Everything Is More Expensive

[tvguy]

Life isn’t fair.

Why would anyone go out of their way to make themselves worse off?

I shouldn’t ask that if seeing the Brexit Referendum.

Exactly. Life isn't fair, and sometimes you lose and advantage you had over others.

 

[pixiedustedme]

Well that is an issue here given that the benefit package costs the district $20,000 a year per teacher more than surrounding districts. So I think fair is still the word in play. But true, at age 61 (62 in June) I have never had a job that offered a pension or health benefits beyond your term of employment. So I have known for 44 years I would have to pay for those, and save money for that, on a salary almost exactly half what a teacher.......here.....makes. The world needs more personal responsibility.

Life in the "personal responsibility" states (that don't allow unions) and countries (with weak or nonexistent social safety nets) is not better than life in the states with strong unions and in the countries that provide universal healthcare and that take care of the elderly and poor.

Expecting someone who barely gets by during their prime to provide for 20 - 30 years of retirement and its associated health care costs is unrealistic. I'd rather our country went the Scandinavian route of planning for people's needs, rather than preaching about personal responsibility to the needy.

 

[tvguy]

Because you have no bargaining power, life is far tougher.

Employees need better bargaining power to get a bigger slice of the pie.

But in this case, every crumb of the pie is public. And there is no more pie.

 

[tvguy]

.

Expecting someone who barely gets by to provide for 30 years of retirement is unrealistic. I'd rather our country went the Scandinavian route of planning for people's needs, rather than preaching about personal responsibility to the needy.

Well, all I can say is I have been very lucky and have gotten by just fine on half the money. I was union for 11 years, and my wife has been for 40 years. Too often the Union, not the company, has been the roadblock to contract improvements.

 

[RamblingMad]

Well, all I can say is I have been very lucky and have gotten by just fine on half the money. I was union for 11 years, and my wife has been for 40 years. Too often the Union, not the company, has been the roadblock to contract improvements.

I once worked at a company, where we had employees try to start a union. We hired a law firm to help us bust it. This is exactly the nonsense that we were told to share with the employees. In order to get raises, they would have to go through costly union negotiations.

Why did we want to stop it? We would end up worse off in the long run.

This is also why we raised the minimum wage to $15 an hour. We wanted the ability to cut wages during an economic downturn. We wanted to get ahead of the legislature pushing through minimum wage increases.

Why raise the minimum wage when we have already done it?

 

[wenrob]

When we bought our house in the 80s we had a variable rate of 18-21% and had to put 20% down, and inflation was much higher than it is now, so I get tired of young people saying we had it so much better then. We paid our own way through college, worked two jobs and earned (even in real dollars) way less than people nowadays. The difference is definitely the spending, it’s just a fact no matter how you want to spin it. We started out with a tiny house not a 3000 sq ft house like first time homebuyers have to have nowadays. We drove our cars for ten years and didn’t spend hundreds of dollars a month eating out. There is definitely an entitlement attitude among many young people (not all - I’ve raised my kids to work hard for what they have and to be self reliant not spending beyond their means). So many expect to make large salaries at an entry level without putting in the work, my husband sees it every day in HR. It wasn’t a bed of roses when we started out either but we paid our dues and watched our pennies and didn’t expect someone else to pay our way.

Holy stereotyping Batman.
When did you buy your house? We bought our first in 1993, 10% fixed rate and re-fied to 8% two years later.
My parents always had two cars, they had to in order to make it work.
Maybe my DD and her friends are all the exceptions but these are some of the hardest working kids I know. They lead pretty modest lives when it comes to consumerism.

 

[barkley]

I have never had a job that offered a pension or health benefits beyond your term of employment. So I have known for 44 years I would have to pay for those, and save money for that, on a salary almost exactly half what a teacher.......here.....makes. The world needs more personal responsibility.

MANY california public employees hired in since the late 90's no longer receive any form of health benefits beyond their term of employment-i'm retired from one of their largest counties that hasn't offered this for new hires dating back years. as far as those of us that have them-kind of like the sac school district, TERRIBLE administration choices in selecting plans that lead both the retiree and former employer to grossly overpay for coverage (i would GLADLY opt for a high deducible plan or even a traditional medicare supplement plan-it would save them and me lots of money but they choose not to offer a supplement, instead a notoriously rotten full bore plan that they and i are paying out the wazoo for because 'that's what we've always used').

"So I have known for 44 years I would have to pay for those"

yes, you've known for 44 years so you've had time to plan accordingly. there are teachers who have worked the identical period of time and now find that their pensions have been grossly mismanaged such that it's questionable what they will be paid. they've not paid into social security so that safety net isn't in place (and it wasn't like it was a poor financial choice on their part not to b/c social security gets offset by their pensions).

the teachers who have been there long term have taken no less personal responsibility than you-they just honestly believed the promises their employers (the citizens of california) made to them regarding retirement benefits. it's not the fault of the teachers that the powers that be who were overseeing the management of those retirement funds/calculating future needs vs. incoming revenue did and continue to do a p-poor job at it.

 

[kymom99]

I work for the public sector (teacher) and have no bargaining power (Texas does not allow unions). We still get health insurance (average) and a pension (the saving grace of our low salary). I think if the legislature removed our pension plan, there would be a severe teacher shortage here, because our pay isn't high enough to compensate for a weak retirement plan. Ruining the state education system is a good way to get kicked out of office, so they don't mess with our pension.

Read up on what is happening in Kentucky. The government is attacking the public school system. They are attempting to bring in charter schools. The public is being fed misinformation about our pension system and those who are not public employees are turning against us. It is ugly. As you said, if they take away the pension system we will lose all our quality educators. And that is only concerning teachers. The pension system for other state employees has already been switched to a 401K style program. My husband falls under that program. Thankfully he can also draw social security. Kentucky teachers cannot get their full amount, even if they paid into that program through other employment. The amount we can get I believe is 1/3. We also cannot collect our spouse's SS if they predecease us. So our so called generous pension, to which we contribute around 13% of every paycheck, is the only thing we have to live on.

 

[tvguy]

MANY california public employees hired in since the late 90's no longer receive any form of health benefits beyond their term of employment-i'm retired from one of their largest counties that hasn't offered this for new hires dating back years. as far as those of us that have them-kind of like the sac school district, TERRIBLE administration choices in selecting plans that lead both the retiree and former employer to grossly overpay for coverage (i would GLADLY opt for a high deducible plan or even a traditional medicare supplement plan-it would save them and me lots of money but they choose not to offer a supplement, instead a notoriously rotten full bore plan that they and i are paying out the wazoo for because 'that's what we've always used').

"So I have known for 44 years I would have to pay for those"

yes, you've known for 44 years so you've had time to plan accordingly. there are teachers who have worked the identical period of time and now find that their pensions have been grossly mismanaged such that it's questionable what they will be paid. they've not paid into social security so that safety net isn't in place (and it wasn't like it was a poor financial choice on their part not to b/c social security gets offset by their pensions).

the teachers who have been there long term have taken no less personal responsibility than you-they just honestly believed the promises their employers (the citizens of california) made to them regarding retirement benefits. it's not the fault of the teachers that the powers that be who were overseeing the management of those retirement funds/calculating future needs vs. incoming revenue did and continue to do a p-poor job at it.

It certainly can vary on public sector. My started with the state last June. Once he finishes his one year probation period, he has benefits for life.

 

[kymom99]

Well that is an issue here given that the benefit package costs the district $20,000 a year per teacher more than surrounding districts. So I think fair is still the word in play. But true, at age 61 (62 in June) I have never had a job that offered a pension or health benefits beyond your term of employment. So I have known for 44 years I would have to pay for those, and save money for that, on a salary almost exactly half what a teacher.......here.....makes. The world needs more personal responsibility.

We contribute to our pension. If I could have had that 13% to invest on my own, I would probably have more money to retire on than my pension is providing me.

 

[RamblingMad]

We contribute to our pension. If I could have had that 13% to invest on my own, I would probably have more money to retire on than my pension is providing me.

My significant other has a pension that guarantees her an 8% return. Since we graduated in 99, the S&P has returned less than 6%. This is why we leave her money in her pension even though she changed employers and now utilizes a Roth IRA.

 

[tvguy]

We contribute to our pension. If I could have had that 13% to invest on my own, I would probably have more money to retire on than my pension is providing me.

Same thing folks say about Social Security. And those usually are the folks who wouldn't save a penny if it wasn't taken automatically out of their paycheck

 

[kymom99]

My significant other has a pension that guarantees her an 8% return. Since we graduated in 99, the S&P has returned less than 6%. This is why we leave her money in her pension even though she changed employers and now utilizes a Roth IRA.

If we leave education and take out our pension in the form of a lump sum, we only get the actual dollars we paid in. None of the growth from investing that money, and none of the state funding. Some people are misinformed enough (I assume that is the reason) that they take the money and go if they get out of teaching. If they let it sit long enough, they could draw a monthly distribution for life.

 

[kymom99]

Same thing folks say about Social Security. And those usually are the folks who wouldn't save a penny if it wasn't taken automatically out of their paycheck

You don't contribute 13% to SS

 

[pixiedustedme]

Yes, we pay into our pension here in Texas, too. That's typically the case. You have to pay into it (no option), and after a certain number of years, you can retire.

 

[RamblingMad]

Yes, we pay into our pension here in Texas, too. That's typically the case. You have to pay into it (no option), and after a certain number of years, you can retire.

Meanwhile folks with 401ks are at the whim of Mr Market and egregious fund fees.

 

[barkley]

So I have known for 44 years I would have to pay for those, and save money for that, on a salary almost exactly half what a teacher.......here.....makes.

seriously?

you are saying that over the past 44 years you've earned/still earn no more than $27,000 per year? because that's exactly half of what a teacher in the sac city district currently makes/tops out at from year 25 forward ($54,013*). granted, they can bump that up to $87,279* if they put in the time and money to get a master's degree but i'm guessing your job might not require one so let's just go without grad school factored in.

if you truly only make almost exactly half what a teacher 'here' (you've said in the past you're in the sac area) makes and have spent at least 25 years with the same employer (as those teachers have to in order to be at the top step of their pay scale) then i think it's evident that the teachers aren't overpaid-your industry grossly underpays to the point of not even meeting california's living wage standards.



*source-sacramento bee 4/19 publication of individual district 2018/2019 salary schedules.

 

[pixiedustedme]

you are saying that over the past 44 years you've earned/still earn no more than $27,000 per year? because that's exactly half of what a teacher in the sac city district currently makes/tops out at from year 25 forward ($54,013*). granted, they can bump that up to $87,279* if they put in the time and money to get a master's degree...

Wow! In Texas you typically get an extra $2,000 per year for having a masters' degree. Over $30,000 more in your state? Where is the "I just fainted" emoji?

 

[barkley]

Wow! In Texas you typically get an extra $2,000 per year for having a masters' degree. Over $30,000 more in your state? Where is the "I just fainted" emoji?

NOT my state. escaped over a decade ago like most public sector retirees to a lower cost of living state (one like texas that has no state income tax).

 

[pixiedustedme]

NOT my state. escaped over a decade ago like most public sector retirees to a lower cost of living state (one like texas that has no state income tax).

Texas is not a lower cost of living state, at least, not in Austin. Our property & sales taxes are killer here, in addition to the high cost of everything.