Unfortunately, I think you'll see more of these problems as states get crushed under their existing debt and new expenditures from pension obligations, etc.
See: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/compare_state_spending_2...
See: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/compare_state_spending_2...
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_Senate_Bill_5_Voter_Refere...
Contrary to what you say, most people don't choose teaching because of the benefit plans. They might do it because they only have to work 75% of the time, but it isn't the benefits. They choose it because that is what they want to do. Help kids, teach, etc.
The benefits do not make sense as a reason to do this job. If that's what you're going for, you'd just take a job in the private sector, work more, and make a lot more money.
Of course, when legislators pass pension hikes, they do so knowing that it pleases powerful unions now and the costs to tax payers are decades down the road. So it is one of the more appealing ways for a legislator to screw their state. They may even be out of office by the time the bill comes due!
Defined-benefit pensions are a huge drag on many state budgets, and paying them does nothing to improve the quality of current government services. The bluer the state, the more they are screwed:
http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/the-best-life/2012/11/08...
Secondly and to your point, I am only speaking of defined-benefit "If you work here for x years you get y% of your salary." This is to say nothing of the health care (which is generally better than the private sector), the hours (which if you don't work for a legislator are generally better than the private sector), the guaranteed pay raise every year, the access to jobs you can only apply to if you already have a state job, and various small perks like free or cheap parking, food, etc. These are all benefits of the job and I had to take a serious look at the health care and hours for a state job when deciding between that and a corporate offer.
I'm not here to argue whether or not defined-benefit retirement plans are inherently good or bad. I'm saying it's irresponsible and dangerous for a state to guarantee by law that they'll pay anyone a fixed amount of money for decades at some distant point in the future. This is why it's most dangerous. If the state gets bankrupted by some unforeseen catastrophe 30 years from now, it can't suspend, eliminate or trim pension payouts. Not even $0.01. By definition the fact that pensions offer better retirement income than defined-contribution plans like a 401k should be a giant red flag. The system implodes if you can't at least break even off of it, and if it was possible to make money off of them the private sector would still be using them.
He didn't call you stupid for expressing an opinion, he called that particular view stupid.
This isn't 7th grade — come up with another word that really means what you want to say. There are a lot of ways to disagree with someone and/or an idea without the derogatory language.
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/...
It's not stupid to them, they want labor compliant, they don't want better options available to compare to.
"Why worry about retirement? You should be lucky you HAVE a job..."
Yes, I understand this might mean we have to pay higher salaries, but it will be far less than these crazy benefits they are getting.
Yes, the private sector has been much more effective than the public sector in collectively diminishing workers' wages and benefits in recent years. The logical conclusion is not that the public sector should do more to keep up with the downward spiral.
I am looking out my window now at a city project to build a park that is maybe 25 yards wide and 75 yards long. The property sits between a private car lot and an office building with no nearby parking, so I'll be surprised if I ever see anyone use it. That of of course assumes it is ever finished. It has been under construction for just over a year and still looks nowhere near complete. We joked a couple months ago while we watched workers move dirt from one pile to another and back again over the course of a month.
Now of course this is a small probably <$5M project, but if government can't manage it how am I supposed to trust them to manage healthcare or retirement? So yes, it baffles me how any reasonable person could look at the retirement and health benefits situation in our country and come to the conclusion that government can provide a fix.
You can engage in all the a priori pleading you like, but until you address that empirical, real-world fact there is no worthwhile argument to be had.
...but the governments are on the side of the government workers (most government workers are unionized and these funds lobby the politicians).
The result is that it becomes an "us vs them" fight, and while common citizens may theoretically have political power through the ballot box, in practice power is mostly exercised through campaign donations and backroom deals, so the politicians are taking the decisions that they're incentivized to take: stealing seed corn and feeding it to the public sector employees.
Isn't that what they're trying to do? :D But I guess this is a typo for "public sector"...