mosdef, since I see that you're in Ontario - how much per person does the Government contribute to the pension plan?

It's pretty standard to have RRSP matching up to at least a couple of thousand dollars - I have a hard time believing that the Pension you're bitching so much about is this huge benefit.

rjoefish - I think you add a lot to these conversations so please don't take this as too harsh a criticism: I don't think it's fair to characterize all of the opposition to teacher pensions and benefits as simply jealousy that they have benefits that most private sector workers don't (although certainly there is something to that). A bigger issue is that the teachers don't understand how costly/valuable those benefits are, and the politicians either don't understand the cost or take as many liberties as possible with public sector accounting to hide those costs and defer payment of them until someone else's term in office. Meanwhile, private sector workers do understand that their tax burden is going to increase to pay for government debt, including deferred funding of public sector pensions. It is a completely legitimate point for private sector workers to say: we can't afford to fill our own pension shortfalls with savings and pay increasing taxes to pay back increasing government debt and pay to fill shortfalls in public sector pensions. People aren't just upset that someone else has something they don't - people are also upset because the government in incurring costs that are ostensibly on behalf of everyone but that are effectively borne by a subset of the workers.

Thank you. I don't feel like a meanie.

My experience is probably more limited than most, but the only people I've seen frothing over this were the teachers reacting to a state telling them that something had to give.

I admit that I do get frustrated by state workers that seemingly refuse to acknowledge where their paycheck comes from and the amount of disparity that exists from the public sector....while simultaneously telling me to look at the whole picture.

Are you talking about the Teachers' plan in Ontario? Right now the Province and teachers make equal contributions of about 12% of pay each. This is the amount that's required if the pension fund returns are as high as expected. I don't know what there assumed return is, but because they typically assume the fund with have strong investment performance, the "risk adjusted" amount would be much higher. This is a key difference between their plans and plans like RRSPs - if your employer gives you 5% of pay into and RRSP and investments do badly, you're out of luck. If the the Teachers fund does badly, the contribution rate goes up to make up the difference.

I may be misunderstanding but the costs aren't being paid for by a subset of workers.

Look at this thread, and the past ones, a lot of it does come down to 'I don't get that why should they'. It's been stated that simply many times around here. One of the biggest problems, and I'm not sure how you fix it, is that politicians simply don't put the money where it should go. When you don't get those returns that are expected on a growing pile of money of course the burden is going to appear gigantic when you finally decide to address it. One of the simplest solutions is to actually pay the money into the funds when you say you're going to. Sure there may be a bunch of instances where people need to give back a bit because of the times but a lot of times they're reluctant to do so because they feel it's not the perk that is out of line it's the people dealing with the money that are so now they feel they're paying for someone else's mistake (similar to how a lot of people ITT feel about paying for public sector workers in general it would seem).

I can understand this, to a degree. If I find a really good deal on a tv, buy it, and bring it home, I'd feel cheated if the cops show up and tell me it was stolen property and I gotta give it up. I FEEL cheated, true, but I also KNOW that I never should have gotten the deal in the first place. To argue that the original owners should either stick it or find their own stolen tv bargain is silly....and not understanding the original owners frustration at their television being taken is just bizarre. [/analogy]

I mean, its pretty universally agreed upon that the public unions dealing with politicians is lolz, no?

Because it's nothing like that analogy at all unless you believe taxation is theft and ignore that public workers pay taxes also.

In a zero sum pension system, if investments do badly, the pension payments should be reduced.

Public workers pay taxes from paychecks consisting of collected taxes...essentially just receiving less tax money as payment. You're not actually putting anything into the system, so I don't see that as equal. However, I don't think there is anything wrong with that. Its a nice gesture, imo. It doesn't change the fact that public workers are paid by the public.

I guess my analogy sucks in that the tv represents the excess but the cops take everything. Ah, I got it. You paid for a media center and found out a couple of pieces were stolen. Fixed.

Your analogy also sucks because in it both parties were ignorant of an important piece of information (the tv was stolen) and in the other case we're talking about a mutually agreed upon condition of employment where all sides know all of the facts.

I'd be pretty pissed if I bought a TV, and a week later the store came to my door and said that they wanted to take it back because they know longer feel like selling the tv to me was good for their business.

Well, they don't. Public sector pension promises are back-stopped by tax payers. Public sector employee and government contributions to funds (if there are any) are set at a level that presumes good investment returns, but ultimately the benefits will be paid whether investment returns are good or not, and if they're not it will be via additional contributions from the union members or tax payers or both.

Mosdef, in Ontario this isn't something specific to the Teacher's pension plan or even public pension plans in general.

Edit: Meaning that the government backs private pension plans as well (to some degree).

I was just trying to acknowledge the public worker's position as a victim...i.e. they didn't take the jobs knowing the compensation was out of wack with the private sector norm, and it sucks for them to have to deal with it. Like rjoefish said:

I understand the sentiment, but it doesn't change the disparity the money handlers have created. And getting mad at the public for pointing out what the money handlers have done for you seems disingenuous...as does the act of constantly leaving out benefits when talking about wages.

Or they reduce benefits. It's been done before and I guarantee it will be done again.

I think you read my post wrong. They're not mad at the public for pointing out what they have. They're mad about being blamed for the problems the money handlers created. They're mad that the money handlers shift blame to them and how easy it is for the money handlers to get the public in a frenzy without knowing the real cause of the problem. The USPS is the most perfect example of this.

Oh. Well, I'm down with that. I may need to reread this thread now.

The government doesn't back private pensions in theory, in reality they may succumb to pressure to do so for a large enough plan.

Private pension employers pay a premium into an insurance fund that is run be the government and if a company goes insolvent and the plan is underfunded then the insurance plan will cover the shortfall, but only up to a limited amount of pension (I forget the amount). This degree of protection is far, far less than the protection provided to public sector plans, and it is protection that is paid for by the companies that have plans, not by the government.

But the public sector unions cannot be cleanly separated from the "money handlers". The unions were happy to set contribution rates for pension plans assuming that there would be high future investment gains to pay for their pension benefits, and they continue to do so, because it means lower contributions for them. The government was happy to set contribution rates for pension plans assuming that there would be high future investment gains to pay for promised pensions because that relaxed pressure on their budgets. The fact is, both parties willfully and knowingly took big risks that, if they didn't pay off, would be paid by future generations. The pain of filling the gap for investment returns that didn't materialize is being spread around, and private sector workers find themselves trying to fill the gap in their own pensions and at least a portion of the gap in public sector union pensions at the same time. You want to say "we're all in this together" because the union workers are putting more money into their own plans, but private sector workers are putting more into their own plans and public union plans. That's what I mean when I say the burden for everyone is being pushed onto the shoulders of a subset of the workers. No one is deducting money from public sector union paychecks to supplement private sector 401(k)s that lost money.

And if the insurance fund doesn't have enough money from the insurance premiums to cover the outlays - who makes up that difference?

I agree it's not to the same degree with the private sector plans as with the government with regards to public pensions - but that's because with public pensions the government is also filling the employer role.

Either way - the things you're complaining about exist in the private sector as well in the public.

I mostly agree with PJ, except I think that diversity has huge value to society. Also I think you have to try to do what you can for the troubled kids - or you pay for it even more down the line when they become troubled adults (which some obviously will no matter what you do, but if you just kick them out of the system, it's likely most of them will).

The way teachers are compensated, tenured, and promoted is totally FUBAR. It's ridiculous that they can retire at 55 and then completely legally double-dip and work for another district. How many other professions can get away with that? It's like how the older airlines are saddled with ridiculous union contracts, yet newer ones like Southwest can come along and destroy them in the marketplace. Except (until recently with charter schools) districts had no competition or incentive to improve.

Here's a much longer winded post of mine from the LC thread on how ****ed up LA unified is: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...&postcount=418

Mosdef - your complaints seem to miss that the Government is the employer for public service employees and sometimes being an employer has risks. This is nothing new for public or private companies.

If the private sector tried to enact such a pension system, the bums would be thrown into the clink.

I don't disagree with this for the most part but I don't think the problem was in the set up, I think it was in the follow through. The money handlers agreed to pay contributions but then spent the money elsewhere a lot of the time, just like SS.

Quality and funding of education vary state to state and locale to locale.

Depends where you live. One US state ranks 4th internationally when ranked on its own, while other US states rank in the top 10, mostly northeastern states.

Take a state like California. There is no way China would rank as high if they too had to educate millions of non-native speaking students.

Then you have other school districts beset with widespread poverty, crime, and/or low funding, from Washington DC to the Mississippi Delta. Good luck with that.

EDIT: oh, and LOL Heritage.

Some states don't allow double dipping but even so your point seems kind of silly. In the private sector if you qualify for your pension you get paid out. You simply have to meet the years served, age or whatever other requirements you need to meet. Working at another job has no bearing on it though.

As for air line contracts it's pretty lol to point them out as bringing down the industry given that almost all those pension funds are gone and the workers make jack ****. If ever there was an example of unions giving back to the point of why even bother having them it's probably the airlines. Go look at the 'ask a pilot' thread.