Pension envy? You wish.
Sorry for the brief hiatus on public pension posts -- it's not that there's no pension action, just that I've been busy.
So let me go back some weeks to an editorial out of St. Louis, proclaiming the current round of public pension kerfuffles is just down to that green-eyed monster envy. The private sector no longer has its defined-benefit pensions and thus want to grab that prize away from the public employees.
In his 2003 book, "Envy," scholar and critic Joseph Epstein relates a joke of the sort that Russians tell on themselves that perfectly captures the meaning of zavist:
"An Englishwoman, a Frenchman, and a Russian are each given a single wish by one of those genies whose almost relentless habit it is to pop out of bottles. The Englishwoman says that a friend of hers has a charming cottage in the Cotswolds, and that she would like a similar cottage, with the addition of two extra bedrooms and a second bath and a brook running in front of it. The Frenchman says that his best friend has a beautiful blonde mistress, and he would like such a mistress himself, but a redhead instead of a blonde, and with longer legs and a bit more in the way of culture and chic. The Russian, when asked what he would like, tells of a neighbor who has a cow that gives a vast quantity of the richest milk, which yields the heaviest cream and the purest butter. 'I vant dat cow,' the Russian tells the genie, 'dead.'"
Lately, whenever we read of another attempt to "reform" pensions, we think of the Russian's cow. Two out of every three private-sector workers in America no longer are covered by traditional pension plans. Such "reform" has contributed to a crisis in retirement security.
That's a sweet idea, if the neighbor didn't get that cow by taking it away from us.
Remember those promises made to the public employees? Whose money is being used to pay for those promises?
Ours. The taxpayers.
We're not envious. We just are tired of having our money taken away, and we don't think we're getting value for that money.
I noted back in April that even though the public union employees could keep taking those golden eggs from the geese, the demography is not to the advantage of continued farming in this manner. The eggs aren't going to be increasing at a rate at which these public servants, who see the public as serving them, will like.
One often hears "Oh, but the average pension amount is $20K! And they don't get Social Security!" (whatever the average may be, and some may or may not receive Social Security payments). But how many years are they receiving? And do they get automatic increases in amount each year? A single year's cost doesn't mean much when you've got a cost that is getting paid out for more than thirty years -- indeed, for more years than the worker served the public.
So smirk at the "pension envy" with its close parallel of "penis envy", but the fact is that these souped-up pensions come out of our pockets. All sorts of crazy investment schemes tried in the name of hiding just how expensive these pension promises were.
The assumption always was that if all else failed, the taxpayers could be soaked to make up the difference.
I think we're about to find out the truth of that statement.
MORE ON THE PENSIONS "CLASS WAR": A short piece in the NY Times with the punchline:
“We have to do what unions call givebacks,” said Mr. Lamm, the former Colorado governor. “That’s the only way to sanity. Any other alternative, therein lies dragons.”
THE OTHER SIDE: John Cole and his Balloon Juice:
And let there be no doubt that there will be a class war over this. Matt Welch and the glibertarian wingnut welfare recipients at Reason have been beating this drum for a while now.
Well, John, there are a couple ways this goes down: taxpayers outnumber the public employees and down go the public benefits; taxpayers are outnumbered by public employees... and there's not enough money to pay for the benefits. Huzzah! It all works out in the end.





August 7th, 2010 - 14:55
All I know about pensions is that we’re not depending on ours.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
August 7th, 2010 - 15:32
I’ve got a basement full of canned beans.
I guess that will do for now.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
August 7th, 2010 - 16:04
I’m gonna start working when my husband retires then work until I’m dead.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
August 8th, 2010 - 08:40
At this point, I’m seeing the only reason I won’y be working til death is disability.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
August 9th, 2010 - 07:34
Until now, I have strongly advocated for reducing pension formulas for FUTURE years of service for CURRENT (as well as new) workers …… a VERY unpopular position in the eyes of those riding the Civil Servant gravy train.
I’m about to become even more unpopular with this group, as I now believe the likelihood of this happening (soon enough and with sufficient formula reductions) is so low that a much better direction, and perhaps the ONLY way to avoid the financial disaster bearing down on communities throughout the nation is to OUTSOURCE 90+% of all Civil Servant positions.
The CRITICAL CRITICAL CRITICAL need is to STOP the further growth of the pension liability from the excessive pension formulas granted EXISTING employees, and the ONLY way to do this quickly and VERY effectively is OUTSOURCING.
And guess what … it’s ALREADY been tested … and the sky didn’t fall in … and the residents of Maywood, CA seem very pleased with the results of outsourcing 100% of their employees. Read all about it here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/20/business/20maywood.html?pagewanted=2
Like or Dislike:
0
0
August 11th, 2010 - 10:33
This is a useful article. We’re always looking for great resources to send to our residents, and your article is without a doubt worth sharing!
Like or Dislike:
0
0
September 8th, 2010 - 14:29
Keith Suttie
Like or Dislike:
0
0