People are just going to have to get past the expectation that the average person can quit working at the age of 60 and then, as you put it, "sit on their asses getting old" for the next thirty or so years.

Anyone else notice that just about the only people still being promised pensions are those in union/government jobs? How realistic is that? How many companies can actually afford to keep paying a raftload of people who aren't even working for them anymore? And is it fair for the taxpayers to guarantee these questionable promises? What do all the non-union/non-government employees do? Are we creating two classes of people, one that has to provide for itself in its old age, and another that lives off the taxpayers, just for having been union/government employees?

Are we creating two classes of people, one that has to provide for itself in its old age, and another that lives off the taxpayers, just for having been union/government employees?

In a word, yes.

Amazingly short-sighted. Unions have cooked their own goose, and a dead goose lays no eggs, golden or otherwise. The problem is, they have, in turn, cooked ours. Eventually, all we'll be paying for with our tax dollars are civil service employees who no longer going to work.

LAPD Chief Bratton just quit, saying the $330k he made would leave him in the poorhouse soon.
You wonder when was the last time a leader -- in business, in government -- ever got by on the median US family income, which is under $50k a year.
Our leadership and opinion-making class is totally divorced from reality.
BTW, Kaiser Permanent has a low-cost program, "Steps," but when I look on their website, they say enrollement is capped and full.
Furthermore, no health plan can tolerate "adverse selection." If too many sickies gravitate to KP as they do not get booted off, then KP will have to raise its rates, or cut coverage. KP does manage coverage--for example, they delayed purchase of MRIs for years, while other plans covered MRIs. Small example, but one I know about. Just saying. I suspect KP will have to control costs a lot in the future--making the same "no coverage" decisions all plans will have to make. Old biddies use up too much of our resources in health care. Just saying.
Anyway, what is the average rate for people aged 55-65?

Pension plans can be grouped into two categories: defined benefit and defined contribution. In the long run, defined benefit plans are unsustainable. Companies that have promised them will go bankrupt; governments that have promised them will be forced to raise taxes so high that it's cost effective for people and businesses to move away. The only long term solution that I can think of is a law or constitutional amendment that makes defined benefit plans illegal and converts existing defined benefit plans into defined contribution plans.

I tell friends that I am enrolled in the "New American Retirement Plan".

"Work, until you drop dead"

I say it in jest.

(I think......)

Since people are living longer, I think we're just gonna have to make it so people work longer.

One thing to remember, though, is people take low-paying jobs with the expectation of getting a pension. Without the pension, the jobs would not pay a competitive rate for people of the same skill set.

Think of math teachers, whose salaries start at about 40 and top off around 80, (this is very general, it varies by school district). Now think about what someone with those skills could be making in the private sector. Yes, many do it for the "feel good" of helping kids, but feeling good doesn't pay the bills and they often are willing to take the low salary with the expectation of future security.

If you pay a low salary and also don't offer benefits, you're not going to find a lot of takers for the job. And these are jobs that need to get filled.

Perhaps the solution is to pay people more with the expectation that they save their own money for retirement. But then people are going to need to be paid more.

I wish to amend...

I'm obviously not talking about the people who are making 300k or so. But I've heard a lot of complaints (not on this board) about the pensions of people who ARE working for low wages. Now one can say, "just get a job that pays better" but on the other hand, we need people to do the tough jobs too.

"Just getting a job that pays better" is the reason we have a bullshit service economy that doesn't actually produce much.

NicoleK -

My mom is a teacher, and we were just talking about the pension issue. She actually does think that the pension system for teachers needs to be revised to something more like a 401k system. (And she was president of her teacher's union! And she is supportive of merit based pay! Maybe they're not all evil greedy bastards!) One thing she always points out is that her pension is based on her actually salary, which like you say, is pretty low. However, for fire-fighters and police officers, their pensions are based off the highest annual earnings, counting overtime, of their entire career. Out of the top 10 highest pensions in our county, 8 were former fire-fighters (who retire at 55) and police officers. Their annual salary was very much lower than the $280,000 pension they're getting for the rest of their life. (Plus lifetime health benefits for their entire family; teachers don't get that) I am all for supporting those who have served the public, but that is ridiculous!

Think of math teachers, whose salaries start at about 40 and top off around 80, (this is very general, it varies by school district).

Per wiki: In 2007, the median annual household income rose 1.3% to $50,233.00 according to the Census Bureau.[3]

Also from Wiki on teachers (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teacher):

The median salary for all primary and secondary teachers was $46,000 in 2004, with the average entry salary for a teacher with a bachelor's degree being an estimated $32,000. Median salaries for preschool teachers, however, were less than half the national median for secondary teachers, clock in at an estimated $21,000 in 2004.[10] For high school teachers, median salaries in 2007 ranged from $35,000 in South Dakota to $71,000 in New York, with a national median of $52,000.[11]

The comment about the pre-school teachers salaries is a blind. A large amount of pre-schools are "private" and not government run organizations.

A teacher in Ohio has PERS (Public Emplyoyment Retirement System), a defined benefit plan, on top of their other benefits.

I'm making barely above median -- I could go higher but it would be at the sacrifice of location or commuting. And I'm funding my own 401K -- or working until I die.

IMHO, calling teachers salaries low is bullshit. They are in the same range as other professionals.

Jim P., you're comparing HOUSEHOLD income (man,+ wife/girlfriend,+ kids, etc) with an individual teacher's salary.

You are correct: calling teaching salaries low is BS.

Nicole, why do you think a math teacher would do better in the private sector? What skill set, exactly, do they have that the private sector is clamoring for?

Jim, what is your education level, what point are you at in your career, and what is your income potential in your field in 20 years? Takes a BA and an additional 1-2 years of schooling to be a teacher, and I think the big difference between teaching and other professions for people of comparable skill and experience is that the pay trajectory is low. You work 20-30 years and you don't get paid that much more at the end than the beginning.

My take (based on my anecdotal experience, admitted) is that teaching funds a good life for single people, or a partnership in which one person makes considerably more money (or has the possibility for promotions, raises at work). In all the families I know with teacher parents, they both work two jobs.

I really wanted to go into teaching, and my mother told me I was out of my mind.

People who work in the public sector, like school teachers, already get other benefits. Namely, greater job security. They know that if there is an economic downturn they are not going to be the first to lose their jobs.

This is often forgotten when making these kinds of apples and oranges comparisons with the private sector.

Phrased how NicoleK puts it, it's clear that public employee pensions exist to push employment costs into the future. If everything else is equal, better to not offer a pension, increase pay to compensate and let those employees keep 403(b) accounts if they so desire.

Jim, what is your education level, what point are you at in your career, and what is your income potential in your field in 20 years?

I'm about 15 years into my current career and if you add up all my certifications and classes I would be somewhere around a Bachelors. The catch is that my certificates constantly "expire". If I don't stay current -- my job is in jeopardy. I will never get tenure.

I can top -- with an extensive amount of work -- get to about 80K depending on location. But short of doing management, I'll top out there.