The Money Mustache Community
General Discussion => Welcome and General Discussion => Topic started by: swampwiz on February 25, 2018, 10:05:10 PM
-
Here's an article about how a hard-working woman resents folks who don't work - or choose to work in creative fields, etc., and therefore are on the bench a lot - and get the benefits of being poor (most notably these days, the ACA):
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/19/health/obamacare-premiums-medicaid.html
I think that as the Welfare State gets more entrenched, we will see more of this resentment, although perhaps since we had at least worked at an earlier stage of life, we are not resented as much as the folks who have hardly worked; already its benefits include the ACA, student grants and SNAP (sometimes). Of course, the benefits that go to the "poor" (including Roth-rich folks like Yours Truly who really are not poor) are available for anyone to take, so in essence not getting such benefits because of a higher income is simply an implicit tax that we avoid.
-
I think that as the Welfare State gets more entrenched, we will see more of this resentment, although perhaps since we had at least worked at an earlier stage of life, we are not resented as much as the folks who have hardly worked; already its benefits include the ACA, student grants and SNAP (sometimes).
In many ways the "welfare state" has been on the decline since the Nixon administration, although the ACA is a clear exception (although Nixon ironically wanted a very similar heath plan).
With that said, yes, there has been a public smear campaign against public benefits since the 70s.
-
I think that as the Welfare State gets more entrenched, we will see more of this resentment, although perhaps since we had at least worked at an earlier stage of life, we are not resented as much as the folks who have hardly worked;
I don't know. There can be quite a bit of resentment for millionaires who control their income to a level that enables them to get subsidies. I'm hoping that they'll still be available when I FIRE as they are for many of the current FIRED folks around here. In the meantime, I'm paying far more taxes than the people in the article.
-
Here's a perspective from someone who's lived and worked outside the US -
i) the US has far less social services than many developed nations (i.e. what "welfare state"?), and
ii) there's far less stigma in these other countries about receiving social benefits.
The former is interesting because even as the total cost of social benefits and its percentage of the federal budget have been increasing, they amount people in the US recieve relative to our current standard of living has gone down. As examples Medicare/medicaid is still very far from providing the full coverage offered everyone in most other countries, and payouts from SS in the US are calculated on taxable earnings and provide a rather low amount of income for those over 62/65/67. From what I've seen of the UK and Canada systems the thresholds for food assistance programs are much higher and there is a much lower burden of proof.
I'm also routinely shocked at how other societies view someone taking social benefits. In the US people who are receiving benefits are often portrayed as lazy, abusing the system, lesser-abled, or all three. In short, culturally we see needing government assistance as a moral failing (except for SS, which for some reason we've always treated as "my money!!!") . Here in Canada people that stigma isn't nearly as strong, to the point where seasonal workers will openly discuss where the 'break-even' point of getting a new job is vs. staying on government assistance. We were surprised at how many people encouraged us to take assistance programs because our income was below a certain threshold, even though we personally didn't feel like we were suffering financially.
-
Google "pension envy" -- there's many stories about people hating on public employees who have pensions (as it were some kind of welfare system!). And at least back in the days and years after the Crash, online comments on news articles about retirement saving were full of people railing against public pensions. This, despite these people all having had the same opportunity to go to work for the government as I did. This is just how people are -- envious of others' success/good fortune. It's part of the human condition and it ain't going anywhere.
-
Google "pension envy" -- there's many stories about people hating on public employees who have pensions (as it were some kind of welfare system!). And at least back in the days and years after the Crash, online comments on news articles about retirement saving were full of people railing against public pensions. This, despite these people all having had the same opportunity to go to work for the government as I did. This is just how people are -- envious of others' success/good fortune. It's part of the human condition and it ain't going anywhere.
There is a radio talk show host here in Massachusetts who refers to government employees as "blood sucking leeches."
-
Here's an article about how a hard-working woman resents folks who don't work - or choose to work in creative fields, etc., and therefore are on the bench a lot - and get the benefits of being poor (most notably these days, the ACA):
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/19/health/obamacare-premiums-medicaid.html
I think that as the Welfare State gets more entrenched, we will see more of this resentment, although perhaps since we had at least worked at an earlier stage of life, we are not resented as much as the folks who have hardly worked; already its benefits include the ACA, student grants and SNAP (sometimes). Of course, the benefits that go to the "poor" (including Roth-rich folks like Yours Truly who really are not poor) are available for anyone to take, so in essence not getting such benefits because of a higher income is simply an implicit tax that we avoid.
Of course there are people that resent the "rich" taking advantage of programs designed to help "the poor". ACA subsidies weren't designed to give people who were financially independent on their own money, they just didn't bother (or probably even think about) finding a way to ensure people couldn't "game" the system if they weren't the intended recipients of the aid. I can't blame them for thinking that "isn't right" personally. I don't fault anyone for taking advantage of the way the laws are written (and I take advantage of all legal means to benefit through the tax code etc myself), but that doesn't mean that others are going to think it's "right" for those of means to be getting "government handouts meant for the poor".
-
Google "pension envy" -- there's many stories about people hating on public employees who have pensions (as it were some kind of welfare system!). And at least back in the days and years after the Crash, online comments on news articles about retirement saving were full of people railing against public pensions. This, despite these people all having had the same opportunity to go to work for the government as I did. This is just how people are -- envious of others' success/good fortune. It's part of the human condition and it ain't going anywhere.
There is a radio talk show host here in Massachusetts who refers to government employees as "blood sucking leeches."
it truly astounds me how negatively some people view civil servants. It was only a few decades ago that working as a government employee was viewed by most as both a reputable and desireble profession
-
I see the hate for civil employee as an extension of smaller government politics. Its just an issue for the small government politicians to wedge between the parties. Never mind that these same politicians benefit disproportionately from their time in government.
-
Google "pension envy" -- there's many stories about people hating on public employees who have pensions (as it were some kind of welfare system!). And at least back in the days and years after the Crash, online comments on news articles about retirement saving were full of people railing against public pensions. This, despite these people all having had the same opportunity to go to work for the government as I did. This is just how people are -- envious of others' success/good fortune. It's part of the human condition and it ain't going anywhere.
This one always gets me. Rarely do they comment about having lower than market wage envy - I guess that side of the coin is easy to ignore.
-
Just feel I should point out that everyone doesn't have the same opportunity to work for government. Some areas have 1000's more government jobs available than others. There was even an article written arguing for moving some government agencies, such as the CDC, to try to alleviate the discrepancy a bit.
As for envy, I think that programs that help everyone, such as the proposed UBI or universal healthcare, would help this.
-
Just feel I should point out that everyone doesn't have the same opportunity to work for government. Some areas have 1000's more government jobs available than others. There was even an article written arguing for moving some government agencies, such as the CDC, to try to alleviate the discrepancy a bit.
I don't see the logic in this - different areas have different opportunities, and US citizens can freely move from one part of the country to another in search of employment. It would be like complaining that there aren't as many tech jobs in Kansas as there are in California, not as many farming jobs in New Hampshire as Florida or not as many forestry jobs in Arizona as Alaska.
Why do government workers get so much ire from certain circles when literally any qualified citizen can apply for those jobs?
-
But to answer the original question -- I don't think the average Joe even knows we exist :-)
-
Just feel I should point out that everyone doesn't have the same opportunity to work for government. Some areas have 1000's more government jobs available than others. There was even an article written arguing for moving some government agencies, such as the CDC, to try to alleviate the discrepancy a bit.
I don't see the logic in this - different areas have different opportunities, and US citizens can freely move from one part of the country to another in search of employment. It would be like complaining that there aren't as many tech jobs in Kansas as there are in California, not as many farming jobs in New Hampshire as Florida or not as many forestry jobs in Arizona as Alaska.
Why do government workers get so much ire from certain circles when literally any qualified citizen can apply for those jobs?
I believe they get the ire because government employees are the only ones with pensions and job security and guaranteed raises. There is a neighborhood in Nassau County (Long Island) where rank and file police officers make $200k. In NYC the cops make half that after about six years and many people are upset about that being that cops only need two years of college. It's pretty absurd that a cop and a teacher can make $325k combined in Long Island, with pensions and job security. And people play games with overtime to juice their pensions to astronomical levels. Meanwhile, taxes on Long Island are extremely high. So people are upset!
Governments are moving away from pensions but until they are all gone and the government workers are in the same sinking boat as the private sector employees the ire will remain.
As far as having the same opportunity, getting a teaching or policing job in Nassau County is like winning a small lottery. They used to fill one of the sportsball arenas with applicants for people wanting to be Long Island cops. Maybe they should lower the pay/benefits if the demand is so high! That is what they would do in the private sector.
$200k cops:
https://theislandnow.com/uncategorized/kings-point-police-highest-paid-in-new-york-state/
-
Just feel I should point out that everyone doesn't have the same opportunity to work for government. Some areas have 1000's more government jobs available than others. There was even an article written arguing for moving some government agencies, such as the CDC, to try to alleviate the discrepancy a bit.
I don't see the logic in this - different areas have different opportunities, and US citizens can freely move from one part of the country to another in search of employment. It would be like complaining that there aren't as many tech jobs in Kansas as there are in California, not as many farming jobs in New Hampshire as Florida or not as many forestry jobs in Arizona as Alaska.
Why do government workers get so much ire from certain circles when literally any qualified citizen can apply for those jobs?
I believe they get the ire because government employees are the only ones with pensions and job security and guaranteed raises. There is a neighborhood in Nassau County (Long Island) where rank and file police officers make $200k. In NYC the cops make half that after about six years and many people are upset about that being that cops only need two years of college. It's pretty absurd that a cop and a teacher can make $325k combined in Long Island, with pensions and job security. And people play games with overtime to juice their pensions to astronomical levels. Meanwhile, taxes on Long Island are extremely high. So people are upset!
Governments are moving away from pensions but until they are all gone and the government workers are in the same sinking boat as the private sector employees the ire will remain.
As far as having the same opportunity, getting a teaching or policing job in Nassau County is like winning a small lottery. They used to fill one of the sportsball arenas with applicants for people wanting to be Long Island cops. Maybe they should lower the pay/benefits if the demand is so high! That is what they would do in the private sector.
$200k cops:
https://theislandnow.com/uncategorized/kings-point-police-highest-paid-in-new-york-state/
Not guaranteed actually - I was in one workplace (state agency) for 5 years with no increase. I am another agency 2 years with no raise. Not all government jobs are union jobs.
-
There was even an article written arguing for moving some government agencies, such as the CDC, to try to alleviate the discrepancy a bit.
As for envy, I think that programs that help everyone, such as the proposed UBI or universal healthcare, would help this.
Just a heads-up that the CDC is located in Atlanta GA, so it's already out of the Washington, DC area.
-
There was even an article written arguing for moving some government agencies, such as the CDC, to try to alleviate the discrepancy a bit.
As for envy, I think that programs that help everyone, such as the proposed UBI or universal healthcare, would help this.
Just a heads-up that the CDC is located in Atlanta GA, so it's already out of the Washington, DC area.
Sorry, bad example then. I didn't try to find the article to quote it specifically.
-
There was even an article written arguing for moving some government agencies, such as the CDC, to try to alleviate the discrepancy a bit.
As for envy, I think that programs that help everyone, such as the proposed UBI or universal healthcare, would help this.
Just a heads-up that the CDC is located in Atlanta GA, so it's already out of the Washington, DC area.
Sorry, bad example then. I didn't try to find the article to quote it specifically.
there are many articles on the Interwebs about moving federal agencies out of DC
-
Just feel I should point out that everyone doesn't have the same opportunity to work for government. Some areas have 1000's more government jobs available than others. There was even an article written arguing for moving some government agencies, such as the CDC, to try to alleviate the discrepancy a bit.
I don't see the logic in this - different areas have different opportunities, and US citizens can freely move from one part of the country to another in search of employment. It would be like complaining that there aren't as many tech jobs in Kansas as there are in California, not as many farming jobs in New Hampshire as Florida or not as many forestry jobs in Arizona as Alaska.
Why do government workers get so much ire from certain circles when literally any qualified citizen can apply for those jobs?
The argument was that everyone had equal opportunity. I pointed out they some had the advantage of having many of these opportunities in a locale where they simply could see these opportunities, apply, and interview without having to travel away from home, or leave family support structures behind. Others have it much harder, just because of travel distance, meaning that this isn't equal opportunity.
-
There was even an article written arguing for moving some government agencies, such as the CDC, to try to alleviate the discrepancy a bit.
As for envy, I think that programs that help everyone, such as the proposed UBI or universal healthcare, would help this.
Just a heads-up that the CDC is located in Atlanta GA, so it's already out of the Washington, DC area.
Sorry, bad example then. I didn't try to find the article to quote it specifically.
there are many articles on the Interwebs about moving federal agencies out of DC
The article was on vox--thanks.
-
This is all pretty interesting, and here are my random thoughts, in no particular order.
1. Boy, Americans are often in the Protestant work ethic "WORK HARD" and "WORK HARDER" mindset. You really can't get away from it. Whether you are talking about health care, or paying for college, or food, the answer is WORK HARDER. Because I put myself through college working 5 part time jobs, and my family works 60 hours a week per person to pay for health care so that you can get it for free. And if you just WORK HARDER you won't be so damned poor. Nevermind that people have different abilities, strengths, mental states, etc.
2. I can see why someone would be pissed at paying $1000/month for insurance with a $12k deductible for a family when you are in your 20s, because let's face it, you are subsidizing the poor, injured, and elderly. Yep. But someday you too could be poor, injured or elderly. Just another reason to have universal health care.
3. I am currently reading "The Year of Living Danishly" (my MIL is Danish and she passed it on to me). Knowing some Danes and reading the book, it really is shocking - the differences when it comes to attitude about what a full work week is, work/ life balance, the social services available, etc.
4. Jobs with pensions. I am of 2 minds about this. First, it's not so easy to get these jobs - in many areas, like mine, you really need to know someone, and there's a lot of nepotism.
Second, in many (if not most), cases these are defined benefit plans and they are BROKE. So we find ourselves cutting services and increasing taxes because whomever was the person in charge of these damned things set up the benefits assuming a MUCH larger rate of gains than is happening. Yes, I am pissed at paying more when I had NOTHING to do with how they were set up. There need to be pension cuts, period.
How generous a pension is ALSO varies a lot. You see some very generous pensions in the UC system, and in police, sheriff, and fire departments. I don't really care who you are, or how dangerous your job was - I really see no reason for someone to collect 80-100% of their pension after 20-30 years of work. In no way, shape, or form, should anyone collect a pension for LONGER than they were working. Not ALL public pensions are this generous. There are plenty of teachers, federal workers, etc. whose pensions are much less generous.
So public pension overhauls are needed and they are going to vary A LOT, completely, by location and type of pension. Do you want to retire at 50 after 30 years in the sheriff's department? Fine, but you only collect for half the time you worked. (or whatever)
Totally aside, I'm not anti-government either. Had a long convo with one of my Danish friends, and the majority of jobs in Denmark are actually government jobs.
-
President Trump’s attempts to undermine the health law have exacerbated a tension at the heart of it — while it aims to provide health coverage for all, the law is far more generous to the poor and near poor than the middle class. By taking steps that hurt the individual insurance market, Mr. Trump has widened the gulf between people who pay full price for their coverage and those who get generous subsidies or free Medicaid. That, in turn, has deepened the resentment that has long simmered among many who do not qualify for government assistance toward those who do.
I think it really funny that the president & government are the ones that undermine the law for middle class people, but the poor get all the blame.
On thing that I haven't seen mentioned in the discussion is that although early retirees get subsidies, we do so by leaving a job open for someone else. I am going to be replaced at my job, and in exchange for someone getting a $100k job, I get $200 a month in subsidies. I think it's a more than fair trade. Most likely, the person that replaces me will be a spendy pants, and that money will go back into the economy in the form of lattes, SUVs, and restaurant meals.
-
I see the hate for civil employee as an extension of smaller government politics. Its just an issue for the small government politicians to wedge between the parties. Never mind that these same politicians benefit disproportionately from their time in government.
I think that the source of resentment is more about the perception that public service unions get sweetheart deals because they are in effect negotiating with themselves, in that the politicians are highly motivated to make the public service unions happy.
The foundation for fair negotiations is that both parties should be motivated to protect their own interests. It should be adversarial. In the model of public service union negotiations, the politicians arent really the ones who are on the hook for the expense, so they aren't really negotiating on behalf of the taxpayers, leaving the taxpayer to pay the bill when they had no voice in the negotiation.
This disconnect in the context of public sector unions was obvious even to Franklin Roosevelt who said: “The process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service.”
The costs are usually far down the road, so the politicians who negotiate the deal arent going to pay the political price later when it all falls apart. Look at the tremendous unfunded / underfunded state and municipal pension / healthcare issue that the country faces.
So in the case of public servants, i think the fact is that people understand that they have to pay fr that largesse in the form of higher taxes and fees, etc. Contrast that with someone who may have a fantastic private sector job/pension. Folks might be envious, but at least they arent the ones paying the bill, or at least they arent forced to pay the bill.
This isn't to say that all or even most public servants are getting these kind of deals. Im sure it is a minority.
-edited to add the Roosevelt quote, as referenced in George Will's column today on the pending Supreme Court case
-
It probably boils down to what each individual thinks is 'fair'.
Unfortunately no two will likely agree.
I guess personally, I'm about effort. If one has already.... or continues to seriously TRY to contribute to society, I'm OK with more liberal social support systems. Are we doing a good job keeping the overwhelming majority of folks honest?
Its the (hopefully) few who knowingly abuse or de-fraud that cause so much frustration. 'Bad apple' syndrome?
What is a 'fair share' paid in though? I too take deductions and will hopefully pay lower taxes in retirement. I'm not sure I'd personally choose to accept SNAP if i qualified though. i guess we will all have a line in the sand, ethics wise.
-
Do I think people who feel trapped in their cubicles worrying about how to make it until payday are envious and resentful of those who can do as they please with their time and not worry about paying their bills? Yeah. I think a lot of them are. But I also don't think most people have anything close to a clear picture of what it means to retire early... or for that matter, an understanding of what it is to make disciplined, forward thinking financial decisions. For instance, when I bought my first house, I had a lot of friends and co-workers who thought I was super lucky to be able to afford to buy a house. But exactly non of those friends and coworkers had thought I was super lucky while I was staying home and cooking for myself instead of spending too much of my paycheck bar hopping with them on Friday nights. I think too many people see frugality as pointless, and wealth as purely luck. So while there may be people envious of certain parts of our life (not stressed about bills, not sitting in a cubicle) they likely aren't envious of us, and may even look down on us, when we drive an older car, live in a smaller home or forego certain expensive hobbies and vacations. Too many people simply don't see the connection between frugality, wealth, freedom and happiness. They observe all of those elements individually, but still probably see our frugality as depressing and our wealth is luck.
As for qualification for public services - I still really don't think the average person understands the financial picture of an early retiree enough to form a solid opinion about that. Most of us live modestly, so they probably don't think we're really rich. Maybe they understand that we have some savings, or maybe they think we're collecting unemployment. Or maybe they think we came into a lot of money and are spending our way through it until we're broke again. But probably very few of them would ever guess that we earned more than we spent, saving and investing rigerously for years and years, until our investments could support us indefinitely. They'd likely never guess any of that, because it's not even on their radar. So if they even know how much we pay for health insurance, and whether we qualify for subsidies under the ACA, it's not likely they've formed a really thorough opinion about our net worth and how much income that translates into.
-
It probably boils down to what each individual thinks is 'fair'.
Unfortunately no two will likely agree.
I think you have hit the nail on the head. As the song goes "I don't want the world / I just want your half". Comparison is the thief of joy, and sometimes the root of envy.
As to the original topic, I will take a cop-out and answer "It depends". Some folks can appreciate long term planning and dedication to a goal, while others do not.
-
Slee_Stack hit the nail on the head in regards to public pensions. The taxpayers are the ones footing the bill for these employees. The best way to determine any employee's salary and benefits is by allowing the free market to dictate it. The problem with government jobs is that a lot of the times the pensions and salaries become overly inflated because the person deciding to up the salaries is not the person footing the bill, and they aren't looking at replacement cost.
-
Google "pension envy" -- there's many stories about people hating on public employees who have pensions (as it were some kind of welfare system!). And at least back in the days and years after the Crash, online comments on news articles about retirement saving were full of people railing against public pensions. This, despite these people all having had the same opportunity to go to work for the government as I did. This is just how people are -- envious of others' success/good fortune. It's part of the human condition and it ain't going anywhere.
I say this as a current union member.
The reason I as a tax payer absolutely hate government unions and their pay and benefit plans is because as a tax payer I have ZERO choice in using their services.
If my union raises pay/benefits to untenable levels what happens? The company goes bankrupt as costs sky rocket and customers bolt for a lower cost/better solution. In other cases the company just shuts down factories and moves them either to the south or to another country.
There is a natural check and balance, we can raise pay but only so much, as competition puts a stop to it.
A government has no checks/balances, this is why places that use government employees to pick up garbage pay them six figures a year plus pension and medical. For a $10/hr job.
In addition, government buys off employees by giving raises and benefits in exchange for votes, this was exactly what happened in NJ with the previous governor as they gave teachers raise after raise.
CA can get away with it for now, because of the weather, people will pay almost anything to live there.
Other states? They continue to raise taxes and as this goes on people continue to flee toward southern states with less onerous cost structures.
-
Here's an article about how a hard-working woman resents folks who don't work - or choose to work in creative fields, etc., and therefore are on the bench a lot - and get the benefits of being poor (most notably these days, the ACA):
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/19/health/obamacare-premiums-medicaid.html
I think that as the Welfare State gets more entrenched, we will see more of this resentment, although perhaps since we had at least worked at an earlier stage of life, we are not resented as much as the folks who have hardly worked; already its benefits include the ACA, student grants and SNAP (sometimes). Of course, the benefits that go to the "poor" (including Roth-rich folks like Yours Truly who really are not poor) are available for anyone to take, so in essence not getting such benefits because of a higher income is simply an implicit tax that we avoid.
That "opera singer" exhibits all that is wrong about communism. She does the bare minimum in order to get full government subsidies. She contributes practically zero to society and has no intention to do so...she even dropped out after going to college for...singing? Seriously? Hey, at least she is paying off her student loans. Good for her.
Compare that to the couple that are hustling to make ends meet. It's outright infuriating comparing the two.
This is what happens when you incentivize the wrong behavior. You get people doing nothing but costing society.
Compare that to an early retiree...they hustled their ass off for years saving and investing. No, the two are nowhere alike. That being said I disagree they should get a subsidy either.
I'm all for universal basic healthcare. You break an arm, need stitches, get appendicitis, you should have access to healthcare and not have to pay. Beyond that if you want access to life extending terminal illness treatments, major surgeries like knee replacement etc you need to buy a rider.
America didn't get to be the leader of the world in 150 years since birth by doing the bare minimum. We hustle, it's in our DNA. We need more of it not less.
-
Slee_Stack hit the nail on the head in regards to public pensions. The taxpayers are the ones footing the bill for these employees. The best way to determine any employee's salary and benefits is by allowing the free market to dictate it. The problem with government jobs is that a lot of the times the pensions and salaries become overly inflated because the person deciding to up the salaries is not the person footing the bill, and they aren't looking at replacement cost.
Isn't the anger here misplaced, though? The federal pay-scale and benefits are set by each agency, which in turn is determined by the budget allocated by congress. A similar process occurs at the state level. Blaming the worker for applying for, getting and then working at a job for 20-25 years just doesn't make sense to me.
I also don't agree with the notion that a pension (public or private) should not last longer than the number of years worked. By its very nature it's supposed to provide a reliable income stream until death. If a person dies with no dependents a year after quitting, well that sucks for him/her and the company/government saves money on that individual. If he/she lives to be 102 the payouts have to last as long. That's inherent in the contract the worker agreed to (and was serially updated) when they took the job in the first place. If you think the system should be changed that's fine, but getting angry that others chose this and you didn't seems like sour grapes.
FWIW, all of this is reminiscent of the talking points used to push 401(k)s and IRAs when they first became available. Workers would be able to 'control their own money' and 'invest as they saw fit' without locking them to one empoyer for a quarter-century. Self-directed retirement accounts would allow workers to use as little or as much of their money as they wished each year, and upon their demise they could gift the remainder to whomever they liked in their will. A
-
Nobody looking at salaries plus what the gov't pays into the pension fund per month?
Is it ridiculous if the state is paying a lowish salary and then paying $12K into a pension fund for that employee?
-
I think you have hit the nail on the head. As the song goes "I don't want the world / I just want your half".
Thank you for knowing this song.
-
I think you have hit the nail on the head. As the song goes "I don't want the world / I just want your half".
Thank you for knowing this song.
reference please?
-
I think you have hit the nail on the head. As the song goes "I don't want the world / I just want your half".
Thank you for knowing this song.
reference please?
The song is "Ana Ng" by They Might Be Giants.
-
I think the number of ERers is so few and far apart that it just isn't on anyone's radar.
-
Slee_Stack hit the nail on the head in regards to public pensions. The taxpayers are the ones footing the bill for these employees. The best way to determine any employee's salary and benefits is by allowing the free market to dictate it. The problem with government jobs is that a lot of the times the pensions and salaries become overly inflated because the person deciding to up the salaries is not the person footing the bill, and they aren't looking at replacement cost.
Isn't the anger here misplaced, though? The federal pay-scale and benefits are set by each agency, which in turn is determined by the budget allocated by congress. A similar process occurs at the state level. Blaming the worker for applying for, getting and then working at a job for 20-25 years just doesn't make sense to me.
Totally agree with your sentiment, but the bolded is slightly off. Office of Personnel Management sets one pay scale for the whole federal government. Variations in pay are due to locality pay (a GS-12 in DC will make more than one in Atlanta) and step (based, mainly, on a how longer a worker has been at their grade level). Agencies have no discretion in pay scales.
-
Here's an article about how a hard-working woman resents folks who don't work - or choose to work in creative fields, etc., and therefore are on the bench a lot - and get the benefits of being poor (most notably these days, the ACA):
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/19/health/obamacare-premiums-medicaid.html
I think that as the Welfare State gets more entrenched, we will see more of this resentment, although perhaps since we had at least worked at an earlier stage of life, we are not resented as much as the folks who have hardly worked; already its benefits include the ACA, student grants and SNAP (sometimes). Of course, the benefits that go to the "poor" (including Roth-rich folks like Yours Truly who really are not poor) are available for anyone to take, so in essence not getting such benefits because of a higher income is simply an implicit tax that we avoid.
We seem to have hit a point where a very large percentage of people resent a very large percentage of people, so sure.
-
Slee_Stack hit the nail on the head in regards to public pensions. The taxpayers are the ones footing the bill for these employees. The best way to determine any employee's salary and benefits is by allowing the free market to dictate it. The problem with government jobs is that a lot of the times the pensions and salaries become overly inflated because the person deciding to up the salaries is not the person footing the bill, and they aren't looking at replacement cost.
Isn't the anger here misplaced, though? The federal pay-scale and benefits are set by each agency, which in turn is determined by the budget allocated by congress. A similar process occurs at the state level. Blaming the worker for applying for, getting and then working at a job for 20-25 years just doesn't make sense to me.
Totally agree with your sentiment, but the bolded is slightly off. Office of Personnel Management sets one pay scale for the whole federal government. Variations in pay are due to locality pay (a GS-12 in DC will make more than one in Atlanta) and step (based, mainly, on a how longer a worker has been at their grade level). Agencies have no discretion in pay scales.
Hillary won in DC getting 91% of the vote. That should tell you a lot about how much the federal employees depend on that side to continue giving them raises in exchange for votes.
-
Slee_Stack hit the nail on the head in regards to public pensions. The taxpayers are the ones footing the bill for these employees. The best way to determine any employee's salary and benefits is by allowing the free market to dictate it. The problem with government jobs is that a lot of the times the pensions and salaries become overly inflated because the person deciding to up the salaries is not the person footing the bill, and they aren't looking at replacement cost.
Isn't the anger here misplaced, though? The federal pay-scale and benefits are set by each agency, which in turn is determined by the budget allocated by congress. A similar process occurs at the state level. Blaming the worker for applying for, getting and then working at a job for 20-25 years just doesn't make sense to me.
"Anger" might be too strong a word here. And to be clear, for myself, I am not angry toward the individual worker who takes advantage of something that is offered. I would do the same. But as a taxpayer, I do resent the model. And more importantly, I believe it is totally unsustainable and that these agreements will not be honored because the math simply doesn't work. When a city pays more each year for retired cops than it does for working cops, that's not sustainable. It will collapse, eventually. And then all of those people who are counting on these pensions and health care coverage will really be in a bad place. It does no one any favors to promise something that can't be honored.
I also don't agree with the notion that a pension (public or private) should not last longer than the number of years worked. By its very nature it's supposed to provide a reliable income stream until death.
I think it is more about the pensions that begin immediately after the 20 or 25 year anniversary. I have an associate that 'retired' from a county job at 45 and now draws a pension. This isn't for a physical job like fireman or cop. This is typical office worker. If that pension didn't start until something closer to a normal retirement age (55 maybe?) then it would be easier to swallow.
The question was about resentments toward early retirees. I do think that the nature of taxpayer funded early retirement is something that by its nature breeds resentment. Rightly or wrongly.
-
Slee_Stack hit the nail on the head in regards to public pensions. The taxpayers are the ones footing the bill for these employees. The best way to determine any employee's salary and benefits is by allowing the free market to dictate it. The problem with government jobs is that a lot of the times the pensions and salaries become overly inflated because the person deciding to up the salaries is not the person footing the bill, and they aren't looking at replacement cost.
Isn't the anger here misplaced, though? The federal pay-scale and benefits are set by each agency, which in turn is determined by the budget allocated by congress. A similar process occurs at the state level. Blaming the worker for applying for, getting and then working at a job for 20-25 years just doesn't make sense to me.
Totally agree with your sentiment, but the bolded is slightly off. Office of Personnel Management sets one pay scale for the whole federal government. Variations in pay are due to locality pay (a GS-12 in DC will make more than one in Atlanta) and step (based, mainly, on a how longer a worker has been at their grade level). Agencies have no discretion in pay scales.
Hillary won in DC getting 91% of the vote. That should tell you a lot about how much the federal employees depend on that side to continue giving them raises in exchange for votes.
What? Many DC-based federal workers likely live in MD or VA. Plus Congress sets whether their are cost-of-living adjustments, not the President. Finally (and more to your point), not all feds are liberals: http://www.govexec.com/oversight/2015/08/there-are-more-republicans-federal-government-you-might-think/119138/
-
Slee_Stack hit the nail on the head in regards to public pensions. The taxpayers are the ones footing the bill for these employees. The best way to determine any employee's salary and benefits is by allowing the free market to dictate it. The problem with government jobs is that a lot of the times the pensions and salaries become overly inflated because the person deciding to up the salaries is not the person footing the bill, and they aren't looking at replacement cost.
Isn't the anger here misplaced, though? The federal pay-scale and benefits are set by each agency, which in turn is determined by the budget allocated by congress. A similar process occurs at the state level. Blaming the worker for applying for, getting and then working at a job for 20-25 years just doesn't make sense to me.
Totally agree with your sentiment, but the bolded is slightly off. Office of Personnel Management sets one pay scale for the whole federal government. Variations in pay are due to locality pay (a GS-12 in DC will make more than one in Atlanta) and step (based, mainly, on a how longer a worker has been at their grade level). Agencies have no discretion in pay scales.
thanks for the correction.
-
Slee_Stack hit the nail on the head in regards to public pensions. The taxpayers are the ones footing the bill for these employees. The best way to determine any employee's salary and benefits is by allowing the free market to dictate it. The problem with government jobs is that a lot of the times the pensions and salaries become overly inflated because the person deciding to up the salaries is not the person footing the bill, and they aren't looking at replacement cost.
Isn't the anger here misplaced, though? The federal pay-scale and benefits are set by each agency, which in turn is determined by the budget allocated by congress. A similar process occurs at the state level. Blaming the worker for applying for, getting and then working at a job for 20-25 years just doesn't make sense to me.
Totally agree with your sentiment, but the bolded is slightly off. Office of Personnel Management sets one pay scale for the whole federal government. Variations in pay are due to locality pay (a GS-12 in DC will make more than one in Atlanta) and step (based, mainly, on a how longer a worker has been at their grade level). Agencies have no discretion in pay scales.
Hillary won in DC getting 91% of the vote. That should tell you a lot about how much the federal employees depend on that side to continue giving them raises in exchange for votes.
As a long-time DC native I think you've misread the tea leaves here. DC is a strongly international and majority black city. Obama '08 got 93%, Gore '00 got 89%, etc. But most of the federal workforce does not live in DC - about 180,000 live in VA; 150,000 live in MD. In contrast, about 142,000 live in DC itself. If you add government contractors to the mix, it overwhelmingly flows to VA and MD where you've got the Pentagon, Lockheed Martin (VA), General Dynamics (VA), Northrop Grumman (VA) etc. Which of course brings in the military, the government employees with the most clout and the ones that voted 2:1 for Trump.
If you just look at race nation-wide, DJT got about 8% of the vote (HRC got 88% and 4% declined to answer). Its not really surprising that a city where half the population is black continued to back the democratic candidate.
-
I think that the source of resentment is more about the perception that public service unions get sweetheart deals because they are in effect negotiating with themselves, in that the politicians are highly motivated to make the public service unions happy.
The foundation for fair negotiations is that both parties should be motivated to protect their own interests. It should be adversarial. In the model of public service union negotiations, the politicians arent really the ones who are on the hook for the expense, so they aren't really negotiating on behalf of the taxpayers, leaving the taxpayer to pay the bill when they had no voice in the negotiation.
This disconnect in the context of public sector unions was obvious even to Franklin Roosevelt who said: “The process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service.”
The costs are usually far down the road, so the politicians who negotiate the deal arent going to pay the political price later when it all falls apart. Look at the tremendous unfunded / underfunded state and municipal pension / healthcare issue that the country faces.
So in the case of public servants, i think the fact is that people understand that they have to pay fr that largesse in the form of higher taxes and fees, etc. Contrast that with someone who may have a fantastic private sector job/pension. Folks might be envious, but at least they arent the ones paying the bill, or at least they arent forced to pay the bill.
^^^^^^ This. That is pretty much what I was going to say. And right, it's the health care benefits as well as the pensions.
I say this as a current union member.
The reason I as a tax payer absolutely hate government unions and their pay and benefit plans is because as a tax payer I have ZERO choice in using their services.
If my union raises pay/benefits to untenable levels what happens? The company goes bankrupt as costs sky rocket and customers bolt for a lower cost/better solution. In other cases the company just shuts down factories and moves them either to the south or to another country.
There is a natural check and balance, we can raise pay but only so much, as competition puts a stop to it.
A government has no checks/balances, this is why places that use government employees to pick up garbage pay them six figures a year plus pension and medical. For a $10/hr job.
In addition, government buys off employees by giving raises and benefits in exchange for votes, this was exactly what happened in NJ with the previous governor as they gave teachers raise after raise.
CA can get away with it for now, because of the weather, people will pay almost anything to live there.
Other states? They continue to raise taxes and as this goes on people continue to flee toward southern states with less onerous cost structures.
Yes, very well said. These overly promised under-funded government pensions and healthcare benefits are bankrupting the state I live in.
-
Slee_Stack hit the nail on the head in regards to public pensions. The taxpayers are the ones footing the bill for these employees. The best way to determine any employee's salary and benefits is by allowing the free market to dictate it. The problem with government jobs is that a lot of the times the pensions and salaries become overly inflated because the person deciding to up the salaries is not the person footing the bill, and they aren't looking at replacement cost.
Isn't the anger here misplaced, though? The federal pay-scale and benefits are set by each agency, which in turn is determined by the budget allocated by congress. A similar process occurs at the state level. Blaming the worker for applying for, getting and then working at a job for 20-25 years just doesn't make sense to me.
Totally agree with your sentiment, but the bolded is slightly off. Office of Personnel Management sets one pay scale for the whole federal government. Variations in pay are due to locality pay (a GS-12 in DC will make more than one in Atlanta) and step (based, mainly, on a how longer a worker has been at their grade level). Agencies have no discretion in pay scales.
Hillary won in DC getting 91% of the vote. That should tell you a lot about how much the federal employees depend on that side to continue giving them raises in exchange for votes.
As a long-time DC native I think you've misread the tea leaves here. DC is a strongly international and majority black city. Obama '08 got 93%, Gore '00 got 89%, etc. But most of the federal workforce does not live in DC - about 180,000 live in VA; 150,000 live in MD. In contrast, about 142,000 live in DC itself. If you add government contractors to the mix, it overwhelmingly flows to VA and MD where you've got the Pentagon, Lockheed Martin (VA), General Dynamics (VA), Northrop Grumman (VA) etc. Which of course brings in the military, the government employees with the most clout and the ones that voted 2:1 for Trump.
If you just look at race nation-wide, DJT got about 8% of the vote (HRC got 88% and 4% declined to answer). Its not really surprising that a city where half the population is black continued to back the democratic candidate.
Right. Add to that the fact that people who live in DC, especially whites, are highly educated. 98% (!) of voting whites have a bachelor's degree or higher and according to exit polls highly educated voters were much more likely to vote for HRC:
https://ggwash.org/view/42563/dc-has-almost-no-white-residents-without-college-degrees-its-a-different-story-for-black-residents
Nearly half the population black + more than half the population highly educated = low votes for DJT. It wasn't gonna happen any other way and I doubt public union membership had much of anything to do with it.
-
Great move on the part of the elites to try to get middle class people to take their anger out on poor people and public employees, instead of questioning the mechanisms behind the huge increase in wealth inequality. Early retirees are so rare that most people probably don't have an opinion either way. Americans love success stories, which is why actors and sports players can get away with having multi million dollar salaries while teachers barely make a living wage. The rest of us are, to paraphrase, doing the dumb things we gotta do to touch the puppet head.
-
Great move on the part of the elites to try to get middle class people to take their anger out on poor people and public employees, instead of questioning the mechanisms behind the huge increase in wealth inequality. Early retirees are so rare that most people probably don't have an opinion either way. Americans love success stories, which is why actors and sports players can get away with having multi million dollar salaries while teachers barely make a living wage. The rest of us are, to paraphrase, doing the dumb things we gotta do to touch the puppet head.
Can't tell if serious...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenmeyer/2011/12/22/the-teacher-salary-myth-are-teachers-underpaid/#38548e7b3137
-
Can't tell if serious...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenmeyer/2011/12/22/the-teacher-salary-myth-are-teachers-underpaid/#38548e7b3137
Yikes. If there was any doubt where this author's underlying philosophy was coming from, he pretty much summed it up in this sentence:
The government enforces a school monopoly in which I have to pay for the public schools, whether I have kids in their schools or not. I am thus required by law to pay public school salaries.
..then he goes on to compare "compensation per working hour" which for the teachers basically means only when school is in session. His weak rebuttal is a rhetorical: "are teachers more likely to take work home than are other professionals?"
What's glaringly missing is the actual salaries of teachers - which is what most people base their income off of, not compensation per working hour.
-
Great move on the part of the elites to try to get middle class people to take their anger out on poor people and public employees, instead of questioning the mechanisms behind the huge increase in wealth inequality. Early retirees are so rare that most people probably don't have an opinion either way. Americans love success stories, which is why actors and sports players can get away with having multi million dollar salaries while teachers barely make a living wage. The rest of us are, to paraphrase, doing the dumb things we gotta do to touch the puppet head.
Can't tell if serious...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenmeyer/2011/12/22/the-teacher-salary-myth-are-teachers-underpaid/#38548e7b3137
And if those teachers feel underpaid, they can get themselved onto the "packing heat" bonus track! They have nothing to complain about right?
-
This is definitely a payscale from somewhere besides flyover country.
-
I find the article a bit disingenuous, in that they do not report that as a contractor, you are self employed, and as thus, you are able to write off all costs of health insurance for the family, which also lowers the amount of tax they have to pay.
-
Is the post title "Do you think the working public resents those with a pension?"? I'm confused by focus on teachers, first responders, and local, state, and federal government employees - especially for the federal employees and their pensions.
CSRS, the old federal pension system, was set up during the Roaring 20's (a growth economy). It survived the Great Depression and flourished with all the economic growth during and after World War II. Lawmakers changed that in the 1980s. This was reasonable as we were in no longer in as much a growth economy as we are more of a stable one and the decision was made before the system collapsed or too late (cough cough Illinois cough cough). Voila, FERS pension system was born. It is fully funded and expected to be for the next 75 years. The last round of employee pension contribution increases (from 0.8% for 1984 to 2012 to 3.1% in 2013 and 4.4% in 2014 and onward) with no benefit increase will probably lead to a runaway positive asset balance. For example FY 2015 saw 115.2 billion in income for the CSRDF (this is the fund that pays out CSRS and FERS beneficiaries) with expenses of 82.7 billion with total assets of 923.4 billion. In 2020 this is estimated to be 1104.7 billion in assets with 137.0 billion in inflows and 98.8 billion in outflows. Keep in mind that with each passing year more and more of the outflows are shifting away from the CSRS system (unsustainable today) and being replaced by the highly solvent FERS - meaning the balance will likely keep increasing for the foreseeable future.
If taxpayers (of which all those with a pension are included in that group) are angry at paying for unsustainable pensions, which is a very warranted and just position to take in certain situations, the federal system should not be your focus as it is in great financial shape.
Anyway, I'm in the working public. Those that have retired early, I do not resent you. Those that legitimately follow the rules regardless of how robust the means testing is and receive government payouts, I do not resent you. Good on you for using the resources available to you. If too large of a proportion receive assistance to the detriment of the rest of society, then we can change the rules. Those that commit fraud in order to receive government payouts, I resent you.
-
Slee_Stack hit the nail on the head in regards to public pensions. The taxpayers are the ones footing the bill for these employees. The best way to determine any employee's salary and benefits is by allowing the free market to dictate it. The problem with government jobs is that a lot of the times the pensions and salaries become overly inflated because the person deciding to up the salaries is not the person footing the bill, and they aren't looking at replacement cost.
What field are you in? Because in the software, engineering, accounting, law, and medicine fields the government consistently pays less than a competitive salary, AFAIK (I'm in software). Because of this you will often see projects contracted out to private firms with HUGE markups, because they can't attract direct hires.
-
Great move on the part of the elites to try to get middle class people to take their anger out on poor people and public employees, instead of questioning the mechanisms behind the huge increase in wealth inequality. Early retirees are so rare that most people probably don't have an opinion either way. Americans love success stories, which is why actors and sports players can get away with having multi million dollar salaries while teachers barely make a living wage. The rest of us are, to paraphrase, doing the dumb things we gotta do to touch the puppet head.
Can't tell if serious...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenmeyer/2011/12/22/the-teacher-salary-myth-are-teachers-underpaid/#38548e7b3137
I have a friend in Texas who is a teacher and her salary is crap. She passed the national standards test and has been teaching since 1992. Probably going to have to move for retirement because her retirement plan is also crap AND she lives in Austin so her prop taxes are skyrocketing.
-
Great move on the part of the elites to try to get middle class people to take their anger out on poor people and public employees, instead of questioning the mechanisms behind the huge increase in wealth inequality. Early retirees are so rare that most people probably don't have an opinion either way. Americans love success stories, which is why actors and sports players can get away with having multi million dollar salaries while teachers barely make a living wage. The rest of us are, to paraphrase, doing the dumb things we gotta do to touch the puppet head.
Can't tell if serious...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenmeyer/2011/12/22/the-teacher-salary-myth-are-teachers-underpaid/#38548e7b3137
I have a friend in Texas who is a teacher and her salary is crap. She passed the national standards test and has been teaching since 1992. Probably going to have to move for retirement because her retirement plan is also crap AND she lives in Austin so her prop taxes are skyrocketing.
Which is why salary is the metric which should be used whenever comparing full time professions, not 'compensation per [billable] hour.'
In May 2014, there were around 4 million preschool, primary, secondary, and special education teachers in the United States. The average annual wage for these teachers was $55,510.
Source BLS. (https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2015/employment-and-annual-wages-for-preschool-primary-middle-and-secondary-school-teachers.htm)
-
Slee_Stack hit the nail on the head in regards to public pensions. The taxpayers are the ones footing the bill for these employees. The best way to determine any employee's salary and benefits is by allowing the free market to dictate it. The problem with government jobs is that a lot of the times the pensions and salaries become overly inflated because the person deciding to up the salaries is not the person footing the bill, and they aren't looking at replacement cost.
Isn't the anger here misplaced, though? The federal pay-scale and benefits are set by each agency, which in turn is determined by the budget allocated by congress. A similar process occurs at the state level. Blaming the worker for applying for, getting and then working at a job for 20-25 years just doesn't make sense to me.
Totally agree with your sentiment, but the bolded is slightly off. Office of Personnel Management sets one pay scale for the whole federal government. Variations in pay are due to locality pay (a GS-12 in DC will make more than one in Atlanta) and step (based, mainly, on a how longer a worker has been at their grade level). Agencies have no discretion in pay scales.
Hillary won in DC getting 91% of the vote. That should tell you a lot about how much the federal employees depend on that side to continue giving them raises in exchange for votes.
Really? Because "that side" froze my wages for three years not too long ago. Because, you know, that side actually does real shit to contain the budget whereas the other side talks mad game and spends like drunken fucking sailors.
-
hmm, this discussion is really different than what the subject line suggests. Seems like you're all discussing whether the public resents public service retirees.....I was expecting a discussion more about general early retirees and the general public.....more along the lines of how early retirees are 'lucky'. How people resent folks who planned and saved and are now enjoying the fruits of their labour.
And while I'm jealous of the DB pension 'government' workers get, I always remember that they are usually paying at least 10% of their salary into it, and have done so since day one.
-
And while I'm jealous of the DB pension 'government' workers get, I always remember that they are usually paying at least 10% of their salary into it, and have done so since day one.
Not to derail too much more, but not all government employees receive defined benefit pensions anymore. Also, some have a choice and choose defined contribution (my girlfriend included - because not all government jobs have job security, and if you get laid off after 4 years your DB pension is worth 0).
-
Great move on the part of the elites to try to get middle class people to take their anger out on poor people and public employees, instead of questioning the mechanisms behind the huge increase in wealth inequality. Early retirees are so rare that most people probably don't have an opinion either way. Americans love success stories, which is why actors and sports players can get away with having multi million dollar salaries while teachers barely make a living wage. The rest of us are, to paraphrase, doing the dumb things we gotta do to touch the puppet head.
Can't tell if serious...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenmeyer/2011/12/22/the-teacher-salary-myth-are-teachers-underpaid/#38548e7b3137
I have a friend in Texas who is a teacher and her salary is crap. She passed the national standards test and has been teaching since 1992. Probably going to have to move for retirement because her retirement plan is also crap AND she lives in Austin so her prop taxes are skyrocketing.
My step-mom is a retired teacher from GA. Her experience is quite the opposite. She is EXTREMELY comfortable.
Obviously, there will be many people across the spectrum.
Once upon a time, the general public was sold on a 'woe the poor teacher' pitch....but perhaps that might have been exaggerated a bit?
-
Great move on the part of the elites to try to get middle class people to take their anger out on poor people and public employees, instead of questioning the mechanisms behind the huge increase in wealth inequality. Early retirees are so rare that most people probably don't have an opinion either way. Americans love success stories, which is why actors and sports players can get away with having multi million dollar salaries while teachers barely make a living wage. The rest of us are, to paraphrase, doing the dumb things we gotta do to touch the puppet head.
Can't tell if serious...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenmeyer/2011/12/22/the-teacher-salary-myth-are-teachers-underpaid/#38548e7b3137
I have a friend in Texas who is a teacher and her salary is crap. She passed the national standards test and has been teaching since 1992. Probably going to have to move for retirement because her retirement plan is also crap AND she lives in Austin so her prop taxes are skyrocketing.
My step-mom is a retired teacher from GA. Her experience is quite the opposite. She is EXTREMELY comfortable.
Obviously, there will be many people across the spectrum.
Once upon a time, the general public was sold on a 'woe the poor teacher' pitch....but perhaps that might have been exaggerated a bit?
My aunt and uncle are retired teachers from PA, and they are also extremely comfortable. It's simply not apples to apples - varies by state and by district.
-
Great move on the part of the elites to try to get middle class people to take their anger out on poor people and public employees, instead of questioning the mechanisms behind the huge increase in wealth inequality. Early retirees are so rare that most people probably don't have an opinion either way. Americans love success stories, which is why actors and sports players can get away with having multi million dollar salaries while teachers barely make a living wage. The rest of us are, to paraphrase, doing the dumb things we gotta do to touch the puppet head.
Can't tell if serious...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenmeyer/2011/12/22/the-teacher-salary-myth-are-teachers-underpaid/#38548e7b3137
I have a friend in Texas who is a teacher and her salary is crap. She passed the national standards test and has been teaching since 1992. Probably going to have to move for retirement because her retirement plan is also crap AND she lives in Austin so her prop taxes are skyrocketing.
Which is why salary is the metric which should be used whenever comparing full time professions, not 'compensation per [billable] hour.'
In May 2014, there were around 4 million preschool, primary, secondary, and special education teachers in the United States. The average annual wage for these teachers was $55,510.
Source BLS. (https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2015/employment-and-annual-wages-for-preschool-primary-middle-and-secondary-school-teachers.htm)
I am genuinely interested in why one would believe only 'Salary' should matter?
To me, Salary is a single piece of compensation, and in some professions, not even the majority piece.
Also, in a forum that is essentially all about 'buying ones freedom (or time)', hourly compensation absolutely has to be far more meaningful than Salary.
Working 40 hours for $XXX is different than working 20 hours for the same $XXX.
Would someone trade $100k and 2000 hrs/ yr for $150k and 4000 hrs/yr? Maybe. But hopefully, they'd factor in how important their time is.
It really comes done to Net Compensation for the amount of your life you sell.
I'm not against any profession. I just like to get as close to Apples to Apples as possible. Hourly rate seems far closer to that than 'Salary'.
-
I'm a math teacher at a public school. Here's a few details of my situation just to give a picture of what it's like.
On Pensions: A percentage of our paycheck goes towards my pension. Think of it like a 401k where we make a contribution, and the company(in this case the school) makes a contribution as well. 7% of my paycheck goes towards my pension, and 10% of my wife's paycheck goes towards her pension, since her pension will also include supplemental health care in retirement. Eleven/twelve years into service, we have personally paid a combined $165,000 towards our pensions. Since the first years of a teacher are the low paying years, we will pay far more over the coming 15 years. This money is invested along with our company match, which, along with the interest generated, is what funds our pension in retirement.
On Pay: I'm in my 12th year with a bachelors in mathematics, as well as a masters degree in secondary education best practices. My current pay is $65,000. After the 7% is taken out for the pension contributions, I make bring in about $60,000. There were 100 graduates with math majors at my university. I graduated in the top 10. My friends who graduated in the top 10 with me make far more than me. I am ABSOLUTELY fine with this, because the schedule of being a teacher gives me great opportunity to spend lots of time with my children, and to coach...both things that are important to me. I work fewer days, I should get paid less. I consider myself to be fairly compensated, but I would respectfully disagree with any person claiming I am overpaid. Note: pay at my district is VERY high compared to the average compensation in MI, so most teachers with my credentials would earn less than I do...some far less.
On health care: We pay about 4k/year in premiums, and we have a deductible of 2k, which we always hit:) We also have $20 copays. I would say we personally spend about $6500 on health care each year.
On summers and breaks through the year: They are as nice as advertised. I am grateful and appreciate the work/life balance that my career gives me.
On the Union: I pay about 1k/year to be part of my union. Unfortunately it is necessary to be part of a union. For example, from 2010-2012 3% of every public school teacher's paychecks were garnished illegally from
the state. Every judge agreed, but the governor refused to give back our money until it went all the way up to the highest court. The union was the ONLY group that fought for us. Without the union, not only would we have lost this money, but the state would know they can do things like this whenever they want without check. I grew up in an anti-union family and I shared their views. Seeing how the world actually works has changed my mind, and I'm grateful that we live in a society where individuals can collectively organize to advocate for their rights.
I'm happy to answer any questions about the financial or other aspects of education to contribute to this thread. It's a fantastic career and I love working with the children. Kids are terrific.
-
I am genuinely interested in why one would believe only 'Salary' should matter?
To me, Salary is a single piece of compensation, and in some professions, not even the majority piece.
Also, in a forum that is essentially all about 'buying ones freedom (or time)', hourly compensation absolutely has to be far more meaningful than Salary.
Working 40 hours for $XXX is different than working 20 hours for the same $XXX.
Would someone trade $100k and 2000 hrs/ yr for $150k and 4000 hrs/yr? Maybe. But hopefully, they'd factor in how important their time is.
It really comes done to Net Compensation for the amount of your life you sell.
I'm not against any profession. I just like to get as close to Apples to Apples as possible. Hourly rate seems far closer to that than 'Salary'.
Exactly. Total hours worked for given compensation matters most. I would gladly take a pay cut to have my summers off, even better if I would get a generous pension and FIRE sweet health care deal to boot.
Some years back, I remember there was a story on one of those news shows about government waste, and people working these non-productive government jobs getting paid for doing virtually nothing. The following week, it was reported that instead of getting feedback from viewers about the government waste, they were getting inquires about how to get one of those jobs.
-
Slee_Stack hit the nail on the head in regards to public pensions. The taxpayers are the ones footing the bill for these employees. The best way to determine any employee's salary and benefits is by allowing the free market to dictate it. The problem with government jobs is that a lot of the times the pensions and salaries become overly inflated because the person deciding to up the salaries is not the person footing the bill, and they aren't looking at replacement cost.
What field are you in? Because in the software, engineering, accounting, law, and medicine fields the government consistently pays less than a competitive salary, AFAIK (I'm in software). Because of this you will often see projects contracted out to private firms with HUGE markups, because they can't attract direct hires.
Government lawyer here with 25 years experience, only the last 15 in public service. I make nowhere near what those in private practice make and I never get bonuses. My entity has to deposit 100% of the employee contributions and matching each year. My balance of contributions and matching are annuitized when I retire. They just changed the formula last year so that everything going forward will not result in as high of a benefit as in the past. Even without my divorce, my pension would have only been less than 50% of my salary. During the Great Recession, we didn't get raises for 3-4 years. So not all public employees have wildly inflated pensions and salaries.
As to early retirees, yes, I think a lot of those still working resent them. I think people in general are envious when they think someone has it easier than them. My friends know about my plans to retire in a few years and I get comments about "divorcing well" and lucky to have a pension. However, while they go shopping for recreation, have multiple designer purses, expensive clothes and fancy cars, I have been living below my means most of my adult life.
-
To answer the OPs question, I say who cares! I have never been on the receiving end of any resentment. I have however, found many others resenting the fact they they didn't gear their lives around trying to be an early retiree. I worked with a guy who retired in his early 60s. He was an Engineer for 35+ years. I still play golf with him on occasion. He knew of my plans early on of being frugal, stashing loads of cash with the ultimate goal of retiring very early. He would always say "man, you are doing it right!" I find most (former) co-workers, neighbors and friends wishing they could do the same. If they are resentful towards me, they sure don't show it.
-
I am genuinely interested in why one would believe only 'Salary' should matter?
To me, Salary is a single piece of compensation, and in some professions, not even the majority piece.
Also, in a forum that is essentially all about 'buying ones freedom (or time)', hourly compensation absolutely has to be far more meaningful than Salary.
Working 40 hours for $XXX is different than working 20 hours for the same $XXX.
Would someone trade $100k and 2000 hrs/ yr for $150k and 4000 hrs/yr? Maybe. But hopefully, they'd factor in how important their time is.
It really comes done to Net Compensation for the amount of your life you sell.
I'm not against any profession. I just like to get as close to Apples to Apples as possible. Hourly rate seems far closer to that than 'Salary'.
Exactly. Total hours worked for given compensation matters most. I would gladly take a pay cut to have my summers off, even better if I would get a generous pension and FIRE sweet health care deal to boot.
In response - total hours worked for given compensation would be a fine metric, but that isn't what's being used here, and the author admits as much. Simply, it doesn't account for total hours worked, but for a must lazier compensation per billable hour.
There are two different viewpoints here, and both are important - the first is whether society is over or underpaying teachers relative to their training and societal worth, and we want to compare that to other occupations. The second is whether individual teachers' takehome pay is commensurate with the amount of work they do and the responsibility they are given. In both cases the total salary is a very important metric. From the local government's perspective what matters is how much each teacher costs to hire and retain. From the individual's standpoint its whether their take-home pay is 'worth it.'
we can see from data above that median public teacher salaries are around $55k/year. Whether that is 'overpaid' is a judgement call, and yes from the individual's standpoint there are great perks like having two months off for summer. from the municipality's standpoint
To point out the obvious, some professions require the worker to do substantial amounts of work that they are not 'billed' for. Other jobs do not have this requirement. I worked as an analyst where I got paid $200/hr for each contract hour. Sounds great, and gives the impression that I could have easily had a $100k salary if I just worked 10 hours/week. But the obvious reality was that for each hour I could bill a client I worked 4-6 hours setting up and preparing for the next contract. In the end my compensation-per-billable-hour for any given month was in the $35-50 range. With teachers we need to incorporate what they are actually paid. Intead figures used like the authors' assume that the only work that matters is when they are being paid, and indirectly that teachers could simply work more or less as they saw fit.
-
I am genuinely interested in why one would believe only 'Salary' should matter?
To me, Salary is a single piece of compensation, and in some professions, not even the majority piece.
Also, in a forum that is essentially all about 'buying ones freedom (or time)', hourly compensation absolutely has to be far more meaningful than Salary.
Working 40 hours for $XXX is different than working 20 hours for the same $XXX.
Would someone trade $100k and 2000 hrs/ yr for $150k and 4000 hrs/yr? Maybe. But hopefully, they'd factor in how important their time is.
It really comes done to Net Compensation for the amount of your life you sell.
I'm not against any profession. I just like to get as close to Apples to Apples as possible. Hourly rate seems far closer to that than 'Salary'.
Exactly. Total hours worked for given compensation matters most. I would gladly take a pay cut to have my summers off, even better if I would get a generous pension and FIRE sweet health care deal to boot.
In response - total hours worked for given compensation would be a fine metric, but that isn't what's being used here, and the author admits as much. Simply, it doesn't account for total hours worked, but for a must lazier compensation per billable hour.
There are two different viewpoints here, and both are important - the first is whether society is over or underpaying teachers relative to their training and societal worth, and we want to compare that to other occupations. The second is whether individual teachers' takehome pay is commensurate with the amount of work they do and the responsibility they are given. In both cases the total salary is a very important metric. From the local government's perspective what matters is how much each teacher costs to hire and retain. From the individual's standpoint its whether their take-home pay is 'worth it.'
we can see from data above that median public teacher salaries are around $55k/year. Whether that is 'overpaid' is a judgement call, and yes from the individual's standpoint there are great perks like having two months off for summer. from the municipality's standpoint
To point out the obvious, some professions require the worker to do substantial amounts of work that they are not 'billed' for. Other jobs do not have this requirement. I worked as an analyst where I got paid $200/hr for each contract hour. Sounds great, and gives the impression that I could have easily had a $100k salary if I just worked 10 hours/week. But the obvious reality was that for each hour I could bill a client I worked 4-6 hours setting up and preparing for the next contract. In the end my compensation-per-billable-hour for any given month was in the $35-50 range. With teachers we need to incorporate what they are actually paid. Intead figures used like the authors' assume that the only work that matters is when they are being paid, and indirectly that teachers could simply work more or less as they saw fit.
I don't necessarily 100% agree with the particular articles' numbers.
I just won't buy a Bill of Goods.
And yet in this thread we had a poster that specifically brought up the tired 'teaches are underpaid' slogan. OK. So prove it. Why are they underpaid? Or is it just further parroting of a generally false societal premise?
I suppose if one cherry picks salary as THE metric...there's the argument. But how does one do that with a straight face?
DW is a government employee. She will be receiving a very generous pension and health care bennies. She also gets a fairly generous amount of leave and a myriad of other benefits.
Should we just ignore that in overall compensation because her 'salary was lower' than the private sector?
Presuming we both don't kick it suddenly, she will come out at least 50% ahead financially. Admittedly, its hard to really gage....what are the real opportunity costs? She thinks she might have even more than doubled the compensation she would have made privately. Sounds impressive to me if true. So is she 'underpaid'?
We'd both laugh pretty hard if someone suggested that. She admits it's a pretty damn good gig.
Obviously I benefit from this, but it does make me question the system, and it absolutely makes 'salary' just one piece of the puzzle.
As soon as someone makes broad claims of 'underpaid' professions...particularly tax-payer funded ones, the BS alarms start clanging...
-
I think other people spend dramatically less time thinking about you (the royal you) than you think.
-
The working public would probably resent someone with enough assets to FIRE manipulating their income stream to use services that were intended for people with low incomes. That said, they don't know about this being a thing, and there are so few people in this category that it is doubtful that it will ever really be a concern.
They would call you part of the 1% taking advantage of the system.
-
The working public would probably resent someone with enough assets to FIRE manipulating their income stream to use services that were intended for people with low incomes. That said, they don't know about this being a thing, and there are so few people in this category that it is doubtful that it will ever really be a concern.
They would call you part of the 1% taking advantage of the system.
ah, the old adage - it's an important tax break if it benefits you, and its a loophole if it benefits someone else...
you are probably right that most people don't spend that much time thinking about us ERs, but anytime a mainstream article highlights just such a person the comment section is dripping with disdain and loathing.
Comments generally fall into several camps: i) s/he will go broke, as s/he hasn't factored XYZ into their plan (the It's Not Possible argument); ii) s/he's not really retired as s/he receives some sort of compensation (the I.R.P. out in force...); iii) well s/he could only accomplish it because of special circumstances - I could never (the woe-is-me/silver spoon argument); iv) ERs are abusing the system and contribute nothing to society - my taxes pay for them to live this carefree life, damn them! (the freeloader argument).
-
Should we just ignore that in overall compensation because her 'salary was lower' than the private sector?
Of course not, but that is exactly what the majority of people who are bitching about public sector pensions do - they focus on the pension, not the fact that the staff had a lower salary that went along with that pension, nor do they acknowledge the fact that the public sector employee is also contributing to that pension plan as well through payroll deductions, and shortfalls in the system are compensated by increasing those contribution rates.
While there are certainly some jobs in the public sector that do much better than they would in the private sector on overall compensation (admin staff comes to mind), pretty much anyone with a professional degree does not do better in the public sector even after the employer's pension contribution is considered. I accept this difference as a personal choice that I made for other non-monetary life reasons, but it really pisses me off when people start in about how the pension is not deserved and is some kind of "perk" administered through a system of cronyism. That pension is delayed compensation, plain and simple the tax paying public is typically not overpaying for professional staff, but oh, what a great way to divert attention from real public spending/accounting issues.
-
Should we just ignore that in overall compensation because her 'salary was lower' than the private sector?
Of course not, but that is exactly what the majority of people who are bitching about public sector pensions do - they focus on the pension, not the fact that the staff had a lower salary that went along with that pension, nor do they acknowledge the fact that the public sector employee is also contributing to that pension plan as well through payroll deductions, and shortfalls in the system are compensated by increasing those contribution rates.
While there are certainly some jobs in the public sector that do much better than they would in the private sector on overall compensation (admin staff comes to mind), pretty much anyone with a professional degree does not do better in the public sector even after the employer's pension contribution is considered. I accept this difference as a personal choice that I made for other non-monetary life reasons, but it really pisses me off when people start in about how the pension is not deserved and is some kind of "perk" administered through a system of cronyism. That pension is delayed compensation, plain and simple the tax paying public is typically not overpaying for professional staff, but oh, what a great way to divert attention from real public spending/accounting issues.
It sounds like we agree.
I too dislike stories that are supposed to make me feel one way or another...and only use one element of compensation to sell it.
-
Honestly I think the working public should be happy, in some sense, for early retirees, who open up jobs for people who need them
-
Of course not, but that is exactly what the majority of people who are bitching about public sector pensions do - they focus on the pension, not the fact that the staff had a lower salary that went along with that pension, nor do they acknowledge the fact that the public sector employee is also contributing to that pension plan as well through payroll deductions, and shortfalls in the system are compensated by increasing those contribution rates.
While there are certainly some jobs in the public sector that do much better than they would in the private sector on overall compensation (admin staff comes to mind), pretty much anyone with a professional degree does not do better in the public sector even after the employer's pension contribution is considered. I accept this difference as a personal choice that I made for other non-monetary life reasons, but it really pisses me off when people start in about how the pension is not deserved and is some kind of "perk" administered through a system of cronyism. That pension is delayed compensation, plain and simple the tax paying public is typically not overpaying for professional staff, but oh, what a great way to divert attention from real public spending/accounting issues.
Not to mention most people have absolutely no clue how those pensions are funded or structured. They just see "pension" and get triggered. One thing that is often overlooked is that many government employees don't receive social security. This means that the taxpayers are not having to pay the 6.5% (?) social security contribution that other "employers" do. Before my guberment job I worked for 10 years, paying into social security. Because I will receive a municipal pension, my social security will be nearly non-existent. Goddamn private sector leeches living off my hard work!! :) I always tell my friends that bitch about my pension that they are free to apply for my job. Municipalities all across the U.S. are hiring all the time. None of them have take up the offer.
-
Google "pension envy" -- there's many stories about people hating on public employees who have pensions (as it were some kind of welfare system!).
In my experience people hate on anyone who even works for the govt. I worked as a substitute teacher in college and there were several times when I got angry responses from people because I worked in a public agency - school district. Treated like a freeloader for taking care of people's kids for a low wage.
People resent when someone has something they think they should have access to. I guess I had their tax money.
-
Not to mention most people have absolutely no clue how those pensions are funded or structured.
In my state, they are being funded by a 66% tax increase because the pensions have put the state into massive debt.
This means that the taxpayers are not having to pay the 6.5% (?) social security contribution that other "employers" do. Before my guberment job I worked for 10 years, paying into social security. Because I will receive a municipal pension, my social security will be nearly non-existent.
As it should be. 10 years is the bare minimum to get ANY social security! Private sector workers will usually pay FICA taxes for 45 to 55 years as well as their employer with a benefit payout at 67 years old that is much LESS than a government worker who worked 10 years less drawing a pension on the taxpayer dime while I get hit with a hefty tax hike to pay for it!
-
Had a long convo with one of my Danish friends, and the majority of jobs in Denmark are actually government jobs.
If "majority" means 50% or more, that's an extraordinary claim that can be easily debunked. Denmark has one of the largest public sectors in the world, but that's still just about 1/3 of the labor force:
http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/governance/government-at-a-glance-2015/employment-in-the-public-sector_gov_glance-2015-22-en
(click through to the document itself where it lists various OECD countries)
-
SS benefits are based on your top 35 years of earnings. You're going to get a lot less if you only worked for 10 out of 35 years. https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10070.pdf (https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10070.pdf), but you will get a fair amount.
-
If person C works a public sector job for 15 years that pays 14% into both SS and 14% into a pension and he never works beyond those 15 years, he'll be able to collect both SS and pension based on those 15 years of work once he's old enough with no reduction to his SS benefit.
Person D works 30 years total - 15 in the private sector paying 14% towards only SS and then another 15 years in the public sector paying 14% towards his pension only. He will be able to collect both based on the 15 years for each he contributed but his SS benefit will be greatly reduced by the Windfall Elimination Provison because he is also getting a pension based on those other 15 years he worked. So the 14% he and his employer paid into SS for those 15 years he worked don't come back to him via a full benefit he would normally be entitled too.
The reason that person D doesn't get the full amount is because of other considerable earnings that were not SS taxed, so the 90% multiplier for low income SS benefit recipients is adjusted for people like "D" due to the significant other earnings, which seems fair based on the reason for the higher multiple to begin with. However, for 2017, the MOST the SS benefit could be reduced due to WEP was $442.50. Here's a link that explains the reason for the provision:
https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/10/10/will-the-windfall-elimination-provision-cut-your-s.aspx
For person C, I don't know for certain the reason other than what the law states. Perhaps it's because those retirees don't get nearly as much of a pension benefit since they are also paying into SS. Of course, if you are working towards a government pension while also paying into SS on your job over your career, the odds are much higher of reaching 30 years of SS taxed earnings, at which point the WEP reduction of your SS benefit is phased out completely had WEP actually applied to those earnings in the first place, and you would get the full SS benefit even if the WEP formula was applied to "C's" career earnings. But as you mentioned, it doesn't.
-
most people pay a percentage of their salary towards their ppublic pension (I paid 7% and my employer matched it 7%) and if they quit or get fired before they are vested they will get all their contribution back with interest. They can roll it into a tIRA to avoid taxes if they want. If you are vested you can leave it in.or take it out.
Good to know. I think in her case the vesting period for DC was 3 years and the minimum vesting period for DB was 5 years, and we weren't super excited about it (new Oregon PERS).
SS benefits are based on your top 35 years of earnings. You're going to get a lot less if you only worked for 10 out of 35 years. https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10070.pdf (https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10070.pdf), but you will get a fair amount.
But only the years you contributed into SS. I worked 24 years but only 14 of those years did I pay into SS so the other 10 years don't count towards SS benefits even though I my highest earning those last 10 years of work. Those years show up as zeros on my SS statement. I have ALOT of zeros on my SS statement ;-).
Absolutely, I didn't mean otherwise.
-
In my state, they are being funded by a 66% tax increase because the pensions have put the state into massive debt.
This is absurd, although you did not provide a time period or tax rate etc. I would be pissed as well. I may be completely off on this, but my own observations would tell me that state employees tend to have the most generous benefit packages. This is probably because almost nobody pays attention to state politics...only federal and local. Your average tax payer doesn't have a good grasp on where the money for these benefit packages comes from.
My problem is that people will see the figure you provided, then turn their ire toward their local municipal police, firefighters and teachers, whose benefits are funded at a local level (through property taxes). In the city that employs me, both local lawmakers and local unions have taken steps to keep our pension system well funded...mostly through union concessions. The pension system is actually cheaper than a 401K + social security system like the private sector offers. Lawmakers have no interest in switching to a 401K system. I understand this is not the norm.
As to the SS comments, the only anecdote I can provide is that I have a family member who worked in the private sector for 12 years, then got a municipal job where he worked for 33 years. During that 33 years, he had a few different "side hustles" on weekends/off days etc. He did this side hustle for about 10 years, maybe 8-10 hours a week. Because he has a municipal pension, is monthly social security check is $190. Say what you'd like about that but it does not seem fair to me.
-
SS benefits are not linear. The bottom end is boosted a bit in order to provide a minimum standard of living. This boost to a minimum SOL isn't needed for those that are provided for outside the SS system, which is the rationale for the WEP (or whatever it's called). Now, I don't know if the rules in practice are applied fairly, (probably not in all cases, maybe not even most), but I think the rationale is fair.
-
As for the OP I.don't think people are jealous but I do think when they see things like government benefits for the needy going to wealthy non working low taxable income FIREd people who qualify based solely on taxable income rather than assets they do get mad. Rightfully imho. The fact that someone could own multiple expensive homes, luxury cars, boats and other expensive toys, and have millions in tax deferred and non taxable assets yet they receive benefits for the truly poor and needy would be off putting for many people. The fact that I could qualify for Medicaid (along with other entitlements for the poor) with my asset level would be pretty good reason for people to be angry at me - or at least the politicians who set it up that way. But because my taxable income is so low I am one of the "poors" in the governments eyes.
But why should anyone get mad if we've already paid our taxes (or if we had inherited, that person we had inherited from)? Nobody pays taxes on what they already have.
-
As an aside and back on topic...I am looking quite forward to resenting myself!
-
As an aside and back on topic...I am looking quite forward to resenting myself!
+1. There's no loathing like self-loathing!
-
Should we just ignore that in overall compensation because her 'salary was lower' than the private sector?
Of course not, but that is exactly what the majority of people who are bitching about public sector pensions do - they focus on the pension, not the fact that the staff had a lower salary that went along with that pension, nor do they acknowledge the fact that the public sector employee is also contributing to that pension plan as well through payroll deductions, and shortfalls in the system are compensated by increasing those contribution rates.
While there are certainly some jobs in the public sector that do much better than they would in the private sector on overall compensation (admin staff comes to mind), pretty much anyone with a professional degree does not do better in the public sector even after the employer's pension contribution is considered. I accept this difference as a personal choice that I made for other non-monetary life reasons, but it really pisses me off when people start in about how the pension is not deserved and is some kind of "perk" administered through a system of cronyism. That pension is delayed compensation, plain and simple the tax paying public is typically not overpaying for professional staff, but oh, what a great way to divert attention from real public spending/accounting issues.
The only people I've heard complain about other people's income sources or income levels are those folks who are not well informed on a variety of topics. They tend to avoid fact checking anything and are the reason that Snopes/FactCheck/Politifact exists. These folks complain about alot of topics they don't understand.
-
[quote author=Just Joe link=topic=88425.msg1917247#msg1917247
The only people I've heard complain about other people's income sources or income levels are those folks who are not well informed on a variety of topics. They tend to avoid fact checking anything and are the reason that Snopes/FactCheck/Politifact exists. These folks complain about alot of topics they don't understand.
[/quote]
So basically Republicans.
Get the middle class to shit on the poor, public employees, etc to distract from the fucking over of the non elite the Koch brothers and their ilk are delivering.
-
It has raised my eyebrows a bit when folks who I know have huge piles of $$$ saved up and who are very employable fret about whether changes in ACA subsidies will require them to do some work. I know our healthcare system in the USA is messed up, but I don't like cross-subsidizing people who can work, or who can pay healthcare themselves (albeit messing up their SWR, which is their issue not mine) but choose not to and try to maximize the amount other people subsidize them.
This is less of an issue in the USA, but I imagine I'd feel the same way if someone in Europe early-retired while living in a subsidized house. Generally in the USA you need to be actually poor to qualify unless the local jurisdiction has messed-up rent control rules that jack up prices for everyone else (but that can be avoided by just not living in one of those very few jurisdictions).
Basically, I am pro self-sufficient early retirement but anti free-riding.
If people can pay their own way out of their own pocket then I fully support them retiring as early as humanly possible. If anything, decreased consumption is good for the planet, people with no job responsibilities have more time to volunteer or contribute in other ways (do art, perform music, write insightful blog posts) and if enough highly skilled people drop out of the labor force then maybe employers will take note and work with employees to structure jobs that are more pleasant / flexible -- in my line of work, the standard operating procedure is "here's lots of $$$, now eat shit." The reasons for this are manifold but tweaking the supply and demand equation can only help.
-
The only people I've heard complain about other people's income sources or income levels are those folks who are not well informed on a variety of topics. They tend to avoid fact checking anything and are the reason that Snopes/FactCheck/Politifact exists. These folks complain about alot of topics they don't understand.
So basically Republicans.
Get the middle class to shit on the poor, public employees, etc to distract from the fucking over of the non elite the Koch brothers and their ilk are delivering.
Irony paints a broad brushstroke. Education and a lack thereof exists all over the political spectrum.
Yes, the uninformed are quick to judge (and generalize) about issues and people they could learn more about. Maybe you should try to connect with educated Republicans.
-
It has raised my eyebrows a bit when folks who I know have huge piles of $$$ saved up and who are very employable fret about whether changes in ACA subsidies will require them to do some work. ...
Basically, I am pro self-sufficient early retirement but anti free-riding.
If people can pay their own way out of their own pocket then I fully support them retiring as early as humanly possible. [snip]
I hear this philosophical argument a lot, but the definition of what is 'free-loading' is often defined by the speaker and is far from universally applied. Like the adage says: its a tax break if you can use it, it's a loophole if you can't.
So when is it 'free-loading' and when is it 'accessing freely available resources'? Regarding healthcare, in most developed countries (including to some extent the US) you can get medical services if you are retired with no income. Are you abusing the system if you count on the ACA's subsidies for healthcare? Does it change your answer if you spent years earning a huge salary with a correspondingly large tax bill before entering ER? If I've got $5MM in the bank is it freeloading to 'take advantage' of my community's free vaccination and checkup clinics that are available to all? While on the subject of taxes, I can be a consumer-sucka and wind up losing most of my earnings to various taxes (income, sales, alcohol, gasoline) OR I can squirrel it away in tax-sheltered accounts and pay far less over my lifetime in taxes. Freeloading or informed citizen?
To be clear, I agree with your sentiment that a noble goal is to be self-sufficient and to contribute to your community more than you burden it. But it's equally true that (excluding extreme off-grid individuals) no person is an island and everyone contributes and relies on local services to some extent. From what I've observed it's commonplace for people to over-estimate how much they contribute and under-estimate the benefit they get from various services.
-
The only people I've heard complain about other people's income sources or income levels are those folks who are not well informed on a variety of topics. They tend to avoid fact checking anything and are the reason that Snopes/FactCheck/Politifact exists. These folks complain about alot of topics they don't understand.
So basically Republicans.
Get the middle class to shit on the poor, public employees, etc to distract from the fucking over of the non elite the Koch brothers and their ilk are delivering.
Irony paints a broad brushstroke. Education and a lack thereof exists all over the political spectrum.
Yes, the uninformed are quick to judge (and generalize) about issues and people they could learn more about. Maybe you should try to connect with educated Republicans.
Was going to mention something similar. I don't personally affiliate, but don't use either party as an excuse or scapegoat. One party doesn't have a corner of the market on imbecility over the other. I wager an extremist of either is more likely to be a raging moron. I don't doubt there are even some smart extremists out there. I still might not want to hang out with them though....
-
The only people I've heard complain about other people's income sources or income levels are those folks who are not well informed on a variety of topics. They tend to avoid fact checking anything and are the reason that Snopes/FactCheck/Politifact exists. These folks complain about alot of topics they don't understand.
So basically Republicans.
Get the middle class to shit on the poor, public employees, etc to distract from the fucking over of the non elite the Koch brothers and their ilk are delivering.
Irony paints a broad brushstroke. Education and a lack thereof exists all over the political spectrum.
Yes, the uninformed are quick to judge (and generalize) about issues and people they could learn more about. Maybe you should try to connect with educated Republicans.
My politics don't really align with either political party but I agree that neither party has the uninformed voter market locked up. I also agree that generalizing about "republicans" or "democrats" really doesn't accomplish anything or add anything to the discussion.
To get back on topic, I will give an example of my own resentment toward one of my wife's old bosses who became an early retiree:
My wife worked for a fantastic growing software company. The executives were really nice and tried to create a fun place to work for all of the employees. They would be considered generous to their employees (by today's standards). Weekly free happy hours, lots of parties, competitive salary and benefits packages were had by all.
After about 8 years, the execs (who all owned a piece of the business) decided it was a good time to sell. They were bought up by a bunch of A-holes that destroyed the company, drove away most of the employees, and basically treated the remaining employees like idiots. Benefits were cut, salaries frozen, employees belittled etc.
About a year later, we ran into one of the original execs at a party and he was telling me how he was retired now and loving life after his huge windfall from selling the company (he was about 40 years old). I can't imagine he netted any less than tens of millions of dollars based on what the business was sold for. As much as I liked the guy and felt he was deserving of his wealth, I could not help but feel the familiar pangs of jealousy and resentment tugging at my gut. He had a software development background and was instrumental in getting the business off the ground. Without his business idea, my wife may not have had a job at all. He was completely and totally deserving. Still though, my wife was left holding a turd sandwich and got nothing but stress and reduced benefits and a garbage salary out of the deal when all was said and done. I can't help but resent that...I'm only human.
It's just that I could never see myself starting a business and making tens of million dollars without giving anything back to the employees who helped me get to that point. Maybe this is why I'm a terrible business person. Lack of killer instinct.
On the bright side, one of the other original executives called my wife with a job offer with another company a bit later so everything worked out fine.
-
The only people I've heard complain about other people's income sources or income levels are those folks who are not well informed on a variety of topics. They tend to avoid fact checking anything and are the reason that Snopes/FactCheck/Politifact exists. These folks complain about alot of topics they don't understand.
So basically Republicans.
Get the middle class to shit on the poor, public employees, etc to distract from the fucking over of the non elite the Koch brothers and their ilk are delivering.
Irony paints a broad brushstroke. Education and a lack thereof exists all over the political spectrum.
Yes, the uninformed are quick to judge (and generalize) about issues and people they could learn more about. Maybe you should try to connect with educated Republicans.
My politics don't really align with either political party but I agree that neither party has the uninformed voter market locked up. I also agree that generalizing about "republicans" or "democrats" really doesn't accomplish anything or add anything to the discussion.
To get back on topic, I will give an example of my own resentment toward one of my wife's old bosses who became an early retiree:
My wife worked for a fantastic growing software company. The executives were really nice and tried to create a fun place to work for all of the employees. They would be considered generous to their employees (by today's standards). Weekly free happy hours, lots of parties, competitive salary and benefits packages were had by all.
After about 8 years, the execs (who all owned a piece of the business) decided it was a good time to sell. They were bought up by a bunch of A-holes that destroyed the company, drove away most of the employees, and basically treated the remaining employees like idiots. Benefits were cut, salaries frozen, employees belittled etc.
About a year later, we ran into one of the original execs at a party and he was telling me how he was retired now and loving life after his huge windfall from selling the company (he was about 40 years old). I can't imagine he netted any less than tens of millions of dollars based on what the business was sold for. As much as I liked the guy and felt he was deserving of his wealth, I could not help but feel the familiar pangs of jealousy and resentment tugging at my gut. He had a software development background and was instrumental in getting the business off the ground. Without his business idea, my wife may not have had a job at all. He was completely and totally deserving. Still though, my wife was left holding a turd sandwich and got nothing but stress and reduced benefits and a garbage salary out of the deal when all was said and done. I can't help but resent that...I'm only human.
It's just that I could never see myself starting a business and making tens of million dollars without giving anything back to the employees who helped me get to that point. Maybe this is why I'm a terrible business person. Lack of killer instinct.
On the bright side, one of the other original executives called my wife with a job offer with another company a bit later so everything worked out fine.
Incidentally, this is why I have always been hesitant to take a paycut to work at a startup. Startups love to find employees who will "sacrifice for the mission" but then the founders walk away with millions -- so it's just that THEY want YOU to sacrifice. At least at a megacorp, government, etc., everybody is clear about what's what.
I would work at a startup that offered market wages and expected market hours without a paycut. But no heroics if I'm not part of the ownership team.
-
My wife worked for a fantastic growing software company. The executives were really nice and tried to create a fun place to work for all of the employees. They would be considered generous to their employees (by today's standards). Weekly free happy hours, lots of parties, competitive salary and benefits packages were had by all.
After about 8 years, the execs (who all owned a piece of the business) decided it was a good time to sell. They were bought up by a bunch of A-holes that destroyed the company, drove away most of the employees, and basically treated the remaining employees like idiots. Benefits were cut, salaries frozen, employees belittled etc.
About a year later, we ran into one of the original execs at a party and he was telling me how he was retired now and loving life after his huge windfall from selling the company (he was about 40 years old). I can't imagine he netted any less than tens of millions of dollars based on what the business was sold for. As much as I liked the guy and felt he was deserving of his wealth, I could not help but feel the familiar pangs of jealousy and resentment tugging at my gut. He had a software development background and was instrumental in getting the business off the ground. Without his business idea, my wife may not have had a job at all. He was completely and totally deserving. Still though, my wife was left holding a turd sandwich and got nothing but stress and reduced benefits and a garbage salary out of the deal when all was said and done. I can't help but resent that...I'm only human.
It's just that I could never see myself starting a business and making tens of million dollars without giving anything back to the employees who helped me get to that point. Maybe this is why I'm a terrible business person. Lack of killer instinct.
On the bright side, one of the other original executives called my wife with a job offer with another company a bit later so everything worked out fine.
That's a good anecdote. But it does make me curious - were they assholes because they cut bennies or due to their demeanor? I could envision an ignorance is bliss type scenario where someone goes to work years after where your wife did and was oblivious to how good it was before. As long they were on a solid team, I think that's just describing the bulk of jobs.
The people make the atmosphere for the most part IMO, perks and bennies are only an enhancement of that foundation but aren't the foundation itself. There is obvious a line to toe when considering balance sheets and humans. Then again, I'm guessing the majority of the time the equation slants too far to the balance sheet side and is likely what happened at your wife's place (and a new person would be able to agree that it is shitty in a vacuum without needing a comparison).
-
A few years ago, I went out on a bike ride with my husband, then a SAHP to school-age children, and an early-retired friend whose wife was still working. When we were planning our next outing, our friend said to my husband, "Well, WE can go out any time, OUR time is our own." As a member of the working public, I confirm that I could gladly have ripped him to pieces with my bare hands in anger at that moment, with no justification whatsoever since his situation was none of my business and we'd chosen to have a parent at home full time.
When I was in my thirties and forties, I think I'd have struggled with the concept of someone of my own age not wanting to work. Not resentment - I just wouldn't have been able to get my head round it. This says everything about my own upbringing and nothing at all about anyone else. But there are early retirees quietly going about their retired business in all walks of life, and I'm completely at peace with it.
-
SS benefits are not linear. The bottom end is boosted a bit in order to provide a minimum standard of living. This boost to a minimum SOL isn't needed for those that are provided for outside the SS system, which is the rationale for the WEP (or whatever it's called). Now, I don't know if the rules in practice are applied fairly, (probably not in all cases, maybe not even most), but I think the rationale is fair.
I sort of figured out my full SS benefit (once 66 or 67) last night after this thread and it would be around $800/month and cut in half to $400 by the WEP. So its not like I'm going to starve ;-).
Good to hear. I think you'll do better than me on SS alone (no pension) and working until 54(maybe), which I plan to hold off on drawing benefits from in the early years of eligibility. Thank goodness I've been a big saver throughout my career, I just didn't realize it was for early retirement going back 10 or more years (used to assume I would work until 67, or at least 65.) Despite always being a saver, my earlier years were pretty lean on the income, but I picked up the pace a lot in the last 15 to 18 years.
-
About a year later, we ran into one of the original execs at a party and he was telling me how he was retired now and loving life after his huge windfall from selling the company (he was about 40 years old). I can't imagine he netted any less than tens of millions of dollars based on what the business was sold for. As much as I liked the guy and felt he was deserving of his wealth, I could not help but feel the familiar pangs of jealousy and resentment tugging at my gut. He had a software development background and was instrumental in getting the business off the ground. Without his business idea, my wife may not have had a job at all. He was completely and totally deserving. Still though, my wife was left holding a turd sandwich and got nothing but stress and reduced benefits and a garbage salary out of the deal when all was said and done. I can't help but resent that...I'm only human.
It's just that I could never see myself starting a business and making tens of million dollars without giving anything back to the employees who helped me get to that point. Maybe this is why I'm a terrible business person. Lack of killer instinct.
Similar to a well-off coworker I had bragging about his fancy car to another coworker who makes a fraction of that much money. Just seemed inappropriate and judging by the lower paid coworker's reaction - unwelcome. The fancy car fellow did not seem to realize this.
I tend to use a humble approach to discussions that might involve money discussions with coworkers - newer car yeah but its several years old, we saved up a long time, notice how old the other car was, no we spent the weekend around the house working on projects and chores, etc. Let 'em come to their own conclusions.
-
The only people I've heard complain about other people's income sources or income levels are those folks who are not well informed on a variety of topics. They tend to avoid fact checking anything and are the reason that Snopes/FactCheck/Politifact exists. These folks complain about alot of topics they don't understand.
So basically Republicans.
Get the middle class to shit on the poor, public employees, etc to distract from the fucking over of the non elite the Koch brothers and their ilk are delivering.
Irony paints a broad brushstroke. Education and a lack thereof exists all over the political spectrum.
Yes, the uninformed are quick to judge (and generalize) about issues and people they could learn more about. Maybe you should try to connect with educated Republicans.
My politics don't really align with either political party but I agree that neither party has the uninformed voter market locked up. I also agree that generalizing about "republicans" or "democrats" really doesn't accomplish anything or add anything to the discussion.
To get back on topic, I will give an example of my own resentment toward one of my wife's old bosses who became an early retiree:
My wife worked for a fantastic growing software company. The executives were really nice and tried to create a fun place to work for all of the employees. They would be considered generous to their employees (by today's standards). Weekly free happy hours, lots of parties, competitive salary and benefits packages were had by all.
After about 8 years, the execs (who all owned a piece of the business) decided it was a good time to sell. They were bought up by a bunch of A-holes that destroyed the company, drove away most of the employees, and basically treated the remaining employees like idiots. Benefits were cut, salaries frozen, employees belittled etc.
About a year later, we ran into one of the original execs at a party and he was telling me how he was retired now and loving life after his huge windfall from selling the company (he was about 40 years old). I can't imagine he netted any less than tens of millions of dollars based on what the business was sold for. As much as I liked the guy and felt he was deserving of his wealth, I could not help but feel the familiar pangs of jealousy and resentment tugging at my gut. He had a software development background and was instrumental in getting the business off the ground. Without his business idea, my wife may not have had a job at all. He was completely and totally deserving. Still though, my wife was left holding a turd sandwich and got nothing but stress and reduced benefits and a garbage salary out of the deal when all was said and done. I can't help but resent that...I'm only human.
It's just that I could never see myself starting a business and making tens of million dollars without giving anything back to the employees who helped me get to that point. Maybe this is why I'm a terrible business person. Lack of killer instinct.
On the bright side, one of the other original executives called my wife with a job offer with another company a bit later so everything worked out fine.
Bold emphasis mine.
It sounds like they did give a lot back to the employees, while they owned the company. From your post, it sounds like they treated their employees well and gave lots of perks other owners might not have. After they sold it, I don't see how they could be responsible for the new owners being assholes. I don't see how they could be expected to continue giving perks to former employees. Even then, it sounds like one of the previous owners offered your wife another job, hopefully a good one.
-
The only people I've heard complain about other people's income sources or income levels are those folks who are not well informed on a variety of topics. They tend to avoid fact checking anything and are the reason that Snopes/FactCheck/Politifact exists. These folks complain about alot of topics they don't understand.
So basically Republicans.
Get the middle class to shit on the poor, public employees, etc to distract from the fucking over of the non elite the Koch brothers and their ilk are delivering.
Irony paints a broad brushstroke. Education and a lack thereof exists all over the political spectrum.
Yes, the uninformed are quick to judge (and generalize) about issues and people they could learn more about. Maybe you should try to connect with educated Republicans.
My politics don't really align with either political party but I agree that neither party has the uninformed voter market locked up. I also agree that generalizing about "republicans" or "democrats" really doesn't accomplish anything or add anything to the discussion.
To get back on topic, I will give an example of my own resentment toward one of my wife's old bosses who became an early retiree:
My wife worked for a fantastic growing software company. The executives were really nice and tried to create a fun place to work for all of the employees. They would be considered generous to their employees (by today's standards). Weekly free happy hours, lots of parties, competitive salary and benefits packages were had by all.
After about 8 years, the execs (who all owned a piece of the business) decided it was a good time to sell. They were bought up by a bunch of A-holes that destroyed the company, drove away most of the employees, and basically treated the remaining employees like idiots. Benefits were cut, salaries frozen, employees belittled etc.
About a year later, we ran into one of the original execs at a party and he was telling me how he was retired now and loving life after his huge windfall from selling the company (he was about 40 years old). I can't imagine he netted any less than tens of millions of dollars based on what the business was sold for. As much as I liked the guy and felt he was deserving of his wealth, I could not help but feel the familiar pangs of jealousy and resentment tugging at my gut. He had a software development background and was instrumental in getting the business off the ground. Without his business idea, my wife may not have had a job at all. He was completely and totally deserving. Still though, my wife was left holding a turd sandwich and got nothing but stress and reduced benefits and a garbage salary out of the deal when all was said and done. I can't help but resent that...I'm only human.
It's just that I could never see myself starting a business and making tens of million dollars without giving anything back to the employees who helped me get to that point. Maybe this is why I'm a terrible business person. Lack of killer instinct.
On the bright side, one of the other original executives called my wife with a job offer with another company a bit later so everything worked out fine.
Bold emphasis mine.
It sounds like they did give a lot back to the employees, while they owned the company. From your post, it sounds like they treated their employees well and gave lots of perks other owners might not have. After they sold it, I don't see how they could be responsible for the new owners being assholes. I don't see how they could be expected to continue giving perks to former employees. Even then, it sounds like one of the previous owners offered your wife another job, hopefully a good one.
Yeah I'm not sure the tone of my post came across properly but my point was that even when someone is a good person, earns their wealth and is deserving of it, we can still feel resentment toward them due to our own character flaws or tendencies toward jealousy. It's human nature. I didn't want to resent the guy but I did...not proud of it. I'm sure plenty of people feel this way about other early retirees.
-
I never counted on getting any SS anyways so getting a few hundred bucks is OK. Will take it once I'm 62 though as its such a small amount it doesn't matter. My pension and VA benefits aren't big but I have a decent sized stash to supplement as needed. Will still be low income by tax standards (currently zero % state and fed) but more than enough for a nice frugal life that most people WON'T likely be very jealous or resentful of ;-).
Nonsense, spartana, I've been jealous and resentful of your nice frugal life for years now! ;-)
-
People don't value early retirement like we do. They probably feel sorry for us. What will we do all day?
-
When I was in my thirties and forties, I think I'd have struggled with the concept of someone of my own age not wanting to work. Not resentment - I just wouldn't have been able to get my head round it. This says everything about my own upbringing and nothing at all about anyone else. But there are early retirees quietly going about their retired business in all walks of life, and I'm completely at peace with it.
For whatever reason this thread has been in my head since I was researching other early 30s ppl with 7 figures 'staches and bigger questions such as 'what to do with life?'
I invariably came across a few forums such as on indeed where similar people asked similar questions, and the response was similar to any time an ER article appears in the MSM. "You're lying!" "Easy, I'd travel the world!" "You're lying!" "Spend the money helping the poor" "How can you not be happy as a millionaire? You're lying!" Etc etc...
Then I realized that all these responses had one things in common. Why are rich early retirees, looking for advice from poor, debt slaves? Unless there's a community of folks who share the values and have been where you've been(eg: here), their advice is worse than useless. It's like med school residents asking junior high school students about how to balance career, family, and financial considerations. It isn't a case of envy or resentment, it's just that both teams are playing wildly different sports.
Someone in their 30s with a million bucks and no need to work is so far off the radar for most people, you'd honestly have as much luck getting a good response to "Hey, I've just sprouted these two angel wings, and now have the ability to fly. What's the best use of them? What's worked for others?"
The responses are all lottery winner dreams, justifications for their own inability to accomplish the same, people eager to spend other peoples' money, or flat out attacks to deflate these people as an alternative route to eliminate the threat.
If you're smart enough to get to such a position, hopefully you're also smart enough to realize that most of those people can't offer much good advice, and the only reason to bring it up is to antagonize them as a not-so-subtle humble-brag.