It’s like anything else, if I can get the same service at a better price, why pay more? Voting with my feet worked for me. Pensions cost taxpayers a ton of money. Maybe SF can afford it today, but these are long term commitments for very real (fixed pension) costs. Someday SF will no longer be in this boom - then what?
EDIT: > Our value systems aren’t really relevant here - I would love a pension and I’d love it if we all had them, but that ship sailed a long time ago.
Yes, they are. I support pensions for those who have them because I support societal safety nets, which those are a part of. You say the ship has sailed, but it hasn't. If people advocated for these sorts of systems, they would exist. They still can exist. Workers just need to demand them.
> Nope, I’m just not willing to pay for it since paying more for the same services does nothing to better my situation.
I like taxes. With them, I buy civilization. Otherwise, it's going to be a race to the bottom, which you might be fine with, but I am not. Everybody has to be comfortable with their decisions.
Our value systems aren’t really relevant here - I would love a pension and I’d love it if we all had them, but that ship sailed a long time ago. Am I mad that public sectors with strong unions fight to maintain their benefits? Nope, I’m just not willing to pay for it since paying more for the same services does nothing to better my situation.
As a software developer, I’m unlikely to find a position with a pension and a decent salary. I could go work for a university that might provide a pension but the pay would be dismal. In a system with choice between pensioned and non-pensioned competitors, eventually the pension burdens will make them less competitive.
Just to provide some background, my dad worked in a union (UAW) for nearly 40 years - so I benefited from that system.
The issue to me boils down to economic competitiveness. Pension systems are expensive and pose immense risk. Most businesses can’t afford it today. Governments can just borrow money to make up for gaps - until they can’t (Detroit.)
Pensions are ok as long as they're (a) fully funded and (b) managed well. Politics makes both hard.
(a) because it's much easier to promise benefits without fully contributing the present value of future liabilities. Ask the average taxpayer how much a pension costs, they'd have no idea how to even start thinking about all the complex financial math this requires (life expectancy, discount rates, return expectations, etc) so it's too easy to play games. Especially when game playing=lower taxes and more benefits.
(b) because pensions are huge pots of money and it's just too hard not to touch that. Though CalPERS seems to have resisted this temptation to some extent, which I find impressive.
Believe me, I wish I was wrong, but we're talking about basic human nature here, which I don't think is something you can really change.
