Isn't this the public sector equivalent of letting a startup pay you in equity? While it may have been characterized as more secure than personal investment, agreeing to this compensation scheme doesn't remove the burden of risk, particularly when the 'startup' offering to pay you later is state government.
Owing a defined-benefit pension is a legal obligation to provide a future revenue stream. It's more like a bond than a stock, and debt generally has priority over equity.
It’s no small thing to suggest that people should view the legal obligations of their governments with skepticism. That we should anticipate, and account for the risk of, government default in our employment plans.
Politicians who didn’t want to raise taxes (to increase pay, to attract workers) made promises of deferred compensation (which have to be higher to offset now vs. future). Voters bought it, -hook, line, and sinker-, and the entire state bought public services on credit.
I have a hard time pinning that on the guy doing largely unskilled work for the last 30 years of his life. He may be left holding the bag, but I’m not going to leave him with the blame.
It is a huge thing which should always be on people's mind. Government is the only player on the market who literally owns the rules of the game and can bend or completely change them in their benefit. Which means every promise from them should be viewed with extreme suspicion, as they are both the ones promising it and the ones charged with enforcing the promise, which means it is much easier for them to renege on the promise.
> I have a hard time pinning that on the guy doing largely unskilled work for the last 30 years of his life.
Government employees are not "largely unskilled work", and they are surely not voting against the current setup, as far as I can see. If they did, we could talk about something that is done to them against their will. Right now they are major part of the fraud being perpetuated. They are not some passive victim of some nefarious force, they are active and willing participants of the scheme. Try to cut those benefits or switch them to defined contribution or make them contribute enough to cover the deficit - and see how vocal they'd get.
The state has money. The government doesn’t.
By the way, startups do have to give you your shares, they just might turn out worthless. Governments promised USD, and were the safest borrowers around for a long time.