Why Isn't Anyone Talking Later Retirement for Government Workers?

Government retirement programs aren't some sort of welfare program that the government can change based on a policy decision. My pension entitlement was part of the deal the government made when they hired me 25+ years ago. They paid me less money (as a lawyer) than I might have earned in the private sector all these years. One (of many) compensations for that was a solid, fairly generous retirement system. Is the government going to change the rules now? If so, expect an "uncompensated taking" or breach of contract suit to follow quickly.

I am a MA state employee. I would be willing to retire later in exchange for a modest increase in salary. MA state employees generally don't earn much outside of law enforcement, nurses, and people working for authorities- MBTA, Massport etc. The cost of living is too high here. I mean, months of recession and house prices in the North Shore have dropped only from 370K or so to around 300K. That's still not remotely affordable. The US economy is stuck in a poisonous spiral of high prices and low wages. Even in good times, they advertise a job for really short money, like $12 an hour, and you have hundreds of people applyig for each job. I do like being a government employee. I would return to the private sector if I could get: (1) A pension- no not a 401K, rather the employer being on the hook for a fixed percentage of your high 3 years salary (2) A union- most people miss the most important thing about unions- layoff are by seniority only, (3) More than the skimpy private sector vacation package- you get 2 weeks vacation and 10 holidays and they act like they are offering you the earth

[...] THOUGHTS ON WHAT TO DO about those overgenerous / underfunded public pensions: “Why Isn’t Anyone Talking Later Retirement for Government Workers? . . . The irony is that [...]

The Democrats refuse to discuss the problems related to public employee pension funding, for fear of antagonizing Big Labor and the Republicans are too focused on Family Values (abortion and gay marriage in particular). So your local library may have to cut service to make sure the police can still collect their generous pensions at age 50 (90% of their final year compensation if they have 30 years of service in California). Not all public employees collect big monthly pensions, but all too many of them do and they get much better post-retirement health benefits than the average private sector employee. Then there is the outright fraud and abuse of the system, recently highlighted in the Long Island railroad scandals in Newsday.

Evidently, neither the Sacramento Bee nor Brian Smith has much depth to their understanding of public pensions in California. To begin with, public employees pay directly into their retirement system (5 to 8% of wages based on collective bargaining). As a part of employee compensation, the State contributes additional money to the retirement fund some years (if there is a shortfall and only to keep the fund fiscally balanced). This makes it sound like the State gets really stuck if there's an economic downturn. Not so. Calpers uses smoothing techniques across a number of years to prevent such spikes and the State may never have to come up with additional money (assuming market recovery). The retirement system makes sufficent earnings (but not in all years) to fund employee retirement. Even if the State wants to cut public employee retirement (and they can), this doesn't save the State any immediate money or maybe any money at all. The retirement fund is not a pay as you go system. The State also has no right to the money in the fund because the money in the retirement system belongs to public employees. As to pension spiking by employees, this can happen but not in the way the article supposes. Generally, a State promotion does not involve a large amount of money. Not only does the State not hand out many promotions, most often a promotion will only earn an employee additional 5% or less. This raise doesn't result in an immediate 5% raise in his/her pension as this is phased in month by month across a year. The increase is about 0.004 of salary (wow! $16/mo would be eligible on a 50k a year salary). The average State pension in California is only $24k a year. Figure the math folks and you probably wouldn't be in such a hurry to leave your high paying job. The State is currently lagging private industry wages by 20 to 30% for comparable jobs (this is a basic reason why the age of public employees is increasing --the State can't attract new people).

okay okay started working at 37 too much academia !

Obviously many of the people responding to this know nothing about government workers, and I put Brian Sullivan in the same category. Mr. Sullivan's entire article is predicated on the California situation. I can't speak on how it is in every state, and unlike Mr. Sullivan, I will not assume that my knowledge of one state means I know about all of them. I can tell you for sure that in Colorado, the government workers work hard, are underpaid compared to the private industry. Full retirement is typically age 65. All you angry people who seem so bitter towards government workers, especially older ones, might think twice about how you would like being served by doddering octogenarians, oh, and make that in offices only open 3 days a week to cut down on salaries, too. While you are young and fit, working till you are 70 or 75 doesn't sound too rough. But most older people suffer from a host of ailments, and working is rough when you are arthritic and need a nap just to make it through the day. As a government worker who plans to retire at age 66, I will have worked for over 50 years, and I think I have done my share. If I had been able to invest in my own retirement fund, instead of contributing to social security, I wouldn't need to "burden" you young folk with paying back pennies on the dollar to what I contributed.

It doesn't matter who we vote into office the machine has gotten so LARGE it's just going to get BIGGER AND BIGGER. And when you have unions voting into office the same people who decide what they get paid this is what we're going to get!

One State, One Vote, One Congress Person, One Senator, all the rest go home to their own State. Set Term limits to 8 years. No one should be allowed with a DWI, Criminal Record, and all should have to pass the Federal employment test and security screening. This would eliminate 85% of those in office.

In responce to a few negatives about Gov Workers. I work for the Navy as a civilian. Do not know where Mr gman worked but I do belive if that is what he did, he deserves a 30% cut in his retirement. The crew I work with work for their pay and earn every penny. We pay into our retirement, we pay into MEIDICARE but most do not live long enough to collect are will not be eligible. You see, many of us are vets, who as a whole have a shorter life span due to a harder life. Also, gov workers in shipyards and military post work with all types of hazards that effect our health. I have seen too many die in service and shortly after retirement.

I agree with Jason, let's start gutting the money sucking leeches.

This story is factually incorrect. The federal employees retirement pay is based on an average of the last three years of pay. So it is factually incorrect to say employees take a promotion for three months and then retire. If your position doesn't agree with the facts you must change your point but not the facts.

Whoa! Slow down. Some of these solutions seem more scattershot than a Dick Cheney hunting party. The net result of budget shortfalls at the state level is increased taxes. The net result of less state-level services is infrastructure failure. Let's not take the home state workers and string them up because we have failed them on a federal level. Two things got us to where we are today. We let our financial institutions conduct themselves, as David Brooks, conservative columnist for the NYTimes, as "politically powerful crony capitalists". That led to the demise of a trustworthy financial system and the states, many of which did not have enough funding dollars to follow-through on the mandates issued by Washington, have already trimmed budgets to bare bones. The investments made by huge state pension funds made them now seem portray them as no smarter than we are. But to attack these workers is not the course of action we should take. Instead of cutting jobs, we should be adding them - at the state level, the county level and the city level. If many of the unemployed or future members of the jobless ranks were offered work within their own municipal jurisdiction, I doubt few would pass up the opportunity. Think of how many foreclosures would be saved, property taxes would be paid and consumer activity would return with just the creation of a single job. Now imagine the creation of hundreds of thousands of them. Once that happens, businesses would begin to lure these public employees to the private sector and competition, as described by the free markets would once again thrive. While we need an measure of urgent action, the best equal and opposite reaction will be to grow what works, not dismantle the whole of the system.

Why isn't anyone talking about Lowering the retirement age! "Lower the retirement age, from the current 62 to 78 years old, down to 58 years. This simple act, will create jobs, and lower unemployment. And will have the effect of increasing wages, as workers move up to higher paying jobs, replacing older skilled workers. As wages go up, more money is placed into the Social Security Trust Fund, to help offset the cost of an earlier retirement age." Full article here: Lower The Retirement Age to Boost the Economy The reason why no one, not the leading economists, venture capitalist, bankers, CEO's, can figure out how to solve our economic problems, is because they are thinking in terms of Keynes and Friedman. This situation cannot be solved with either approach. Instead, counter-intuitive economics, is required.

It wasn't completely unexpected that those running for the presidency didn't criticize Congress. With a 10% approval rating it should have been one of the major issues in the last race but no one seemed to care that the people running for the presidency came from that illustrious group. Wonder who writes their resumes and references and other fairy tales?

I agree! We should be imprisoning these people or taking the money they are making to pay for there mistakes. Thats what financial liability is all about, but instead we are giving them more money. That makes no sence. All we are doing is devaluing our dollar, and teaching people if you make enough money you dont have to be held accountable for your actions. Why arent these people being prossicuted? The letter of the law states that they should be in jail, or bankrupt. So why are the american people paying for there mistakes, while they live free in million dollar mansions? When the government that was set up to protect the american people, is doing little more than robbing us blind, its time for action. I can smell the revolution..

Why is no one talking about about this:U.S. Code Title 12, Chapter 3, Subchapter 7, Section 301. Powers and duties of board of directors; suspension of member bank for undue use of bank credit. Each Federal reserve bank shall keep itself informed of the general character and amount of the loans and investments of its member banks with a view to ascertaining whether undue use is being made of bank credit for the speculative carrying of or trading in securities, real estate, or commodities, or for any other purpose inconsistent with the maintenance of sound credit conditions; and, in determining whether to grant or refuse advances, rediscounts, or other credit accommodations, the Federal reserve bank shall give consideration to such information. The chairman of the Federal reserve bank shall report to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System any such undue use of bank credit by any member bank, together with his recommendation. Whenever, in the judgment of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, any member bank is making such undue use of bank credit, the Board may, in its discretion, after reasonable notice and an opportunity for a hearing, suspend such bank from the use of the credit facilities of the Federal Reserve System and may terminate such suspension or may renew it from time to time.Whoever knowingly makes any false statement or report, or willfully overvalues any land, property or security, for the purpose of influencing in any way...shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both. Just curious.

Our congress is no more than a legalized mafia. Where else can you work one term, and draw full retirement and health benefit for the rest of your life. And they have the balls to set up there and rant and rave and blame everone but themselves.

Once again, Matt is right on! Perhaps you should run for office.

As a former government employee, I had a better pension plan, better health insurance, more holidays, more sick days, and more vacation days than most. All I had to do was show up, be there, push paper and play politics with my comrades. Almost no concern for layoff and the rule of 80 guaranteed a nice retirement at age 55. Almost noone is talking about it. Why not just give everyone a government job? The other day I heard someone scream about America becoming Socialist. The truth is that about 1 in 4 of all US jobs are governement: federal, state, county or city. I would say that America is already Socialist when 1 out of 2 households is receiving a government check. Delusions preclude their speech concerning the virtues of US Capitalism. Deluded. Arrogant. Proud. Ignorant. Wake up. What we have had for years in the US is "Selective Socialism" or maybe Facism. A considerable percentage is already on the government payroll - the select. And most government employees don't produce anything except paper forms and a growing government tax deficit. They push paper and discuss politics and spend taxpayer money to build their ivory towers, self importance and government/taxpayer guaranteed pension funds. They want to produce more government works programs to maintain the status quo so that they can bleed the middleclass subcontractor and the man with a shovel in his hand. Again, very few even talk about it. Why not start slashing governement expenditures and allocations? How about a 30% cut at every level? Yea, that's right government employee, from the top manager to the public service blue shirt - you take a 30% cut in pay and benefits. You don't have to layoff - just cutback - reduce workweek hours, more time off without pay. The "government employee" class will survive. Sorry Mr. President and Mr. Congressman that means you too. Remember your own words, we are in a crisis. Stop bleeding and leeching off of the taxpayer or you just might end up with too small a host. Didn't we learn anything from the Vietnam War and the Soviet Union's failure in Afghanistan? Now Obama wants to redeploy to Afghanistan? I expected more from you Barrack. Now we've added "special" insurance, investment banking, real estate firms and perhaps the "select" auto companies to the government dole. The crim-de-la-crim of paper pushers. Fire = Finance, Insurance and Real Estate - more money suckers, not producers - living off the production of small business and waning corporations. And again, almost noone is talking about. And now a lame duck president wants to speak of the virtures of capitalism when in reality we're already selectively socialist. Oh, and careful what you say - big brother is always watching and listening. gman

Are you including the US Military in your "Government Employee" category? Because if you are, you and I have a problem.

I think the US Gov,t already has this planned, think under the new rules men can retire at 75, and woman at 80, (women do live longer you know) I think along with the revised retirement age, they also will get free "mandatory" flu shots upon retiring.

Strong unions--the same thing that is killing the auto industry. Already pretty much killed off coal, steel, railroads, etc.

Hey Let's sell out the health of the kids so some fat 60 year Larry Craig's can cash in on ANWR ! yeah

The idea of having government workers be they federal, state, county, or city be required to work longer to earn their retirement benefits is great but should also be combined with reducing those benefits. Why is it that most of those workers have far benefits both before and after retirement than the majority of those who employ them (taxpayers). Why is it that none of the institutions or industries that have received or are asking for taxpayer funded bailouts are being required to modify their pension structure downward. After all pensions are a thing of the past for the majority of the taxpaying public. We are left to try to fund our retirement with a 401K or IRA and little else. Those of us who have seen our retirement plans depleted by the huge loses in equities are going to have to lower our retirement expectations and probably work longer. To add insult to injury these very same people are being asked to fund bailout after bailout to industries and companies often justifying the need for that money to fund the very expensive and lucrative pension benefits that they provide. I say, any company that receives taxpayer money from the government should be required to first renegotiate any pension benefits program that it is a part of to bring that program into line with the private sector. If the companies or the workers affected refuse then I guess they would rather face bankruptcy. So be it.