Comments on: How Much Do Pensions Really Cost?

By: Scott Baker

Scott Baker — Fri, 17 Oct 2014 15:35:22 +0000

I am writing a book on Economic Reform, based on my previous articles, part of the 200+ found here: http://www.opednews.com/author/author24983.html, and a major section has to do with the pension funds.
How much they actually pay out vs. what they hold is the major question.
I think using the per capita payout figures is irrelevant to the issue of long-term sustainability, and this article misleads anyway.
What I really need to know is: What percent of the $477B (Calpers + Calstrs) fund goes to pensioners each year? I believe it is 4%, but my figure may be dated. 4% is sustainable. 8% would not be, based on the 7.3% ROI (Calpers) and 7.7% ROI (Calstrs) over 10 years.
Don’t overthink this. It is not that complicated.
Please respond ASAP, as I have a publisher deadline in early December.

By: Gina

Gina — Sun, 23 Oct 2011 21:27:05 +0000

Why shouldn’t they get paid more than the private sector? If your so smart you should get a better job and get better training. Let’s pay the cops and fireman minimum wage after all. Just hope your house isn’t the one blazing. Cops and firefighters out of control. Are you on crack? You obviously do not know any policeman and firefighters and read an article somewhere that told you they get paid too much. I do see the need for some reform but you people just love to go after the middle class don’t you. I can not say it better Granny…

In the last 12 years or so there has been a MAJOR transfer of wealth from the poor and middle class to the top 2%. I say let’s go back to what worked in past years when corporations actually paid their tax in stead of off shoring and billionaires paid their fair share….and we protected our country from rape by the trans national corporations and their legislative shills.

By: GrannyBG

GrannyBG — Mon, 06 Jun 2011 01:30:30 +0000

Oh Goody Yes…let’s reduce everyone’s wages and pensions down to the lowest common denominator…then they can’t contribute to the economy and it will spiral down even faster. Let’s destroy our country…oh goodie goodie gum drop. At least that is how some of the responders here sound.

By: ray

ray — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 07:25:57 +0000

Very misleading.

Why do these comparisons so often leave out a well tended 401k as part of the comparison, combined with Social Security for the private sector comparison? Makes no sense, since the 401k is really the pension’s main alternative comparison, not SS.

Pensioners as you’ve shown don’t get Social Security. But they also don’t get employer contributions into a 401k.

If an employee is using the kind of discipline that pensions force, he would put his money plus employer’s match in the 401k every month from the beginning. If he doesn’t do this, and goes and spends it on McMansions, new cars, and fancy boats, he has only himself to blame.

If started at age 25, he’d have well over a million in the 401k by age 60 with disciplined full contributions and matched amounts, and by shifting to a more conservative portfolio in later years after age 45-50.

Add that plus SS, and I bet it’s as much as this example average pensioner, who gets no SS or employer 401k contribution.

Now cops, firefighters, and executive pensions – those are a different story and need maximum caps, as they’ve gotten out of control.

By: Todd K

Todd K — Mon, 14 Mar 2011 01:38:42 +0000

Ed,

Great analysis! When you factor in the explosive growth of government jobs in recent years while at the same time we have lost so many private sector jobs, it is clear to see the urgency of getting this corrected through reforms ASAP. Unfortunately, that will not happen before it is too late for CA.

By: GoneWithTheWind

GoneWithTheWind — Sat, 12 Mar 2011 18:52:59 +0000

What is needed is a measure passed by the voters. Something like the measure 13 that would limit pay of public employees. For example: The total average pay for public employees could never exceed the average pay for all private California workers. Additionally the maximum pay for any public worker (elected or hired) could not exceed 2 times the average for all private California workers.
Using the data from the article that would mean the average for all public workers could not exceed $46.5k a year and the maximum pay for any state worker would be $93k. Obviously this means if you pay someone the max you need to pay a number of other public employees well under the average to achieve the average pay. Think about it! How is it fair for taxpayers to continue to have taxes increased in order to pay public workers twice what the private worker makes? Why should a school teacher be paid twice what their students parents make? Why should the governor be paid more then twice what the average private worker is paid?

Of course a lw like this would cause some public workers to quit. Good! The next measure should set some upper limits on the total number of public workers AND require that public safety not be cut at all. Do we really need most of the public workers? If we need them can we hire workers for less money???