For our democracy to survive, we need to have civil discourse.

Jack’s ad hominem attacks and name calling are not only unpersuasive but also are part of the reason why so many Americans are turned off by policy discussions. Jack, why do you have to be so rude and obnoxious? If you didn’t have the cowardly comfort of internet anonymity, would you talk to someone with whom you disagree in such a ridiculous manner.

Let’s have a discussion, sure, but without the unfair and unbecoming name calling. I think you ironically exemplify Professor Lofaso’s point that this issue attracts “pernicious attacks.” Also, all Professor Lofaso is doing is summarizing Professor Slater’s article.

Given your overreaction, the article (and summary) has served its purpose. It is making you rethink the manipulative sound bites and mantras we unthinkingly accept without finding out for ourselves. Methinks you doth protest too much. You provided some ostensibly contrary evidence. That’s a start. But how about reading the article and examining the evidence in there before you start calling anyone a hack or financially illiterate.

Instead of yelling, how about engaging the substance of the article? The issue of public sector unions and state government budget deficits is a complex one. It needs careful consideration, not name calling and yelling. The issue most certainly isn’t as simple or obvious as you claim.

The only way out of the financial mess we’ve gotten ourselves into is to listen to all perspectives and dispassionately assess our meager alternatives with facts and reason. Banging the table only demonstrates your own insecurity.

Commentators are invited to review Jotwell’s acceptable use policy, and in particular the section on comments.

Hmm
I work for the city of boston, non-public safety, non-teaching position. We pay 11% toward the pension. After (only 36 years) we can are eligible for the max 80%. We don’t get social security. Any social security money due from previous employment or second job is automatically reduced “WEP”.

“Who do you think you’re kidding? This sort of dishonest BS is the reason every local and state government (in those parts of the country dominated by public sector unions) are going broke. Are you just a hack, or are you financially illiterate? Because it’s one or the other. Do the math:”

Dr. Slater’s article sites to reports that debunk the myth that public servants are overpaid. If you don’t like those studies, one of which was written by an MIT professor (who probably knows how to do math), then you should write a response to those studies rather than engaging in ad hominem attacks of academics who earn $0 to give their opinions.

Dr. Lofaso’s article review is merely a report of what Dr. Slater wrote. If you have a problem with that review because it inaccurately describes Dr. Slater’s article, then say so. However, her review is not inaccurate. Rather, you simply don’t like the substance of her review, which is essentially saying that you don’t like the substance of Dr. Slater’s article.

It is true that there are financial issues with many states. But the thrust of the article is that unions, in almost every case, have NO POWER to affect pensions. In general, public pensions are set by state officials for all public employees. Your real beef then is with state and local officials who made poor choices, not with the public employees.

Moreover, when state/local politicians entered into pension plans on behalf of their union and nonunion workers, those politicians believed that defined benefit plans were a good thing. This is because they, like most of us, had great faith in capital markets. Few people foresaw the market crash of the late 2000s or the Great Recession. It is this market failure–this failure of capitalism and the greed of those who precipitated the crash–that helped precipitate the pension debt. If states had merely entered into defined-contribution plans back in the 1970s, we wouldn’t be in this financial quagmire. It that’s true, then public sector compensation is not to blame.

Finally, you claim, without proof, that California’s public workers earn more than $100,000 per year. Even if true, you do not tell us what type of jobs those workers hold. The market salary for experienced lawyers in California is likely well-over $100,000 per year. Without more information, we cannot assess the value of that argument.

Next time you wish to call someone a hack or financially illiterate you might want to check your facts. Name calling by adults is just a continuation of schoolyard bullying that paralyzes our country.

Who do you think you’re kidding? This sort of dishonest BS is the reason every local and state government (in those parts of the country dominated by public sector unions) are going broke. Are you just a hack, or are you financially illiterate? Because it’s one or the other. Do the math:

A typical non public safety worker in California’s state or local governments will get a pension based on the following formula: 2.5%, times years worked, times final annual salary. That equates to a pension of nearly $70,000 per year for the typical participant in CalPERS or CalSTRS who retired in recent years and worked 30 years or more. And it isn’t just public safety employees, with average pensions that are now nearly $100,000 per year, who skew the average upwards. The average California teacher now gets a pension that averages about $68,000 per year. Let’s keep this in perspective, by the way, the MAXIMUM social security benefit is $31,000 per year. And self-employed people contribute 10.5% of their gross earnings to pay for that benefit, which is a higher percentage contribution than virtually ALL public sector workers have to make to their pensions.

The averages you see coming from the unions and from the pension funds are deliberately understated because they include people who didn’t work a full career, as well as people who retired 10+ years ago and weren’t eligible under the elevated qualifying salaries and elevated pension formulas that were passed during the internet bubble and the real estate bubble.

Maybe you can comprehend this: If every Californian over the age of 55 (that’s about 10 million people) got a pension of $70,000 per year, it would cost $700 billion per year, which is about 40% of California’s entire GDP. Do you really think “taxing the rich” can pay for this?

To throw a slightly more arcane, but absolutely necessary concept at you, one you have to grasp in order to realize how wrong you are, is the fact that if the pension funds rate of return, which they project at 7.5% per year, were to be lowered by one percent, it would cost a TEN percent increase to the required annual contribution as a percent of pension eligible salary. At the least! This is easily proven by anyone with a basic understanding of pension finance, and the pension fund managers know it.

When you factor in the value of benefits, public sector workers in California make well over $100,000 per year on average. There is no excuse for this based on higher educational attainment or risks taken on the job. It is destroying our economy and it is destroying the credibility of government.

If you care about ALL workers, and not just government workers, you need to rethink whether or not public workers should have any collective bargaining rights.