Quote:
Originally Posted by Northendzone
in some fairness to the city employees i do not believe that they receive perks like bonuses and of course there are no stock options. These are two comp items that (some) employees in the private sector get.
it would be an interesting exercise to track two employees of similar age and similar base earnings thru their career and see who is better off financially at age 65.
i go back and fourth about elected officials pay. on one hand they do seem to put in a lot of hours, and i think you want to ensure they are well compensated or else we get larry the cable guy as mayor.
but the reality is that the cost of benefits - generous pension plans and generally better than average benefit plans that mostly cover 100% of most things with little employee contributions are getting more and more expensive.
|
I think that these are two different discussions though. I want people to be well compensated for their roles of course and want qualified people in those positions.
The issue with the DB pensions in general though is a large one. People are living longer, with greatly increased healthcare costs and both of those things are a large impact on the retirement provisions that come with these plans. Obviously the longer lifespan means that "we" pay for the retirees for a longer period and the just costs an ever increasing amount of money. That's the lions share of the problem. The health issue matters as well though. A lot of these plans offer full benefits for retirees, and as their healthcare costs increase substantially in retirement, that adds to the costs as well. It's something that has to be examined and preferably with outside consultations. I'm not enthralled with the idea that people make their own decisions on these issues because it leads to a pretty obvious conflict of interest.
And to be clear, I think that Farkas made a mistake in declining the pension. I don't think that he (or anyone) should get zero. That's political grandstanding and the truth is if he were to serve for a number of terms, why should he get zero to prove this point? That seems unnecessarily harsh, but I guess it's his retirement and his decision.