Quote:
Originally Posted by likwid
Why should they?
|
You know what Likwid? That's a fair question. And unlike what you do to my posts, I will respond directly to this fair question. (whereas you dodge and insult, and ask other questions)
Likwid asks, why should teachers and cops switch to 401(k)'s.
20 years ago, the entire private sector (which, unlike teachers, must make people WANT to buy their services) realized that pensions were not sustainable. There was no way that private businesses could ask their customers to absorb those costs (by the way, that's one o fthe reasons GM couldn't compete with the Japanese car companies; something liek $3,000 was added to the cost of every American car because of union demands). So the private sector switched to 401(k)s.
The public sector SERVES THE PUBLIC. The public sector, by definition, does not create wealth, it takes wealth away from the public they serve. Therefore, it stands to reason that public sector benefits be somewhat in line (or slightly less than) private sector benefits.
In other words, if the private sector cannot get away with passing pension costs onto its customers, why should the public sector be able to FORCE those same costs on to us? By what logic are pensions less painful to pay for in the public sector, than the private sector?
Finally likwid, you ask why they should switch? Did you read Scott W's post above? Pensions are bankrupting most states. They should switch because, OBVIOUSLY, there isn't enough money to continue to fund pensions.
I think I've answered your question directly. For once, how about you return the courtesy? WHAT IS THE REASON WHY PUBLIC SECTOR FOLKS GET TO HANG ONTO ANTIQUATED BENEFITS THAT EVERYONE ELSE REALIZED, 20 YEARS AGO, WERE TOO EXPENSIVE TO BE SUSTAINABLE? Why is it reasonable for public unionized employees to force costs upon us, that no one would voluntarily pay for?
I await your reply sir.