>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.