How to End the Public-Sector Pension Crisis: Adrian Moore
"Optimistic scenario: it's $1 trillion in unfunded liabilities," says Adrian Moore, vice president of policy at Reason Foundation about public-sector pensions at the state, county, and local levels. "More realistic scenario: You're looking at $2 trillion to $4 trillion in unfunded liabilities. That's a huge debt."
Over the past dozen or so years, Moore tells Reason TV's Nick Gillespie, state and local governments have allowed their payrolls be taken over by pension obligations. Rising pension costs have been a key factor in municipal bankruptcies across the country.
"If you go back to around 2000," explains Moore, "a typical city, county, or state in the Untied States would be paying around 15 percent or maybe 20 percent of its total payroll for pensions. Fast-forward a decade later, after they've made all these unsustainable promises and failed to make payments, and you've got places where more than half of total payroll is going to pay for pensions."
On top of that, many municipalities are skipping scheduled payments, assuming ridiculous rates of return on their pension funds, and increasing benefits for employees. Many cities also fail to rein in "pension spiking," a practice that allows savvy employees to retire on an annual pension that can be higher than their work salaries were.
Residents pay for pensions in more ways than higher taxes, says Moore. Runaway pensions have siphoned funds that would otherwise have gone to infrastructure such as fire stations, roads, and bridges.
Yet all is not bleak. While many cities still face legal battles with its employee unions, reform is not just possible but politically popular. San Diego, San Jose, Bakersfield, and Phoenix not only passed reform but did so through ballot initiatives.
Moore, who heads up Reason Foundation's pension reform programs, says that state and local governments can get their pension problems under control by switching from traditional defined-benefit programs to the defined-contribution plans that have become standard in the private sector and other proven reforms. But that can only happen when elected leaders deal forthrightly with the issue. Too often, says Moore, politicians instead make promises they know will only have to be kept long after they are out of office.
Shot by Todd Krainin and Joshua Swain. Edited by Swain.
About 8 minutes long.
Scroll below for downloadable versions and subscribe to Reason TV's YouTube Channel to receive automatic notification when new material goes live.
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
Thunderdome - Two government pensioners enter, one government pensioner leaves?
First up, repping the Big Bear State... a CALPERS recipient! His opponent, from the Land of Lincoln (suggested new motto "Will the Defendant please rise") an IMRF recipient!
SocialContractDome: An old fart and a young schmuck enter. The old fart leaves with the schmuck's money.
Here's my solution:
(1) Determine the value of the pension fund on a date certain.
(2) Determine the value of each participant's vested pension on that date certain.
(3) Give each participant their pro rata share of pension assets by transferring it into a 401k.
There. Problem fucking solved. That wasn't so hard, was it?
Ditto for Social Security...
The 401k plan is an issue if the person blows it. Look at 2008. Remember when everyone's 401K turned into a 201k ?
And the only explanation I have for the return of the Stock Market is something libertarians are not happy about: Government Intervention. The way our economy is going, I can't justify the run from 6900 to 17000 on the Dow Jones.
Plus remember, inflation eats away at savings.
I feel that savings is very important. But we'll need the pyramid style social security for a while.
The 401k plan is an issue if the person blows it.
Sure.
Their problem. Its their assets, their decision on how to invest it, and their responsibility if they blow it.
I hear you. But as you know, people come to us, the tax payer, once they do blow it. And, one-offs can be ignored perhaps. But when there are systemic crashes (like 1987 and 2008), we will have to choice but to help people out.
This is unless we get rid of the idea of welfare which I don't see going away.
This is unless we get rid of the idea of welfare which I don't see going away.
Then the rest is just window dressing.
Fine, let them lock it into a bond fund.
Of course, everyone was born with the wisdom and discipline necessary to invest wisely and has the resources to do so, so there should be no problem.
I am so fucking tired of hearing this constant refrain. "People are too stupid to handle it." Hire your own police to investigate crimes against you? You are too stupid. Hire your own lawyer to prosecute the criminals who harmed you? You are too stupid. Manage your own retirement? You are too stupid.
But suggest that people would handle crime investigation and prosecution via insurance like car, home, boat, renter, and all sorts of other insurance, and all you hear is gripes about fairness.
And the statists howl they are the ones who care about the poor, while they disparage the poor out of the other side of their mouth, and howl that libertarians are the uncaring monsters, while it's libertarians who say people can handle their own lives.
Why don't you statists just curl up and die?
And besides it is perfectly fair to punish the entire population with retirement plan that consists of a ponzi scheme with a negative return on investment backed by nothing more than the promises of politicians because after all there is someone out there somewhere too stupid to check the box that says "index fund" or "bond fund" on their 401k
Does that about sum it up?
DarrenM|10.3.14 @ 6:00PM|#
"Of course, everyone was born with the wisdom and discipline necessary to invest wisely and has the resources to do so, so there should be no problem."
So *YOU'RE* too dumb and feckless to take care of your retirement?
Hope you got kids.
I agree. Its interesting though because many jobs no longer offer pensions which means you will be working till you die. I think that is more the clear cut point.
So the whole "two people decide on something and it is called a contract" goes out the window, based on one side deciding so?
Employer and employee agreed on the pension, the Constitution forbids States from passing laws "impairing the Obligation of Contracts" (Article 1, Section 10)
Not so easy to solve, after all.
retiredfire|10.3.14 @ 7:38PM|#
"So the whole "two people decide on something and it is called a contract" goes out the window, based on one side deciding so?"
No, it's "when the elected officials of the pub sec unions and the appointed officials of the pub sec unions agree to rape the populace, the populace can call them on their bullshit".
Fraudulent contracts are not valid.
That one is going to fly, really far, in a court.
P.S. Those officials, on the government side, they aren't appointed. They are ELECTED, by you, so, if you want to know who to blame, look in the mirror.
retiredfire|10.3.14 @ 9:11PM|#
"That one is going to fly, really far, in a court."
Well, parasite:
"Ruling lets Stockton cut employee pension benefits"
http://www.mantecabulletin.com.....le/115717/
"P.S. Those officials, on the government side, they aren't appointed. They are ELECTED, by you, so, if you want to know who to blame, look in the mirror."
P.S. parasite, they are elected by the union members, not me.
So suck it. Maybe you'll be next to get cut!
How to End the Public-Sector Pension Crisis:
End the Public Sector.
IDK if this is unique to CalPERS, but you can buy service credit, known as "airtime", and have it factored in to your pension. For example, you can work 25 years, buy 5 years of airtime, and retire with 30 years of service. And yes, airtime is priced way below market value.
http://www.calpers.ca.gov/eip-.....ptions.pdf
What the hell! that's friggin unbelieveable.
The idea of me opening up a business, hiring a worker, and promising to pay retirement from the age of 55 until her death is unsustainable.
I have a socialist solution that will not be popular around here but I'd thought I can bring up and debate.
- How about a National compensation model for all citizens that do not work that would include the retired, the unemployed, the disabled, and their minor dependents .
- The Benefit amount should be somewhere below median income and slightly above the working poverty level. It should be enough that they don't have to us the tax payers for food/shelter/etc.
- It should be means-tested so that people making X times the median income should not collect.
- A reasonable retirement age (like 60 years of age) should be established for all workers (including cops).
The reason I propose to go national is that the Pool would consist of 300M people. Clearly, in America, the hundreds of municipal pools is simply not working. And company pensions don't work either especially when a company goes out of business. And, the US Taxpayer bailing out GM is an outrage...and I'm a liberal.
In doing so, municipalities would not have the pension problems. Local municipal taxes can go to local municipal matters and current salaries.
And, if an individual is not happy with retiring a the poverty level, they can save their own money for retirement. If they want to retire earlier, save money or invest.
What do you guys think?
Bad idea.
Nice try, though. Try to set something up that is purely voluntary, involves no involvement by agents of the state, puts no one at risk of being subjected to violence, and allows people to reap the rewards, or suffer the consequences, of their own actions and decisions.
Instead of the exact opposite. Like you just did.
People will always"reap the rewards".
However, they (and us the tax payer) will suffer the consequences if things go wrong.
What do you mean by violence?
Try not to pay your taxes and see if the government leaves you alone.
"What do you mean by violence?"
He means that if you refuse to contribute to the current retirement system. Then large, burly men with guns will come to your house and haul you away to a Federal facility to make an example of you.
How about something where one can *voluntarily* turn over management of assets to the government?
It sucks. Like all statist wet dreams, it assumes and allows absolutely no individual variation. What if I want to go my own route and skip this program altogether? No can do, because I am too stupid to look after myself.
I am actually surprised by that last statement. A statist pretending to care what other people think about his statist no-thinking-allowed program? Good grief.
Darn it, Reason, I don't want to spend 8:28 of my time watching a video. I can read the equivalent in a fraction of the time. Please task an intern to transcribe these things. Thank you.
Use dunphy's speech-to-text program. But you supply the periods.
I have friends who work as firefighters and cops in California and man is that state proper fucked
At least my cop buddies does the same thing I do and has maxed out his deferred comp investments for the last 15 years so he's gonna do fine no matter what happens with the pension
I think the max yearly investment in deferred compensation programs is about 17,000 these days
Partially because of fears about pensions I tell all the recruits I train that a big part of officer safety is financial well-being so start investing in deferred compensation plan etc.
It's the exact opposite of California here in Washington our system is very comfortably funded
LEOFF II is doing just fine thank you
I hesitate to attribute its financial stability to intelligent decision by people in government but for whatever reason it's doing really well as is my union coffers I might add
While Washington pensions kind of suck comparatively speaking a good pension is one of the benefits of the job that enticed me to devote my life to public-service
And of course they can't be taken away there are even cops serving time for murder in the state that are still receiving their police pensions
BOOYA POLICE PENSIONS!
Rewarding us for a career of selfless and heroic working-class heroism
Smooches!
"I hesitate to attribute its financial stability to intelligent decision by people in government..."
Government doesn't automatically preclude intelligent decision making, it just doesn't tend to reward it. And it rarely punishes people making poor fiscal decisions.
A government employee who makes prudent fiscal decisions routinely for 10 years and then makes a widely reported un-PC public comment will be gone in a week.
A government employee who makes imprudent fiscal decisions routinely for 10 years and then makes a very Politically Correct public comment will be up for a promotion.
In many respects perverse incentives are such that bad decisions are rewarded and especially decisions that decrease our efficiency are rewarded
BOOYA POLICE PENSIONS! Rewarding us for a career of selfless and heroic working-class heroism
I'm sure it feels good to steal from people at gunpoint, but that doesn't make it right.
It's right as rain, brah! Right as rain. It's all about contracts.
Contracts! How do those work, derp derp.
We are very fairly compensated in my agency and you will never hear me complain about it at all.
Okay I'll say our retirement system is somewhat mediocre at best and sub optimal compared with many other systems but that's about the only complaint I could possibly muster.
Our pay is fair our benefits are phenomenal and there you go
Granted I have the perspective of moving here from Hawaii where we were substantially underpaid and the cost-of-living was about 25% greater
So yeah upon moving here I am very very very grateful for the salary and benefits that have been bestowed upon me thanks
Lawsuits help too!
Smooches
Did they run out of pills at the crazy house?
Smooches!
fairly compensated merely means you get at least as much as you want, if not more. I'm sure the politicians whose sweaty palms the union greases think *they* are also 'fairly compensated'.
More heroics from our working-class hero's
Again in the past these incidents almost never made the news there was no video of them and no press release but now due to body cameras and in this case a firefighter helmet cam we get to see more and more of the kind of every day heroics that brave officers engage in
In this case the cops use a ladder to save the person and in my case I ran into a building that was burning but either way this is what cops do
Booya police heroism
http://www.policeone.com/polic.....ce=7628831
I kind of liked the one where they chucked the flash grenade into the baby's crib as part of an effort to find drugs that weren't there.
As you said
"It's what cops do"