2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration international internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

I agree with wpetio.
The assertion that public workers do not make as much as those  
working in the private sector is a myth.  In a recent article The  
Economist (an international news magazine) referenced a study that  
showed that the average state and local employee in the United States  
has an income that is 34% higher than in the private sector and  
benefits that are 70% higher.
 
Public sector workers are almost never fired. They are paid based on 
seniority rather than performance.
 
As part of their contract, public workers in Oregon typically get step 
increases in salary every year until they reach the top of their  
pay scale.  Pay raises that government workers get as a result of  
collective bargaining every two to three years are typically in 
addition to this. In many cases government managers get the 
same benefits they negotiate with government unions.
 
Many government employes in their early to mid 50's are able to  
retire after thirty years of service collecting pensions of between  
70% and 100% of their final salaries. To fund such pensions in the 
private sector would require a fund of between $1,000,000 and 
$2,000,000 effectively making these people "pension millionaires."  
As a result of these generous pensions many government retirees 
will eventually collect more in pension payments than they earned 
while working.While collecting their pension many of them will get 
new jobs in state and local governments, often in the same agencies they retired  
from, and "double dip," enabling them to be paid both a wage and a  
pension at the same time.

We can not afford this system. 

posted 2 years, 11 months ago
view in context

"It proposes to raise taxes on incomes above $250,000 for households, $125,000 for individual filers."

Isn't it cute how the tax increases will start right above the income levels of the higher-end public worker's salaries?

Odd coincidence.

posted 3 years, 4 months ago
view in context

mrfearless47--

You ask for details...

One teacher retired last year after 30 years teaching Jr. High. It was her first job out of college at age 22, so she retired at 52. She receives $5,200. per month ($62,400 per year). Of course she has to pay her own health insurance, until she's in her 60's and can get Medicare. She thinks the benefits are extravagant, but who can blame her for taking them? She would have worked another 10 years, but why would anyone work when you can be paid 100% of your salary for not working? Plus she can double dip by substituting.

Your friends who are "staving" on $20,000 probably didn't work for 30 years. Getting anything from your pension in your 50's is pretty nice; many private sector folks must wait until they're 62 to receive payments. Plus your friends are still able to work-- like most people in their 50's.

posted 3 years, 6 months ago
view in context

The only reason the average PERS benefit is around $2,000. a month is most people don't work the full 30 years.

It's pretty nice to get any pension if you've only worked 10, 15 etc. years in one job.

posted 3 years, 6 months ago
view in context

The Oregonian is not making public employees "look like robbers", they are simply reporting the facts. The PERS system is not sustainable.

If more taxpayers read the paper and were aware of the situation I think they would be very upset. PERS people like to keep things secret, ever though the private sector pays the bills.

posted 3 years, 6 months ago
view in context

But PERS investments do not really matter to the PERS retirees, since the taxpayers will make up the losses.

Maybe each retiree should have their own account which would reflect the rise and loss of the investments. Just like the rest of us.

posted 3 years, 6 months ago
view in context

BillS--

It is true.

I have three friends who are recently retired school teachers, they all are in their 50's and receive from $60,000. to 72,000. yearly for retirement.... for the rest of their lives.

The younger PERS folks will not get the same, but Tier 1 is crazy generous.

posted 3 years, 6 months ago
view in context

This is more of the same Pro-PERS, one-sided story.

Since when should retirees expect 100% of their salary in retirement? Retirement was originally a time you had planned for; paying off your house while working, and living simply in old age. Maybe on half your working salary.

PERS people expect to receive full salary and retirement in their early 50's. We taxpayers can't afford this. They are greedy-- stealing from our school funds and services. They know it's true.

posted 3 years, 6 months ago
view in context