Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ktxhopem3276 t1_ja48o0z wrote

At least here in pittsburgh they raised the starting salary a lot to make up for reduced pension benefits. They raised the starting salary by 20% from $40k to $48k in 2019. It’s basically a trade off because they weren’t attracting enough new teachers with the model of low starting salary in exchange for better future pensions.

The point is the pension used to be more generous and that was unsustainable in an actuarial basis with the plateauing state population . Since the increase in pension benefits to 2.5% in 2001, the state has gone from a well funded pension program to a deeply indebted system. The 2.5% level was never sustainable and will be a burden on the state for decades and caused voters to hate teachers. Maybe if the state didn’t switch to 2.5% in 2001 we could afford a higher rate like 1.5 or 2 for new teachers but the bottom line is older teachers fucked over newer teachers by draining the system of its reserves.

You’re in the middle that has benefits closer to the pre 2001 numbers. You shouldn’t compare the current benefits to the unreasonable benefits given in 2001. If you were hired after 2011 you are buying into the 2.5% with your salary deductions and your rate otherwise would be 2% which is more in line with the sustainable rates we had before 2001. New teachers in the 2017 and 2011 base plans contribute the same amount 6.25% of salary to the defined benefit pension but the 2017 class gets a multiplier of 1.25 in exchange for a 2.25% state contribution to the 401k. Over 35 years of teaching at an average salary of $70k and an a average growth rate of 7% in a 401k that would be worth $350k. Add in the 2.75% employee contribution and the balance would be around $850k that is their money to do what they want with instead of a fixed pension they can leave it as an inheritance for their children or whatever they want. So they are getting half the pension as you for the same 9% contribution but the 401k is a huge offset to the lost pension and comes with more flexibility.

It’s my opinion that if teachers can’t accept the compromise wolf made, they are being unrealistic and have their heads in the sand over the state budget. Wolf is a moderate and he won the election because voters trusted him to be a prudent manager of the states finances. They can cry all they want about how older teachers got better benefits but today is a different day and we have to make decisions that are good for the states finances in the long run. I think teachers should advocate for removing the masters degree requirement but they won’t do that because it funnels money to the higher education professors who have their own pension to worry about.

http://sers.pa.gov/about-legislation.html

https://www.psers.pa.gov/Active-Members/NewToPSERS/Pages/Class-Election.aspx

1

ScienceWasLove t1_ja4m3or wrote

The 401k is the slight of hand part that attracts the bugs to the bug zapper. It sure does look attractive. Unless you are retired for 10+ years. A 7% market assumption was part of what created this problem.

Let us not forget that the politicians created this funding problem by decreasing state/employer contributions because of higher market returns. When the market tanked, and the employer/state contribution did not return to previous levels. They literally kicked the can down the road for a decade+.

At the very least, they could have returned the multiplier to 2.0, or left the multiplier at 2.0 w/ a target of 25 years.

I see Pittsburg SD is offering a $5,000 signing bonus w/ around 170+ vacancies.

1

ktxhopem3276 t1_ja4qipq wrote

>The 401k is the slight of hand part that attracts the bugs to the bug zapper. It sure does look attractive. Unless you are retired for 10+ years.

40 years of service still gets a pension+401k that is a lot better than what you would get in the private sector. New teachers who work 40 years just like most taxpayers, will have $45k annual pension and an $850k retirement account which has an actuarial value of $35k a year. That’s a 90k total retirement package in addition to the 30k in ssocial security they earn. When teachers cry poverty, no one believes them anymore because they have cried “wolf” too many times. Maybe the low starting salary is a conspiracy to make it look like teachers are poorly paid but most voters are on to that trick. Could you stop and think for a minute about why even democrats don’t support such high pensions?

> A 7% market assumption was part of what created this problem.

No it wasn’t.

> Let us not forget that the politicians created this funding problem by decreasing state/employer contributions because of higher market returns. When the market tanked, and the employer/state contribution did not return to previous levels. They literally kicked the can down the road for a decade+.

I don’t dispute that.

> At the very least, they could have returned the multiplier to 2.0, or left the multiplier at 2.0 w/ a target of 25 years.

25 years at 2.0x would be a bad idea. That’s probably the same statistical value as the 2001 30 year 2.5 multipliers.

> I see Pittsburg SD is offering a $5,000 signing bonus w/ around 170+ vacancies.

Is that teachers or support staff? They furloughed teachers last year because the district has shrinking enrollment. They should Increase the starting salary because nobody trusts the pension system is sustainable.

1