California Pension Crisis Watch: University of California Edition, or, Paying Nothing Into a Pension Plan Can Make It Harder to Get Anything Out
Seems employees of the University of California system, and their employer to boot, haven't been paying anything into their pension system for 20 years now. And yes, that's created some problems, as Daniel Borenstein notes at the Inside Bay Area site. Some details:
the university's pension plan is underfunded by at least $6.3 billion because neither the university nor its employees made payments into the system for two decades -- while, at the same time, sweetening benefits. Blame regents, management and employee groups who agreed to this.
The contribution "holiday" started in 1990, when the UC retirement system had surplus funds, which ended this year. If the university and its workers had made payments over the past two decades, there would still be more than enough money in the pension system today.
Instead, the retirement program is underfunded and getting worse. The $6.3 billion liability does not yet account for most of the 2008 investment losses. To climb out of the hole, two things must happen.
First, UC and employees must contribute enough to cover the liability increase created each year as employees earn more future pension benefits. Right now, that liability increase is about $1.4 billion a year, or, put another way, about 17.6 cents for every dollar of salary.
UC policies adopted earlier this year require UC and its employees to start contributing again, but not enough to cover the liability increase. Employees are now paying 2 to 4 percent of payroll, and the university is contributing 4 percent. By 2012, that will ramp up to 5 percent and 10 percent respectively, shy of the needed total 17.6 percent. That shortfall means the system underfunding will worsen.
Way more on this, and the UC systems problems with health care obligations for its employees, and its rather mild and ineffective current plans to remedy the situation (including small tuition hikes for the wealthy that still have students in a snit) at my California news and politics blog "City of Angles."
Reason has been on California's pension problems like a rash--yet, a rash that heals. See here, here, and here.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
The $6.3 billion liability does not yet account for most of the 2008 investment losses. To climb out of the hole, two things must happen.
1) A lot of people need to die.
2) To save money on funerals, we instead stick a bone up their ass and let the dogs drag them off.
*dusts off hands*
Problem solved!
Actually only one thing has to happen and it already has. Elect Obama. He'll save the day with our money 'cause he's super special like that.
neither the university nor its employees made payments into the system for two decades
Wait, what?
If you don't make contributions, there is no fund. Ergo, do not pass go, do not collect two hundred dollars.
See ya in the bread line, Stupid.
They were coasting on previously existing fund, and I guess they just figured it was a magical unlimited fund.
Life is like a sewer: what you get out of it depends on what you put into it.
Something for nothing!
What could go wrong?
Something for Nothing
Something from Nothing
Money for Nothing
What happened was because of good investing with the previous generation's contributions, the fund had a huge surplus and it just got bigger during the nineties boom.
Like a lot of other people who should have known better, the question, "What if the economy goes south?" never entered their minds...or if it did, the assumption was "it can't go too far south."
I will say this. It's almost a good thing they didn't have contributions during the 90's because then they'd have had so much in the fund, they would have been tempted to sweeten the retirement benefits to the level of CalPERs and CalSTERs and really been up a creek now. As of right now, the UC pension is very modest in comparison. Example: If you retire at age 50 with 25 years service, you'll get ~25% of your annual salary (based on the average of your best three consecutive years). That's nothing to complain about and it only goes up as you increase age/years, but it's still significantly less than the 80-90% (of their best single year) I've heard gov't employees can retire with at age 50.
So if you started in 1985 and retired at the end of this year, you could have only paid in for 5 years (and the years where you made the least)?
Should we really cheer that that person only gets 25% of their salary instead of 80%?
And, of course, the FBI is on this case like white on rice.
Great!
I work at one of the national labs that used to be run by UC (that ended 4.5 years ago), so I have a small pension vesting (11 years) with them.
I'm already assuming Social Security will be bankrupt by the time I retire, but now I guess I'll have to assume that the UC fund will be bankrupt too.
Thank God for 401K matching (which BTW, started 4.5 years ago when UC lost our contract. That was seen by most here as a huge negative, but now it's turning out to be a good thing).
I disagree with many on this. Social Security won't be bankrupt, certainly not in the medium-term future. Not because it'll be better managed, but because to save it, they'll just crank up forced contributions on employee wages, cut benefits and raise retirement ages.
Fascinating. The public pension bubble is going to exacerbate and feed into the college education bubble. I eagerly anticipate the popping of both.
"Sinking into the Pacific" is looking like it might be the least painful of CA's options right now. Seriously, two decades? How does that even happen?
California must go
it is hard to understand how not making contributions into your pension plan for 20 years would result in there being insufficient funds in that plan...
Just do the math!
I know that one of the problems with fixing the various pension messes is that pensions are often protected by law, so it's impossible to reduce them. But is there any reason that (e.g.) the state of California couldn't say "Starting next month, state employees will be making 100% of the contributions to their pensions"?
But if you're supposed to pay into a pension scheme and do not, then where's the obligation to still give you the benefit that you haven't paid for?
And why not make state employees pay 100% plus enough to pay down the shortfall?
Things are not adding up.
Moonbeam will save the Golden State.
Burn baby burn!
Does Intrade have any options on CA Bankruptcy / Bailout yet?
Should have been in morning links:
James Grant. New York Times. Gold Standard.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/opinion/14grant.html
You guys are way too worried about this. Haven't you heard?
Governor Moonbeam's on the case now!
He's gonna fix everything--'cause he's an insider with inside knowledge.
At this stage in his personal growth? I think it's time for him to use his insider knowledge to fix everything.
P.S. Privatize Berkeley NOW.
So, if I set up an IRA, and never make any contributions to it, I can just ask Bernanke to print me some money, right?
I guarantee it!
Laugh all you want, but I think there are better than even odds that this will be bailed out by the feds in some fashion.
Meaning, of course, that the good citizens of every state will foot the bill.
Seriously, seriously looking into what it will take to pursue citizenship in Panama, so I can drop my US citizenship if things get as bad as they might. While this would get me out from under the taxes being used to pay for all this, it still won't save me from the debasement of the currency that will be a major tool for "solving" our debt problem.
Curious, why Panama?
I would say it's almost guaranteed they will get bailed out, unless someone puts the Fed on a very very short leash. Expatriating is beginning to sound like it's an easier decision to make than it was even a a year or two ago.
Pretty sure that even if you relinquish your US citizenship, they still come after you for (at least some) taxes. Our government is ruthless in its pursuit of your cash.
And I expect them to get even more ruthless the worse things get.
Why Panama?
After looking over some of the Central American countries for potential expat/retirement, it looked like one of the best.
I'm not expecting to get out from under taxes owed up until I relinquish, but I don't see any way they can say I owe taxes for the period beginning when I am no longer a US serfizen.
It's the Van Halen song--admit it.
This may seem counter-intuitive, but bailing out out California is one of the few things that could make Obama lose California's electoral votes come 2012.
Never mind conservatives--all reasonable Californians are pinning their hopes on reality inflicting itself on Sacramento.
Obama doesn't want to be seen as the thing that stood in the way. He doesn't want to be seen as the man who crushed the hopes of swing voters for sanity--not if he wants to be reelected.
True, he's yet to show he knows what's in his own best interest, so I wouldn't put it past him. But bailing out California isn't about to get him get reelected.
I think it may even hurt him in California.
"all reasonable Californians"
DRINK!
Way ahead of you.
In seriousness though?
I'd like to hear someone make a logical argument explaining why Sacramento will make the necessary cuts otherwise...
I've heard plenty of people say that the problem is they can't jack taxes up because of Prop 13, etc.
But reasonable people making the argument that California will stop spending like a drunken sailor if only they had more money to spend?
I haven't come across that argument yet.
I used to have friends that would call me from Vegas and say that all their problems would be solved if only I wired them more money...
No, gambling all their money away wasn't the problem--it was me not sending them more money...
For a comment section at a site named "Reason", you'd think...
If I were a republican running in 2012, I'd start running against California now.
Really, not Costa Rica?
I'm thinking Costa Rica myself. I understand you can live really well for 400 bucks a month AND they have howler monkeys.
I've been thinking Mexico.
Why don't we get a group together and move to Somalia? I think we actually might have a chance of turning that shithole around. Show those libertarian bashers a thing or two.
Sounds like a scam to me.
Why not give each pension recipient the present value of their pensions in lottery tickets? On a dollar-for-dollar basis.
You have to play to win.
Precisely. And, no kidding, I bet a lot of people would accept this offer. After all, for many, this would mean hundreds (or, at least, many tens in PV terms) of thousands of lotto tickets.
Hell, give them the future value in lotto tickets. It's still going to come out in the taxpayers' favor.
I suggest massive infusions of snark. It that doesn't work, tap the nation's sarcasm reserves.
Agreed! We can't continue to rely on foreign sarcasm suppliers!
Foreign sarcasm suppliers who hate us.
Bingo|11.15.10 @ 4:08PM|#Curious, why Panama?
Bingo, Why not?
We just doubled down in CR last year- still plotting the course and figuring out the whole residency thing.
Just interested in the reasons why people choose a particular country. Moving is in my 5 year plan, so I'm trying to get as much information as I can in the meantime.
I'm hoping the Kochtopus rewards its loyal HnR posters with our own private island where we can drink raw milk and discuss Sci Fi and circumcision late into the night.
"... own private island where we can drink raw milk and discuss Sci Fi and circumcision late into the night."
Fire Island? NTTAWWT.
Almost 20 years in Costa Rica and now a year and a half in Colombia.
Head south, young man, head south...
But be careful, there are a lot of latinas hermosas buscando gringos...
Oh, I'll be watching out for las hermosas alright, those Latin American countries produce some fine looking ladies.
There is a consensus among American "elites" on Social Security. Most CEOs, pundits, and elected officials favor cutting and / or privatizing it, claiming that doing so will reduce the deficit. That claim is a lie, since Social Security is fully funded through 2037, pays for itself 100%, and doesn't add one dime to the deficit.
We can't expect these CEOs, Republicans, pundits and Blue Dogs to stop propagating their lies about Social Security. Instead, if we are going to stop this alliance of elites from cutting Social Security, the first thing we must do is promise ourselves we won't ever buy into their lies.
since Social Security is fully funded through 2037, pays for itself 100%, and doesn't add one dime to the deficit.
Is it warm in Xanadu? Maybe I should move there.
Tell me, do you solve all your problems by closing your eyes, plugging your ears and screaming "LA LA LA LA..."?
Nice! Social security is fully funded 'til 2037! Never mind that current law forces 20+% benefit cuts after that once the "trust fund" is depleted.
Heck, I'm eligible for full SS benefits in 2036. I get a year to ride the gravy train!!!
"That claim is a lie, since Social Security is fully funded through 2037, pays for itself 100%, and doesn't add one dime to the deficit."
Just for the record, whether social security is solvent and whether I want to opt out are two separate quetsions.
No, I don't think it's solvent that far out--but even if it was, I wouldn't willingly participate in that pyramid scam anyway.
pancakes,
I have a savings account where I have saved $10K for a sweet vacation that I plan to take next year. Meanwhile, I also want to take a vacation right now. So I "borrowed" the money from my savings account, moved it into my checking account, spent it, and wrote myself a note that I owe my savings account $10K.
Is next year's vacation "fully funded"?
yes. As long as you keep working and putting money into your savings account.
So then the proper answer would have been "No."
They are hero and deserve
I can smell the sweet tears of student unions protesting for a living wage already.
You know, it really makes sense when you think about it.
LOL
Privatesy on Internet
http://www.onlineprivatesy.com
That was in response to the aptly named TopicalName. grr. er, LOL.
Based on a very very low standard of California bureaucracy, the UCs the best department the state has. Despite several gillion times it raises fees and cut budget, it's still better than the Joke Ivys like WUSTL, USC, Vanderbilt, Emory, Rice, Notre Dame, and other pissant flyover private schools that barfed its way to the top 30 of US News rankings through mounds of unspent endowments.
Jesse: Dude, where's my pension?
Chester: Where's your pension dude?
Jesse: DUDE, where's my pension?
Chester: Where's your pension dude?
And who is going to get stuck bailing out California on this and other budget issues? The American tacpayers!! I don't think so!
Is there anyway to hedge against California coming back? Seems like a sure winner of a bet. So how does one go about ?short selling? a state?
And of course they want to raise the tuition on the wealthy they just ruled the other day that illegal aliens have the right to in-state college tuition. I know all you illegal lovers will certainly agree with that.
In what way is it meaningful to say that a UC employee can in any sense "contribute" to their pension? Doesn't their salary and their pension come from the same pot of tax dollars? Come on people, money is fungible. It doesn't matter whether the pension money is funneled through the employee's hands before landing in the pot. Similarly, it makes no sense to call a UC employee, whose salary derives from tax receipts, a "taxpayer".
Pension crisis
I do not think that any elected officials have a viable solution to the pension deficit issue which will continue to grow.
As I said before there is no simple solution. This is an issue that affects every level of government (City, County, State, Federal, Etc.). No one solution or one individual can solve this problem. It would take a committee with multitude of financial planners and an open mind to modify the plan as it progresses, when some facets of the plan do not work as anticipated.
But as the crisis grows, we as people of this great country must put our differences aside and work for the common goals and restore our City, State and the Nation to the spirit of our founding fathers.
I think that every politician or candidate should state what they propose to do to correct the situation and not attack their opponent or the opposition.
Tell me and or show me what you can do, not what the other did not do or did wrong.
Action speaks louder than words.
We need to remain vigilant, especially as the City of Los Angeles is facing a monumental fiscal crisis.
Public confidence in the integrity of the Government is indispensable to faith in democracy; and when we lose faith in the system, we have lost faith in everything we fight and spend for.
Thank you
YJ Draiman for Mayor of LA