Why can't teachers/cops live with 401(k)'s instead of pensions?

[Jim in CT]

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.

[Chesapeake Bill]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The public sector SERVES THE PUBLIC. The public sector, by definition, does not create wealth, it takes wealth away from the public they serve.

In what dictionary? Is there a special one for actuaries that the rest of us are not aware of? Define "creating wealth" and then explain why a stimulus package was necessary and what purpose the National Science Foundation or DARPA serves if not to create wealth through research?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Chesapeake Bill

In what dictionary? Is there a special one for actuaries that the rest of us are not aware of? Define "creating wealth" and then explain why a stimulus package was necessary and what purpose the National Science Foundation or DARPA serves if not to create wealth through research?

It's called economics 101. In the private sector, the transaction only takes place when both sides find it beneficial. Otherwise one patry or the other would walk away from the deal. If both parties are voluntarily taking part in the transaction, both must feel they are benefitting from it. Am I going too fast for you?

In the public sector, the teachers union makes its demand, and the cost gets forced upon homeowners. Homeowners can pay the cost, or have their house taken away in tax delinquency. There is no choice on the part of the homeowner. The homeowner can't say "the Catholic school only spends half as much per kid, and performs way better, so I'll give my property taxes to the Catholic school instead". If homeowners had that choice, which they should, public schools would be forced to shape up. Am I going too fast for you?

In one environment, the customer gets to freely choose whether or not to give his money to the person performing the service. In the other environment, the person providing the service forcibly takes the money away from the customer, without asking his permission. Those two things are different. Am I going too fast for you?

"explain why a stimulus package was necessary"

It wasn't necessary. Nor was it stimulative.

"National Science Foundation or DARPA serves if not to create wealth through research?"

If that research was obviously financially promising, someone in the private scetor would be funding it. If an idea needs government subsidy, that means the free market decided that the idea wouldn't be lucrative.

Obviously, some things are more important that creating wealth, like public safety. But in my opinion, those who receive public funds should not receive benefits that dwarf anything available to those who pay for those programs. I guess you disagree. In that case, will you pay my family's share of the shortfall? Because I do not recognize the right of teachers to reward themselves with these insane compensation levels.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Chesapeake Bill

Define "creating wealth" and then explain why a stimulus package was necessary and what purpose the National Science Foundation ?

right, I can see how funding a study on "stressed-out teens" can be construed as "wealth creation"

from the NSF website
Stressed Out: Teens and Adults Respond Differently

UCLA neuroscientist Adriana Galván studies the impact of normal, everyday stress and associated stress hormones on adolescents' brain function and decision making

Adriana Galván explores how daily stress and associated stress hormones impact decision making.
September 3, 2010

Stress can be compared with the pressure that a sculptor places on a piece of marble: the right pressure and it becomes a masterpiece, but too much pressure and the marble breaks into pieces.

The right amount of stress helps us to meet our goals and do good work. Too much stress can produce serious damage to the heart, the vascular system and the immune system, and it also causes changes in some areas of the brain.

With support from the National Science Foundation (NSF), Adriana Galván, a neuroscientist at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), is studying the effect of stress on brain function in adolescents and adults.