Hi “Ted”, I have read enough of TL’s comments over the years, to be able to deduce that, without a doubt, TL is a “he”.

As you ridiculously sign off on 90+% of your comments under your many “Ted” (equally silly) handles ………………

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

LOL you know by know girlfriend that I only worked in guvment for a few years right?

Surely you are clever enuf to have gleaned that? No?

Surely you are witty enuf to have some other clever things to post about the Ted? I mean I clearly live in your tiny headspace…….lol

Spoken by a retired Public Sector worker doing his part to obstruct eminently justifiable, fair, and needed Public Sector pension reforms everywhere.

T Lovey is a well known pension envy toll. She is always omn about something and of course free to create her own facts as above. Your story was a good one– she simply does not like stories without alot of made up “facts”….

You are usually on the ball, but this time you blew-it. Why just state and discuss valuation differences ? Why not show something that rings home with your readers ?

You COULD have and SHOULD have shown how an AT&T pension (one of the best and last remaining Private Sector Traditional-style Defined Benefit Plans) compares to the TYPICAL pension of a similarly situated Public Sector worker ….. say someone retiring at age 55, with 30 years of service, and with a final average annual salary of $100K.

Had you done so …… noting that not only are Public Sector pension “formula factors” (per year of service) much greater, but Public Sector Plan “provisions” are much more generous (such as very young full/unreduced early retirements and annual COLA increases, virtually unheard of in Private Sector Plans) ……… you would have easily demonstrated that Public Sector pensions are TYPICALLY 3x-4x greater in value at retirement than those of their Private Sector counterparts, and with that 3x-4x rising to 4x-6x for safety workers with the most egregious pensions.

And if you took it a step further and looked into the worker/taxpayer split of the total cost of these very rich Public Sector pensions, you could have quite easily demonstrated that all of the Public Sector worker’s actual contributions (INCLUDING expected investment earnings thereon) RARELY accumulates to a sum at retirement sufficient to buy more than 10%-20% of their VERY rich promised pension ….. with the taxpayers on the hook for the 80%-90% balance*.

* And don’t fall for the Public Sector Union BS that investment income pays for most of the pension costs. ALL investment income derives from (and in proportion to) the actual principal contributions of the workers and taxpayers, and, in the absence of the need for the Taxpayers to make such exorbitant contributions, that investment income would have stayed in THEIR pockets (perhaps to help fund their MUCH SMALLER retirements).

DJ Has it right, but should have take #2 further, stating that the RESULT of NOBODY at that bargaining table looking out for the best interests of the TAXPAYERS is grossly excessive, unnecessary, unjust, unfair to Taxpayers, and clearly unfordable pensions (AND benefits) ….. ROUTINELY at least 3x-4x times greater in value at retirement than those of comparable Private Sector workers retiring at the SAME pay, retiring at the SAME age, and retiring the SAME years of Service.

It’s WAY past time for this decades-long financial “mugging” of the Taxpayers by the insatiably greedy Unions and our self-serving elected officials to END.

When asset prices inflate, the expected rate of return needs to be cut down relative to those inflated prices. You can use a 7.0.% or 7.5% return starting 10 or 15 years out, perhaps. But based on current inflation rates, the dividend yield, and bond rates, 4.3% is probably a good return for the next decade.

https://larrylittlefield.wordpress.com/2013/11/29/pensions-the-nature-of-the-lie/