swamp
Community Leader
THEY’RE EATING THE DOGS!!!!!!!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,617
|
Post by swamp on Jun 21, 2011 14:57:51 GMT -5
This is exactly how I feel, although I'm (hopefully) still at the beginning of my career. It has been understood, at least in my state, that there is a certain trade-off in state employment - lower pay combined with better benefits. We have not had a pay increase since 2007, and our benefits have steadily eroded since then. I would certainly not be opposed to changing the rules for new employees - even if it means I'm not grandfathered in - but changing them on people who have spent their lives working for half the salary they could have made in the private sector, with the understanding their retirement would be taken care of, just seems unethical. (And for those saying state workers are superfluous - some may be, but let's see what happens to society once there are no courts, state police, or teachers.) Don't forget prisons, mental hospitals, public health nurses, health inspectors, and snowplow drivers.
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Jun 21, 2011 15:06:00 GMT -5
DarkHonor: You made me wonder what percentage of our 401k balance is from contributions and what percentage was employer match/earnings. I was shocked to find out that our contributions are less than 19.4% of the total balance. That means 80.6% of the balance has been earnings. This has been over a period of not quite 30 years. Exactly. Everyone who says you can't save enough to retire are probably right. You can however earn enough on what you save to be able to retire. Provided, you're actually the one earning the money on your savings. That's why it's so hard to catch up later, you've already lost all those years of having your interest earn interest. The wife's uncle kept looking at just the amount of money he had paid into SS over his life and figuring what he'll get back, and it seemed like such a good deal to him. I look at the amount I'm paying into SS and I'm sickened by the thought of how much potential investment gain I'm losing to that stupid program. Assuming I live to an average age, I'll probably get back slightly more in benefits than I'll pay in, but I'll never come anywhere close to getting back what that money would have been worth if I was investing it the whole time.
|
|
gawgagranny
Familiar Member
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 9:00:04 GMT -5
Posts: 501
Today's Mood: partly cloudy with a chance of showers
|
Post by gawgagranny on Jun 21, 2011 15:06:30 GMT -5
Oh, the rules have changed significantly for those hired here in the recent past here...no pension plan, just a 401K with no match. Very limited, if any, insurance options on retirement. I could go on and on as to what the newer hires have to look forward to, but won't--you should be able to get the idea. I have been here since the mid 1980's and have watched the benefits erode dramatically while the pay lags farther and farther behind what one could make in a similar job in the private sector. Some of my coworkers in other professions haven't gotten a raise AT ALL in over 6 years--my job classification got a modest one-time adjustment 4 years ago. I understand the economics involved, too, but I am just saying that the whole idea that one's retirement could just basically be jerked away when you are definitely too old to start over again is a terrifying thought: especially when one's other investments have taken such a hit in the past few years. Those of us looking to retire in the next few years have gotten the dirty end of the stick multiple times recently!
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
THEY’RE EATING THE DOGS!!!!!!!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,617
|
Post by swamp on Jun 21, 2011 15:08:28 GMT -5
Oh, the rules have changed significantly for those hired here in the recent past here...no pension plan, just a 401K with no match. Very limited, if any, insurance options on retirement. I could go on and on as to what the newer hires have to look forward to, but won't--you should be able to get the idea. DH is a pharmacist and considered taking a state job at a psychiatric facility. The pay was about $30k less than he's making, but he wouldn't vest in the state pension system for 20 years. Not worth the pay cut.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jun 21, 2011 15:15:25 GMT -5
What does it take for you to understand that if someone doesn't want to honor the contract they made with you. They can just say they have more important things to spend the money on? They will honor the past contracts. If teachers want to continue working, they will accept the new contract. It's a pretty sweet deal-- guaranteed retirement for 3% of your pay. Who the heck gets THAT? Not like workers have never had to deal with change. The unions went apeshit in Wisconsin, but when you examine the whole of the deal you learn Scott Walker saved 6,000 jobs. And the unions already lost in WI which makes me wonder why FL teachers think it's going to go any better for them? But, if they insist on layoffs...maybe they should bet what they want.
|
|
dancinmama
Senior Associate
LIVIN' THE DREAM!!
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 20:49:45 GMT -5
Posts: 10,659
|
Post by dancinmama on Jun 21, 2011 15:17:12 GMT -5
DarkHonor: You made me wonder what percentage of our 401k balance is from contributions and what percentage was employer match/earnings. I was shocked to find out that our contributions are less than 19.4% of the total balance. That means 80.6% of the balance has been earnings. This has been over a period of not quite 30 years. Exactly. Everyone who says you can't save enough to retire are probably right. You can however earn enough on what you save to be able to retire. Provided, you're actually the one earning the money on your savings. That's why it's so hard to catch up later, you've already lost all those years of having your interest earn interest. The wife's uncle kept looking at just the amount of money he had paid into SS over his life and figuring what he'll get back, and it seemed like such a good deal to him. I look at the amount I'm paying into SS and I'm sickened by the thought of how much potential investment gain I'm losing to that stupid program. Assuming I live to an average age, I'll probably get back slightly more in benefits than I'll pay in, but I'll never come anywhere close to getting back what that money would have been worth if I was investing it the whole time. I don't remember EXACTLY what the Bush plan was regarding privatizing social security, but I think it tried to address your concerns - the fact that the individual could probably invest and come out ahead of what the government would end up paying out to them in benefits. When the stock market took a dive in late '08, people jumped up and down screaming about what would have happened to people's social security money had Bush's plan passed and they had invested it in the market. So there ya have it.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jun 21, 2011 15:23:35 GMT -5
I hear this all the time, and I'm not saying you're the exception but the story never seems to wash.
1. If it's "significantly less" then what the hell is the union doing for anyone for those dues?
2. If it's "significantly less" (which it usually isn't- it may be in your case) then why did you stay?
3. If the pay is "significantly less" and the retirement isn't "lavish" then why stay?
The answer is usually that government worker's "work" doesn't translate to anything in the free market, so they have few marketable skills and are thus stuck in their jobs.
Government workers have fixed shorter hours, usually have about every holiday known to man off, generous vacation and benefit packages, and have been promised too much in the way of retirement pay and benefits.
Can't blame them- can't blame you. But at some point the math does actually matter. It'd be lovely if government could keep the promises- but in many cases, it cannot. The politicians in office now who have to deal with it are not the ones who made the promises, so it's hardly fair to shoot the messengers who are now in the unfortunate position of explaining to workers that previous management LIED to them.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jun 21, 2011 15:27:57 GMT -5
There are ways to predict pension costs. Companies that offer annuities do it all the time. The problem is that state and local governments don't want to fund these until there is a shortfall. If they made their contributions in good times as well as bad, their contributions (and ours) could make up for the shortfalls. But that's not how it works. One thing this thread ignores is the diversity of how public pension plans operate. The employees contributed 0% in Wisconsin and 11% wherever Davebo is talking about. Some professions lend themselves to spiking (like firefighting and police officers) because of overtime, and some (like teaching) don't. So everyone (including me) who claims to know how it works really only knows how the one they are familiar with works. I don't think it's unfair to expect to receive my pension. Suppose at the end of your career, your company said, "Wait a minute. In retrospect, we really couldn't afford that 401k match we gave you. It was a different management team, and they paid you money we couldn't afford. You need to give it and all the money it has earned back. That way we won't have to raise the price we charge our customers." You'd have no problem with that, right? It would have no effect on your retirement, right? That's not the correct analogy. It's more like the company reached into your retirement account and stole the money. The nice thing about an IRA or 401(k), etc. the account is YOURS, and spending it is ILLEGAL. States don't seem to be bound by the same rules.
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,720
|
Post by midjd on Jun 21, 2011 15:32:51 GMT -5
Yes, but the MATCH is not yours.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Jun 21, 2011 15:33:59 GMT -5
Federal employment is a different animal than state employment. I'm no expert on state benefits, but in my experience federal pay is typically higher but our benefits and pensions aren't as generous.
Our retirement system was reformed in 1983 by Regan. We have the classic "three legged stool" retirement popular at the time, pension, SS, and 401k. I get 1% of my high three every year as a pension (1.1% if I retire after 62) so I'll probably end up with just 44% after working 40 years. I have a 401k (TSP) that has a 5% matching, and SS. I wouldn't call our pensions "lavish."
Our benefits or pay haven't been cut too much in the past few years, though they froze our COLA pay raises for two years, and raised our premiums. There's been a bit of grumbling but not too much.
Our benefits aren't too different from amy other major fortune 500 coorperation. The only holidays we get off that most don't is President's day, Columbus day, and Veteran's Day. Our leave maxes out at about 5 weeks a year.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Jun 21, 2011 15:40:29 GMT -5
"Is it because the government pays it's employees with the taxpayer's money? Just asking . ."
So? The bank pays it's employees with the money from investors and customers.
Do you want a government that won't honor contracts, obey the law, and treats it's employees like crap? The government is supposed to be seen as a model employer.
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,720
|
Post by midjd on Jun 21, 2011 15:43:23 GMT -5
Phenoix, when you're talking to people who see taxation as "stealing," it's hard to get that point across... I agree, though.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 5, 2024 13:29:03 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2011 15:49:36 GMT -5
Government is bloated...at all levels
Programs that were setup 30, 40, 50, 60 years ago no longer make fiscal sense. People are living longer....and the numbers no longer work.
40 years ago, when you retired at 65, you might live another 10-12 years. Now people are regularly living 20-30 years AFTER retirement....and the number of retirees just keeps growing.
That is why most corporations went the 401k way. They saw the writing on the wall....and changed the system before they went broke. One of the main items that broke GM & Chrysler were the legacy costs of retirees.
Things have to change....you may not like it....and the pain will be felt by a lot of people.....but we cant keep kicking the can down the street forever.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Jun 21, 2011 15:59:23 GMT -5
"40 years ago, when you retired at 65, you might live another 10-12 years. Now people are regularly living 20-30 years AFTER retirement....and the number of retirees just keeps growing."
But the problem is that even though people are living longer today, their number of productive years hasn't changed much. In other words, even though you can lives to 90+ typically doesn't mean you can work that long. This is especially true for blue collar jobs that are hard on your body. There's also the age discrimination issue, most employers don't want to hire people over 60, and especially over 70.
|
|
gawgagranny
Familiar Member
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 9:00:04 GMT -5
Posts: 501
Today's Mood: partly cloudy with a chance of showers
|
Post by gawgagranny on Jun 21, 2011 16:02:33 GMT -5
Paul, in my particular case, the skills most definitely DO transfer to the private sector--I am a pharmacist. I have worked in the private sector at times in my career, but as a working mother with 2 boys and a then-husband who was working all kinds of crazy hours in his job, the stability of my state job has been worth the lower pay. I also will almost certainly be downsized out of a job well before reaching full retirement as my particular field of expertise is being changed radically these days (mental health)--so I will probably find myself looking for another job in my mid to late 50's as I will not be able to live on my reduced state pension...how much fun does that sound like to you?
Now granted, I may very well be the exception to the rule and I do know state employees whose skill sets don't transfer very well to the "outside world". Point taken.
Just sayin': don't assume that all state employees are those who can't work anywhere else.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Jun 21, 2011 16:03:23 GMT -5
"Phenoix, when you're talking to people who see taxation as "stealing," it's hard to get that point across... I agree, though."
I know. I pay taxes too and I never saw it as "stealing." I make decent money for my area and I'm single and childless so my tax liability is probably higher than several of the posters here, but I never felt like my taxes were unnecessarily burdensome or I was being stolen from. Though I don't agree with the use of tax dollars I don't find the act of paying taxes wrong.
I just find it concerning how many people decide they want to skirt boundaries of the law and ethical treatment of others when times get tough. I understand that times are tough and cuts need to be made. As a government empoloyee I'm even willing to make some sacrifices. What gets me though is people don't understand that (at least at the federal level) federal employees only make up about 10% of the budget, so they'll never balance the budget off of us. What really gets under my skin is when some people make it personal, like government employees are somehow criminals or no better than welfare queens.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 5, 2024 13:29:03 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2011 16:03:46 GMT -5
Yes, but the MATCH is not yours. Actually the match is if you are vested. My wife was fully vested from Day 1 so every penny of match she gets is hers while my job is 3 years to be fully vested.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 5, 2024 13:29:03 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2011 16:08:18 GMT -5
Agreed.....
But the old system of pensions and retirement pay is obsolete now.
There has to be a change.....and none of the present systems are perfect.
The best i have seen is the 401k plans...part paid by employee and part paid by employer.....but even those are flawed. The percentages the experts say to put into each type of fund keeps changing....
But the budgets of local, state, and federal government are busting at the seams.....and legacy costs are going up....not down.
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,720
|
Post by midjd on Jun 21, 2011 16:23:00 GMT -5
That was the point of the analogy, though. If you have been contributing to a pension plan in which you are vested and the state then decides to cut your pension, it is no different from being vested in a 401(k) match and then having the company take their match back.
It is one thing for the state or whatever entity to devise new rules for new employees. It is quite another for them to change the rules on people who have been contributing for decades with the understanding that they'll receive a certain amount in return.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 5, 2024 13:29:03 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 21, 2011 16:48:31 GMT -5
[td][/td] That was the point of the analogy, though. If you have been contributing to a pension plan in which you are vested and the state then decides to cut your pension, it is no different from being vested in a 401(k) match and then having the company take their match back. It is one thing for the state or whatever entity to devise new rules for new employees. It is quite another for them to change the rules on people who have been contributing for decades with the understanding that they'll receive a certain amount in return. Are you referring to the OP? Because they have not been contributing anything at all and the government is not saying they will stop, all they are saying: " We used to contribute 100%, due to the budget crisis we want to cut it back to 97% and the employees contribute 3%." I know they will need to change the law to make it legal, but why the uproar? What is the big deal? Private companies did it during the recession, either reduce the match or stopped it all together. My wife company match was reduced from 3% to 2%, and still didn't go back up to 3%. Mine was reduced from 5% to 2.5%... We are both still working and not planning to sue. The government is not taking the pension away, they just want the employees to start contributing 3% to it instead of them picking up the whole tab. They are not stealing it or taking it away.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,910
|
Post by zibazinski on Jun 21, 2011 17:10:43 GMT -5
BTW, there is no union in Florida for teachers.
|
|
ejd86
Junior Member
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 8:06:15 GMT -5
Posts: 129
|
Post by ejd86 on Jun 21, 2011 19:20:50 GMT -5
Similar to the riots in Athens right now ...
|
|