encourage intolerance and demonization for people on the other side of an issue.

Add media to the list of folks that I don't trust. They do whatever they need to for more viewership. My list seems to keep getting longer......

 

[Amethyst]

Goodness. I would never have guessed you were anything but a native English speaker and writer, and a very fluent one at that (not all native english speakers are fluent in their own tongue!) Those commenters must [-]have a screw loose [/-]be far more discriminating about English than is common.

Amethyst

I have been on the receiving end of some BS here on topics such as... my writing style since I am a non-English native speaker

 

[gozer]

I don't "hate" the public pensions. I would probably say I'm probably one of the most consistent in commenting that given the situation of many government bodies the financial reality is that public pensions are not totally risk free. This risk is something to keep in the back of your mind when planning. I'm sure the typical pensioner in Detroit did not abuse the system. The elected politicians did abuse the system by not properly funding these pensions. The unions did not meaningfully raise the issue assuming that the pensions would be paid whether or not the pension fund was adequate. Well, we all know now that it wasn't. It still hasn't been all sorted out but I don't think many expect the pensions to be paid in full.

Do I think that is good? No, I do not but it is reality. There are lots of things that are "unfair" but they happen. Goverments should never have promised what they clearly were not properly funding. These issues should have been addressed decades ago. Public pension benefits may have been reduced but they could have been properly funded. Short sighted politcos bought union favor and support with what is now turning out to be false promises.

I think we've all heard of public pension abuses where the pension system can be manipulated to push benefits far higher than what was probably assumed when calculating the benefits and contributions. Many public pension funds are seriously underfunded. To me that is an outrage. The answer is fiscal responsibility and that may mean reducing benefits in some form or fashion and/or eliminating the ability to cram higher benefits shortly before retirement.

This issue is not only in the big rust belt cities but it is also a real issue here in Houston. The public pension funds for the City of Houston are in terrible shape. Something will have to give soon even for one of the fastest growing areas of the country.

I would also point out that this is not limited to public pensions. Private pensions have collapsed due to mismanagement which has led to reduction in promised benefits. For example, airline pilots and autoworkers.

Both my wife and I have company pensions that we will start receiving in a few years. This makes me comfortable with a more aggressive AA than I would be otherwise.

 

[Rosie]

Especially when the media encourage people to blame each other and encourage intolerance and demonization for people on the other side of an issue.

+1

FWIW, a friend of mine worked all her life for the state of CA and retired recently. She mentioned that calPERS pensioners like herself get some guff from various sources, but she didn't elaborate and I never gave it much thought.

What reminded me of that was the very recent thread here concerning calPERS, in which there was a very snarky and uncalled-for comment. It really took me aback, I always thought this forum was above all that. I suspect that comment was one of the motivators for this thread.

I'm glad to see that comment has since been removed from that thread.