West Virginia teachers vote themselves a nice state pension

fleshconsumed

Diamond Member
Feb 21, 2002
6,486
2,363
136
Take this 401(k) and shove it
Last week, West Virginia teachers got to vote on whether to remain in 401(k)-style retirement plans or return to generous state pensions. But you won't be so lucky.


By Janice Revell, Money Magazine senior writer
Last Updated: May 20, 2008: 2:35 PM EDT


NEW YORK (Money) -- Last week's West Virginia election should frighten you.

No, I'm not talking about Hillary Rodham Clinton's steamrolling of Barack Obama in that state's Democratic presidential primary contest.

I'm referring to a far more obscure contest, one that virtually no one outside that state noticed - but one that illustrates perfectly why so many Americans are headed for a retirement crisis.

Here's the lowdown: The election in question involves nearly 20,000 West Virginia school teachers who are currently attempting to gain coverage under the state-run traditional pension plan.

These so-called "defined-benefit" pension plans give workers a guaranteed annual payment upon retirement - $2,500 a month, say, for an employee with 30 years of service and an average salary of $50,000. The employer puts up all or most of the money and workers gain real retirement security.

But for employers, these plans are an expensive proposition. That's because by law, retirees must receive their predetermined pension benefit each and every month, even if the pension plan's investments perform poorly.

For that reason, corporate America has taken an ax to these pensions in recent years: The proportion of private sector workers who participate in a traditional pension plan has dwindled almost 40% at the beginning of 1980 to only about 17% now. Scores of big companies, including IBM (IBM, Fortune 500), Sears (SHLD, Fortune 500), and Verizon (VZ, Fortune 500), have closed off the plans to workers.

The story is very different in the public sector, though, where traditional pension plans have continued to flourish. About 90% of all state and local government workers are currently covered by a defined-benefit plan. The main reason is that a much larger proportion of teachers and other public sector workers are unionized, and elected officials are often loath to take on those powerful unions, whose members can both vote and strike. Moreover, funding for public-sector pensions is backed by the full faith and credit of the taxpayer.

And that brings us back to West Virginia. For many years, West Virginia did, in fact, have a defined-benefit plan for its teachers. But by the early 1990's, the plan had run into massive financial difficulties. A combination of underfunding by the state legislature and poor investment returns made the West Virginia teachers' pension plan the worst-funded of its kind in the nation. It had just 14% of the money needed to meet its projected pension obligations to teachers; large injections from the state budget were required so the plan could continue to pay out those guaranteed pensions.

So in 1991, West Virginia took a page out of corporate America's playbook. In order to stem the financial bleeding, the state closed the defined-benefit plan to new teachers and created a 401(k)-style plan for them.
These types of plans are cheaper - an employer's financial commitment to a 401(k) plan is pretty much limited to offering a matching contribution to the employee's account (and even that's optional.) And in this case, it limited the future outlays required by West Virginia taxpayers.
Do-over

Fast forward to today. It turns out that for a very large segment of West Virginia teachers, the 401(k)-type plan hasn't panned out too well. According to a study done by West Virginia's Consolidated Public Retirement Board, the average account balance is just $33,944 and only a handful of teachers age 60 or older have amassed more than $100,000 in their accounts - a fraction of what the pension plan would've paid.

What happened? Despite receiving an annual matching contribution equal to 7.5% of their pay, many teachers are claiming that they were improperly steered into low-yielding annuities, even though the plan offered more appropriate investment choices. Others say they received no guidance or education on such important topics as asset allocation and rebalancing.

So the West Virginia teachers now want a do-over. Essentially, they want to treat the past 17 years under the 401(k)-style system as though it never happened. They are asking to be put back - retroactively - into the traditional defined-benefit pension plan. Like a bad dream, their paltry 401(k) balances will disappear, to be replaced by the more generous pensions they would have racked up had they been in the traditional plan all along.


Of course, millions of private-sector workers would also like a second chance. According to an analysis of 20 million 401(k) participants conducted by the Employee Benefit Research Institute and the Investment Company Institute, the median account balance of a worker in his or her 60's, making between $40,000 and $60,000 a year (in the same ballpark as a retiring West Virginia teacher) was $97,588 at the end of 2006. To put that amount in perspective, it would generate only about $8,000 a year in retirement income if it were invested in an immediate annuity.

But back to West Virginia. Incredibly, the state legislature has already agreed to go along with this retroactive pension switchover - as long as 65 percent of teachers formally elect to make the voluntary changeover. Teachers who are happy with the performance of their 401(k)-style plans don't have to make the switchover. (The deadline for voting was last Monday, the same day as the Democratic primary.)

The teachers who choose to go back into the traditional pension plan will have to take a modest reduction in the benefits they would have otherwise earned over the past 17 years. But even factoring that reduction in, the switch will represent a quantum improvement in the retirement lifestyles of many teachers.
John Q. Taxpayer footing the bill

That's good news for them, to be sure. But it's nonetheless a stunning development. That's because the West Virginia teachers' pension plan today remains one of the worst-funded pension plans in America. The value of the assets on hand is only enough to cover 51% of the projected pension benefits payable to plan participants - a $3.6 billion shortfall still exists.

The state legislature has already been diverting hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars into shoring up the pension plan. If future investment returns fall short, West Virginia taxpayers will be on the hook for even more. And that's before those who were put into the 401(k)-style plan move back into the system.

The teachers, for their part, contend the move won't cost the state any additional money. Maybe, maybe not. It all depends on the pension plan's future investment earnings and the life expectancies of the teachers, neither of which are knowable at this point. What is certain, however, is that the taxpayers of West Virginia will once again be called upon to pick up the slack if the plan's assets fall short.

So if you don't live in West Virginia, why should you care?

The case is a cautionary tale offered up by the investing experience of the West Virginia teachers over the past 17 years. This was a predominantly college-educated workforce, and yet for the majority, their returns fell well short of what was needed to secure a decent income in retirement.

You can look at what's happened in West Virginia as a scary microcosm of a 401(k) system that has now become the only retirement plan for millions of American (mostly private-sector) workers. And for most, it's not coming close to generating enough money to fund a decent retirement lifestyle.

Public sector employees like the West Virginia teachers are quickly becoming the only Americans left with decent pensions. But the problem is that private-sector taxpayers have to foot the bill, while at the same time, their own retirements are going to pot.

I am reminded of a comment that Dallas Salisbury, the president of the Employee Benefit Research Institute, made to me a few years back: "The public employee, no matter who you compare him to, has become the dominant sector of the labor force that is well pensioned and well benefited," he said. "And the real question is, At what point, vis-a-vis tax burden, does the nonpensioned public start to pay attention to that as voters?"

There's no better time than right now.



Now, don't get me wrong. I do believe in this current day and age education should be the highest priority because in a world driven by technology and information a nation with the most highest qualified professionals is going to have tremendous advantage. And I do believe teaching should be a more respectable position. However, this is just ridiculous.

A bunch of teachers who failed to make proper contributions to a 401K plan which had generous 7.5% match (more than anything I've heard of) now want to retroactively get themselves a much more expensive (and also unrealistic plan that cannot sustain itself over a long run) pension plan?

Nobody told them about asset allocation or rebalancing? Boo hoo. They are teachers. They are supposed to know that the best way a student learns is when he goes and seeks out information he needs. Why wouldn't they apply the same principle to themselves? Why wouldn't they go out and read up on asset allocation? Why would they expect for someone to explain them how to manage their 401K?

Now they expect state to take over and retroactively get state pension plan. And worse it looks like they are getting it, unless they don't get 65% necessary to switch.

I don't live in Virginia, but I really feel for Virginia residents. Most people would dream of having a 7.5% 401K match from their employer. And now not only they have to struggle scraping for retirement, they also have to pick up pension plans for the people who couldn't manage their finances.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
7.5% is low actually - mine was 10% working for state of nevada and it was 403b so no social security taxes had to be paid. virtually like a 17% match. even so i don't blame them - investing is complicated and they shouldn't have to gamble with their retirement.
 

fleshconsumed

Diamond Member
Feb 21, 2002
6,486
2,363
136
Lucky I guess. 3% match here. I think max I've heard of from the people I know is 4.5%
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: Zebo
7.5% is low actually - mine was 10% working for state of nevada and it was 403b so no social security taxes had to be paid. virtually like a 17% match. even so i don't blame them - investing is complicated and they shouldn't have to gamble with their retirement.

In the private sector matching 7.5% of your income is pretty high. The two companies I worked for that had 401K programs were 1.5% and 4% respectively.

It is little surprise they will get their wish. Unions run the state govts and we get to foot the bill.
 

sactoking

Diamond Member
Sep 24, 2007
7,622
2,880
136
Originally posted by: Zebo
investing is complicated and they shouldn't have to gamble with their retirement.

"Welcome to Fidelity/Principal/Vanguard. Would you like to invest in our no-load S&P500 Index fun?"

*Push Yes*

Done. Takes 30 seconds. Less risk than bonds. Not complicated.


-Speculating is complicated. INVESTING is relatively easy and risk-free-
 

NaughtyGeek

Golden Member
May 3, 2005
1,065
0
71
Originally posted by: fleshconsumed
Nobody told them about asset allocation or rebalancing? Boo hoo. They are teachers. They are supposed to know that the best way a student learns is when he goes and seeks out information he needs. Why wouldn't they apply the same principle to themselves? Why wouldn't they go out and read up on asset allocation? Why would they expect for someone to explain them how to manage their 401K?

Perhaps they're too busy maintaining their credentials to teach our children. Rather than go on about teachers getting pensions, how about the large portion of federal and state workers throughout the country who do nothing more than babysit a keyboard all day getting them? Last I knew, postal workers still draw a government pension. Do you feel a guy that delivers mail deserves more than someone charged with the education of our children? I'm about as anti-social program as a person can get, but teachers are the cornerstone of our country and it's neglect of that fact that's causing us a hard fall in the US. Maybe if teachers were compensated on a level commensurate with attorneys and doctors, they might be in a better position to attract talented teachers who could teach our children and manage their own investments. Lord knows, teachers any more are required to have as much as if not more education than either doctors or attorneys and get paid much less.

 

fleshconsumed

Diamond Member
Feb 21, 2002
6,486
2,363
136
Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek
Originally posted by: fleshconsumed
Nobody told them about asset allocation or rebalancing? Boo hoo. They are teachers. They are supposed to know that the best way a student learns is when he goes and seeks out information he needs. Why wouldn't they apply the same principle to themselves? Why wouldn't they go out and read up on asset allocation? Why would they expect for someone to explain them how to manage their 401K?

Perhaps they're too busy maintaining their credentials to teach our children. Rather than go on about teachers getting pensions, how about the large portion of federal and state workers throughout the country who do nothing more than babysit a keyboard all day getting them? Last I knew, postal workers still draw a government pension. Do you feel a guy that delivers mail deserves more than someone charged with the education of our children? I'm about as anti-social program as a person can get, but teachers are the cornerstone of our country and it's neglect of that fact that's causing us a hard fall in the US. Maybe if teachers were compensated on a level commensurate with attorneys and doctors, they might be in a better position to attract talented teachers who could teach our children and manage their own investments. Lord knows, teachers any more are required to have as much as if not more education than either doctors or attorneys and get paid much less.

I'm not really disagreeing with you. I'm just saying that "nobody told me how to invest it" excuse is lame. Everybody is busy, and yet most of the responsible people realize, hey, this is my retirement, this is important, I better educate myself on this issue. No sane responsible person would blame someone else for their own failure to contribute to 401K and/or balance it properly.
 

marincounty

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2005
3,227
5
76
Originally posted by: fleshconsumed
Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek
Originally posted by: fleshconsumed
Nobody told them about asset allocation or rebalancing? Boo hoo. They are teachers. They are supposed to know that the best way a student learns is when he goes and seeks out information he needs. Why wouldn't they apply the same principle to themselves? Why wouldn't they go out and read up on asset allocation? Why would they expect for someone to explain them how to manage their 401K?

Perhaps they're too busy maintaining their credentials to teach our children. Rather than go on about teachers getting pensions, how about the large portion of federal and state workers throughout the country who do nothing more than babysit a keyboard all day getting them? Last I knew, postal workers still draw a government pension. Do you feel a guy that delivers mail deserves more than someone charged with the education of our children? I'm about as anti-social program as a person can get, but teachers are the cornerstone of our country and it's neglect of that fact that's causing us a hard fall in the US. Maybe if teachers were compensated on a level commensurate with attorneys and doctors, they might be in a better position to attract talented teachers who could teach our children and manage their own investments. Lord knows, teachers any more are required to have as much as if not more education than either doctors or attorneys and get paid much less.

I'm not really disagreeing with you. I'm just saying that "nobody told me how to invest it" excuse is lame. Everybody is busy, and yet most of the responsible people realize, hey, this is my retirement, this is important, I better educate myself on this issue. No sane responsible person would blame someone else for their own failure to contribute to 401K and/or balance it properly.

No, I don't think the problem is under-compensated teachers, but over-compensated doctors, lawyers, bureaucrats and public servants.

A recent series of articles here about the bankruptcy of Vallejo, CA because of outrageous police and fire salaries. Firemen were making $200k per year, and get a huge pension, same with the police.

Anytime anyone attacks this excessive compensation they are attacked by well funded police and fire unions. This is what is bankrupting our cities and counties, not teachers.

Public service used to be about service and sacrifice. Now it is about what kind of fat salary and benefits you can get.
 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,847
2,656
136
Originally posted by: marincounty
Originally posted by: fleshconsumed
Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek
Originally posted by: fleshconsumed
Nobody told them about asset allocation or rebalancing? Boo hoo. They are teachers. They are supposed to know that the best way a student learns is when he goes and seeks out information he needs. Why wouldn't they apply the same principle to themselves? Why wouldn't they go out and read up on asset allocation? Why would they expect for someone to explain them how to manage their 401K?

Perhaps they're too busy maintaining their credentials to teach our children. Rather than go on about teachers getting pensions, how about the large portion of federal and state workers throughout the country who do nothing more than babysit a keyboard all day getting them? Last I knew, postal workers still draw a government pension. Do you feel a guy that delivers mail deserves more than someone charged with the education of our children? I'm about as anti-social program as a person can get, but teachers are the cornerstone of our country and it's neglect of that fact that's causing us a hard fall in the US. Maybe if teachers were compensated on a level commensurate with attorneys and doctors, they might be in a better position to attract talented teachers who could teach our children and manage their own investments. Lord knows, teachers any more are required to have as much as if not more education than either doctors or attorneys and get paid much less.

I'm not really disagreeing with you. I'm just saying that "nobody told me how to invest it" excuse is lame. Everybody is busy, and yet most of the responsible people realize, hey, this is my retirement, this is important, I better educate myself on this issue. No sane responsible person would blame someone else for their own failure to contribute to 401K and/or balance it properly.

No, I don't think the problem is under-compensated teachers, but over-compensated doctors, lawyers, bureaucrats and public servants.

A recent series of articles here about the bankruptcy of Vallejo, CA because of outrageous police and fire salaries. Firemen were making $200k per year, and get a huge pension, same with the police.

Anytime anyone attacks this excessive compensation they are attacked by well funded police and fire unions. This is what is bankrupting our cities and counties, not teachers.

Public service used to be about service and sacrifice. Now it is about what kind of fat salary and benefits you can get.

Cops and firefighters making 200k a year? That is incredibly hard to believe, do you have a link? I could see it MAYBE if they work more overtime than they do regular time, and it that's the case they deserve every penny of it.
 

lupi

Lifer
Apr 8, 2001
32,539
260
126
To a degree it's hard to complain about this. If pension plans stayed intact, it would be much easier to do something like revise social security. And it would also be a shame if a pension program meant that the top execs could no longer take multi million dollar annual salaries with multi million dollar annual bonuses.
 

marincounty

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2005
3,227
5
76
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: marincounty
Originally posted by: fleshconsumed
Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek
Originally posted by: fleshconsumed
Nobody told them about asset allocation or rebalancing? Boo hoo. They are teachers. They are supposed to know that the best way a student learns is when he goes and seeks out information he needs. Why wouldn't they apply the same principle to themselves? Why wouldn't they go out and read up on asset allocation? Why would they expect for someone to explain them how to manage their 401K?

Perhaps they're too busy maintaining their credentials to teach our children. Rather than go on about teachers getting pensions, how about the large portion of federal and state workers throughout the country who do nothing more than babysit a keyboard all day getting them? Last I knew, postal workers still draw a government pension. Do you feel a guy that delivers mail deserves more than someone charged with the education of our children? I'm about as anti-social program as a person can get, but teachers are the cornerstone of our country and it's neglect of that fact that's causing us a hard fall in the US. Maybe if teachers were compensated on a level commensurate with attorneys and doctors, they might be in a better position to attract talented teachers who could teach our children and manage their own investments. Lord knows, teachers any more are required to have as much as if not more education than either doctors or attorneys and get paid much less.

I'm not really disagreeing with you. I'm just saying that "nobody told me how to invest it" excuse is lame. Everybody is busy, and yet most of the responsible people realize, hey, this is my retirement, this is important, I better educate myself on this issue. No sane responsible person would blame someone else for their own failure to contribute to 401K and/or balance it properly.

No, I don't think the problem is under-compensated teachers, but over-compensated doctors, lawyers, bureaucrats and public servants.

A recent series of articles here about the bankruptcy of Vallejo, CA because of outrageous police and fire salaries. Firemen were making $200k per year, and get a huge pension, same with the police.

Anytime anyone attacks this excessive compensation they are attacked by well funded police and fire unions. This is what is bankrupting our cities and counties, not teachers.

Public service used to be about service and sacrifice. Now it is about what kind of fat salary and benefits you can get.

Cops and firefighters making 200k a year? That is incredibly hard to believe, do you have a link? I could see it MAYBE if they work more overtime than they do regular time, and it that's the case they deserve every penny of it.

I can't really find a link to salaries, but this link has some info. No, these are supposed public servants, they shouldn't get huge overtime pay. I am also not aware of any huge fire or public disaster in this area that would justify so much overtime.

Text

"Not only that, but now we have 20 police and fire employees retiring because they are afraid of not getting their payouts," Gomes said. "That means we have another few million dollars in payouts that we had not expected. So the situation is quite dire."

Public safety contracts for police and fire services make up 80 percent of the city's general fund.
 

Dr. Detroit

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2004
8,366
812
126
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: marincounty
Originally posted by: fleshconsumed
Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek
Originally posted by: fleshconsumed
Nobody told them about asset allocation or rebalancing? Boo hoo. They are teachers. They are supposed to know that the best way a student learns is when he goes and seeks out information he needs. Why wouldn't they apply the same principle to themselves? Why wouldn't they go out and read up on asset allocation? Why would they expect for someone to explain them how to manage their 401K?

Perhaps they're too busy maintaining their credentials to teach our children. Rather than go on about teachers getting pensions, how about the large portion of federal and state workers throughout the country who do nothing more than babysit a keyboard all day getting them? Last I knew, postal workers still draw a government pension. Do you feel a guy that delivers mail deserves more than someone charged with the education of our children? I'm about as anti-social program as a person can get, but teachers are the cornerstone of our country and it's neglect of that fact that's causing us a hard fall in the US. Maybe if teachers were compensated on a level commensurate with attorneys and doctors, they might be in a better position to attract talented teachers who could teach our children and manage their own investments. Lord knows, teachers any more are required to have as much as if not more education than either doctors or attorneys and get paid much less.

I'm not really disagreeing with you. I'm just saying that "nobody told me how to invest it" excuse is lame. Everybody is busy, and yet most of the responsible people realize, hey, this is my retirement, this is important, I better educate myself on this issue. No sane responsible person would blame someone else for their own failure to contribute to 401K and/or balance it properly.

No, I don't think the problem is under-compensated teachers, but over-compensated doctors, lawyers, bureaucrats and public servants.

A recent series of articles here about the bankruptcy of Vallejo, CA because of outrageous police and fire salaries. Firemen were making $200k per year, and get a huge pension, same with the police.

Anytime anyone attacks this excessive compensation they are attacked by well funded police and fire unions. This is what is bankrupting our cities and counties, not teachers.

Public service used to be about service and sacrifice. Now it is about what kind of fat salary and benefits you can get.

Cops and firefighters making 200k a year? That is incredibly hard to believe, do you have a link? I could see it MAYBE if they work more overtime than they do regular time, and it that's the case they deserve every penny of it.


San Jose, CA is in the same position. The highest paid city worker was a fire battalion chief who made $270K in 2007. 37 city employees made over $200K per year.

Text

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_8929197






 

Drift3r

Guest
Jun 3, 2003
3,572
0
0
Originally posted by: Fmr12B
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: marincounty
Originally posted by: fleshconsumed
Originally posted by: NaughtyGeek
Originally posted by: fleshconsumed
Nobody told them about asset allocation or rebalancing? Boo hoo. They are teachers. They are supposed to know that the best way a student learns is when he goes and seeks out information he needs. Why wouldn't they apply the same principle to themselves? Why wouldn't they go out and read up on asset allocation? Why would they expect for someone to explain them how to manage their 401K?

Perhaps they're too busy maintaining their credentials to teach our children. Rather than go on about teachers getting pensions, how about the large portion of federal and state workers throughout the country who do nothing more than babysit a keyboard all day getting them? Last I knew, postal workers still draw a government pension. Do you feel a guy that delivers mail deserves more than someone charged with the education of our children? I'm about as anti-social program as a person can get, but teachers are the cornerstone of our country and it's neglect of that fact that's causing us a hard fall in the US. Maybe if teachers were compensated on a level commensurate with attorneys and doctors, they might be in a better position to attract talented teachers who could teach our children and manage their own investments. Lord knows, teachers any more are required to have as much as if not more education than either doctors or attorneys and get paid much less.

I'm not really disagreeing with you. I'm just saying that "nobody told me how to invest it" excuse is lame. Everybody is busy, and yet most of the responsible people realize, hey, this is my retirement, this is important, I better educate myself on this issue. No sane responsible person would blame someone else for their own failure to contribute to 401K and/or balance it properly.

No, I don't think the problem is under-compensated teachers, but over-compensated doctors, lawyers, bureaucrats and public servants.

A recent series of articles here about the bankruptcy of Vallejo, CA because of outrageous police and fire salaries. Firemen were making $200k per year, and get a huge pension, same with the police.

Anytime anyone attacks this excessive compensation they are attacked by well funded police and fire unions. This is what is bankrupting our cities and counties, not teachers.

Public service used to be about service and sacrifice. Now it is about what kind of fat salary and benefits you can get.

Cops and firefighters making 200k a year? That is incredibly hard to believe, do you have a link? I could see it MAYBE if they work more overtime than they do regular time, and it that's the case they deserve every penny of it.


San Jose, CA is in the same position. The highest paid city worker was a fire battalion chief who made $270K in 2007. 37 city employees made over $200K per year.

Text

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_8929197

So basically you are using one extreme example of a very high level official and applying it to all lower level government workers as if they are all also reaping 200k salaries or will do so in the near future. What a nice way to skew opinions toward one direction.

PS Most firefighters don't just fight fires everyday. They have to also attend to other emergencies and serve as EMT's and rescue workers. If there is a bad car crash you can almost guarantee the fire department is going to show up.
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
Originally posted by: fleshconsumed
Lucky I guess. 3% match here. I think max I've heard of from the people I know is 4.5%


I have heard of a university (close by) that matches 2 for 1 up to 6%...i.e. you put in up to 6% and they throw in up to 12% more!!! :Q

I have heard this from several sources including a co-worker whose wife was hired there.
 

marincounty

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2005
3,227
5
76
Here's a link with some of the wages of police and fire in Vallejo, CA.
Text

Citywide rank Employee name Department Total wages
5 James L. Higgins Fire Department $251,094
6 Lamonte K. Morris Fire Department $247,902
7 Russell S. Sherman Fire Department $238,725
8 Richard E. Mackenzie Fire Department $236,701
9 John A. Barbuzano Fire Department $236,467
10 Gordon C. Moncibais Fire Department $233,338
11 Michael Kirchner Fire Department $229,317
12 Gregory R. Falkenthal Fire Department $226,235
13 Alphonzo L. Love Fire Department $223,933
14 Michael Deroque Fire Department $222,755
15 Douglas T. Robertson Fire Department $221,458
16 Kurt P. Henke Fire Department $218,830
17 Raymand R. Dandridge Fire Department $217,920
18 David A. Urrutia Fire Department $215,060
19 Sean Fields Fire Department $214,219
21 Mansfield S. Simmons Fire Department $212,395
24 John J. Ha Fire Department $209,547
27 Michael Brooks Fire Department $205,793
28 Michael H. Humphrey Fire Department $205,335
30 Jason S. Goodner Fire Department $202,127
 

Mursilis

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2001
7,756
11
81
Originally posted by: marincounty
Here's a link with some of the wages of police and fire in Vallejo, CA.
Text

Citywide rank Employee name Department Total wages
5 James L. Higgins Fire Department $251,094
6 Lamonte K. Morris Fire Department $247,902
7 Russell S. Sherman Fire Department $238,725
8 Richard E. Mackenzie Fire Department $236,701
9 John A. Barbuzano Fire Department $236,467
10 Gordon C. Moncibais Fire Department $233,338
11 Michael Kirchner Fire Department $229,317
12 Gregory R. Falkenthal Fire Department $226,235
13 Alphonzo L. Love Fire Department $223,933
14 Michael Deroque Fire Department $222,755
15 Douglas T. Robertson Fire Department $221,458
16 Kurt P. Henke Fire Department $218,830
17 Raymand R. Dandridge Fire Department $217,920
18 David A. Urrutia Fire Department $215,060
19 Sean Fields Fire Department $214,219
21 Mansfield S. Simmons Fire Department $212,395
24 John J. Ha Fire Department $209,547
27 Michael Brooks Fire Department $205,793
28 Michael H. Humphrey Fire Department $205,335
30 Jason S. Goodner Fire Department $202,127

:shocked: Good heavens, cabinet-level federal department heads don't make that much!
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,829
3
0
Didn't all jobs used to be like this? Only in America in 2008 is a pension plan called "stealing from taxpayers" by ATOT
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: fleshconsumed
Lucky I guess. 3% match here. I think max I've heard of from the people I know is 4.5%


I have heard of a university (close by) that matches 2 for 1 up to 6%...i.e. you put in up to 6% and they throw in up to 12% more!!! :Q

I have heard this from several sources including a co-worker whose wife was hired there.

Govt emplyee's have very nice tax payer funded retirement programs. Friend works for a small city in Wisc and they match upto 13%. I dont have much sympathy for public workers as they typically have very nice benefit plans paid on the backs of working americans.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Didn't all jobs used to be like this? Only in America in 2008 is a pension plan called "stealing from taxpayers" by ATOT

yea and private industry realized it is nearly impossible to sustain such programs and still turn a profit. Thus the move to 401k's where the funding and responsibility is on the employee. Unsurprising govt is 30 years behind the times and still cant properly fund most of these pension plans without sapping the tax payer. Private industry has no tool to suck every american dry to fund their pension plans.
 

Vette73

Lifer
Jul 5, 2000
21,503
9
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Didn't all jobs used to be like this? Only in America in 2008 is a pension plan called "stealing from taxpayers" by ATOT

yea and private industry realized it is nearly impossible to sustain such programs and still turn a profit. Thus the move to 401k's where the funding and responsibility is on the employee. Unsurprising govt is 30 years behind the times and still cant properly fund most of these pension plans without sapping the tax payer. Private industry has no tool to suck every american dry to fund their pension plans.

No they made a profit just fine, but made a larger profit when they would not fund the pensions correct and then invest the money and keep some when it was good but complain when it was not good.


Also I see the same problem at the Fed level. I do HR and people here think 401k is easy. Sorry but most people still have a hard time setting the time on a VCR, let alone a 30+ year old teacher or someone that has little to no business/market exp trying to understand what to put there money into and how it works.

When I visit gov sites at least 1/2 the questions are about TSP (the Feds 401k type plan). I am not allowed to say this is where you should put your money, but i do spell out the risk reward of each area, where I put my money, and give them several options. I also tell them to think about a Roth if they have extra money.
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,829
3
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: fleshconsumed
Lucky I guess. 3% match here. I think max I've heard of from the people I know is 4.5%


I have heard of a university (close by) that matches 2 for 1 up to 6%...i.e. you put in up to 6% and they throw in up to 12% more!!! :Q

I have heard this from several sources including a co-worker whose wife was hired there.

Govt emplyee's have very nice tax payer funded retirement programs. Friend works for a small city in Wisc and they match upto 13%. I dont have much sympathy for public workers as they typically have very nice benefit plans paid on the backs of working americans.

I don't know how you can extrapolate a small city in Wisconsin to represent all governments...

I also don't see why you have a problem with benefit plans for PUBLIC servants being paid by taxpayers. I also don't understand this "on the backs of working Americans thing"... As if public servants aren't working Americans who themselves pay taxes.

Why don't you complain about the billions in contracts that the federal and state governments give to the private sector? To me it makes a hell of a lot of sense to pay a public servant, even with a 13% pension, vs paying a contractor 2x or 3x for the same amount of work
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: fleshconsumed
Lucky I guess. 3% match here. I think max I've heard of from the people I know is 4.5%


I have heard of a university (close by) that matches 2 for 1 up to 6%...i.e. you put in up to 6% and they throw in up to 12% more!!! :Q

I have heard this from several sources including a co-worker whose wife was hired there.

Govt emplyee's have very nice tax payer funded retirement programs. Friend works for a small city in Wisc and they match upto 13%. I dont have much sympathy for public workers as they typically have very nice benefit plans paid on the backs of working americans.

I don't know how you can extrapolate a small city in Wisconsin to represent all governments...

I also don't see why you have a problem with benefit plans for PUBLIC servants being paid by taxpayers. I also don't understand this "on the backs of working Americans thing"... As if public servants aren't working Americans who themselves pay taxes.

Why don't you complain about the billions in contracts that the federal and state governments give to the private sector? To me it makes a hell of a lot of sense to pay a public servant, even with a 13% pension, vs paying a contractor 2x or 3x for the same amount of work

Because if a small city in Wisc can afford such a benefit plan what can larger more affluent cities afford? That is where I was going with that.

I dont have a problem with benefit plans being paid by tax payers. I have a problem when benefit plans are extravagent and costly and far outpace anything in the private sector.

And where the hell have you been? I have been pissing and moaning about govt funneling tax payers dollars into private industry for years.

btw that 13% pension was a 401k, hence the my wording of "match".
 

ClarkJF

Member
May 19, 2008
87
0
0
Yeah, I already knew about this, this is no different than any government sector. If you get involved in government operations, typically you get incompetent workers, median salaries, lazy union workers, impossible to get promoted on merit (senority only) but you do get great benefits including pensions. Pensions went away 30 years ago but since the tax payer foots the bill, why change it.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
7.5% is low actually - mine was 10% working for state of nevada and it was 403b so no social security taxes had to be paid. virtually like a 17% match. even so i don't blame them - investing is complicated and they shouldn't have to gamble with their retirement.
You must be fvcking joking. If a person cannot follow simple 401k rules, they shouldn't be teaching a monkey how to wipe its ass let alone kids to do anything else. 7.5% is MASSIVE. I get a 6% dollar for dollar match where I work and everybody I tell it to is envious--and for good reason, it's a damn good match, about the best I've ever actually heard for private sector. We all know gov workers get money thrown at them, but that's the luxury of legalized theft--I mean monopolies--grr, I mean unions in the public sector.

I am 30. I am willing to cover my entire retirement. I'd only ask that my generation be covered in _extreme_ circumstances. Nobody my age should be looking at somebody else to care for them when they age from a money perspective. I hope that all these morons who are approaching retirement and will do it on the backs of my productivity find their benefits slashed because my generation cannot afford their indolent avarice. Shame on them for not saving and looking at uncle sam to cover their malaise.
Sorry but most people still have a hard time setting the time on a VCR, let alone a 30+ year old teacher or someone that has little to no business/market exp trying to understand what to put there money into and how it works.
Again, these idiots shouldn't be educating a monkey to wipe its ass if they cannot take part in a 401k program. They are barely more complicated than registering an automobile. Most companies will guide a person where necessary or they can ask for help or pick up some info from a book or online. These ostensible adults go through years and years not looking for the future. Did it never occur to them that at some point they need to retire? And now they want tax payers to cover their idiocy--tax payers who almost certainly have their own 401k options and never some catch-up plan like this?