Why can't teachers/cops live with 401(k)'s instead of pensions?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

I can tell you from my experience, where I'm working now, that the Government employees make a shade less than the private sector for the IT field. I work for an IT contractor and I make about 3% more than my equivelant government counterpart. My health insurance is also better and my contribution is roughly half of theirs. They do have it better in time off where they start w/ 15 days off and I started w/ 13...and they receive 13 sick days to my 5. I am Private sector versus the public sector (DOD).

I can also tell you that I am making less here than my last job in the private sector. So in my experience the Government is less than or equal too the private sector as far as pay. Not twice as much.

As I stated this is in the IT field so I can't vouch for other fields in Government.

As to the Monkeys and Peanuts analogy.....the IT field would be extremely affected by sub par pay and benefits. IT Guys notoriously move around in search of better pay/benefits, so if you didn't make things comparable to Private sector you would have an IT Workforce in the DOD that was made up of tech school graduates that probably wouldn't spend more than 2 years on the job before leaving. How efficient is that for an organisation to operate....6 months to ramp up your talent then they leave a year/year and a half down the road.

That's an interesting observation, but as you said, it's in our national security interests to have qualified IT guys working for the DOD. Furthermore, I have never seen data that suggests that federal spending of DOD IT employees is the #1 driver of the federal deficit. However, state spending on benefits of municipal employees is a huge driver of state/town deficits.

In other words, DOD IT employees are not pushing the federal government to the brink of bankruptcy. But retirement/healthcare benefits to municipal employees absolutely are pushing local governments to the brink of bankruptcy.

That couple in my neighborhood (both public schoolteachers) make a combined salary of about $150k. That's more than double the median household income in CT, and they work far fewer hours. And with the bennies they get, the difference is much greater. And no matter how bad they are at their job, with tenure, it's virtually impossible to get rid of them (not that they are bad teachers, i have no idea).

And cops being able to collect pensions after 20 years, at age 43? While everyone else hopes to retire at 65?

If everyone here is comfortable with forking over another paycheck or two every year, so that teachers and cops can keep benefits that dwarf what's available to the taxpayers, then we should do it. That's how democracy works.

I just don't see why they deserve so much more than what's available to those of us stuck with the bill, and I'm not sure any post here directly addressed that.

[scottw]

I really wonder what some believe is going to happen, boatloads of money will suddenly appear to make things all better??? the feds have been subsidizing the states have been subsidizing the towns and cities and that is OVER! 14 TRILLION dollars OVER!

this isn't a little bump in the road...this is a sink hole

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I have never seen data that suggests that federal spending of DOD IT employees is the #1 driver of the federal deficit.

You didn't read Scott's Post above?

Granted it was for all federal employees...not just IT...then again I was just putting forth what I've seen

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

You didn't read Scott's Post above?

Granted it was for all federal employees...not just IT...then again I was just putting forth what I've seen

I did indeed read it. And from what I read, there was a concern with benefits paid to all federal workers, not salaries paid to IT contractors.

Dad, in your area, do most IT workers in the private scetor have guaranteed pensions? Not here in CT.

The biggest challenge by far for the federal budget is unfunded obligations for Medicare. However, the majority of states that have huge debt, are in that posiiton largely because of public employee benefits.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I did indeed read it. And from what I read, there was a concern with benefits paid to all federal workers, not salaries paid to IT contractors.

I was drawing a comparison to the Federal vs. Private sector salaries in the IT field. That the federal salaries are below or equal too private.....not grossly above.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

I was drawing a comparison to the Federal vs. Private sector salaries in the IT field. That the federal salaries are below or equal too private.....not grossly above.

I saw that, and I found that interesting. In your area (are you in Mass?) do IT workers in the private scetor get guaranteed pensions? If not, that's something you need to consider when comparing public to private. If public salaries are 5% less than the private scetor, but they get pensions, then in my opinion total compensation is much higher in the public sector.

I was talking about teachers. Here in CT, public schoolteachers make more than double what private schoolteachers make, with far inferior results (although you can't just compare test scores obviously, because private schools select who to let in).

[Fishpart]

Read an article several weeks ago ON AVERAGE public sector employees are compensated 120% of private sector employees and when benefits are included (sick time, vacation, retirement) it jumps to 150%.

Sure ONE GUY can make more in the private sector, but as a whole public employees make way more.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I saw that, and I found that interesting. In your area (are you in Mass?) do IT workers in the private scetor get guaranteed pensions? If not, that's something you need to consider when comparing public to private. If public salaries are 5% less than the private scetor, but they get pensions, then in my opinion total compensation is much higher in the public sector.

I was talking about teachers. Here in CT, public schoolteachers make more than double what private schoolteachers make, with far inferior results (although you can't just compare test scores obviously, because private schools select who to let in).

total compensation really needs to be considered, the numbers for RI state employees was released a while back showing "total compensation" and it was mind numbing( I used to think of this everytime I'd drive through the Newport Bridge toll booth where I think the average worker was making in excess of 60 grand+++ plus all the other stuff and I'd have to wait for them to finish stuffing the sandwich in their mouth before I could get my reciept, EasyPass is great)....I just read an article in the WSJ talking about the Utah plan for revamping the pension system going to a 401K and the government contributing 10-12% a year...one of the first comments said 10-12%??? the private sector employers have to factor in all costs for total compensation to determine your value or overall compensation level as an employee, something tells me that governement simple looks at compensation levels and then piles on the benefits without regard to how they're going to pay for it in the future...thus our insolvent current state...

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I saw that, and I found that interesting. In your area (are you in Mass?) do IT workers in the private scetor get guaranteed pensions? If not, that's something you need to consider when comparing public to private. If public salaries are 5% less than the private scetor, but they get pensions, then in my opinion total compensation is much higher in the public sector.

Those that are grandfathered in recieve a pension, Government employees hired after 1984 are enrolled in FERS, which is comparable to a 401k (not exactly, but comparable).

http://www.opm.gov/forms/pdfimage/RI90-1.pdf

Most of the guys I work w/ are not grandfathered in, so they are comparable to private sector

[scottw]

[QUOTE=The Dad Fisherman;828892]Those that are grandfathered in recieve a pension, Government employees hired after 1984 are enrolled in FERS, which is comparable to a 401k (not exactly, but comparable).


FERS is running a cash flow deficit. This is a new phenomenon. FERS is converting itself into a defined contribution plan that will address some of the problems. However the cash drain experienced in 2010 will not be reversed in the foreseeable future. It will increase.


January 2011
factor in :
Even controlling for the effects of census employment, federal employment has increased constantly throughout the recession and into today. Since January 2008, net of census hiring, the federal government has grown by 3.5 percent, gaining 98,000 jobs.


What about employment in the rest of the economy? Since the beginning of the recession, state governments have added 42,000 employees to their payrolls. Local governments have cut 258,000 jobs (1.7 percent of their January 2008 workforce). Overall, total government employment has shrunk by 0.5 percent since January 2008. And the private sector has lost 7.2 million jobs, or 6 percent of its January 2008 workforce.

if you are perpetually on unemployment...you are essentially a government worker...are you not?


read about the new bureaucracies, offices, commissions, buildings, titles, and on and on.... jobs being "created" to institute and manage Obamacare and your head will really spin