FT: Seven Major US Public Pensions To Run Out Of Money By 2028

You need a subscription to get to the Financial Times report so here is the zerohedge story which summarizes the Center for Retirement Research‘s analysis:

  • Over 320,000 members of the New Jersey Teachers and Chicago Municipal public pension plans: “A slow recovery for the US stock market could result in Chicago Municipal’s funded position falling from 21 per cent this year to just 3.6 per cent by 2025. This would leave assets to cover just three months of the fund’s retirement payments…”
  • New Jersey Teachers: “…funded position projected to decline from 39.2 per cent to 23.2 per cent over the next five years. By that time, New Jersey Teachers would have assets to cover 19 months of retirement payments.”
  • Police and fire departments: “public pension plans of Kentucky and Providence along with Dallas Police and Fire, Charleston Fire and Chicago Police could all end up with less than three years of retirement benefit payments saved as assets.”
  • “Chicago has particularly high pension risks. The city has built up very large unfunded liabilities through years of very weak pension contributions,” a senior credit officer at Moody’s.

108 responses to this post.

  1. Posted by rightherenow123 on June 10, 2020 at 10:04 am

    Do we even need a study? A 5 year old could figure this out, if you have 100 gummi bears and put 1 more in a day, but eat 12 a day….

    NJ is paying out some $10-12 BILLION a year in pension payments. More like 2024 here.

    Reply

    • Posted by Rex the Wonder Dog! 🐶🐶🐶🦴🦴🦴 on June 10, 2020 at 2:23 pm

      Do we even need a study? A 5 year old could figure this out, if you have 100 gummi bears and put 1 more in a day, but eat 12 a day….
      Errr… YES, we did/do need the study, because the fact is the ones becoming multi-millionaires in this fraud are our esteemed GED educated cops and firewhiners. And face it, it is a 50/50 roll of the dice if they know as much as a 5 y/o.

      Reply

      • Posted by E on June 10, 2020 at 3:13 pm

        Hey!!! I take umbrage. Millionaire? Yes. Multi-millionaire? Not yet anyway. Let’s see how DraftKings stock does. 🤣🤣

        Reply

      • Posted by rightherenow123 on June 10, 2020 at 3:14 pm

        Listen, I know the standards are low and you got your point/shot in..but it doesnt take away with what I said. I am just tired of commissions and studies and XYZ…when MATH is pretty easy to figure out. I can even go on a 401k calculator and put in 3 numbers to understand it.

        Reply

  2. […] reported in BuryPensions, Boston College’s Center for Retirement Research (CRR) predicts that NJ’s largest […]

    Reply

  3. Posted by NJ2AZ on June 10, 2020 at 11:51 am

    is it fair to assume these time frames are all too long? aren’t they based on the stated values of the assets, which may potentially be worth less than they say?

    Reply

    • Posted by Rex the Wonder Dog! 🐶🐶🐶🦴🦴🦴 on June 10, 2020 at 2:17 pm

      is it fair to assume these time frames are all too long? aren’t they based on the stated values of the assets, which may potentially be worth less than they say?
      This is exactly what the post above you (Posted by New Report: NJ Teachers Pension Fund Insolvency in 7 Years. But It’s Probably Worse – Sunlight Policy Center) CONFIRMS. Yes, they are using wildly inflated values of their held assets. If you or me, or these public pension funds, did this in real life, the real world private sector, used inflated income and assets, while minimizing expenses and costs, you would be in prison on multiple federal charges, including RICO. I have said for the last DECADE that ANY CA member of CalTURDS (city/county/special district) could SUE CalTURDS civilly, under RICO, and clean their clock.

      Reply

  4. Posted by Tough Love on June 10, 2020 at 12:08 pm

    What amazes me is that the newer workers (actually, almost ALL of the actives) are watching their pension contribution NOT get invested towards the future payout of their own pensions, but go straight out the door to pay current retirees …….. and with a wing and a prayer that the system won’t blow up before they get to retire.

    Doesn’t seem like a good way to prepare for retirement.

    Reply

    • Posted by NJ2AZ on June 10, 2020 at 12:41 pm

      i’m sure even if a handful of people actively think about how they are getting screwed, no one wants to speak up and draw the ire of their ‘union brothers’

      many many years ago i was a teacher for a hot minute. among the many reasons it didn’t work out was i could never throw myself blindly behind the union. I think the first sign was when they told me i could pay $1000 to be a member or $950 to not :p

      Reply

      • Posted by rightherenow123 on June 10, 2020 at 12:58 pm

        This is why I am loving the scrutiny on the police unions. Did they think this could go on for forever, literally getting away criminal behavior…not to mention the fact that their PR game has become so strong.

        Unions eat their young. Same reason a 1st grade Gym Teacher makes the same salary as a STEM HS teacher based upon years in. LIFO, often times messing with retirees healthcare.

        They should all be banned, no more public sector unions. It is all cronyism and nepotism. Its also fun watching the democrats try to not talk of the public sector unions, of which they NEED. Always cracks me up how much Fox News loves cops and how much Cops love Trump, but then elect democrats on the state and local level.

        Reply

        • Posted by Marine1 on June 10, 2020 at 1:56 pm

          Rightherenow- Let me know when my NJ PFRS retirement check is going to stop. I’ll help you out,it’s not going broke before I die and I’ll be 51 this summer.

          Reply

          • Posted by Rex the Wonder Dog! 🐶🐶🐶🦴🦴🦴 on June 10, 2020 at 2:20 pm

            Rightherenow- Let me know when my NJ PFRS retirement check is going to stop. I’ll help you out,it’s not going broke before I die and I’ll be 51 this summer.
            LOL …Sure thing Marine1. Tell you what Big Mouth, why not put your $$ where your big fat GED mouth is? I have a C-Note that you, and your co-conspirator in pension fraud, EG- take a PENSION HAIRCUT sometime around 2026.

          • Posted by Tough Love on June 10, 2020 at 2:23 pm

            Hard to imagine that your free retiree healthcare won’t become contributory (perhaps materially so) well before Medicare age.

          • Posted by Marine1 on June 10, 2020 at 2:58 pm

            Rex- The grownups are trying to speak. Please don’t interject unless I tell you that you may speak. You really need to learn your place in life. Marine1- Warrior. Rex- Hiney sniffer,weakling,beta “male”. Understand ? I’ll let you know when you may speak to me.

          • Posted by E on June 10, 2020 at 3:25 pm

            @tl. Our town only has to pay for about 15 or so active employees health care into retirement anymore. I am one of them. We negotiated that in our last contract. State law also states that whatever contract is in effect when you hit 25 years in the job is the one you will get in terms of medical contributions into retirement.
            Hardly Going to be an incentive for the town to change that. Now, to be fair, I think many cops do beleive that the union protects bad cops. I also fall into thet category. Perhaps in cases such as this instead of defending the officer, a simple comment of “the officer has obtained counsel like anyone else has a right to “and be done with it.

          • Posted by A on June 10, 2020 at 3:43 pm

            Not to worry…

            “As it was in the beginning, is now, and will be forever.”

            Big data moves slowly.

            Pensions and healthcare are immutable.

          • Posted by Tough Love on June 11, 2020 at 8:17 am

            Quoting El gaupo ………..

            “State law also states that whatever contract is in effect when you hit 25 years in the job is the one you will get in terms of medical contributions into retirement.”

            I would like to read the details of this NJ law. Would you provide a link or the NJ statute #. Thanks.

          • Posted by E on June 11, 2020 at 2:53 pm

            Click to access fact11.pdf

            Tried to post this on the next blog. Don’t think it worked out.

          • Posted by E on June 11, 2020 at 2:54 pm

            And I see it still didn’t. Sorry.

          • Posted by Tough Love on June 11, 2020 at 6:30 pm

            E,

            Can you just post a link ?

            Also, That doesn’t look like a Law. Is thee a law or just descriptions from your benefits sties/booklets. My understanding is that healthcare isn’t protected like pensions, and while a law would have some weight, a benefits description might not mean too much.

      • Posted by rightherenow123 on June 10, 2020 at 3:16 pm

        I can just send you a link to your calculator…and how many years for you to get onto Medicare??? Nothing will change though, we get it……lol

        Reply

        • Posted by Marine1 on June 10, 2020 at 3:47 pm

          Right- No just give me the date. I’m already retired and I’m awfully scared,oh golly gee that I may run out of money. I mean if my pension took a haircut I would be nearly broke with the 1.3 mil I have saved. I’m just sooo scared. Don’t feel bad that you can’t. I have also asked TL and John Bury and they can’t give me a date either of PFRS running out of money.

          Reply

          • Posted by rightherenow123 on June 10, 2020 at 4:25 pm

            Scary to think you were a cop….glad to know your mentality has not changed.

          • Posted by Marine1 on June 10, 2020 at 9:12 pm

            Right- That’s your comeback ? “Scary to think you were a cop” as you sniffle and kick rocks with your head down like a defeated child. All I wanted you to do is provide a date of depletion for the NJPFRS with data to prove it. I mean you’re the one talking out of your hiney about haircuts. Just provide the data.

          • Posted by rightherenow123 on June 11, 2020 at 6:36 am

            It is an observation to your attitude. and It is scary to think with such, you were a cop. Your type of attitude is why so much talk of changing police is going on now. You can attack me directly all you want.

            Having said that, you have your head in the sand. btw, it was posted on here the depletion date of the PFRS in 2034. Either way, if you want to stay focused solely on that, so be it. Its is a fallacy. You are not factoring towns budgets, some cities possibly going bankrupt, healthcare reforms. Anyways, try to say something tough now.

          • Posted by Marine1 on June 11, 2020 at 9:49 am

            Right- I’m simply terrified, you have me soooooo scared for my future. 2034 ? Pssst,I’ll let you in on another secret: John Bury has never had a prediction come true on here for a depletion date. He’s been predicting dates that have come and gone for over 15 years. I’ll leave you with one last thing: I am a Marine who actually fought in battle. Do you really think after making it through battle in one piece I worry one iota about the future ? I have zero debt and have saved my whole life. Pointless to worry about what may or may not happen. Now get back to work and make something of yourself instead of being a whinny puss. Accomplish one thing. One milestone.

          • LOL, unlike you…I dont need to brag about anything. Tiny Man indeed.

          • Posted by Marine1 on June 11, 2020 at 3:07 pm

            This,Right- How many sock accounts do you have ? Can’t even keep them straight. Lol

          • Cool.

  5. Posted by Rex the Wonder Dog! 🐶🐶🐶🦴🦴🦴 on June 10, 2020 at 2:12 pm

    Congrats, #1 position on Pension Tsunami today!

    http://pensiontsunami.com/

    Reply

    • Posted by E on June 10, 2020 at 3:18 pm

      Right along side Mary Pat Campbell felling is that police pensions don’t really cost a lot of $$ for the taxpayers. Teeny weeny is a term she has used in the past.

      Reply

  6. Posted by A on June 10, 2020 at 4:47 pm

    2 percent for pensions, 4 percent total police costs; looks like police pensions could easily go to pay-go

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on June 10, 2020 at 9:29 pm

      lol ………. if it’s 2% for Police pensions and 4% for total Police costs (which would include pensions), that would mean that the cost of pension is EQUAL to all Police costs …….. including all wages, healthcare, facilities, cars, electricity, etc., etc., etc.

      Clearly your %s are wrong, and you exhibit the intelligence expected of a light-bulb-changer.

      Reply

      • Posted by Tough Love on June 10, 2020 at 9:31 pm

        Stephen, I don’t know if anyone pays you to be a mouthpiece for the Public Sector Unions, but if they do, they would be well served by replacing you with someone more intelligent.

        Reply

        • Posted by Anonymous on June 10, 2020 at 11:18 pm

          Stephen, I don’t know if anyone pays you to be a mouthpiece for the Public Sector Unions, but if they do, they would be well served by replacing you with someone more intelligent.
          They would get a MUCH bigger bang for their buck by hiring a dyslexic 5th grader 🙂

          Reply

      • Posted by A on June 11, 2020 at 12:16 am

        “Two percent of state and local budgets. That’s it for police and fire pensions. [Oh, and it includes retiree health benefits, which are also richer for police and fire than other public employees].”

        “However, as a percentage of direct general expenditures, police spending has remained consistently at just under 4 percent for the past 40 years.”

        Police AND fire pensions PLUS retiree health benefits.

        Not my %s, Mr. Love. Talk to MPC

        Reply

    • Posted by Rex the Wonder Dog! 🐶🐶🐶🦴🦴🦴 on June 10, 2020 at 11:16 pm

      2 percent for pensions, 4 percent total police costs;
      Dougie, you are dumber than a bag of fucking rocks. STFU you insolent street rat. “Public Safety” (LEO and FF) in ALL CA muni’s consume 50%-90% of the fucking budget. Now read and LEARN:

      Police and firefighters account for 80% of Vallejo’s budget, city officials say, due to soaring overtime bills and lucrative union contracts that have boosted base salaries, benefits and retirement plans. In most California cities, the average is about half the budget.
      https://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-vallejo29feb29-story.html

      Reply

  7. Posted by Sal Cardi on June 10, 2020 at 11:07 pm

    We must outlaw public employee labor unions. They lead to corruption and are not in the public interest.

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on June 11, 2020 at 8:39 pm

      Outlawing (or at least not allowing them to contribute directly or indirectly to ANY election campaign) would be a HUGH HUGE HUGE benefit to America …… as would preventing businesses from doing the same.

      Unions/business “buy” votes for often well less than 1% of the dollar value of the financial benefit to those contributing.

      It’s insane. America would be FAR better off if taxpayers simply financed all Elections (at a modest level), disallowing all other contributions (including self-funding ala Bloomberg).

      Reply

  8. Posted by Rex the Wonder Dog! 🐶🐶🐶🦴🦴🦴 on June 11, 2020 at 12:02 am

    Truth!
    Vallejo’s bankruptcy was likely only a short-term fix to its financial problems, said Michael Sweet, a California-based bankruptcy attorney at Fox Rothschild LLP.

    “The problem will continue to fester until people face up to the fact that the money available is less than promises made,” he said.

    Reply

  9. Posted by A on June 11, 2020 at 12:50 am

    “The type of people who read blogs like this do understand numbers, but it is tough to get the message out when it’s whoever has the loudest mouth on TV and can say the most outrageous things.

    In any case, no, police aren’t usually a big part of state and local budgets [especially in big cities].

    Defunding police [and police pensions] will not save a bunch of money. So don’t use that as an argument to support the idea.”

    Mary Pat Campbell

    You can buy her a cup of tea, or a whole pot. Maybe she will share with John.

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on June 11, 2020 at 10:03 am

      Stephen, I suggest you try something called THINKING instead of hunting around for something someone else said to paste here. So lets try it again ……..

      If it’s 2% for Police pensions and 4% for total Police costs (which would include pensions), that would mean that the cost of pensions is EQUAL to all Police costs …….. including all wages, healthcare, facilities, cars, electricity, etc., etc., etc.

      Do YOU really believe that to be anywhere even near reasonable ?
      ————————————
      Now, as to this comment above, El gaupo, and I discussed Police costs for a TYPICAL NJ town (with $105K in average annual “wages”) in some detail. As El gaupo pointed out, Local NJ Town Police pension costs and even Local NJ Town Total Police compensation don’t seems very burdensome when the Unit of measure is PER HOUSEHOLD. A few of those figures were:

      Taxpayer cost per household per year – pensions only = $197
      Taxpayer cost per household per year – Total Compensation = $1,082

      but when the Unit of measure is PER WORKER we have:

      Taxpayer cost per worker per year – pensions = $31,500
      Taxpayer cost per worker per year – Total Compensation = $173,050

      When you only look at the cost PER HOUSEHOLD, many would seem it burdensome (or too generous), but when you look at it PER WORKER I believe MANY would feel it too generous, and unnecessarily excessive.

      That $31, 500 annual pension cost should be compared to what a Private Sector workers (also making $105,000) typically gets from his employer in retirement security ……… 4.5% x $105,000 = $4,725.

      And a Total Compensation package for the average Town Police Officer of $173,000. Ask yourself, does the Private Sector worker with comparable experience, education, skills, and knowledge, make anywhere near that ?

      Reply

    • Posted by A on June 11, 2020 at 11:49 am

      Thinking is good. From one of the great thinkers…

      Aristotle maintained that women have fewer teeth than men; although he was twice married, it never occurred to him to verify this statement by examining his wives’ mouths.”

      From the Urban Institute…

      “Nearly all police spending (97 percent) in 2017 went toward operational costs, such as salaries and benefits. Since 1977, capital spending has never accounted for more than 5 percent of police spending.”

      There is a mix of numbers in MPCs article. The 4 percent appears to be a percentage of local *and* state spending, and is dwarfed as a percentage by spending on health, education, and welfare. The 2 percent, as I stated, was for police *and* fire pensions *and* healthcare and may or may not have included payments on the unfunded liabilities. If the payments on unfunded liabilities are included in that 2 percent (plus healthcare) yes that is reasonable.
      —————————
      An argument from authority (argumentum ab auctoritate)..

      I don’t always agree with MPCs opinions, but her research and her calculations of pension matters seem to be professional and unbiased. If anyone in the pension field were asked about credibility of MPC vs Tough Love, I doubt you would have many followers.

      In too many cases, your data seems to be pulled from the ether and tortured by your math.

      What were you THINKING?

      Reply

      • Posted by Tough Love on June 11, 2020 at 6:54 pm

        Then perhaps ……. if all you choose to contribute is copy & paste other’s work, then at least read it carefully so you don’t screw up the meaning/intent while copying & pasting.

        I have nothing but respect for Mary Pat Campbell and Jane the Actuary (Elizabeth Bauer).

        You ? Don’t make me laugh.

        Reply

      • Posted by A on June 12, 2020 at 12:05 am

        “I have nothing but respect for Mary Pat Campbell and Jane the Actuary (Elizabeth Bauer).

        You ? Don’t make me laugh.”

        Right back at you, sir.

        Police pensions are a large part of city budgets, but for the total tax burden, state plus local taxes,(and that is what really matters to the taxpayer) they are a very small percentage. Reducing police pensions will have a negligible effect on overall taxes. She has said it before, as E has reminded you. Per capita costs are between $250 and $500. Average is $354.
        Also, police pensions are more expensive than those of other public employees, mainly because of early retirement. Does that mean they are “ludicrously excessive”? No. Pensions can be reduced by increasing retirement age…
        “However, raising retirement ages would have little impact on government finances, particularly since it might involve higher wages to maintain a quality workforce.”

        Which is another way of saying: “You can pay me now, or you can pay me later”

        And, as A always says, that’s the market, whether or not you agree is irrelevant. When pay or pensions don’t keep pace, you will NOT maintain a quality workforce. Officers will move to higher paying forces or, more and more, to the private sector.

        Reply

        • Posted by Tough Love on June 12, 2020 at 12:46 am

          Police compensation ….. per capita or per household …….. are wrong bases for measurement.

          We should look at the Total Compensation of Police and ask ourselves ……. is it more than appropriate, necessary, just, and fair to taxpayers …….. by reference to the compensation of PRIVATE SECTOR* workers in jobs requiring reasonably comparable experience, education, skills, and knowledge (even though in a different field).

          If almost EVERY case , under that measure, Police compensation is grossly excessive, not primarily because of their wages, but because of their ludicrously excessive (and hence ludicrously costly) pension & benefits.

          * NOT other also over-compensated PUBLIC Sector workers

          Reply

        • Posted by A on June 12, 2020 at 1:33 am

          Still a one trick phony. You will never find ‘workers in jobs requiring reasonably comparable experience, education, skills, and knowledge (even though in a different field).’

          Beats me why an ersatz financial worker can’t understand simple supply and demand.

          Reply

          • Posted by Tough Love on June 12, 2020 at 6:55 pm

            Re-read my above post ….. what wrong with it. Be specific ?

            Supply & demand my foot ……… it’s the Unions’ BUYING the votes of those (the elected Officials) who determine their members’ wages, pensions, and benefits ….. with BRIBES disguised as campaign contributions.

  10. […] this is an article about U.S. Pensions running out of money in 8 years… And it can be found here: https://burypensions.wordpress.com/2020/06/10/ft-seven-major-us-public-pensions-to-run-out-of-money-…   • Or, here’s your snippet: “Over 320,000 members of the New Jersey Teachers and […]

    Reply

  11. Posted by Marine1 on June 11, 2020 at 3:21 pm

    How many sock accounts from the same guy do we have on here ? Obviously This and Righthere are the same guy,I suspect Rex is the same guy as well and I might even include A. It’s pretty sad,these people must have no life at all. It’s pretty pathetic.

    Reply

    • Posted by Rex the Wonder Dog! 🐶🐶🐶🦴🦴🦴🐕 🐕 🐕 on June 12, 2020 at 3:17 am

      I suspect Rex is the same guy as well and I might even include A. It’s pretty sad,these people must have no life at all. It’s pretty pathetic.
      LOL… GED Wonder, where the fuck do I send my rent check for occupying that empty brainless head of yours 🙂 🐕 🐕 🐕

      Reply

  12. Posted by A on June 11, 2020 at 3:54 pm

    This and Righ there, probably.

    Rex, no way. One of a kind.

    A was at one time Stephen Douglas. S Moderation Douglas, if you go back far enough.

    Reply

    • Right and This are both me, not sure why it posts differently. Its two different computers though…but again. not sure why it posts differently. To note though, I never reply to my original posts.

      Reply

      • Posted by A on June 11, 2020 at 7:16 pm

        One of my browsers used to autofill email and user name. None do now. I thought that had changed a few years ago at the board level (As I recall, there were a lot of Anonymouses, and John or wordpress changed some settings.)

        Reply

    • Posted by A on June 11, 2020 at 6:55 pm

      I sometimes reply to my original post, but I reply with the same name. Sometimes a post needs clarification or correction, or just needs to be broken into two posts.
      I don’t see a big problem since almost all of us are anonymous anyway. I don’t see how anyone could mistake the Wonder Dog for anyone on this blog.

      Oh, and sometimes I reply to “myself” to keep a thread going without continuously moving to the right.

      Reply

    • Posted by A on June 11, 2020 at 6:56 pm

      Is that a bad thing?

      Reply

    • Posted by Rex the Wonder Dog! 🐶🐶🐶🦴🦴🦴 on June 12, 2020 at 3:19 am

      Rex, no way. One of a kind.
      TY Dougie 🙂 We have to kiss and make up … forget about out conflicts…

      Reply

  13. Posted by MJ on June 11, 2020 at 4:05 pm

    Hi Marine 1, hope all is well. Would you mind sharing why you are retired at age 50? Disability? It sounds very young. Were you a cop in an urban or inner city area? I’m trying to understand what facilitates the need to retire at such a young age. If you don’t feel comfortable explaining it that’s fine. You’ve seen battle and that’s enough for me

    And all others, please no name calling or insults.

    Reply

    • Posted by Marine1 on June 11, 2020 at 4:42 pm

      MJ- The tier I was in allowed me to retire with 25 years any age. I worked for two different agencies during my career. It’s young,but I honestly didn’t like the direction LE was heading in the state and nationally. It sadly doesn’t look like I was wrong. Just didn’t want to deal with the attitudes,politics. Figured I have no debt ,have plenty of money saved,have money saved for my childs college. Why chance something happening ? I may go back to work , I have a BA ,just don’t know what I want to do.

      Reply

      • Posted by Rex the Wonder Dog! 🐶🐶🐶🦴🦴🦴 on June 12, 2020 at 3:21 am

        Marine1, did not know you retired, thought you were still active…???… When did this happen? And you retired at age 50>>>??? Fuck YOU 🙂

        Reply

        • Posted by Marine1 on June 12, 2020 at 8:04 am

          Rex- +1

          Reply

          • Posted by MJ on June 12, 2020 at 2:58 pm

            Rex has been posting F-you to a lot of people lately

            I wonder why?

          • Posted by Rex the Wonder Dog! 🐶🐶🐶🦴🦴🦴 on June 12, 2020 at 6:59 pm

            FU MJ, if I want your bullshit I will let you know.

          • Posted by Rex the Wonder Dog! 🐶🐶🐶🦴🦴🦴 on June 12, 2020 at 7:04 pm

            The FU to Marine1 was intended as sarcastic/funny, hence the 🙂 at the end. It was meant to show how lucky Marine1 was/is in having a 1%er gov workfare job that the rest of us in the real world, even with graduate degrees and $300K+++ of student loan debt, can only dream of. And why we are going to have civil unrest over it eventually … Oh wait, we are having that civil unrest right NOW! My bad. Because nowhere in real life, the real world, can anyone get a 1%er job ($392K/year), or close to it, with just a GED, not even close.

          • Posted by Tough Love on June 12, 2020 at 7:56 pm

            Perhaps Rex is in heat, and the hormones are driving it.

          • Posted by Marine1 on June 13, 2020 at 11:27 am

            Rex- I know you were kidding about the FU. I will say that we aren’t having civil unrest over pay or pensions for police officers. We are having civil unrest because a certain group of people who unfortunately are in our country,who have done very little to make our country better,who have taken more in welfare benefits than they have ever paid in taxes,who have committed the lions share of crime in the country,just doesn’t want to be held accountable for anything they do. I have no idea why the people that pay all taxes would allow these “people” to dictate the safety of our country but somehow it is happening. I encourage all law abiding citizens to support their police,regardless of feelings on pensions/pay and to also embrace your 2nd amendment rights. Looks like we are going to need both.

    • Posted by A on June 11, 2020 at 7:10 pm

      “Twenty and Out” used to be more common, and still exists for some jurisdictions.

      Even NYC sanitation workers (uniformed)

      “The Sanitation 20-Year Retirement Program is available ONLY
      to employees in the uniformed-force of the NYC Department of
      Sanitation. (See Allowable Service for a list of titles.)”

      If you have 20 or more years of Allowable Sanitation Service,
      regardless of age, you are eligible to receive a Service Retirement
      Benefit equal to:
      • 50% times Final Average Salary (FAS) for the first 20 years
      of Allowable Sanitation Service,
      plus
      • 1½% times Final Compensation for each year of Allowable
      Sanitation Service in excess of 20 years
      plus
      • 1% times Final Compensation for each year of Credited Service other than Allowable Sanitation Service.
      —————————————–
      Almost like the military, but with better pay. But it is a lot easier for a twenty year retiree to get a second career (A lot of military retires work for the state or city.) than it is for a fifty something retiree.

      Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on June 11, 2020 at 8:14 pm

      MJ,

      The reason NJ Police heavily choose to retire at 25 years (which is typically around age 50) is because their pension is at it’s “most valuable” point at 25 years, at which service duration NJ Police also lock-up (at least for now) Free retiree healthcare.

      Yes, police in NJ can accrue up to 30 service years, but the formula factor is lower after 25 years, and your life expectancy is shrinking. Unless you expect significant wage increases, pension-wise, it’s not worth staying. And given that in your 26th year, you can walk away with a pension of 65% of pay and no healthcare premiums ….. w/o working …. what are you incrementally taking home by actually working in the 26-th year ?

      There was no “need” for NJ to allow this, and I’m quite certain that the Union/Elected Official you-scrtatch-my-back-and-I’ll-scracth-yours underhanded deal-making had a great deal to do with it.

      I don’t mind someone choosing to retire at an early age, but the choice to do so shouldn’t be on the Taxpayers’ dime, meaning that there should be a PROPER actuarial reduction in pension amount of about 5% PER YEAR OF AGE for each year of age that Police retire before age 62.

      The LACK of an actuarial reduction for such VERY young age retirements just about DOUBLES the cost of an otherwise ALREADY-TOO-GENEROUS pension.

      Reply

  14. Posted by A on June 12, 2020 at 1:02 am

    “…because their pension is at it’s “most valuable”

    I don’t believe that’s the way real people make decisions.
    They are not ruled by a spreadsheet. There is much more that goes into the decision. My Dad had planned on working up to or beyond 65 mainly because it was ‘normal’ routine for him and most friends. A minor heart attack at age 62 convinced him to retire. He often said if he had it to do again, he would have kept working.
    I would have kept working to retire same time as my wife, but health problems changed that too. Knowing what I know now, I would have kept working too.

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on June 12, 2020 at 1:18 am

      About 2 years ago I examined (in detail) 2016 retirements from the Bergen County Police force.

      There were 16 (non-disability) retirements. The average age at retirement was exactly 52 and the average service duration was 26,64 years.

      Well, It appears that it’s ………”the way real people make decisions” ….. in NJ.
      ——————————-

      After reaching 25 years of service, Police in NJ are effectively working for about 25% of their prior compensation. Few think that makes much sense.

      Reply

    • Posted by A on June 12, 2020 at 2:43 am

      If their pensions are most valuable at 25, why stick around another year and a half? (Or two years?) Maybe other reasons.

      And 16 retirees in one year in the wealthiest County in NJ may not be a significant sample size. In 2017, the average age for recent retires statewide was 52.2 with 27.2 years of service (average pension=$79,000.)

      Reply

      • Posted by Tough Love on June 12, 2020 at 10:21 am

        Of the 16 retirees, one retired at exactly 25 years at age 61. Seems like he must have been hired just before the maximum hiring-age cutoff.

        There was one other retiree who retired at age 57 with 32.83 years of service. Looks like he retired as a Captain or Lieutenant, perhaps a late-career promotion, PARTIALLY justified hanging on (though highly doubtful it was financially beneficial unless he lives well past his tabular life expectancy).

        Exclude these two and the average retirement age (of the remaining 14) drops to 51.

        Reply

  15. Posted by A on June 12, 2020 at 12:51 pm

    This is not a critical point, I am just saying a detailed examination of 16 retirees (out of thousands) from a wealthy area is not representative. Workers are continually moving from the public sector to private, or vice versa, and as a result, many ex public workers begin to draw their pensions at age 50 (min retirement age) even though they will receive 1 percent times years instead of waiting to 62 and receiving 2 percent. Same decisions with social security.

    A spreadsheet can show optimal timing mathematically, but retirees are looking at multiple factors. Like many people shopping for cars or houses are not as concerned about total principal and finance costs. They want to know *right now* how much are the monthly payments, are they affordable?

    Reply

    • Posted by A on June 12, 2020 at 1:02 pm

      I have absolutely nothing against spreadsheets, by the way, when used correctly. In many instances, such as pensions, they are just one tool, among several, in decision making.

      Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on June 12, 2020 at 3:56 pm

      Some Public Sector workers have greater movement to the Private sector before retiring from the Public Sector. Police are generally NOT one of them due the the ridiculously generous value of staying until retirement. When they do leave before retirement, it’s almost always to another Police agency to continue to accrue service credits towards retirement.

      Reply

    • Posted by A on June 12, 2020 at 8:10 pm

      I know you don’t like copy/paste, but normally I would try to search for data on that. I do recall an article claiming about 14 percent dropout rate in the first five years, similar to teachers. I don’t actually know much about mid-career changes. But considering your preference for “original thought”, I assume you just made that shit up.

      Reply

      • Posted by Tough Love on June 12, 2020 at 8:59 pm

        Voluntary termination (to work in the Private Sector) at the earliest service duration is quite possibly higher than in the past when starting wages were better and the grade-in period to full scale was shorter.

        It would be interesting to have by-calendar-year/by-service-year grid statistics as to how many Officers voluntarily leave the Policing. I suspect (but have no data) that few leave once vested in the current DB pension Plan.

        Reply

      • Posted by A on June 13, 2020 at 8:35 am

        The Workforce Crisis, and What Police Agencies Are Doing … – Police executive Research forum

        https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.policeforum.org/assets/WorkforceCrisis.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjOzarv4f7pAhUGQTABHdaXD-QQFjAOegQICBAB&usg=AOvVaw3y8hOzJilL4bKp4rzF0gDE

        Number of voluntary resignations
        Fig.8, page 22

        n = 3,708

        Under 1 year 29%
        1-5 years 40%
        6-10 years 15%
        11-15 years 8%
        16 or more years 8%

        Figure 9: Most Common Career/Life Changes for Individuals Who Resigned Voluntarily
        page 31

        Number 1 reason: Accepting a job at a local law enforcement
        agency

        Number 2 reason: Pursuing a career outside of law
        enforcement

        Reply

        • Posted by Tough Love on June 13, 2020 at 12:14 pm

          Quoting …………

          “Number 1 reason: Accepting a job at a local law enforcement
          agency”

          Meaning ……….. that many (perhaps MOST) of those voluntary terminations were just going to another Police Agency and continuing to accrue service credits towards their unjustifiably generous pensions………… just as I sated in my earlier comment.

          Thanks for VERIFYING what I surmised.

          Reply

        • Posted by A on June 13, 2020 at 1:29 pm

          “Meaning ……….. that many (perhaps MOST) of those voluntary terminations were just going to another Police Agency…”

          LOL!!!

          READ THE DAMN PAPER !!!

          Why would they go to another agency? Perhaps for higher wages and/or benefits? Because… That’s what people do. Police agencies are reducing standards and increasing compensation, even offering “bounties” or hiring bonuses to raid other departments. Because… That’s what employers do, to attract and retain.

          And there obviously are opportunities in the private sector with better pay and/or working conditions, “requiring reasonably comparable experience, education, skills, and knowledge (even though in a different field).”

          Early retirement is here to stay. Salaries are increasing… Supply and demand.

          Why do you think PERF sponsored this survey?

          It even has CRISIS in the title.

          Why should y’all have to worry about the real world? Just give us some more of that original thinking, and make up your own facts to fit.

          One
          Trick
          Phony

          Reply

          • Posted by Tough Love on June 13, 2020 at 8:20 pm

            Stephen, We really weren’t disagreeing much………

            I said that Police vested in their pension rarely leave other than to go to another Police Agency to continue accruing service credits towards their ludicrously excessive pensions. And when they do, sure, it’s for better pay, better work-locations, better commute, etc. So what, they stick it out for the ludicrously excessive pension & benefits.

            But what they RARELY do (after the first few years where the salary is now low, and some find them unsuited for Police work), is go into the Private Sector. If you have data that proves otherwise, please share it with this Blog’s readers.

          • Posted by A on June 13, 2020 at 9:52 pm

            We are totally disagreeing.

            Current police and possible applicants are comparing pay and benefits in the public and private sectors and finding the public sector inferior. There are not enough applicants to fill the vacancies How can you call the benefits excessive?

          • Posted by Tough Love on June 14, 2020 at 12:12 am

            Stephen,

            Do you believe current police (vested and with maybe 10 years of service) can get a better deal leaving and moving to private Sector?

            If you REALLY believe that (including the giving up the ludicrously excessive pension and free retiree healthcare just 15 years away in NJ) ………. and not just BSing us ……. in either of our 2 States (CA and NJ), you must be high on drugs.

            For newer workers, they’ve got a conundrum ……… lower wages for the first 5 years or so, but at least in most places, their remains a HUGE pension & benefit advantage in the Public Sector.

            Of course with all that going on with the protests, Police work is certainly not a good “fit” for most.

          • Posted by A on June 14, 2020 at 12:33 am

            I don’t personally know any police. All I know is what I read in the papers. Nationwide. They cannot get enough replacements. Either working conditions are worse or pay is not adequate. Ludicrous as it may seem to you, pensions are not enough to entice new candidates.
            If you reduce the benefits even further, do you think that will improve recruitment?

          • Posted by Tough Love on June 14, 2020 at 7:55 am

            I believe that wages are (by far) the primary driver at recruitment, and if new worker wages were competitive with the Private Sector, YES benefits and pension could (and SHOULD) be lowered in NJ.

          • Posted by A on June 14, 2020 at 11:31 am

            Well, that settles it. Send a note to these guys:

            Police Executive Research Forum
            1120 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 930
            Washington, DC 20036
            202-466-7820
            http://www.PoliceForum.org

            Problem solved. We can all go home now.

            Also, if you can inject bleach (or sunlight) under your skin, the Covid 19 problem is gone too.

            Two for two, and Marine1 can shut down the protesters.

          • Posted by Rex the Wonder Dog! 🐶🐶🐶🦴🦴🦴 on June 19, 2020 at 3:30 pm

            Current police and possible applicants are comparing pay and benefits in the public and private sectors and finding the public sector inferior.
            You are the biggest fucking moron of all time. BULLSHIT you GED Dork! There are NO $200K-$500K GED jobs in the private sector, not even $40K GED jobs… so STFU you insolent street rat.

  16. Posted by A on June 12, 2020 at 12:56 pm

    As I recall your previous post, the question was not so much retirement age as average annual benefit. $79,000 for the state as a whole. That is with average 27 years service at 52.

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on June 12, 2020 at 4:08 pm

      How many Private Sector workers have $79K pension after only 27 years of work and collectible at age 52.

      VERY likely ………… NOBODY.

      And VERY VERY VERY few would even get half that after only 27 years of work and collectible at age 52 (and the few who do likely had pensionable wages of over $500K annually and in jobs with MUCH greater requirements and responsibilities than Police Officers).

      Police/Fire pensions (AND benefits) are nothing but an ENORMOUS ripoff of Private Sector Taxpayers

      Reply

      • Posted by Rex the Wonder Dog! 🐶🐶🐶🦴🦴🦴 on June 19, 2020 at 3:28 pm

        How many GED Private Sector workers have $79K pension after only 27 years of work and collectible at age 52.
        ZERO, that’s how many.

        Reply

  17. Posted by A on June 12, 2020 at 7:52 pm

    Figuratively speaking, you are comparing apples and oranges.

    1) Early retirement is expensive.

    2) It is a policy decision decades, if not centuries old.

    3) It is nearly universal around the world.

    4) If you want to change it, bring data, not opinion.

    5) Incessant repetition and SHOUTING hasn’t/won’t change anything.

    6) Bring the BIG spreadsheet.

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on June 12, 2020 at 8:08 pm

      Stephen ………

      Your #1: Gee who would have known. Are you tell us something we didn’t know?

      Your #2: We’ve addressed that before . Yes a “policy decision” between (a) the Unions, and (b) the Elected Officials the Unions’ own. Meaning …….. a “policy decision” to abuse the taxpayers by granting WAY WAY too generous pensions & benefits.

      Your #3 Why Universal ? Because the Unions OWN the Elected Officials almost everywhere. That why Public Sector Unions should be outlawed, or at least NOT be allowed to contribute direct or indirectly to ANY Party or Candidate up for election.

      Your #4 Changing it will require an uprising from those now being abused. Data is not needed as what’s now going on is quite obvious.

      Your #5 True.You should practice what you preach.

      Your #6 You wouldn’t understand it ….. above you pay grade.

      Reply

  18. Posted by A on June 12, 2020 at 9:18 pm

    CTRL-C CTRL-V

    “Some evidence suggests that public safety workers could work longer, which may have implications for plans’ retirement age.

    However, raising retirement ages would have little impact on government finances, particularly since it might involve higher wages to maintain a quality workforce.”

    Powerful Public Employee Unions is a hoax.

    You can ignore literally hundreds of news articles about police shortages nationwide, but that won’t make them untrue.

    LOL! “it ….. above you pay grade.”

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on June 12, 2020 at 10:32 pm

      Earth to Stephen Douglas,

      When you TAKE AWAY something that’s excessive …… BECAUSE it’s excessive ………. you don’t need to give something in return .

      Only those like YOU who support everything UNION and PUBLIC SECTOR think that way.

      Reply

    • Posted by A on June 13, 2020 at 1:25 am

      “it ….. above you pay grade.”

      Reply

    • Posted by Rex the Wonder Dog! 🐶🐶🐶🦴🦴🦴 on June 19, 2020 at 3:28 pm

      Powerful Intelligent Public Employees Unions is a hoax.
      Fixed.

      Reply

  19. Posted by A on June 13, 2020 at 5:09 am

    ” Changing it will require an uprising from those now being abused. Data is not needed as what’s now going on is quite obvious.”

    And there it is. For you, it has been quite obvious for ten years, that I am aware of, facts be damned. If/when there is an uprising, it will not be about the pensions themselves, but the unfunded liability. New Jersey, Illinois, Kentucky, Connecticut. What do they all have in common?
    If there is some form of bailout, and there will be, police and firefighters will be top of the list.
    To bellow and shit on line, all you need is a keyboard. For all else you need data and common sense.

    You ain’t got it.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: