I do not have any pension, public or private. While I rely mainly on my 401k's and IRAs, I also have SS. So, out of curiosity, due to this thread I decided to compare OPERS to SS to see for myself.
A direct comparison is not possible because the eligibilities and contributions are not the same. However, I think that a rough-order-of-magnitude comparison is possible by making some simplistic assumptions.
The sources are OPERS and SSA Web sites. I might have misinterpreted some info, however. If so, please be indulgent and correct me.
Let's put aside early retirement, and use the age of 62, and the final salary of $50K, and 30 years of service.
For OPERS, at 2.2% per year, that brings the benefit to 66% of final salary, and the benefit is 66% X $50K = $33K.
OPERS contribution is 10% employee + 14% employer = 24%.
For SS, the simple calculator assumes a typical salary for 44 years of work since the age of 18. It shows a benefit of $1035/month or $12.4K.
SS contribution is 6.2% employee + 6.2% employer = 12.4%.
If we scaled up the SS contribution, then the SS benefit would have been $24,039. So, OPERS pays more than SS.
But, but, but if we consider a spouse who never works, then he/she would received 1/2 of the working spouse. Assume that the couple is of the same age, then that brings the SS benefit to $36K, which is a bit better than OPERS.
Another but, but, but...
If the worker is highly compensated, say at $100K salary, then he would get $66K with OPERS. The SS recipient would get only $19,236, or $28,854 when including non-working spouse. Scaled up to the higher OPERS contribution, the amounts are $37K and $55.8K respectively.
Note that SS benefits do not scale up with contributions, unlike pensions or 401k's, meaning a guy making $100K does not get double the benefit of a guy making $50K (i.e. the $19,236 vs. the $12,400).
So, my conclusion is that OPERS is generally a better deal than SS, even if we ignore the eligibility below the age of 62 and the medical benefits. And that is even after the cut back.